Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions
→What counts as a vital article?: new section |
→What counts as a vital article?: Who gives a fuck? |
||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
For something to count as a 'vital article', does it need to be in the original vital article list, or does the [[Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded|expanded list]] count? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
For something to count as a 'vital article', does it need to be in the original vital article list, or does the [[Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded|expanded list]] count? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Who gives a fuck? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:34, 21 December 2011
The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from November 2 to December 2. 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.
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Article | Reason | Primary author(s) | Added by (if different) |
November 3 | 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election | Why | Elli | |
November 6 | Russian battleship Poltava (1894) | Why | harizotoh9 | |
November 8 | Mario Party DS | Why | The Green Star Collector | |
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 19 | My Little Love | Why | MaranoFan | |
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 2 | Windswept Adan | Why | Joeyquism | |
December 3 | PlayStation (console) | Why | Jaguar | Dank |
December 8 | You Belong with Me | Why | Ippantekina | Sheila1988 |
December 10 | Shovel Knight Showdown | Why | The Night Watch | Gerda Arendt |
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 |
2025: | ||||
January 1 | York Park | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
January 4 | Liza Soberano | Why | Pseud 14 | |
January 6 | Maria Trubnikova | Why | Ganesha811 | Dank |
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 | Harizotoh9 | |
January 28 | Lewis W. Green | Why | PCN02WPS | |
January 29 | Dominik Hašek | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
March 10 | Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number | Why | NegativeMP1 | |
March 12 | 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season | Why | SounderBruce | |
March 18 | Edward the Martyr | Why | Amitchell125 | Sheila1988 |
March 26 | Pierre Boulez | Why | Dmass | Sheila1988 |
April 1 | Pig-faced women | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
April 12 | Dolly de Leon | Why | Pseud 14 | |
April 15 | Lady Blue (TV series) | Why | Aoba47 | Harizotoh9 |
April 18 | Battle of Poison Spring | Why | HF | |
April 24 | "I'm God" | Why | Skyshifter | |
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 6 | Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
May 10 | Ben&Ben | Why | Pseud 14 | |
May 11 | Mother (Meghan Trainor song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
June | The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished | Why | iridescent | Harizotoh9 |
June 3 | David Evans (RAAF officer) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
June 8 | Barbara Bush | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
July 1 | Maple syrup | Why | Nikkimaria | Dank |
July 7 | Gustav Mahler | Why | Brianboulton | Dank |
July 14 | William Hanna | Why | Rlevse | Dank |
July 26 | Liz Truss | Why | Tim O'Doherty | Tim O'Doherty and Dank |
July 29 | Tiger | Why | LittleJerry | |
July 31 | Battle of Warsaw (1705) | Why | Imonoz | Harizotoh9 |
August 4 | Death of Ms Dhu | Why | Freikorp | AirshipJungleman29 |
August 23 | Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 | Why | Peacemaker67 | |
August 30 | Late Registration | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 2 | 1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 6 | Hurricane Ophelia (2005) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 20 | Myst V: End of Ages | Why | 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 1 | Matanikau Offensive | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 19 | Water Under the Bridge | Why | MaranoFan | |
November 20 | Nuremberg trials | Why | buidhe | harizotoh9 |
November 21 | Canoe River train crash | Why | Wehwalt | |
December 22 or 25 | A Very Trainor Christmas | Why | MaranoFan | MaranoFan |
December 25 | Marcus Trescothick | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
2026: | ||||
January 27 | History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
January 28 | Lewis W. Green | Why | PCN02WPS | Harizotoh9 |
May 5 | Me Too (Meghan Trainor song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
June 8 | Types Riot | Why | Z1720 | |
July 23 | Veronica Clare | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
September 20 | Persona (series) | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November | The Story of Miss Moppet | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
November 11 | U.S. Route 101 | Why | SounderBruce | |
October 15 | Easy on Me | Why | MaranoFan | |
December 21 | Fredonian Rebellion | Why | Harizotoh9 | |
December 22 | Title (song) | Why | MaranoFan | |
2027: | ||||
June | 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) | Why | ||
August 25 | Genghis Khan | Why | AirshipJungleman29 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Dec 7
See Raul's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seems obvious enough!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- The complaints have started about having two US-military hardware articles back-to-back... BencherliteTalk 19:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Naturally! Of course that means the FA process is failing, right? On a more serious note, remember this when someone suggests moving the nonspecific requests to more than two-- the aircraft was scheduled because of a non-specific request (which are usually honored), when Pearl Harbor was pending. But if they'd failed to schedule the aircraft, someone else would be complaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The complaints have started about having two US-military hardware articles back-to-back... BencherliteTalk 19:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Mr Hankey?
Hello. Last time I got involved in TFA I managed to offend everybody. For the record that really wasn't my intention. Therefore I will be brief here and not too upset if everyone objects, however, what do editors think about Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo for TFA sometime soon? Of course it might be a bit extreme for the day itself, but perhaps a nonespecific date somewhere during the christmas season? Coolug (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- You did not offend me; I cannot speak for others. Prepare a blurb, put it in the nonspecific spot, and lets see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming the OP is serious, I'd recommend not wasting everyone's time with this. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why? It is a FA, it has not run, and Raul hasn't put it on his list of articles not to run.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- As OP says, I think for Christmas itself it would be a bit off, but for any other day I see no reason not to run it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why? It is a FA, it has not run, and Raul hasn't put it on his list of articles not to run.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming the OP is serious, I'd recommend not wasting everyone's time with this. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Date range
This page is not properly acknowledging that the 15th and 16th have been scheduled.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO:/WP:FOUR) 18:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you find that is still the case? I was looking at the date page on the project page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Object to running Mary Anning on December 16
I am the person who has done the most edits to Mary Anning and I would like to be around to help patrol the article when it runs on the main page. I will not be available to do that around the 16th. Also I was really hoping to try and get this article run on the main page closer to or preferably on her birthday on May 21. I really think that if you are going to nominate articles that you are not involved with editing you should try and notify the principle editors of the article BEFORE it is scheduled to see if they have an objection. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Rusty, I'd support delaying it in that case. Dabomb/Raul....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
More care with blurbs, please
Beating the same old drum: [1] [2] It would be so nice if folks supporting blurbs would help review and check them and the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
High importance FA's that have yet to be featured at TFA
- Views (K) Links Product Title
- 511 82 41902 Brad Pitt
- 373 106 39538 Elvis Presley
- 448 84 37632 Angelina Jolie
- 359 86 30874 Madonna (entertainer)
- 229 119 27251 Olympic Games
- 263 95 24985 Richard Nixon
- 267 86 22962 FC Barcelona
- 238 76 18088 Liverpool F.C.
- 272 60 16320 David Bowie
- 380 38 14440 Guy Fawkes
- 318 42 13356 The Notorious B.I.G.
- 365 31 11315 2012 phenomenon
- 216 40 8640 Jenna Jameson
- 267 32 8544 CM Punk
- 169 50 8450 Gwen Stefani
- 122 54 6588 Manhattan Project
- 142 41 5822 Tool (band)
- 75 68 5100 Titan (moon)
- 133 37 4921 Tourette syndrome
- 117 42 4914 Roger Waters
- 121 39 4719 Final Fantasy
- 184 25 4600 Firefly (TV series)
- 69 65 4485 General relativity
- 109 38 4142 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
- 64 56 3584 Aston Villa F.C.
- 43 79 3397 Rutherford B. Hayes
- 64 52 3328 John, King of England
- 39 80 3120 Chester A. Arthur
- 84 37 3108 Pixies
- 70 44 3080 Bart Simpson
- 155 19 2945 Guy Fawkes Night
- 41 70 2870 Kuiper belt
- 89 29 2581 Maggie Gyllenhaal
- 72 35 2520 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia
- 54 46 2484 Windsor Castle
- 91 26 2366 Final Fantasy XIII
- 71 33 2343 Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)
- 43 53 2279 George II of Great Britain
- 62 35 2170 The Kinks
- 35 60 2100 Common Raven
- 68 30 2040 The Mummy (1999 film)
- 55 36 1980 Ernest Shackleton
- 56 34 1904 Audioslave
- 40 46 1840 Scotland national football team
- 66 26 1716 Amazing Grace
- 60 27 1620 Nick Drake
- 52 29 1508 Messiah (Handel)
- 19 79 1501 Common Blackbird
- 32 45 1440 Richard II of England
- 35 40 1400 Columbia River
- 29 48 1392 Mauna Kea
- 32 42 1344 The Simpsons Movie
- 69 19 1311 Australian Cattle Dog
- 42 30 1260 Kid A
- 24 51 1224 Greater Manchester
- 20 59 1180 Georges Bizet
- 39 29 1131 In Rainbows
- 46 24 1104 Omaha Beach
- 45 24 1080 Halo 3
- 24 44 1056 Anfield
- 79 13 1027 Hanged, drawn and quartered
- 38 27 1026 By the Way
- 35 29 1015 Bill Russell
- 32 29 928 Final Fantasy VIII
- 32 29 928 Final Fantasy VIII
- 38 24 912 Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)
- 38 24 912 Zodiac (film)
- 32 28 896 John A. Macdonald
- 29 30 870 The Final Cut (album)
- 47 17 799 Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
- 21 36 756 Battle of Moscow
- 32 23 736 Kingdom Hearts II
- 52 14 728 Ico
- 40 18 720 Connie Talbot
- 34 21 714 Halo 2
- 35 20 700 Steve Bruce
- 25 28 700 Covent Garden
- 29 24 696 Nancy Cartwright
- 33 21 693 Resident Evil 2
- 25 27 675 Age of Mythology
- 23 28 644 Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
- 29 22 638 George B. McClellan
- 49 13 637 Slow loris
- 25 25 625 Turkey Vulture
- 26 24 624 Final Fantasy IX
- 25 24 600 S.H.E
- 26 23 598 Final Fantasy XI
- 22 27 594 Planets beyond Neptune
- 45 13 585 Limbo (video_game)
- 64 9 576 Donner Party
- 36 16 576 Animaniacs
- 19 30 570 Loggerhead sea turtle
- 46 12 552 Rumours
- 23 24 552 Star Trek: First Contact
- 60 9 540 Only Fools and Horses
- 25 21 525 Mumia Abu-Jamal
- 40 13 520 Austin Nichols
- 32 16 512 Carnivàle
- 39 13 507 Nancy Drew
- 19 26 494 Stephen Crane
- 27 18 486 Dreadnought
- 44 11 484 Master Chief (Halo)
- 22 22 484 Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)
- 22 21 462 American Airlines Flight 77
- 23 20 460 School Rumble
- 35 13 455 Battle of Vimy Ridge
- 30 15 450 The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
- 24 18 432 Appaloosa
- 31 13 403 Under the Bridge
- 21 19 399 Sideshow Bob
- 28 14 392 Surrender of Japan
- 20 19 380 Barton Fink
- 20 19 380 Halo Wars
- 21 17 357 Australian Defense Force
- 22 14 308 Jarome Iginla
- 22 13 286 Loveless (album)
- 23 12 276 Supernatural (season 1)
- 20 13 260 Roberto Luongo
- 20 12 240 Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games
- 21 11 231 Disintegration (The Cure album)
- 21 11 231 Sebastian Shaw (actor)
- 21 11 231 Texas Tech University
- 22 9 198 Supernatural (season 2)
- 30 6 180 Superman in film
- 37 2 74 Myles Standish
- 20 3 60 Morgan dollar
- 32 1 32 The Apprentice (UK TV series)
- 26 0,1 2,6 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettrig (talk • contribs)
- Mmmm, very interesting. I suspect that many editors could produce completely different lists of their top 100 FAs which have not featured on the main page. It all depends on what each individual considers to be "high importance". Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just making a guess here but he is probably going by the 'high importance' parameter in WikiProject banners. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- A spotcheck of several of these shows that the project importance rating does not figure, it may be mid or low for many of these examples. Perhaps it is to do with the "Product" obtained by multiplying the number of views per month by the number of interwiki links. In any case the list appears to be highly subjective. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would say that list shows FAs that don't need to be featured on the main page - judging by the page views readers have no problem finding them. Yomanganitalk 10:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not write that headline. I do agree with it though. Enormous numbers of pageviews show that these articles are of interest. The number of interwikilinks are much fewer, but still, in most cases they are much higher than the number of votes on typical items here. Each such wikilink represents at least one peer wikipedian who thought this was an important subject. In short: The votes are already in. Although the pagevies are already very high, the overlap with main page viewers is most probably rather low, can safely be assumed to be random. --Ettrig (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I link to articles when they're relevant, not when they're ready for TFA... so really, it's not a vote. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is a clear signal that this is what they think is important in a Wikipedia. Someone wrote the article on the other side. But I think the pageviews are more important because of the enormous numbers. The lowest figures here correspond to a rate of more than 200,000 per year. Huge crowds have told us what they think is important to them. Who are we to say they should have something else? --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, huge crowds have told us that they can already find what they want without the articles needing exposure on the main page. If the intersection of the main page views and the views of these articles can "safely be assumed to be random" then the people viewing the main page and the viewers of these articles aren't necessarily the same audience and therefore we shouldn't assume the preferences of these viewers are the preferences of the main page viewers. Basically, these figures alone show only that these articles get a lot of views and have a lot of wikilinks. Yomanganitalk 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is a clear signal that this is what they think is important in a Wikipedia. Someone wrote the article on the other side. But I think the pageviews are more important because of the enormous numbers. The lowest figures here correspond to a rate of more than 200,000 per year. Huge crowds have told us what they think is important to them. Who are we to say they should have something else? --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I (re)wrote it, sorry. The meaning I saw was highly-viewed articles, articles that are of more importance to be featured than Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895), but may or may not make it onto WP:VA. Buggie111 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I link to articles when they're relevant, not when they're ready for TFA... so really, it's not a vote. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not write that headline. I do agree with it though. Enormous numbers of pageviews show that these articles are of interest. The number of interwikilinks are much fewer, but still, in most cases they are much higher than the number of votes on typical items here. Each such wikilink represents at least one peer wikipedian who thought this was an important subject. In short: The votes are already in. Although the pagevies are already very high, the overlap with main page viewers is most probably rather low, can safely be assumed to be random. --Ettrig (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would say that list shows FAs that don't need to be featured on the main page - judging by the page views readers have no problem finding them. Yomanganitalk 10:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- A spotcheck of several of these shows that the project importance rating does not figure, it may be mid or low for many of these examples. Perhaps it is to do with the "Product" obtained by multiplying the number of views per month by the number of interwiki links. In any case the list appears to be highly subjective. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just making a guess here but he is probably going by the 'high importance' parameter in WikiProject banners. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
So we should have popular culture articles, predominantly biographies, about topics people are very familiar with, dominating TFA? I much prefer the current system. I'm far more likely to be interested in a TFA about a subject I'm not familiar with. The current system gives us a lovely esoteric mix and encourages editors to edit and readers to broaden horizons. Spiced with a good helping of popular culture. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Dweller. TFAR is for editors who would like to see an article featured on a specific day as opposed to a randomly selected one when it eventually gets to shine on the front page, because it shines more for whatever reason (usually as the result of an anniversary). This usually results in a few requests a month, with the vast majority being picked by Raul or Dabomb from the rest of the available selections. This arbitrary definition of importance isn't really a necessary list for TFAR. If people want to see an article they worked hard on featured on a specific day that has some importance to the subject, then this is the venue to let Raul and Dabomb know. Articles that are fairly generic in regards to date importance can be featured on any day; it makes no difference to the quality of the main page or TFA. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everything has the potential to become featured if enough work is put into it; whether that be Bart Simpson or Saturn, to a species of lemur or a U2 song. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't put too much weight on the links (do they include template ones?), but high views are important. I also see at least one article (Toutette's Syndrome) where the main editor doesn't want it to be TFA. But what should we do with the other 20-odd with over 100K views, given the generally accepted lower rate of such articles passing FAC these days? Feature them all over a short period or hoard them up? Such articles are also more likely to have deteriorated since promotion, through the usual wear & tear of WP. The list (or at least the views part) is interesting, & I hope Raul will take it into account into his selection process for days with nothing fixed by the process here. I don't find much weight in the "well people can find it anyway argument". Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- One point that hasn't yet been raised is that, of course, every article is only ever featured on the main page once (the one time that was an exception, with Barack Obama being run for the second time in conjunction with the McCain article on the day of the US federal election, I believe Raul made it clear that it was a one-off event that would not be repeated). If these top 100 articles are featured in, say, the next 200 days*, that means we've run all of our highest-importance articles (by these criteria). Where then are we left? Right back where we are now, but with much fewer high-importance articles to run at later dates.
- *Of course I recognize that such a scenario is extremely unlikely. But if hypothetically Raul and Dabomb do draw almost exclusively from this list for every date on which there is no specific feature request, it will become exhausted quite quickly. If we run the highest viewed and linked articles now, we will have none to feature a couple of years from now, meaning that every TFA would be for an article judged to be 'unimportant' by these criteria. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm responsible for two and a half of these listed articles: Amazing Grace and Mulholland Drive (film). As "Amazing Grace" is the second most widely used avenue for proselytizing in Christianity and it gets performed about 10 million times a year, there's just no way that topic needs more attention. And unless you're watching Mulholland Dr. while you're reading the article, it's naught but confusion from the bold text at the start to the Rate this page box at the bottom. Donner Party I was tangentially involved in and leave the choice to run it up to the other editors who wrote that one. I would like none of them on the main page. It's not necessary to place them there and unless you've had the
honoranxiety... filler word ... of running an article on the main page of a very highly viewed topic, similar to what To Kill a Mockingbird saw on its main page day, it's an experience that is often not fun; it's the primary reason I will never try to get the Lesbian article to FA. I've told Raul my wishes and he's honored them so far. I'm reiterating it here, as a response to this misguided emphasis on highly viewed topics at TFA. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)- Obviously we are opponents over this issue. But first I want to express my deep respect for and gratitude to you for having created 2,5 of these articles that I consider extremely valuable for Wikipedia. (1) I find it difficult to interpret this passage: unless you're watching Mulholland Dr. while you're reading the article, it's naught but confusion. Does it mean that the article is difficult to understand? In that case it should not have the FA stamp. (2) I've told Raul my wishes and he's honored them so far. In my view something hase gone very wrong here. My most likely interpretation is that you are claiming ato have a say over what happens to a Wikipedia article and this is being honored by a very influential person in the Wikipedia community. This strikes me as contrary to central values in the Wikipedia community. (3) misguided adds nothing to the argument. That word just says that it is obvious that you are right. --Ettrig (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ettrig, I guess you haven't seen Mulholland Drive...it's an unusual movie to say the least. I'd counter that Moni is being practical about article erosion while on the mainpage and feeling reluctant at the prospect of dealing with it. Much of it is about courtesy to folks who've put in alot of wrk but also might have very practical reasons why a particular point in time is not good for an article to be on the mainpage. There is a discussion on Mary Anning elsewhere that is pertinent and a good example. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- My central aim is that writers should be encouraged to write about important topics. If TFA has a discouraging aspect, then that is of course very important to take into account. --Ettrig (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- The people who write FAs are telling you that an article appearing on main page is often a disincentive. Personally, I disagree - I've been delighted when some of my FAs have appeared there, but if our paramount aim is encouraging editors to produce FAs, we need a flexible system. Which we have. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- We're not opponents. This is not a game or battle. It's pretty obvious to me that I'm right, and that confidence comes from my experience working in FAs and other high-quality articles. I think the emphasis on putting high-volume articles on the main page is certainly misguided and I have no idea where the energy behind it comes from. It seems completely illogical to me why editors are focusing on this, and I really don't understand why editors who have never written any kind of FA are pushing for it.
- This is the basic issue: high volume articles are very difficult to get to any high quality status because the majority of editors on Wikipedia are completely unfamiliar with the amount of work, research, and editing it takes to get an article there, even for minor articles. So many editors work on high-volume articles that it is counterproductive to attempt to improve them. The true problem here is converting the masses of editors who don't work on high quality articles (not high-volume) so that it becomes a much less combative or problematic atmosphere to work. Pushing for high-volume articles on the main page isn't just putting a cart before a horse, it's harnessing a rhino to a sundial and pushing it in any direction other than the one we should be going toward. Every last editor and volunteer on this site should know how to do the most basic stuff to get an article to FA. There should be at least 20 editors discussing and improving high-volume articles in cooperation, each of them using the best sources, discussing how best to present the information, and collaborating on this collaborative encyclopedia. But that doesn't happen. It's just one or two editors on small articles because that's the reality. And if you think I have too much influence over an article appearing on the main page--you're harnessing another rhino to a sundial. You do realize that because I'm the only editor shaping the articles I've written, that I have enormous influence over what goes into them, right? Whether they go on the main page is so not the issue. I'm the only editor shaping information about the topics I've written about because I'm the only editor willing to do any of the work to improve them. I should not nor do I want to have that responsibility. This is back to the real problem here: this site needs to make it abundantly clear that every last editor should be reading sources and discussing content on a meaningful level, not delegating tasks to an overburdened minority. We're taking the lowest amount of work from volunteers because we don't expect anything better of them. This needs to stop and it's not going to if we don't challenge all editors to increase their standards in what they do here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I pointed out three problems with your previous entry in this discussion. This answer repeats some of them and does nothing to clear out those problems. Such behaviour makes discussion impossible. --Ettrig (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- My central aim is that writers should be encouraged to write about important topics. If TFA has a discouraging aspect, then that is of course very important to take into account. --Ettrig (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ettrig, I guess you haven't seen Mulholland Drive...it's an unusual movie to say the least. I'd counter that Moni is being practical about article erosion while on the mainpage and feeling reluctant at the prospect of dealing with it. Much of it is about courtesy to folks who've put in alot of wrk but also might have very practical reasons why a particular point in time is not good for an article to be on the mainpage. There is a discussion on Mary Anning elsewhere that is pertinent and a good example. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously we are opponents over this issue. But first I want to express my deep respect for and gratitude to you for having created 2,5 of these articles that I consider extremely valuable for Wikipedia. (1) I find it difficult to interpret this passage: unless you're watching Mulholland Dr. while you're reading the article, it's naught but confusion. Does it mean that the article is difficult to understand? In that case it should not have the FA stamp. (2) I've told Raul my wishes and he's honored them so far. In my view something hase gone very wrong here. My most likely interpretation is that you are claiming ato have a say over what happens to a Wikipedia article and this is being honored by a very influential person in the Wikipedia community. This strikes me as contrary to central values in the Wikipedia community. (3) misguided adds nothing to the argument. That word just says that it is obvious that you are right. --Ettrig (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Bot request
I've filed a request for approval for a bot to keep WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page up to date. See WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 5. Ucucha (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions for Christmas Day
Just a couple of ideas - Flame Robin or Red-capped Robin. Technically neither of them are related to the European Robin which is generally associated with Christmas (at least in the UK, I don't know whther it is in the US), so there'd be no date points, but it's the only articles I can see at the moment with a loose connection (other than the aforementioned Hankey). I don't have time to write a blurb at the moment, but can do so tonight if people think either of these are worth pursuing. Any thoughts? An optimist on the run! 09:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- In the absence of any comments, I've nominated Red-capped Robin. An optimist on the run! 16:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
What counts as a vital article?
For something to count as a 'vital article', does it need to be in the original vital article list, or does the expanded list count? Kaldari (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who gives a fuck? Malleus Fatuorum 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)