Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

For the Signpost article, Choosing Today's Featured Article, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches.

For helpful hints relating to requests, see User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts.

For FAs that haven't been on the mainpage, see Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page.

The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from July 1 to July 31. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection. Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns. view • • history • watch
Date	Article	Reason	Primary author(s)	Added by (if different)
early July	Alpine ibex	Why	LittleJerry	Dank
July 1	Flag of Canada	Why	Gary	Dank
July 3	Maple syrup	Why	Nikkimaria	Dank
July 4	Statue of Liberty	Why	Wehwalt	Dank and Wehwalt
July 18	John Glenn	Why	Hawkeye7, Kees08	Dank
July 19	John D. Whitney	Why	Ergo Sum
July 21	Ernest Hemingway	Why	Victoriaearle	Dank
August 10	Operation Boomerang	Why	Nick-D	Harizotoh9
August 11	Yugoslav torpedo boat T2	Why	Peacemaker67
August 16	Abu Nidal	Why		Harizotoh9
August 19	Battle of Winwick	Why	Gog the Mild
August 25	24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger (rerun, first TFA was August 15, 2016)	Why	Peacemaker67
August 26	Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347	Why	Gog the Mild
August 30	Segundo Romance	Why	Erick	Harizotoh9
August 31	Rachelle Ann Go	Why	Pseud 14
September	Avenue Range Station massacre	Why (rerun, first TFA was September 3, 2018)	Peacemaker67
September 6	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Sheila1988 ... but see below, July 26, 2025
September 13	Amarte Es un Placer (album)	Why		Harizotoh9
September 16	13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (rerun, first TFA was April 23, 2014)	Why	Peacemaker67
September 21	Artur Phleps	Why (rerun, first TFA was November 29, 2013)	Peacemaker67
October	Dobroslav Jevđević	Why (re-run, first TFA was March 9, 2013)	Peacemaker67
October 1	The Founding Ceremony of the Nation	Why	Wehwalt
October 4	Olmec colossal heads	Why	Simon Burchell	Dank
October 11	Funerary art	Why	Johnbod	Dank
October 14	Brandenburg-class battleship	Why	Parsecboy	Parsecboy and Dank
October 15	Battle of Glasgow, Missouri	Why	HF
October 17	23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) (re-run, first TFA was June 19, 2014)	Why	Peacemaker67
October 19	"Bad Romance"	Why	FrB.TG
October 21	Takin' It Back	Why	MaranoFan
October 22	The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes	Why	Your Power, ZooBlazer
October 25	Fusō-class battleship	Why	Sturmvogel_66 and Dank	Peacemaker67
October 25	Katy Perry	Why	SNUGGUMS	750h+
October 29	1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game	Why	PCN02WPS
October 30	Cucurbita	Why	Sminthopsis84 and Chiswick Chap	Dank
October 31	The Smashing Pumpkins	Why	WesleyDodds	Dank
November	Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana	Why	Peacemaker67
November 3	1964 Illinois House of Representatives election	Why	Elli
November 6	Russian battleship Poltava (1894)	Why		Harizotoh9
November 11	Mells War Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 17	SMS Friedrich Carl	Why	Parsecboy	Peacemaker67
November 18	Donkey Kong Country	Why	TheJoebro64, Jaguar	TheJoebro64
November 21	MLS Cup 1999	Why	SounderBruce
November 22	Donkey Kong 64	Why	czar
November 27	Interstate 182	Why	SounderBruce
November 28	Battle of Cane Hill	Why	Hog Farm
December 3	PlayStation (console)	Why	Jaguar	Dank
December 13	Taylor Swift	Why (rerun, first TFA was August 23, 2019)	Ronherry	FrB.TG, Ticklekeys, SNUGGUMS
December 19	SMS Niobe	Why	Peacemaker67
December 20	Sonic the Hedgehog 2	Why	TheJoebro64	Sheila1988
December 25	A Very Trainor Christmas	Why	MaranoFan	Sheila1988
2025:
January 8	Elvis Presley	Why	PL290, DocKino, Rikstar	Dank
January 9	Title (album)	Why	MaranoFan
January 22	Caitlin Clark	Why	Sportzeditz	Dank
January 27	The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia	Why
March 18	Edward the Martyr	Why	Amitchell125	Sheila1988
March 26	Pierre Boulez	Why	Dmass	Sheila1988
April 12	Dolly de Leon	Why	Pseud 14
April 25	1925 FA Cup Final	Why	Kosack	Dank
May	21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) (re-run, first TFA was May 14, 2015)	Why	Peacemaker67
May 5	Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)	Why	MaranoFan
June 1	Total Recall (1990 film)	Why		Harizotoh9
June 8	Barbara Bush	Why		Harizotoh9
June 26	Donkey Kong Land	Why		Harizotoh9
June 29	Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347	Why		Harizotoh9
July 7	Gustav Mahler	Why	Brianboulton	Dank
July 7	Empire of the Sultans	Why		Harizotoh9
July 8	Edward the Martyr	Why	Dudley Miles	Harizotoh9
July 14	William Hanna	Why	Rlevse	Dank
July 26	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Tim O'Doherty and Dank
July 31	Battle of Warsaw (1705)	Why	Imonoz	Harizotoh9
August 23	Yugoslav torpedo boat T3	Why	Peacemaker67
August 30	Late Registration	Why		Harizotoh9
August 31	Japanese battleship Yamato	Why		Harizotoh9
September 5	Peter Sellers	Why		Harizotoh9
September 6	Hurricane Ophelia (2005)	Why	Cyclonebiskit	Harizotoh9
September 30 or October 1	Hoover Dam	Why	NortyNort, Wehwalt	Dank
October 1	Yugoslav torpedo boat T4	Why	Peacemaker67
October 3	Spaghetti House siege	Why	SchroCat	Dank
October 10	Tragic Kingdom	Why	EA Swyer	Harizotoh9
October 16	Angela Lansbury	Why	Midnightblueowl	MisawaSakura
October 18	Royal Artillery Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 20	Nuremberg trials	Why	buidhe	harizotoh9
December 25	Ho Ho Ho (album)	Why		harizotoh9

Template:FixBunching

Confuzzled

I used to be a bit more active around here, but got bored of the constant warring over the points system and the process on the whole and went to do something more productive, like writing more FAs. :-) I've had one TFA (not requested... Raul just randomly popped by my talk page saying he'd put it up and asking for chocolate), and haven't made a request here before.

I'd like to request Internationalist for 7 September, the 10 anniversary of its release. By my count that would give it two points. All the current candidates have at least three points, so my basic question is if it's worth my while to hang around this page trying to secure a slot, only to have it (probably?) overriden by something with more points anyway? —Giggy 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You do want to have your page on the main page, so yes. Or you could just ask Raul654, but it is poor etiquette not to use that as a last resort. –thedemonhog talk • edits 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a try. What do you have to lose? We should have several vacancies occurring in the next ten days, perhaps just slip it in. Sometimes it gets respected.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, do performers and musical works fall in the same category?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If by "musical works" you mean albums and songs, yes; they all fall under "Music" at WP:FA. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough there was a slot open... [1] - thanks for the comments guys. —Giggy 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose as follows, and ask for support:

1. The notable topic point is eliminated.

2. The one month and two week deduction of points for similarity are changed to two weeks and one week, and similarity shall mean belonging to the same FA category.

3. The top five articles in terms of points, at any given time, shall constitute our recommendations to Raul, with tiebreaker being broken by seniority as an FA.

4. Any disputes shall be voted upon for a period of four days, unless due to urgency a shorter period is necessary. A tie shall defeat whatever is being asked for.

5. An article can be removed by two thirds vote, with at least seven editors voting.

And I indicate my SUPPORT

--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd want to see a more developed points system than that. A weighting for age of the FA for instance. One point for less 6 months, 2 points for 6-12 months and so on. I'd also want to keep the tyro point. I think a proper points system needs a little more thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, I'd also like to see the points allocated automatically, as a result of nominators answering a few questions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant keep the existing points system except as noted above.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't disagree with eliminating "notable", as it is a frequent source of contention and there was no consensus on a method to nail down the definition. But it might be worth discussing whether to keep the "core" and "vital" points. Notable and diversity were important goals of this page, but we may have to leave that to Raul, so points can be by tighter definitions.

2. Agree with belonging to same FA category (again, disagree in principle, but this is another issue of frequent discussion, so best to make it something concrete rather than leave it to community consensus), but disagree with lower time frames.

3. Agree with the tie-breaking mechanism, have doubts that the community will be able to consistently determine points without gaming and disagreement, but worth a try.

4. Don't disagree in principle, but four days is a bit long, perhaps three.

5. Like it, seems more in line with reasonable numbers we've seen on this page over the last month.

All else remains the same, this could solve the disputes that occur over points, but it leaves the community with less of a "voice" in determining consensus, by making points cut and dried; since I reluctantly concur that appears to be the only way to resolve the recurring issues and gaming of points that occur, I think it's a good proposal overall. I think it can be enacted as soon as there's a reasonable consensus. In summary, the only things I disagree with are the lower time frames on similar articles run, and I suggest three days discussion rather than four. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I'll agree with all your changes, but please consider that due to the limited number of FA categories, almost every article will suffer a point deduction. Suggest we leave the core and vital for another day. It seems to be a rare occurrence, only come up once since I've frequented this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Restating. I agree with your modifications. However, I'm a bit concerned since almost every nominee will suffer a deduction, since there are a limited number of FA categories. I'm suggesting we defer discussion of the Core and Vital for another day, since it's unusual for one to be nominated.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, still not following. Are you saying that the new definition of similar will mean many articles will now lose points on similar, and that is why you proposed lowering the time frames, to make up the difference? So we might be going in circles? ANd by deferring discussion of core and vital, are you saying to leave them up or drop them now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy: 1. Yes. 2. Leave them up and discuss them later.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Then I'm unclear how it's going to work; I foresee problems with category used to define similar, when they're not. Lowering the date range compounds it by adding two problems. Willing to see it in action, but suspect it's going to be a mess. We can't call everything, for example, in Media or Music similar, and then solve the problem by lowering the date range. Will lead to more protracted "fights". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If this proposal is implemented, what I suggest (others may have better ideas than me) are to list the top five articles, complete with blurb workup. They would also appear in the "points box". A list of other articles could appear at the bottom of the page, without blurb, just article name, proposed date, number of points, and promotion date (an article demoted and repromoted would have its most recent promotion date). Most discussion would take place here on talk page, reducing clutter. We could list either in order of points, or in date order, either I think would work fine. This would provide a clear and transparent process, easy for users to understand, and with little room for debate. That reduces Sandy's fear of gaming, and the concerns of users who have come to this page and said this is an incomprehensible, insider process.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not list all of the nominations, why just the top five again? That list of five is the source of much confusion IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We would list all of them; but only the top five would be our recommendations to Raul and be given blurbs. The others would just have the basic info. We thereby keep within the letter of the "five at a time" rule. Of course, Raul could choose to look at the others . . . This has a lot of pluses. We could automatically (so to speak) transfer from the template to the project page once we're within the thirty days, giving whoever put it in the template credit (if appropriate) for the rookie editor point. It makes things a lot more painless. As a practical matter, then, all an editor has to do is list the article, point calculation, and date of promotion (for convenience) in the template, and the process would work without the editor needing to do much else. Win win.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal negatively impacts any of the nominated articles, so whenever there is consensus (perhaps we would do well to hear from a couple more regular editors), if achieved, we implement immediately.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we had a page like that once before and eliminated it as unworkable: [2] [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're continuing the two point minimum, which should cut down on clutter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we declare consensus if there's no opposition say in two days. I'm not an expert on the def of consensus, if I'm out of line, don't take it wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with the 5-article rule

The 5 article limit seems to me to be the root cause of a lot of the problem here; the point system makes authors of poor-scoring articles (such as mine) feel as if our articles are completely unwelcome on the main page. (This was in stark contrast to when I nominated another one of my articles for the main page, Kansas Turnpike; there was a discussion, everyone generally agreed it was a good idea, and then when the day came it was on the main page.) Now we have all the articles having to compete against each other for one of those five slots, so my article will probably be left out because of its low point score. I could accept my article being beaten out by an article also nominated for September 1 which has higher points than mine. That's the way life goes. But in the current (and proposed) system, none of the other articles competing for the five slots would likely be nominated for September 1. So the slot I wanted to put my article in would still be open yet I would be denied use of it, being blocked out by some other article which had higher points but was nominated for some other day. This is the problem I have with the process as it stands. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's only a perceived problem though, not an actual problem. By which I mean that Raul may very well pick your Kansas Turnpike article for the mainpage anyway. This process is simply to suggest five articles to be amongst the bunch that he schedules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Turnpike appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as TFA on April 12, 2008. It was on requested March 15, 2008 and listed on April 4, 2008. It had nine supports and no oppose. Halgin (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I nominated Kansas Turnpike. Halgin (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability point

Wehwalt, just a thought. Look at what is making it on the page, and look at the pending template ... a strong date connection on an older article almost always does the trick, which preferences bios and other article types that have built-in dates. Something to think about in terms of losing the notability point, which may be the only chance some more "educational" articles have. I sure wish we could make that "included in a children's encyclopedia" idea work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If we had a concept that would work . . . I don't object to the principle, just the practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this. I can access my local library from home via the internet. I can search online their catalog of books in the children's portion of the library. The issue is whether a 12-yo would write a school report on the topic. This is where children go to research school projects. As an example, I get the following number of books in our children's library when searching on:

• Emily Dickinson – 58
• Planet – 448
• Dwarf planet – 1 (published 2008, probably because it's too new)
• Michael Jackson – 21
• Yellowstone fires – 4
• Augustus – 73 (but they aren't all him, I'd have to refine the search, but he's got books)

But

• Ann Bannon – 0
• Noble gas – 0
• Peterloo Massacre – 0 (US centric)
• William IV – 0 (US centric)
• Donald Bradman – 0 (US centric)

So, on the 0 hits, what if I try an amazon.com children's books search?

• Ann Bannon 0
• Noble gas 49
• Peterloo massacre 27
• William IV of the United Kingdom 0
• Donald Bradman, listed in several encyclopedias

As an example, see if this link works for Michael Jackson, children's books:

• http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=node%3D4&field-keywords=Michael+Jackson

So, looking for William IV, to avoid US-centric, I skip amazon.com and go to amazon.com.uk, Children's books:

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/william-iv-Childrens-Books/s/qid=1218759011/ref=sr_nr_n_2?ie=UTF8&rs=266239&keywords=%26%2334%3BWilliam%20IV%26%2334%3B&bbn=69&rnid=1025612&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3A%26%2334%3BWilliam%20IV%26%2334%3B%2Cn%3A69

And, Donald Bradman, too:

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/donald-bradman-Childrens-Books/s/qid=1218758641/ref=sr_nr_n_0?ie=UTF8&rs=266239&keywords=Donald%20Bradman&bbn=69&rnid=1025612&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3ADonald%20Bradman%2Cn%3A69

Is this idea working? If there are children's books written on the topic, then children can research the topic for a school report. All the editor has to do to justify the point is to produce, say, three to five children's books on the topic, and that could include a full encyclopedic entry (TOC, not index). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Not everything gets books written about it. For example the various science things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me an example, and I'll look in my library and on various online book searches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC) P.S., I would suggest a combination of children's encyclopedia TOC entries and children's books available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Another P.S. Amazon.com has Germany | France | Japan | Canada | China in addition to US and UK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see how the proposal is phrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate wordsmithing. It would involve the requestor producing some combination of x number of children's books or encyclopedic TOC entries, but only if challenged ... most are obvious. We wouldn't challenge Planet, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in most cases, an amazon.com Children's books search link should suffice, and in trickier cases, the children's encyclopedia entries would have to be added on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Example: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=node%3D4&field-keywords=Dwarf+planet Dwarf planets should get the point, tons of children's books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson example sort of bothers me. Also, Sandy, when I was 12, and did a report, I don't think I was limited to the children's section. Twelve is definitely at the upper range for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I tried. So we'll continue to have more of the same. Although the concept of school reports for 12-yos should be quite easy to nail down one way or another, every proposal has been denied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is hopeless, we could say that it is determined by common sense, such as multiple children's books written about same, inclusion as a topic in school books or encyclopediae, etc. etc. Of course, verification could be an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the whole 12 year old thing anyway. How did that come to be how we decide how fundamental (a word I'd prefer to notable, as everything in WP should be notable) a topic is? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious too. Frankly, I think we would be better off abolishing it as what we called in my College Bowl days a "protest maker", but Sandy feels strongly about keeping some version of it and I am not inclined to get into an argument about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the first version of the merit-based system, put in place in March 2008. If anyone has time, I suggest reviewing the talk page archives from around that time. If nothing there, ask Raul. My guess is that it's intended to promote diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely it would be more likely to limit diversity rather than promote it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

View it in the context of the typical requests on this page when it was out of control with hundreds of requests, examples here and here. But I'm just guessing, and suggest a review of archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The "12-year-old" rule was Raul's idea. In this thread, he said "The rule of thumb I'm using for the moment is - is it something that a 5th grader would have heard of." It eventually changed from a 5th grader to a 12-year-old. Epbr123 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I suppose that Raul can use whatever rule(s) he likes for his own choices, but I don't believe that should constrain this process. So far as notability is concerned. Anyway we're not all twelve at the same time or in the same place, so the idea seems flawed. I remember writing an essay on the Etruscans when I was about twelve, for which I relied pretty heavily on another enclyclopedia. Are 5th graders in the US taught about the Etruscans? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, whatever Raul said then, what he has said lately (paraphrasing) is that he doesn't much care how we come up with the five to present to him, as long as we present five, so I suppose we can do whatever we want with this notability issue. My concern is that, if we do away with the notion altogether, we might preference certain types of articles, but only time will tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have been selecting a lot of anniversaries, and they have been coming from all over the map. Seems fair enough to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that gives Fall Out Boy a point, should it (unlikely) ever get this far.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled"

I'm too lazy busy to refresh my memory why we plumped for this period, but it seems to me that a simple solution to premature nominations clogging up slots for long periods would be... to reduce the number from 30 days. I don't have a figure in mind, but we could do 25 days? 3 weeks? 20 days? 15 days? 2 weeks? Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that too, either under my proposed system or under the existing system. I think 15 days would be good. --Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This question may betray my lack of understanding, but doesn't the cycle for this process need to match the cycle of Raul's scheduling of the main page? In other words, if he does that every 30 days, then we need to be giving him five nominations every 30 days, not five every 15 days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such cycle!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, employing the well-worn principle of reductio ad absurdum, do you think that Raul would be happy to be given five nominations every day, or even every week? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the process should ideally match the cycle of Raul's scheduling, but Raul doesn't do the scheduling at regular intervals. It varies between a few days and a few weeks. Epbr123 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul said five articles at a time. Since under any system some of those five are going to be beyond what Raul is scheduling, I don't see a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The potential problem is rather that they be be for a period that Raul has already scheduled. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have information that says Raul schedules some period of time before it is publicly posted on the This Month's Queue page?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of tweaking the timeframe until we get a point system that consistently works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been 2 weeks, maybe it time to open this one up again. Halgin (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And I was just thinking that the page seems to be finally working as it should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Why tamper with a working system?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the hurricanes

I know we have LOTS of hurricane featured articles, but do we really need to put all of them on the home page? There are so many interesting featured articles in subjects that we haven't beaten to death, that I don't see why we have to have a hurricane on the home page every month. Kaldari (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the WikiProject Tropical cyclones has so many high-quality FAs. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. Without mincing my words, I'd suggest that it's relatively easy to pump out formulaic articles of whatever colour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about adding a -x pts for having an 2 or 3 similar articles in the past 3 months? Nergaal (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Complaints from users about topics that users perceive have repetitively appeared on Main Page are common on Talk:Main Page. Both Raul's own efforts and our scoring system prevent these from being more than perceptions. Both Raul and our scoring favour articles from topics under-represented at Main Page, and both penalise ones that have recency in appearing there. I've seen this charge thrown, without real truth, at articles about British royalty, cricket, football, "science" (science!), popular music, roads and now hurricanes. And anyone considering that it's easy to get any kind of article to FA is welcome to add to the numbers patrolling WP:FAC, giving article nominators an appropriately hard time. As well as being a typically pernickety FAC reviewer, I've been to FAC as a nominator on more than a couple of occasions, and it's not like shooting fish in a barrel. (in case you didn't notice, there are five "show"s to click in that link; it's 71K in size.) --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've been through two FACs and am gearing up for a third (not quite ready yet but it is Jena Six, my second law article), and both have been difficult, though ultimately successful. If the hurricane people have it down to a science, well, more power to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NB There's a current candidate article at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Barry (2001). Go review it! --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's six, actually... but yeah, go review it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Change to contributor history point

The current rule states: Requestor has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article and is a significant contributor of the article. 1 point. It has been stated in a comment on a request that an article should get this point even if someone else requests it. So do we want to change the rule to allow this? Halgin (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How would the point be determined? The person who put it in the template?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN, easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if the guy is a FA nominator of the article per WP:WBFAN, and hasn't made the front page with an article he nominated for FA, the article gets the point, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that was the idea; was I wrong? But it's a bit more than that, and that's why we linked the article stats for significant contributors. On older (or even some newer FAs), sometimes a recent contributor will have higher contributions to the article than the original nominator, so it's not only WBFAN, it's also the article stats (already linked). Who requests it really is irrelevant, at least that's what I thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand. As with William, I wasn't involved with his FAC, which happened back in '04, but I have been involved seriously over the last two years in bringing the article up to today's standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, we have to allow for both (WBFAN or articlestats). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN isn't perfect - it has me (User:Tivedshambo) down for two FA's whereas in fact I only have one. The second, LSWR N15 class, was a procedural nomination only, at Sandy's request, as the original nominator had been off wiki for some time due to exams. In practice I had very little to do with the article, and cannot claim any credit for it. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could adjust for any exceptional case like that when it comes up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly (and that's why we need "voting" and consensus, along with points, not every situation is black and white, consider a recent nomination that had nine nominators listed, even though several of them hadn't edited for months and had minimal article contributions). Also, Tivedshambo, in that case, since the nominator was MIA, I would have closed the nom if you hadn't agreed to take it on, so it might not have been featured without you. If you want your name removed, you can just edit it out at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Hi everyone, I've written a dispatch on the TFA/R process to run next week. It's located at Wikipedia:FCDW/August_18,_2008. I wasn't able to follow the discussion closely in the last month, so I'd appreciate the regulars looking this over and making sure I haven't missed anything. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think linking on the page would help newcomers get a better feeling of how things work with TFA requests. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

After it's finalized and published, we can link it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Next to be replaced

We had old consensus here to include Next to be replaced on the summary chart, as an aid to newcomers; recently, that was challenged. Now I'm confused. A requestor wants to add an article with ~5 points, and I told him that Jackson was the next to be replaced, because it has Opposes. But, Internationalist (album) has neither supports nor opposes, so how do we weigh Jackson against the album? Which is next to go? I still believe we should develop consensus here on talk and post the Next to the summary chart, because newcomers often don't know what to do. Based on the conversation on my talk page, Mongo is very confused about how to get his nomination on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Easily resolved, Sandy. The nominator counts as a support, thus Michael Jackson has a lower support percentage.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

D'oh <smack>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

September 7th is Threatened Species Day in Oz...

September 7th is Threatened Species Day in Oz...and dammit, the two Oz threatened taxa (Green and Golden Bell Frog and Banksia brownii) have already been on main page, however Red-tailed Black Cockatoo has two threatened subspecies, and White-winged Fairy-wren has one, now I come to think of it. So now to figure out points I guess. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cas, you added it to the pending template, but there's an opening on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Last bird was July 30, last animal August 15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if that is sufficiently obvious to the reader to be worth the one point. After all, the date will nowhere appear in the article. Also, neither seems to be threatened across Australia (even the subspecies), there is some state regulation, according to the articles, but does it rise to the level of a threatened species?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some anniversaries for September

I was disappointed we missed a 100-year mark with an article a while back. The following anniversaries that may be relevant for September, if anyone wants to fill out the paperwork.

• 9 September - The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) released 1927
• 15 September - John Bull (locomotive) built 1831, restored 1981
• 20 September - Victoria Cross for New Zealand established 1999
• 25 September - U2 formed 1976
• 27 September - Lawrence Sullivan Ross born 1838

Gimmetrow 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, U2 is in the template. There's some uncertainty on this talk page about whether regulars here should put requests forward, or leave it to the community. For example, the 170-yr birthday should have a lot of points, but another editor addd that date to the pending template and is likely to come back to add that request ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, so it is. The talk page of the pending page points here. Gimmetrow 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let individual editors put their own nominations forward, to lower the claims of cliquerie that have been brought forth here from time to time. Help out the clueless and so forth, but don't overmanage.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar topics

Howdy! I've been considering nominating noitulovE for the October 3 slot, but I'd like a quick clarification on how how it would fall under the "Main page representation" criteria. As an advertisement, noitulovE appeared in both cinemas and in homes, so should it be classed as similar to films, television programmes, both, or neither?

If individual advertisements are distinct from other publications in the same medium, then by my reckoning, the article would have four points (date, contributor history, and two for no similar article, as no other article on an advertisement in any medium has yet been shown on the Main Page) If noitulovE is classed as a television programne, then it should be listed as having -1, 0, or 2 points depending on whether an article on a television programme is scheduled for September.

So, is it worth my time nominating the article? :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd think it would be different from both a TV and movie, and should get the full measure of points GeeJo has stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

points system

I am a bit surprised that something like Alzheimer's disease might possibly have only 2 points on its own day... something is now working well at all... Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It might have something to do with notability and media attention: Same happens with the 11-S flight. Could some points be given (something like two more) if that date the topic is going to be covered in other media and/or people outside wikipedia are prone to be more interested and search the net for information on that topic that precise day? Seems quite ridiculous to give only one point in the 11-S anniversary or the alzheimer's day for date since both topics are usually covered in worldwide channels in news and documentaries every year.--Garrondo (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This relatively new 'system' just serves to confuse users (especially new ones) with the intention of preventing others from taking part, while a small group of users hold the keys and say on what is the apparent 'consensus' on what should appear when. The system even has a bias in favour of featured articles on older subjects. Logic is significantly lacking and I really think we should return to the simpler more wiki-esque times of friendly consensual discussion. Agent Blightsoot 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the point system worse than the one it replaced, the first come and no replacement? Halgin (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well of course it's worse. Raul simply chose requests on context and the basis of the request, not because of some flawed points system. The previous system allowed for a greater discussion of requests, and for a greater quantity - thus getting more people involved. This one limits the choices, and leaves the discussion and apparent 'consensus' in the hands of the people who created the system to back up their flawed opinion of what amounts to a good request. Agent Blightsoot 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul has repeatedly said that we may present only 5 nominations at a time. Before there was a point system, it was simply first come, first served, and there was almost no chance of replacing an article that was already proposed for a certain date. The point system is supposed to give an opportunity to replace articles that might not have as much support. Is it perfect? Not at all. What we need are concrete suggestions on how it can be improved, while still remaining within the parameters that Raul set (no more than 5 mons at a time) and while still allowing users to replace nominations. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A Proposal: A new section called something like social relevance with two options: 1-is the article topic likely to be featured in the media at a national level that day? (+1). 2- Is the article topic likely to be featured in the media at an international level that day. (+2)(A way to prove it would be to demonstrate it appeared the year before). With such criteria very relevant topics due to date, which are likely to be searched over internet that day will get more points as is the case of 11-S flight or Alzheimer's.--Garrondo (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Help to nominate Anekantavada

I would like to nominate Anekantavada for the main page for 3rd Sept, but I am not sure how to nominate, as already 5 articles are put up for nomination. As per the point system it has 5 points as follows:-

• Date relevant to topic – 1 Point – The date coincides with major 8 day Jain festival of forgiveness and fasting – Paryushana is from 27th August to 3rd Sept. The last day of the Paryushana is the most important days for Jains.
• Contributor History – 1 Point – No previous article on main page and Significant Contributor.
• Diversity – 1 Point – Jainism is under-represented
• Main page representation – 2 Points – A similar article has not featured on the main page since last six months.--Anish (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles up to and including 3 Sept have already been selected - is there an alternative date after this which is significant? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that Diversity is in relation to the category the article is listed on at WP:FA, so you don't get a point for the number of articles on Jainism. However, this article is listed in the religion category, which is under-represented, so you still get the diversity point. As Pek pointed out, the dates you prefer are not available. That still leaves a four point nomination. You can either replace a lower nomination article, or, since there is not a particular date, wait until there is an empty spot and then nominate for a random date. Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is currently no means of determining which article is next to be replaced. There is a 3-pointer with wide support, and an IAR 2 or 4-pointer with wide support. Which is next off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove noitulovE temporarily (as it's the furthest from now), then reinstate it once Raul has selected the next batch? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem even if 3rd Sept is blocked. 27th August to 3rd Sept is Paryushana for Svetambara Jains. On the other hand Digambara Jains follow next 10 or 11 days (Depending on Indian Calendar) as Paryushana. So Digambara Paryushana is from 4th Sept to 14th Sept this year. The last day i.e. Samvatsari for Digambara's is 14th Sept which is once again an important day. So I guess 14th Sept would be a nice date and we would be still be maintaining the "Date relevant to topic" criteria. So I guess the five points will remain.--Anish (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a four pointer. You had Huldrych Zwingli in May, and certainly religious leaders fall in the same category as religious observances.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think so…..it is not religious observance…but more of a philosophical concept or principle. Secondly, even if we were to consider Anekantavada and Huldrych Zwingli within the same category (which somehow do not look to be same categories)…one article in last six months or so is under-representation.--Anish (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, philosophical principles. Conatus on July 1? I guess it is a three pointer then. You can't draw the categories for purposes for similarity infinitely small.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend…there is not an iota of resemblance between Anekantavada and Conatus; one is in relation to religious philosophy of an Indian religion and another is more of a genre of secular philosophy of classical and modern philosophers. No remote connection. So it is still a five pointer.--Anish (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. As I have said, for purposes of similarity, you don't get to divide categories infinitely, if it is religious, there have been religious articles, if it is philosophy, there have been philosophical articles. Choose your ground and stand on it! In addition, just because the day you have selected is a Jain (forgive me if I get the adjective wrong) observance, I don't see that this gives Anekantavada a date-relevance point. I read through the article, and I don't see those observances mentioned anywhere. Anymore than an important principle of the Christian religion would get a point, say, on a Christian holdiay.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Clever point Wehwalt (alluding to Martin Luther's Here I stand, related to Huldrych Zwingli). Yes, we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Points aside, Anish is keen to see an article he worked hard to adapt to lots of constructive feedback and achieve FA, featured on the main page. He's noticed that the perfect time for this is somewhere in the date ranges above.

May I suggest a compromise? I think the Jain holy days are a perfect time for an even more central article, like Jainism itself to be featured on the main page. Perhaps we should be planning that a year in advance?

Meanwhile, anekantavada could be main-paged some other time in between.

If I may be cheeky, perhaps it should gain a point for ahimsa (non-violence) and surrendering a relevant holy day to other bidders, in lieu of the point it would have scored at that time. ;)

But returning topic areas infrequently represented, I actually think these are disjunctive, not conjunctive, or the most widely interesting articles would score the fewest points! Global warming would be impossible to send to the main page, because it bears on every nation, science, society and even history, whereas All your base belong to us is irrelevant to almost anything, so would hardly have had a similar article represented on the main page.

If religion and philosophy are considered to be currently over-represented in recent main page displays, perhaps India is under-represented? I guess the important thing is, no page has a "right" to being featured at the main page; however, many pages can offer coverage of topics that are under-represented.

My personal feeling is anekantavada gives representation to several important but infrequently featured topics, and want to support Anish in encouraging the main page team to take advantage of that at the time that best suits in their judgement.

Is it, however, possible to provisionally "book" a day in the Jain holy weeks 2009, and work towards having maybe two or three Jain featured articles available to the main page team to select from nearer to that time? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure I will support it when it hits the request page. I'm just trying to hold the line on the points. And it will have a decent number of points; I think it is unlikely to be replaced. I'm sure it will get solid support. Don't mind me. Unhappily, it is too early to "book" dates like that, Anish is just going to have to pick at date and try to hold on to it. I think it would be a political disaster were he to to try to replace the 9/11 article, my advice is to wait until the 9/8 and 9/11 slots open up and then pick a date and I'm sure everything will be fine. I think four points should be enough to hold a slot on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I am not changing my stance here. There seems to be confusion (in a cultural sense) between words Religion and Philosophy. Eastern religions do not distinguish much between religion and philosophy. There is a lot of overlapping. That’s why I said religious philosophy. True, Anekantavada is a principle and not an observance. The reason why I gave date relevance point, is the custom of asking forgiveness from all creatures on the last day stems from Anekantavada and Ahimsa. I am still not conversant with the points system. However from what I have understood, I suggested 5 points. Anyway, points can be decided by consensus. --Anish (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the support, whenever it hits the request page.

Thanks to both of you, Wehwalt and Anish. It seems to me you are both doing your jobs well. Anish is making the best case possible for Wikipedia and Jainism from one perspective, Wehwalt is warning Anish not to get his hopes up too high and explaining where he sees alternative perspectives. But the bottom line is exactly what both of you agree on, the final decision will depend on "political" processes and "consensus" (to pick out words used by each of you slightly out of their context). The main thing is that both perspectives are heard in the course of a final decision being made. That said, I personally see things from Anish's point of view, because I know his area, but I'm ignorant regarding how main page decisions are made and the factors involved in arriving at decisions. All I can do is trust that those who do weigh these things will do so with creativity and consideration, and I'm sure they will, whichever way they decide. Best regards to everyone, Alastair Haines (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the level of creativity, actually, that you are proposing. It feels like you are seeking more points than the article merits. One of the purposes of this talk page is to determine disputes like this before the article goes to the request page, and there is give and take in the process. I note a religious article, well, it's not really religion, it is philosophy. I note a philosophy article, well, it's religious philosophy. I note that the date relevance point doesn't really seem to be satisfied, well, it is at the root of things by custom. While I noted I was likely to support it, if I feel there is overreaching, I will certainly reconsider. Please read the rules and, where relevant, prior talk page discussions on points, and come up with a more realistic figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse there is a give and take in the process. I never said these points were final. I was merely addressing the concerns raised by you. It's upto you how you take it. I am simply waiting for more comments to built up a consensus. If you feel there is level of creativity, overreaching and excess points, please feel free to change the points. I won't revert it. I would like your support to be merit based on article....and not on basis of how much I have agreed with you on points. Like I said before, I am not fully conversant with this points system and will abide by the consensus. But I do need to express what I have understood in this process. Thanks for the forbearance and guidance.--Anish (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So any idea whether it will be featured on the main page (maybe on 14th Sept)?--Anish (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Augustus

As I have stated at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#WP:TFAR, I would like to nominate Augustus. I am not sure what is on the bubble especially given the above section that is going to replace what is currently considered to be on the bubble. Its points are 1 for age, 1 for timing, 2 for importance, ? for main page relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any August dates left. I guess you'd be OK as a four pointer for September 23, his birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I meant on his birthday. I was hoping for an opinion on extra points for main page concerns and an explanation of which article is on the bubble.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Flight 93 is on the bubble, because I think Yellowstone's points are solidly 4. I would not advise replacing Flight 93, unless you want to deal with the consequences. I think all you get is the four. Despite my protests to the contrary, apparently royalty ruled the day with Princess Alice in August.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are emperors considered royalty? Does Princess Alice, George I, Tiridates I or Edward VIII count as a similar article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No one tried to say a basketball player (Yao Ming), baseball player {Moe Berg) or Cricketer (Donald Bradman) was similar to an American football player (Tyrone Wheatley).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the consequences of following the rules?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there an unwritten rule about replacing a well-received 3 with a deserving 4?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to replace Flight 93. Just let me step back a couple of hundred metres first and duck behind this sturdy rock. As for the royalty, we both got our articles bounced in August within days after the Princess Alice came up, so I'm kinda assuming.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We both?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if protocol says I am suppose to wait until the next update rather than replace such a popular choice since it is unlikely that he will go out to the 23rd let me know?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Augustus was nominated for Aug 19 [4]. Wehwalt is confused, maybe he thinks you nominated it. Both Augustus and William IV got lots of opposition after Princess Alice was made a TFA. As far as replacing a popular request, people that supported the other article will likely oppose or at least not support the replacement. If 75% of the community votes oppose it, then the replacement will be removed. Even if it does not get removed from the page, Raul may not use it. It is best not to replace a popular request. Halgin (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The current process reflects both points and community input. If Augustus replaces a popular request, it will likely receive quick opposes, be removed, the other request restored --> waste of everyone's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Halgin is correct, I thought Tony nominated it originally. My bad. Doesn't really change my point, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say that I would support Augustus on the main page for 31 days in a row if I had the choice, so, if this bumps off a nom, I would definitely support it for his birthday. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TTT can always give it a try; the current system allows for both points and community input, which is a good thing. But as others have said, "let me step back a couple of hundred metres first". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I think I can safely wait because it is unlikely that the next round of scheduling will include the 23rd. Thus, can be considerate and not nominate right now. However, we should think about whether we should agree to a set of instructions to guide us in a situation like this where it can not be resolved by waiting and a tougher decision has to be made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This page is uber-creepy. Word. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New rule

We need a safe rule, to give guidance on when an article should not be replaced by an article with a higher point total. Something like if the number of supports plus three times the point total exceeds the sum of 25 plus the number of oppositions the article is in a safe range for articles with dates later than it or more than 10 days in the future. For closer dates and dates earlier than the contested article the number could be 30.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Back in April when the points system started, someone proposed keeping articles that got a minimum amount of support with a table for support need to keep an article by time on the request page ( shown here). In July I proposed we should use a modified version using net support for tie breakers ( shown here). Halgin (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you made an attempt in the past to sort of make articles with a certain level of support safe. I am trying to rationalize why there is resistance to my removing the three point September 11 for the four point (five or six if emperors are not counted as royalty) Augustus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern would be is that unless we are careful in its application, the rule will effectively put us back in the position of not being able to replace articles. I'd want a pretty high bar for a "safe harbor" clause.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How high should the bar be. Is September 11 high enough that an article with a higher point total should not be able to bump it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is working; we don't need more rules. Yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

People are telling me not to replace September 11 with Augustus because of the number of supports. So I am trying to find a way to rationalize it. If people really believe a three with a lot of support should be able to bump a four then we need to make it clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TTT, do what you please. But I suspect there will be spite opposes if you replace 93. Raul's bound to schedule in the next week, your article doesn't come up for three weeks, be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt, the page is now working as intended. You could replace the request if you wanted, but because 92 enjoys widespread support, the replacement would get quick opposes. The page is intended to reflect points plus community input, it's doing that, it's working, others have merely tried to give TTT advice, but it's his choice if he wants to risk it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys are so interested in daring me to make the change that you are not paying attention to what I am saying. I understand the system pretty well and see that I can add Augustus easily without replacing a popular choice. In the future someone could come along and in the excitement of attempting to get their hard work featured do something that is merely following the rules. You seem to be saying that the system is working because the flaw has not yet been exposed. Look the flaw is there. By the current rules the proper thing to do is to replace a three-pointer with a four-pointer. You should have rules for situations like this when the bubble article is well-supported and another article should be replaced. There should be rules to protect well-supported lower point articles if that is how you want the system to work and it seems you want the system to work that way. Why not have rules to make the system work the way you want?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, it seems more like it is you who isn't paying attention to what we are saying :-) We don't need more rules and the current system deals with the scenario you mention. If someone replaced a popular request with an unpopular one, it would be corrected by the current system. We don't need to wikilawyer or put more rules in place to cover every possibility; the instructions are already accused of being creepy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to leave it as it is. There will be problems whenever the thing on the bubble is highly-supported. In the future, I predict this will be a contentious issue. This is not my farm so work it however you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion with priorities

There are several days per year when important prizes are awarded. For the sake of an example, Nobel prizes in chem are awarded on Dec 10. In this case, I believe that a chem article should have some kind of priority to get onto the mainpage. There are other articles that would fit on this day, say an writer's death, but I believe that if everything else is equal, the chem article should win. (Actually for this year proteasome would be a good example) Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ALL Nobel prizes are awarded that day. It's also Human Rights Day. I don't think we should be reserving dates in advance. Nominate and let's see if there's a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel prizes for each subject are named on different days although the award ceremony is on one day. You might want to try the dates that the winners are announced. Of course, if one of the winners has an FA bio or a related article is FA the day of the awards should be considered.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the winners are announced in early October. Here [5] is the schedule. December 10 I think is Nobel's date of death.

20 days?

Seeing that maaany 4&5 pointers are supossed to show up, would it be a good idea to reduce the 30-day nomiantion period to 25 or 20? Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul has requested a 30-day period, and it seems to be working fine. Not sure what this "many supposed to show up" is; perhaps because I once mentioned I knew of many, which doesn't mean they are going to show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to wait a long time for Wheatley

I am realizing the article I had nominated for October 4, Tyrone Wheatley, is going to have to wait a while because he shares his birth date with vital article Edgar Allen Poe who will mark the 200th anniversary of his birth on Wheatley's next birthday.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Date change for article

I was planning of nominating the Battle of Dyrrachium (1081) to appear on the 18th October which is the anniversary of the battle. As I was looking through next month's main page features, I noticed that the article has been scheduled to appear on the front page on the 2nd of September. Since User:Raul654 is away until the 2nd of September, I thought I might as well ask here and see if there is any possible way that the article could be changed with another one so that I'd be able to nominate it for its anniversairy. Kyriakos (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think you're stuck with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Rule tweak proposal

If 10 years is 2 points and 50 years is four points, I propose that 25 years be three points.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Question Are 25th anniversaries widely regarded?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

More than 10th, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, ten covers multiples of ten as well, so this would only be effective for odd multiples of 25. Is there some article in particular that you are looking at for this?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand 10 covers 20 or 40, but 50 covers itself. I have no particular article, I am just new to the process and offering my suggestion that multiples of 25 that are not multiples of 50 have a number. I think a 25th or 75th anniversary is a bigger deal than a 20th or 70th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think we have too many rules and should be working on simplifying before we add more stuff. Oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand it is fashionable to oppose anything I say even if you can not make a sensible argument, but jeez can't you do better than that. This is not even a new rule.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If we got rid of that notable point, I wouldn't mind in the least. It isn't you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of the tweak is to try to increase the chance of getting more relevant articles on the main page. Giving priority to 25th and 75th anniversaries is a way to do this. The thing to consider is whether we will be better able to encourage more relevant articles being on the main page. E.G., I see Ann Bannon listed as an upcoming birthday and I think "We missed her 75th birthday." I would have possibly supported a 75th even though her article is not that vital. A 76th b-day is far less relevant and even a 70th or 80th is less relevant. If we don't have rules that reflect true relevance to the main page the proper things will not prevail in this process. The simple approach of saying I don't want to think about whether this rule will help us get more relevant things on the main page because it will add an extra 6 or 7 words of prose to the already extensive rules seems wrong. I think you should say either I believe a 75th (25th) anniversary is more relevant than a 70th or 80th (20th or 30th) or not. I think if you think 75th or 25th anniversary events are more relevant we should accord them more points in this process.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume the point of having a set of rules is to encourage the selection of the most relevant articles for the main page. If the vast majority of people feel a 75th anniversary is more important than an 80th. It would make sense to have a set of rules that would encourage proper selection of articles. Suppose people believe that the order of importance of anniversaries is 100th, 50th, 25th, 10th, other. Why have a set of rules that supports 100th, 50th, 10th, other and 25th instead. In society rules are suppose to encourage desired behavior. The sensible thing to do would be to have rules that encourage selection of articles in order of importance/relevance. Saying, I would prefer a non-sensical rule that equates 25th anniversaries with common anniversaries because it is 6 or 7 words shorter does not help us highlight the best articles, which is what WP:TFA is all about, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that Sandy would comment here. It seems very odd and non-sensical to me to have a set of rules to encourage people to prioritize articles relevant for the main page, but have those rules encourage them to prioritize incorrectly because it is six or seven words shorter. Does anyone contest that a 25th anniversary is more significant than a 20th or 30th or that a 75th is more significant than a 70th or 80th? Why have a set of rules that encourages people to prioritize 10th anniveraries over 25th anniversaries?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HEY SANDY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for another point

Article is part of a Featured topic. Help to give the featured topics more exposure. BUC (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for all featured topics, but IMO hurricanes and planets (for example) have enough exposure already. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe give an extra point ONLY if they are the first article to be nominated from the topic? Also, hurricanes and planets will receive enough boos anyways that even with this point I doubt they will make it. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose, on both, unless we are also getting rid of the notable point, which is basically unworkable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel articles that are part of FTs are more relevant for the main page. I think currently point are given for things that are more relevant for the main page along various dimensions, except for the point to encourage involvement of new nominators.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. wrt planets, I think Earth on Earth Day might overcome the saturation effect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, don't see any relevance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Sandy, don't see how this would get FT's more exposure. I'd like to see the system simplified before we add stuff. Oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Sandy agreed with me!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus;

Halgin's added this one to the Template, giving it a point because the article its discoverer published, was published on October 19. I think that's a little bit far flung. I could see it if the dino was discovered on Oct 19, but I'm a little leery just because the paper was published on Oct 19 . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you...that seems to be stretching the intent. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with Alanya

September 6, 2008 is the 400 year anniversary of the successful defeat of the Republic of Venice by the Turkish city of Alanya. That would be six points, but with no others that I am aware of. There hasn't been a city article since Ann Arbor on August 5, so it misses that deduction by a day. Alanya has been a featured article since February, but I'm not sure how to nominate it here. Do I really just delete the nomination with lowest points? That would be United 93, which for personal reasons, I would strongly support getting on TFA for 9/11.

Besides the September 11 article, the next lowest number of point is a tie between Alzheimer's and noitulovE, this Guinness commercial. However when I went to replace the one with the lower amount of support, per my reading of the instructions, I was rebuffed and my edits undone. Couldn't noitulovE, which is requesting a date just one day inside the date window be reposted later? Can I have some help?--Patrick Ѻ 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's between Alzheimer's and the flight, not the advertisement. Alzheimer's has 1) questionable points (they are based on IAR per a one-day difference), 2) is supported by less editors than the flight, and 3) has a better chance at making it in the next round, unless Raul schedules a couple of weeks at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My conern with Alanya's gonna be that this is an article about the city, not the "battle", which has a grand total of one sentence devoted to same. Which has almost nothing on the web about it, and it isn't gonna be at all clear to the reader why this is on the main page. I'm not totally clear that an article on the city, which had a nearby naval battle (against the Order of Saint Stephen, not the Republic of Venice) gets the six points for the 400th anniversary of that battle.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And showing up quite literally at the last possible minute (Raul will be scheduling soon) doesn't give the community time to sort it, either. We might have to think about that for future instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As it says in a local clerk's office "your lack of planning doesn't consititute my emergency." Yeah, I'd like us at some point to, say, require a week's notice. Raul's going to schedule sometime in the next 24 hours. We have no real time to debate this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize for the short notice. According to the instructions, dates from September 4 to October 4 are possible. It is still important for me to at least try and nominate the article. Would you have me replace the Alzheimer's article with this?--Patrick Ѻ 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, Sandy, would he be better off putting a note on Raul's talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't give advice in that area. While I've noted that Raul seems to have an infinite capacity for patience, I'm really unsure how he feels about last minute inquiries on his talk page. There is a troubling precedent here that the community doesn't have a chance to discuss the merits of this article. I guess "your lack of planning doesn't constitute my emergency" sums it up, and Patrickneil will have to decide on approaching Raul on his talk page or replacing Alzheimer's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He did, though I am somewhat troubled at the way he phrased it, I did not recommend he do so, I merely asked Sandy for her advice. Also, I feel he continues to inflate the importance of the naval encounter he wants to "honor". I guess it is better than disrupting the project page by eliminating an article which is in the course of discussion, but not much.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a clear COI since I proposed the Alzheimer article, but I do not really feel that the points for the 400 years should be given, since the 400 years is for the battle and not for the city. On the other hand if Alzheimer's does not appear in the main page the 21 it will probably mean that something is not working very well on this page... Only my opinion, but the social relevance and interest at a global world level of Alzheimer or the 11-S flight clearly outweights that of a TV advertising, a boat sinking, or a 400,000 inhabitants city any day of the year; much more on the days proposed to appear in main page.--Garrondo (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I'd tend to agree on all points, and since I don't have an article on the page, I don't have a COI. I don't think last minute "emergencies" should be encouraged, the one sentence on this "battle" has been in the article since September of 2007 and it is an editor's job to be familiar with "his" article. There is no reason this could not have gone through the normal process. I'm also troubled by the fact that the importance of this battle seems to be inflated (the city beat off some rogue knights, and suddenly it's being represented as a defeat for the whole Republic of Venice), the extremely limited info out there on the battle (without buying the JSTOR article, I can't even confirm this "battle" happened), and the questionable claims being made, both of the six points and that Sandy and I recommended he leave a note on Raul's talk page. This page can be an intimidating experience for rookies and everyone, but I'm just taken aback at the way this is happening. If Raul chooses to feature the article, well, Godspeed, I don't have a problem, but I've got a process issue with the way this is being done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Intimidating, yes Wehwalt. That's why I asked for help. Perhaps I should have used "suggested" when asking for Mark's help. I did not mean to put words in your mouth. I don't mean to harp, but I feel I was following the rules and the "normal process" as laid out, and just because there exist different interpretations of point totals doesn't mean I'm disregarding rules. Yes, something will wrong with this if Alzheimer's isn't featured on the 21st. I do recall the simple process a year ago when it just was that the date needed to be soon. I went to Mark because I was intimidated here.--Patrick Ѻ 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to keep up with this because I'm traveling, but I have no doubt that Mark/Raul will make the right call, whatever that means in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Point ruling needed Augustus vs Joseph W. Tkach

It has been determined that on September 23 Joseph W. Tkach is a five point article. I have not gotten clarification of whether emperors count as royalty or similar enough to effect Main page representation points. On September 23 Augustus is only a four point article without main page representation points. Does an emperor count as royalty.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph W. Tkach hasn't been requested, and no one here makes a "point ruling"; consensus determines questionable issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He is on the chart above, which is why I ask.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I know you were travelling, but I had hoped for some response on the 04:49, 6 September 2008 edit above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tkach may have serious problems because of the August 29 appearance of Walter de Coventre. A religious leader is a religious leader, I guess. That would knock Tkach down to two points. I am of the opinion that an emperor is royalty, meaning that Augustus seems likely to be a four point article, I haven't looked closely at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Put Augustus on pending list. Write the points you think it should have. If there is a question on a point, we can see if we can come to consensus, here. Halgin (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, I added Tkach to the pending list when I happened across the date; I have no reason to believe it will be requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2, 2008 TFA

I am planning to possibly nominate either the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article or the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article for TFA on November 2nd, or I might nominate an article that I am currently working on to also do with Formula One. I think the date fits in well, as it is the date of the final round of the 2008 Formula One season. I'm asking here to see if anyone else wanted to have that date as TFA, as it may be several weeks before I make my final decision. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the pending template and see what happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've left a hidden note saying I *may* change it to a similar article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Next to be replaced

Karanacs, I removed this because the page is in a strange place right now. Both disputed articles, at two or four points, straddle Sept 11 at 3 points, so unless the dispute is resolved, we don't know who's next off. I would say that since the four points on Alzheimer's has broad consensus, it's no longer disputed, so actually, September 11 may be next off, depending on whether consensus forms over Jena Six. We need a means of working these situations out, but it will go away as soon as Raul schedules September 11, in which case, Jena Six will be next off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question/Article Suggestion for Sept 13th

I just read through all the rules on requesting a "today's featured article", and I'm not sure how to proceed so I'll make the initial proposal here: The 2007 USC Trojans football team was very recently promoted. This Saturday, September 13 will have what has been long considered the biggest regular-season college football game of 2008, between USC and Ohio State (sources for that claim: [6][7][8][9]). I thought it would be interesting to have this article on that day. Here is my estimate of the points, do they work? 1 pt as a date relevant to article topic (program part of the biggest game of season on day); 1 pt contributor history (main contributor, never had one featured); 2 pts for mainpage representation of American football --here it would depend on how you read this "dissimilar articles": The last American football-related article was the History of American football (2/3/08), there has been a recent hockey (09/05/08) and association football (04/23/08), but I feel the latter two fall under "dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category" rather than a similar article. There is currently no conflict for September 13. Should I move forward and create a proposed summary on the article's talk page or here? Thanks for any input, I'm new to this. --Bobak (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute the date relevance point, as the date is not mentioned in the article. (If the article were on USC-Ohio State rivalry, then I'd give the point, but it's not.) USC will play between 11–13 games this year, it's stretching it for me to put an article about last year's football team on a date that this year's team is playing. That would leave it with 3 points, which may be enough to remove Jena Six or Alzheimer's - Jena Six has a lower support percentage right now, so it's probably next to be replaced. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Except Jena Six may have four points, we have reached no consensus. Alzheimer's may have two or four points, as well. This should be an interesting puzzle.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we have this puzzle, because we have to figure out a way to figure these out in the future. For example, Az had been up long enough and has enough support that (??) shouldn't we be able to say now that it has solid 4-point support? Seriously, the discrepancy is one day. I'm troubled that every football game for every college would get date relevance. Seems like boosterism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And part of my concern is that Jena Six hasn't been up long enough to build similar support. It needs to be given a similar chance. We're rewarding getting in early again. And we need to decide if we are going to be flexible with rules like that, when it apparently now makes the difference as to which article gets dumped. It's a tough situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to say that requests need to be in x days before their date? That could have pitfalls. We wouldn't have an issue right now if the ball game hadn't appeared at the last minute, similar to the Alanya situation. We'd have time to sort them. But how do we sort them, when all have similar points? Put one up and see if it gets kicked off, so the other one can come back? That's inefficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Advantages to getting in early, advantages to getting in late. I don't know that Alanya has started a trend; I think the football game is independent of that. What we need is a means of efficiently resolving disputes on this page. For example Alzheimers is probably technically two points, but it is a popular article and the dispute is over only one day. But I don't have a clue how to do it!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a little nervous that this isn't going to be settled until there's an edit war over equal point requests. We need a mechanism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would pause at calling this sort of date-matching boosterism, rather "season relevancy". While its great there was a hockey article a few weeks ago, I think it would've been more interesting while the season was going on --particularly on a game day. I would argue NFL-related articles would work best on Sundays and Mondays during the season; and other sports on their common game days. --Bobak (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bowl season, or even the date of the BCS game, strikes me as an excellent time for such an article, rather than in the middle of a rather long regular season. The hockey thing was Raul's choice, not proposed on these pages; his privilege. I really didn't look at it to see if there was a date connection or anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I was actually hoping to have this ready for the start of the season, but it didn't clear FAC in time. There are currently only two of these floating around: 2005 Texas and now 2007 USC. I must say that these rules are pretty hard to understand on first glance (as in --if I don't think my suggestions will work for the first 5, then where do I place it? How will it ever get reviewed?) It really isn't clear other than people seem to want to have a reason not to look at suggestions that otherwise qualify. --Bobak (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobak, I'm not sure if you realize that there are at least 1,000 FAs waiting to get on the main page, and about 400 that have been waiting longer than a year (just to put your request in perspective). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it's rather short notice. Raul could schedule September 13 at any moment. Even if it had enough points to get on the top five (I honestly don't think it does), there would be very short amount of time to look at it. I don't have a major dog in it, because if Jena Six got bumped by you, I'd wait around and renominate after Raul schedules.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize there are a number of other FAs, and I realize its short notice --but we all know that to get things done you have to Be Bold ;-) --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to throw out suggetions. How about in the case of a tie, there is a detriment to the one furthest away in time because it has time to come back? Mind, I'm not saying it is automatically off the island, just some sort of a detriment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

IF all else is equal, that would be good, but two problems. Rarely is all else equal, and that's a risk. Sometimes Raul schedules further out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, back to basics then. Perhaps if there's a dispute we can't resolve, we call in an uninvolved third party. We do have people on WP who make it their vocation to resolve disputes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending Requests Update

We should look at the points in Pending Requests since number of TFA added. I think Edward Wright (mathematician) should losses the 1 point for nothing similar in 3 months, because mathematician Emmy Noether was TFA on Sep 4. (Halgin (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)).

Sounds right. Elaine Page loses a couple of points because of Jackie Chan.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Paige occupations are singer and actress. Jackie Chan occupations also include actor and singer. I didn't know about his singing until I read the article. It scheduled for a couple of day from now. Also, Chinua Achebe, TFA for Sep 9, and Ann Bannon pending for Sep 15 are both novelist. Ann Bannon will lose 3 points because it is within two weeks of requested date. It would be a -2 point article. Halgin (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports and all that

I think with the discussions about the USC team and CM Punk added to the template, we're going to have to come to some sort of a decision about how sports teams and athletes fit into the "similar articles rule".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these two are similar. I think similar is two things from the same sport although I am not really sure 2007 USC Trojans football team is even similar to Tyrone Wheatley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm just urging that we come up with a policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been going by same sport in the past?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No. No point was claimed for Yao Ming, for one. Given that there are probably at least thirty Olympic and/or popular team sports, I'm a bit concerned that "same sport" would be too broad (or narrow, you know what I mean).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw an idea out there, I would divide sports into individual athletes (competing primarily individually, as in, for example, athletics, bowling, racing), team athletes (that is, like a member of a team), teams, coaches/officials/executives, events, and miscellaneous. If two articles fell in the same division, or were from the same sport, they would be considered similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So you would say Don Bradman, Moe Berg and Yao Ming are similar to each other and to Tyrone Wheatley. No one made such a point when it was at WP:TFAR for a week or so. I do not think this is the prevailing opinion, but I understand your argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, but I think it would be kinda silly to be able to say we could have an article a day on athletes for a month, and each one would be deemed dissimilar. Certainly, I doubt if Raul would permit that, but that would be the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For football they have never had an athlete on the main page who was mainly a football player. Tyrone Wheatley was the second American football bio to make FA. The first Jim Thorpe is only partly a football player. No one contested the points on Wheatley last month. If this got to be like discographies on FL and Hip hop discographies were trying to say they were different from Rock & Roll discographies when every month two or three of each is promoted that would be one thing. However, in this case American football bios are so rare on FA that they might as well be treated differently. If American football bios get so common that there is one at FAC at all times or something then the rules should be reinterpretted to keep them from dominating the main page. In this case Wheatley is truly a rare FA bio. You could make the case that his article does not belong on the main page because other athletes have been on the main page. That would be O.K. Keep in mind athletes are not like political leaders and heads of state where the really interesting ones will be at vital articles. They are almost never going to get those bonus points. I may propose him again for October 4 now that I know his birthday is not going to happen this year due to Edgar Allen Poe's 200th birthday being the same day. I will take my lumps if it gets shot down. It is not that big a deal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't have a specific rule just for American Football! My concern is that we seem to be getting a lot of sports articles in the template, each claiming the points for nothing similar in six months, and often with date connection point claims that seem a bit disputable. The two points for nothing similar within six months are supposed to be used rarely, but for sports it is becoming routine. My proposal would cut back on that a bit. Moe Berg was a Raul pick, by the way, and Yao and Bradman were special cases because it seemed important that they run on the days selected, no one either proposed adding or subtracting points (I imagine Bradman would have had eight points from your point of view!) It is only when this routine taking of two points is coming in that this becomes an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If sports are overrepresented at TFA then you may have a point. I think one sports bio article per month may be correct. I conceed that date connections to dates not properly mentioned in the article probably should be discouraged. If you were to go through Wikipedia:FA#Sport_and_recreation and separate bios by sport you would see that Wheatley is basically the only true American football player bio. If this were another cricketeer trying to get to the main page that would be different. I imagine that maybe a half dozen cricketeers have been on the main page by the current number at FA. If we were to get a bio from any other sport that does not have a bio representative I think they should be given some sort of priority. I don't think this is a special rule for American football.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about not letting Sports use the 3/6 month rule but say that if no prior sportsman from that sport (we can define around Jim Thorpe) has appeared, they get two bonus points, to encourage innovation? But then we're running into WP:CREEP again . . . jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are sports bios (FFA in italics)

American football: Jim Thorpe, Tyrone Wheatley

Baseball: Moe Berg, Steve Dalkowski, Art Houtteman, Sandy Koufax, Jimmy McAleer, Bob Meusel, Ted Radcliffe, J. R. Richard, Lee Smith (baseball)

Basketball: Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Yao Ming

Boxing: Simon Byrne, Michael Gomez, Susianna Kentikian

Chess: Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Paul Morphy

Cricket: Sid Barnes, Donald Bradman, Ian Chappell, Brian Close, Paul Collingwood, A. E. J. Collins, Ian Craig, Adam Gilchrist, Clem Hill, Archie Jackson, Ian Johnson (cricketer), Bart King, Charlie Macartney, Jack Marsh, Arthur Morris, Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), Kevin Pietersen, Harbhajan Singh, Don Tallon, Ernie Toshack, Marcus Trescothick, Harry Trott, Hugh Trumble

Ice Hockey: Eric Brewer (ice hockey), Martin Brodeur, Ray Emery, Wayne Gretzky, Dominik Hašek, Trevor Linden, Jacques Plante, Joe Sakic, Paul Stastny

Racing: Damon Hill, Alain Prost, Tom Pryce

Rugby: Karmichael Hunt, Waisale Serevi

Soccer: Duncan Edwards, Thierry Henry, Denis Law, Bobby Robson, Gilberto Silva

Tennis: Lottie Dod, Suzanne Lenglen

Wrestling: Shelton Benjamin, Bobby Eaton, CM Punk

Other: Fanny Blankers-Koen (athletics), Nellie Kim (Gymnastics), Cynna Kydd (netball), Ian Thorpe (swimming)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From the above CM Punk definitely deserves consideration regardless of other athlete bios. Wheatley is somewhat rare as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable topic

The notable topic point seems to be suffering from neglect. How is it suppose to be used and is this a rule worth keeping. Maybe this could be replaced by my 25 year anniversary rule mentioned above that would actually be useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support that, since most of the articles we seem to be nominating are date relevance articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion on this rule because all articles are suppose to pass WP:N and it is hard to distinguish between something that rises to the notability standards to belong in an encyclopedia and something that is likely to be researched.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, beyond the sort of eyeball estimate, "There's no way a sixth grade teacher would let a 12 year old write a report on this." I'd abolish the point and put some other measure in. And, Tony, I'm perfectly open to having your 25 year proposal. Though I might tinker with both year rules a bit, because I don't think a, say, 340th anniversary is particularly significant. Say sunset both the 10 and 25 at 200 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At risk of creeping, I would make 5-yr 1.5 points to give odd five years an advantage (priority) over other relevant dates. Not sure how to sunset because it gets into creeping as well. Your solution is O.K. I might even sunset at 100 years for those two by taking them down to 1.5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise against half points, as a side issue that people might quibble at, but it is your proposal. Suggest you write it up and post it and ask for support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just realized. You may want to reconsider the sunset. I think it might help offset a new subject bias.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the fifth is probably unnecessary, unless your intent is just for the five-year and that's it. I could live with not sunsetting the 25 year. Although something like 525 year seems to me to be, if we miss it, we miss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there's already too much emphasis placed on date relevance, and we need to get back to notability relevance for balance. We had several workable proposals that haven't been accepted; it shouldn't be that hard to come up with something we can agree on. I don't understand the block. We don't need more date points; we need diversity and other means of getting on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

4/5 nominees have disputed points

What is the point of the 60-day template if almost all the nominees still have points disputed? Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Augustus, John Bull, and Jena Six had taken advantage of the template. I will say that now we seem to be more aggressive in questioning points claimed on the template, I think that is a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sept 11 events

I posted this in the wrong spot at first, so here is the redeux... thanks for the tips SandyGeorgia...

considering the 7th anniversary does not strike me as especially noteworthy from a numerological standpoint (unlike 50 years, 100 years etc)... it seems we are at a point where every anniversary will get the same reverent treatment (TFA and featured pic)... we don't do this for Pearl Harbor every year so is there a particular reason we do it for 9/11? Like are we planning on waiting 60-odd years before we stop (to continue the PH comparison)? Every five years or every ten years makes some sense to me, but every single year seems a little, well, morbid at this point. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)