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 October 1 to October 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)
October	Dobroslav Jevđević	Why (re-run, first TFA was March 9, 2013)	Peacemaker67
October 4	Olmec colossal heads	Why	Simon Burchell	Dank
October 11	Funerary art	Why	Johnbod	Dank
October 12	Brighton hotel bombing	Why	SchroCat
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 8	Mario Party DS	17th anniversary of game's release in Japan	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 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
December 25	A Very Trainor Christmas	Why	MaranoFan	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 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 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
May 6	Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories	Why		Harizotoh9
May 10	Ben&Ben	Why	Pseud 14
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 9	Animaniacs	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
October 27	Half-Life 2: Lost Coast	Why
November 1	Matanikau Offensive	Why		Harizotoh9
November 20	Nuremberg trials	Why	buidhe	harizotoh9
November 21	Canoe River train crash	Why	Wehwalt
December 25	Marcus Trescothick	Why		Harizotoh9
2026:
June 8	Types Riot	Why	Z1720
September 25	Ico	Why		Harizotoh9
2027:
August 25	Genghis Khan	Why	AirshipJungleman29

Template:FixBunching

New articles scheduled in the queue.

Raul has added more articles in the queue. The history of Solidarity was been scheduled for July 26, 2008. Does Peterloo Massacre gets –2 points becuase they are "similar"? I think they are. One is a civil disturbance for pro-democracy movement the other is the history of a pro-democracy movements. I don’t see any thing about what happens to points if a new "similar" article is added to the queue. Halgin (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they are similar, the points are lost. The idea is to ensure article diversity. Otherwise we reward for getting in early and being immune from what Raul schedules, which is not the point of things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As to whether they are similar enough, they are both events of conflict between elements of the people and the government. I think you have a strong point here. I'm a little less clear about the deduction of two points for Battle of Warsaw. I mean, just because both are Polish-related. . . --Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do that. Sandy did. Halgin (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. This seems to be the place to discuss it. It seems to me like, say, docking an article on the War of 1812 because you had an article on the Teamsters.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the connection between Solidarity and Peterloo, but I don't think we'd be running two Polish articles (and by the same editor) in such close proximity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well . . . I'm not sure we should treat having two Polish articles any differently than two British or two American. The fact that they are "by the same editor" just means he doesn't get the point for rookie editor, I don't see how it factors into the point deduction.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If films are the same if they are made in different nations than so are dissident movements. A supporter of Peterloo says "After all, the story of mass mobilisation of working classes' as a consequence of industrialisation and the effects of this in terms of pro-democracy movements is one that has been played out in many different nations and cultures the world over. In this respect I would dare to compare it to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States as a domestic dispute which represented something which had importance and implications the world over. Solidarity is about mass mobilization of worker that produces a democracy and domestic dispute that had importance and implications the world over. Halgin (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming into this following a note about what's been going on, to me, it seems rather daft to deny our readers the opportunity to read a great article in the form of Peterloo Massacre, by way of squabbling over points and diminishing its potential outreach because of a "points system" that is still in its infancy. That there is a tiny, tiny connection with another TFA (itself a totally subjective criteria), which will appear three weeks before Peterloo is proposed shouldn't stub out its chances of reaching a wider audience. If the process is designed around the notion of diversity, then the three-week gap and the constrasting periods and territories discussed in the Peterloo article should be more than enough. In short, my 2p (2c!) worth is that the proposal under this section heading this is something which is taking value away from WP, IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2p is worth more like $1.56, I think. Without getting into the specifics, we have to have some sort of standards to try to decide which articles the community should recommend, and that is why we have talk page discussions. I agree Peterloo has become an important moment in the history of the UK, but we are trying to decide how it fits within the rules we have laid down, which apply to all articles. And no doubt it is a great article, but all FAs should be great articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no stranger to TFA (having had one in the past), but, with respect, the new points system seems to give way too much exective power to our incumbant FA director, so much so, that the decisions he's made now (with regards to the daily TFA schedule) jarr with the desires of many nominators. That's left respectable users squabbling over points over what could've been great TFAs. I was never much of a TFA nominator myself (I prefer the writing bit), but I've been put off entirely from making a nomination myself in the future. I'm sure you can understand. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to make sure we apply the rules fairly for all articles. Just because Peterloo losses points for a similar article within a month don’t mean it will be replaced. FA director could have put the Solidarity in Aug closer to the date of this article. Halgin (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Battle of Warsaw (1920) should get -2 points for being similar to the TFA on July 28 about a Navy battle. I don't agree with a loss for being similar to Solidarity because they are Polish-related. Halgin (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a decision about the points for Peterloo as there doesn't seem to have been a consensus to remove any so far but it's still ambiguous what the points are in the table. Personally, I don't think there is any real similarity between it and the Solidarity article - different century, different country. Also, the argument about the similarity between Wilberforce and William IV is also without merit as far as I'm concerned, however to say that there's no simliarity between them but there is a similarity between Wilberforce and Peterloo is just ridiculous. I would also say that half the problem with this process is the time the nominations stay on the page without a decision being reached on whether they are used or not. Most of the ones on there now have been on the project page for weeks. If a decision was made on whether or not they were going to be used, they could be moved off leaving room for more nominations to go on without having to remove another article. How about if, once consensus was reached, they were moved into a holding area where Raul could decide whether he was going to use them or not? Richerman (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would kinda violate the five article restriction to have a "holding area" though it is a good idea. In my view, none of the arguments for reduction of points, either for Peterloo or William, are valid, though they were made in good faith. I would suggest that we simply consider William a 4 point article and Peterloo a 3, as there is no consensus to reduce them. If there is a dispute about an article, I think we need to treat it at the highest valuation until there is a consensus to lower the points, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. As of right now, someone looking to replace an article is going to be totally confused.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is clear, but until we get consensus to fix it, it won't be changed, and there is always someone here holding on to a spot and resisting changes to the procedure. The problem is that the community can't "vote" to remove requests because the percentage threshold is so high it is never met. Lowering the threshold (maybe 67% or 70%) will give the community motivation to "vote" to use or not requests on the page. No, we don't need to give Raul more to sort through; we need to make this page work. There are currently three articles listed with dubious point tallies that could be replaced by three pending articles with valid points established (several are higher), but the current percent threshold doesn't allow anyone to do this replacing. The current system motivates requestors to inflate points when posting the request and then not to update them when challenged, as we have no effective means of challenging the points and voting the request off, because the percentage to remove is set too high. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, the fact that the goal of 75 percent has never yet been met (in less than 40 days) doesn't equate with it being too high. Some percentages are made intentionally high, and things just function just fine though the bar stays high. Wait and see what happens if someone inserts Michael Jackson. The fact that points aren't adjusted "when challenged" doesn't mean the requestor is being unreasonable (assume good faith), it can mean that sometimes the challenger is wrong. "holding on to a spot and resisting changes to the procedure" implies a bias on the part of the "someone" you cite, with a strong implication that the two are connected. I prefer to AGF and assume that since articles on the main page come and go, that people are "voting" for the good of WP, rather than their own parochial interests. I don't think people are inflating points, I think they react appropriately when valid arguments are made, and I think if someone came in here with a ridiculous point total for an article, that they would get a negative strong reaction from multiple editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems are still clear; if someone wanted to put Jackson up right now (which would be an excellent test of the system, to see how "voting" works to reflect community consensus), which of the three requests with questionable points do they replace? We need to empower community voting for this page to be effective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more a question of attracting more people to this page. I don't think that they come here, say "Oh jeez, Augustus has only a fifty percent oppose factor, my vote means nothing, I'm outahere." Lowering the percentage achieves nothing. If the problem is articles remaining in place for two long, let's state that my proposal to add a bonus point if you engage on the template and wait until 15 days before proposed date has achieved consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The 75 percent opposition was used to remove the Simpson Movie. I thought we had agreement on Solidarity and Peterloo. The Japanese film Ran prevented Superman (film series) from being on the request page. Puerto Ricans in World War II was call similar to Battle of Warsaw (1920) even thought they are different times and nations. One is a battle and the other is people in different war. Palpatine has been claimed to be similar to all movie related articles. We need to apply the rules fairly across different articles. Halgin (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that because most editors who frequent this page are here to defend an article staying on the page, disputed points will always be attached, the system will always be gamed, the editor who gets here first and adds disputed points will keep a slot, and the only way we can empower the community to remove disputed articles is to lower the current 75% oppose, perhaps to 67%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, with the greatest respect, that IS a rather sweeping generalization about the motives of others.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Even with my past posts to the talk page of FAC, the page hasn't drawn a broader audience in the entire month I've been following. It seems as if people aren't interested in coming to the page unless they want a slot. Who else has shown up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, Sandy, remember all those AGF discussions? Now would be a good time to stop putting words in editors' mouths that their fingers didn't type. You have vastly more WP experience than I do, I thought we were to concentrate on the merits of the edits, not the editors. Leaving that aside, though, I don't see how discounting the removal percentage is going to attract people to this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceres

We have in the pending template Ceres (dwarf planet) claiming one anniversary point for the one year anniversary of the launching of a mission to the same; one point for notability. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a problem with the notability point. Wrad (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a problem with both, actually. The thing is, I don't think the launching date is significant unless it makes it there, and that won't happen for another seven years. Ceres is the smallest of the dwarf planets. It was the first asteroid discovered, but now it isn't an asteroid anymore. I think zero points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the notability point is fine. Ceres is included in most childrens' solar system books. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dawn (spacecraft) will be the first one to visit a dwarf planet, or a main body in the asteroid belt. Also, since minor planet=asteroid, Ceres is still the first asteroid to be discovered, and as a result, the name 1 Ceres. And yeah, Pluto is an asteroid. Nergaal (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Dawn isn't there yet, and Ceres isn't the first stop. I thought Pluto was a dwarf planet, not an asteroid? --Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Ceres has been added for 27 September, however, I was thinking about nominating the Elaine Paige article as that date marks 40 years since her West End debut. As it's 10-year multiples that makes 2 points, plus the 1 point as I, the requestor, haven't had any other article on the main page. Should I replace Ceres on the table? Eagle Owl (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is only a pending template; that doesn't put it on the table on the page. I went ahead and added it for you, plus another point for no recent musical theatre articles. It appears that you can't remove Ceres yet because Wehwalt disagrees with removing articles for which others have more points (even though two editors supported keeping the most likely on the template so it will remain brief and useful, see section below on "Pending template utility" for that discussion). If another MT articles comes up between now and then, that point would be lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see now. Thanks for your help. Eagle Owl (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty funny, Sandy, given that I PROPOSED deleting the lower point of two articles for the same date (see below) and you said you "see no reason to remove lesser points on same date, because if another article is scheduled in the interim, the higher-point article could lose points on similarity, resulting in the lower-point article becoming the higher one.." ROFL.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying per Wehwalt's request on my talk page. Wehwalt had just reverted my removal of the 0- and 1-pointers from the pending template when I wrote the post above,[1] which is what I was referring to, but if we're wikilawyering the language, Wehwalt seems to concur with removing lower-point articles from the template when there are others with higher points, even as he disagrees with removing zero- and one-pointers that will not likely ever make it to the requests page. As discussed in the section below and per his earlier revert of the template:

• Wehwalt disagreed with deleting one-point articles from the pending template, while I support removing them, as they clutter the template and there appears to be no chance that a 0- or 1-pointer will make it to the request page, as there are always multiple 3- and 4-pointers.
• Wehwalt supported removing the lower-point article from the template when there is a higher-point option. I disagree with that because if a subsequent article is scheduled that is similar, points can be deducted from later requested articles, and the higher-point article could become the lower-point article; hence, it doesn't hurt to carry both if one has at least two points, IMO.

The point was that Wehwalt had just reverted removals from the template, so EagleOwl should't remove an article from the template. I'm pretty sure all of this is covered in the section below, so I apologize for redundancy, but am clarifying and apologizing for any misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Wehwalt's position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well . . . it had been 2 1/2 days, but I'll accept that. Grudgingly, mostly due to your use of the term "wikilawyering" above, which rarely serves to calm things down.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some misinterpretation yes, I'm sure unintentional as said on my talk page by Wehwalt. Hopefully I can say that this bit of the dispute has been cleared up. I must say though, I agree with Sandy's two bullet points above; removing 0-1 pointers from the pending template, and I also agree with the "higher-point article could become the lower-point article" scenario. Eagle Owl (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my objection to the one point removals. I would suggest leaving up Tibet and Warsaw, simply because they predate even the implementation of the rookie nominator rule. As for the high/low for the same day, what if there is a three point differential? Or is that too much instruction creep?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If there are two articles on the template for the same date, and one has, say, 3 points more than the other, then the one with the lower points should be removed maybe? However, if there is only a 1 point difference, and that 1 point is precarious (as "if a subsequent article is scheduled that is similar, points can be deducted" etc) then it should be kept on the template. Thoughts? Eagle Owl (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because even a 3-point differential can change via subsequent scheduling: "Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points" (Perhaps what is obscuring the discussion is that the current example on the template is Planet and Dwarf planet, but they won't always be similar articles; even with a 3-point differential, the underdog could become top dog depending on other scheduling.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. It does not seem worth having a rule just for cases like Planet and Dwarf Planet, they should not seriously encumber the template. I suggest that we keep an eye on the template as articles start to "age out" and see how long the template is. Sandy, you've stated that you expect eight 5 and 6 point articles in October, I'm personally aware of a ninth (or it may be one of the eight, no idea). To get what seem like very worthy articles recommended for main page, perhaps we should assess how close we are to consensus on the bonus point for waiting until 15 days before.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As I look forwards and backwards (to what's coming relative to the lack of consensus on the six or seven proposals above), I see that our biggest stumbling block is not going to be the waiting, rather the whole ill-defined territory of how to decide which to remove based on "percentage" votes. Our current "percentage" concept is fairly useless, and puts us right back into that, whoever gets here first gets the slot problem. We have so many high-pointers coming up that we need a way to sort them, independent of points. I suggest we focus on developing a mechanism whereby "votes" are useful in determining who gets "voted off" when there are multiple high pointers, which I can see we are going to have in the future. Our percentage thingie isn't effective as it stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can probably go one better on this, by giving you a current example, to explain my reasoning. There are currently enough 4- 5- and 6-pointers on the template that we could replace the entire page with them (if we were in that business). But ... does the community want Wacko Jack on the mainpage on his 50th birthday? We won't know that until/unless he goes on the request page and people get to "vote"; it could be touchy. We aren't seeing a wide enough audience on this talk page to know how editors feel about articles in the template. If we defer that "voting" with the "delayed gratification" point, we could be putting off a problem until the last minute, resuling in a scramble to address something that should be decided sooner rather than later. See what I mean? By looking ahead, you can see the shortcomings in our system and proposals. We should be figuring out Michael Jackson now, not at the last minute, by encouraging the delayed gratification point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my proposal does require template inclusion, but there are now too many articles on the template and too few editors to have discussions on each. As for your sorting proposal, I've been thinking along the lines of giving an article one yes vote for each point it has, and if it falls below a certain percentage, it is toast. However, I've been unable to figure out a replacement mechanism for a new, untried article with the same or fewer points.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So, again, clearing the template of 0 and 1-pointers may help? But I'm having misgivings about the early inclusion on the template idea, because I'm seeing so little input on this talk page. Is it because it's summer, or is it because people just don't show up here until they want their article scheduled? It's bugging me that we have essentially the same four or five people regularly weighing in here; hopefully just a summer break phenom. I'm afraid we'll prejudice worthy articles if their nominators don't know to get on the template in advance. I didn't have that concern until I saw how little feedback this talk page is getting. No answers, no suggestions, just that I'm stumped again. Michael Jackson shows why I'm stumped. We need feedback that we're not getting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's improving. This talk page used to be totally dead. I'm impressed that we have at least five regulars. I rarely work on articles with that much dedicated discussion going on. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's encouraging; I've only peeked in on this page when there was ongoing imbroglio, so I wasn't aware it was typically quiet. So, using the Michael Jackson example, how can we improve the page? Michael Jackson could knock most of the current requests off the page right now, and then maybe or maybe not be voted off the island, making it a futile effort (and of dubious outcome if the page doesn't have more "voters"). My original thoughts were that we should be able to sort issues in advance, and that the template would help. I added him to the template, thinking it would generate a lot of discussion, but it hasn't. So ... ??? What next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried for a while to start discussion topics for each new addition, but I was afraid, with so many additions to the template, that it was all just too much. The incomplete discussions on the proposals are now well up the page, and no one has weighed in on them in a while now. I would say the 0 and 1 are pretty much a moot point. We currently have three, two of which are going to "age out" soon, I don't think they will make much of a difference to length. I would not oppose a minimum two-point requirement for the template, stated in the instructions. I would oppose such a limit for the project page. After all, someone might sneak in a one pointer to a last minute vacancy, and folks might just let it ride, knowing it would only occupy its space for a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me; unfortunately for them, the 0- and 1-pointers just may have to wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The best for Ceres is 1 January (especially 1 January 2011)—the date of discovery. Any other date is not relevant. Ruslik (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

With only 2 points, Ceres is currently a non-issue anyway; on 1 January it will have more points, so to that end, the system is working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not remove or archive the stuff with less than 3 points? Or perhaps add a rule to the template or to the page not to list stuff that has below a certain treshold. Nergaal (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because we don't yet feel confident that none of the 2-pointers would ever make it to the request page ... perhaps with more time, we'd be more comfortable losing the 2-pointers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Yao article seems to be holding on, so a two point can make it. Maybe it is the summer doldrums or relates to these pages getting relatively little traffic, but it's still there and could hold on to when Raul next schedules.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

U2

U2 has been added for September 25. While I have no problem with two of the points, I really don't think it can claim the Notable Topic point. While I have no doubt 12 year olds all over the world know of U2, and deservedly so, they aren't writing school reports on it. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur (with your 2 points, not 3). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I confess, I was trying to sneak that last point in there! I've changed it to two points based on discussion above. Wikipedia brown (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pending template utility

If the pending template grows too large, it will become less useful. Should we confine it to, for example, 2 points or more, and remove the 1-pointers? Or three points and above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I find "more than two points" a little harsh, especially considering that "two points" often means "two points and a disputed one", which can end up as a three-pointer. I say remove the one-pointers, which stand no chance anyway, and we shall see if any further limitations are needed. Let's go slow...

On another note, I was serious about that documentation page. The more articles are added to the template, the more the text above it grows in length. I'd like to see some restraint there as well. Waltham, The Duke of 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a problem, I propose the following:

1. Removing any article which has clearly fewer points than another (either in template or on project page) for the same date, unless contested on talk page.

2. Limiting editors to having two articles placed in the template at any one time, and only one if the editor has a request on the project page.

3. Removing articles from the template ten days in advance of the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice also that the Tibet and Battle of Warsaw articles were removed from the template. I don't think "they aren't going to make it" is a reason for removal. My understanding is that the template was not a waiting room, it is a forum to generate discussion. Someone might choose to put in a one pointer, and other editors might choose to respect that, and I think it would be helpful to have them on the template so that we have some idea what points were claimed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're hoping that Raul might find the template useful (and I don't know if he will), allowing it to grow to include articles that already have no chance of staying on the page isn't very useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That led to a point I was wondering about. Is one of the purposes of the template to give Raul fodder for articles, in a way additional to the five requests? Because I see one or two editors adding several requests to the template, and I'm wondering if the intent is really to request so many (probably not possible within the rules) or to hope Raul mines the template for articles and good anniversaries.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; my point is that if the template loses utility by growing to 60 articles, we can be fairly certain that Raul won't even look at it. But it also troubles me that the template is being loaded up by a few editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is why I suggested item 2 above. The editors in question can't possibly nominate all those articles, as you can only have one on the project page at a time. item 3 would make sure they couldn't game the system by effectively backdooring those articles to Raul (and ten days out, there may not be time for debate as you pointed out when I suggested the plus two for waiting that long to request). And item one gets rid of Everton and dwarf planet, which won't make it simply because they can't overcome the higher point request for the same date!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding:

1. See no reason to remove lesser points on same date, because if another article is scheduled in the interim, the higher-point article could lose points on similarity, resulting in the lower-point article becoming the higher one.

2. See no reason to limit editors using template, since many novices to the page aren't aware of the template or how to use it; it's useful to have page regulars updating the template.

3. See no utility in removing articles from the template ten days before; the point of the template is to see what's ahead. Removing them will not be helpful to page novices.

On the other hand, there is no utility that I can discern from carrying articles with one point on the template, since we've already seen it will always take at least two points to make it to the request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How many is too large? Halgin (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sandy is saying that if it grows to 60, we can be certain that Raul won't look at it. But, on the other hand, we have no idea if he does or not. I see no need to take any action at present. Sandy's put forth an idea (removal of articles with points less than two) and I've put forth some, and if it is out of control, we can consider them. Right not, though, we need to give it time. Remember, we've yet to have an article leave through "aging out", that is, Raul scheduling that date. They've mostly left either through withdrawal or moving to project page. Once articles start leaving through "aging out" at a regular pace, I think we'll see how many we have on an ongoing basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Battle of Warsaw (1920) removed for being a one pointer. Why was only this one pointer removed? Halgin (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The one-pointers were discussed again in the Ceres section, Wehwalt withdrew his opposition, and another editor concurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential points and timing for Restoration of the Everglades

I'm too stupid to learn, apparently. Like a fool, I requested To Kill a Mockingbird on the main page and swore I'd never do another main page article voluntarily again. Eh, well...

I'd like to propose Restoration of the Everglades for any day from mid September to late October. Yes, I am hoping for pre-election placement on a weekday. I'd like to make sure that there would be no conflict with placing it on the main page and that I have the points right, which to my count would be Notable topic +1, Underrepresented subject +1, similar article not featured on the main page 3 months +1 = 3 points. Is that accurate so far? Any other considerations? If it looks likely it should be placed, I will be contacting by phone as many experts on the topic as I can find to give suggestions regarding content accuracy. Would like to know if I should go ahead and do that. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well . . . I'd suggest picking a date. Is the reason for the date range you have chosen purely political? Because frankly, you'd do better if your purpose is merely to get it on the main page by waiting for December (anniversary of park dedication; anniversary of park expansion). I'm not sure about the point count either. I guess if you waited three months after Exmoor, you'd be three months clear of national park related articles . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an Everglades National Park article. The issues are related but not identical. Exmoor has not much to do with Everglades, and the article in question is not a national park. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A look-ahead at the points shows that it's probably going to become increasingly harder to get on the page with less than four points (if the page stabilizes and begins to work, more requests will show up), so while three points might do the trick, it's risky, and your best shot is to wait for a date connection. (I know of eight five- and six-pointers for October already, which is why we need a better defined voting/percentage procedure, but any attempts to refine that have been resisted.) You can always try, though; as far as the exact date, you could see what else shows up on the template, so you're not directly competing with another article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, Moni3 (and I agree with Sandy's point, and someone really needs to go through and see which ones are close to consensus) but no two articles are exactly the same, and whether or not they are "similar" is something that gets thrashed out on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this notable topic? You need to do more than say it is a notable topic. Halgin (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also be grateful for an answer to my question as to whether there is any other reason except political for main page placement on a weekday pre election. And, Halgin, I think you have a good point, the article about the Park might be a notable topic, but about its restoration? Iffy.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what do I do about Donald Bradman?

Genuinely concerned over this. At some time, I'm gonna plonk Bradman on the project page here, but it'll knock something else off. I've been trying to get my thoughts together about why this bothers me (using up a fair bit of your talkpage in the process, sorry Sandy) and I'm still not clear. What do people think? Should I wait or nominate it now? --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You should at wait least until the TFA is scheduled for August 8. It is should be soon. Maybe you can get slot without knocking something off. Halgin (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific date vs less specific vs no date at all

We get a good number of nominations where specific date is less relevant, tenuous or totally irrelevant. Should we have a way to nominate "un" or "less" specific dates? --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so; there are hundreds of those, and we have to draw the line somewhere. There are many other ways they can gain points (date is only one factor), so unless they are "worthy" of points in some other way, I think we can't hope to sort hundreds of articles waiting to get on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Next off ?

There are several pending requests with 4 points or more, and three requests currently on the page with questionable points and support (William IV of the United Kingdom, Peterloo Massacre and Augustus). Which is next to be replaced? I'm indifferent between the three, but this situation provides a working example of what needs to be resolved on this page. We have 4- and 5-pointers that could be used, but it's unclear which gets replaced next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Augustus. It is the three pointer with the lowest percentage. Those who seek to lower the points on William and Peterloo haven't achieved consensus (or even, I think, majority support), so I propose to treat them at their stated values.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's clear (I'm not saying it's not true, just highlighting a problem as to how we resolve issues on the page) ... because this page is getting little traffic, we haven't seen re-evaluation of "votes" based on subsequent scheduling, so we don't know (for example) if the 1 point on Peterloo Massacere is any more or less valid than the 3 points on Augustus. I 'spose we could test the sytem by just replacing one of them with the planet 4-pointer (or the Jackson 5-pointer if someone really wants to test the system), but since I've been very involved in these discussions, I don't want to be accused of pointy-ness, nor do I want to do the choosing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (By the way, if I were to express a personal preference, it troubles me that a 20-yr anniversary of a very notable fire -- the kind of article we rarely see on the mainpage -- is being overwhelmed by a preponderance of articles that are more ... "common" to the mainpage ... can't find the right word for what I'm after there, but they aren't as "different" as a historic fire.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict. These pages are long . . . but as far as I can see, only one person each favor lowering the points on Peterloo, and on William, and multiple editors have stated they don't favor it. I don't want to be pointy either, but at some point, the clock runs out. Admittedly, we lack an evaluation system for challenges, but at best, each is a minority view right now. As for the fires, look, we'll be losing multiple articles off the list in a week, someone can try inserting the fires then. If they want.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But the fire anniversary (August 20) is missed, while we have a proliferation of old dead guys kings royalty battles British hurricanes and planets. All too much of the same "overrepresented" articles on Wiki. Since one of our goals is to encourage mainpage diversity, there's a weakness in our points if the fire can't get on the page. We haven't had an article like that, and it's the only different thing on the list, yet we're missing a 20th anniversary for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, these are recommendations. By my estimate, eight a month. Raul can fill the other 23 (or all 31) with what he wants. And these are the recommendation of THE COMMUNITY. If the community wants to recommend eight video games a month, or eight Simpsons episodes, well, that's the community for you. In my opinion, "cumulative wisdom" is often asymptotic to zero. Rant off my chest, you have to let the community make its own mistakes--if such they are. And as for the fires, while the anniversary of "Black Saturday" would be nice to have, there are, as I recall from discussion, other dates of significance. It could be put in any time until early September. Back to main point--it is the community's choice which five at a time to recommend, and I think it is great that you're advocating for which ones you think should be there. But speaking as a lawyer, I well know, sometimes advocacy is in vain.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious how you come up with eight a month? By my notes (which could be wrong), in the month between July 16 and Aug 15, we get only four scheduled from the request page (Quatermass July 18, Minneapolis July 20, NASA July 29, and Ming August 8), and that is directly our fault, not Raul's. Way back in mid-July, the requests page filled up with requests that were four and five weeks out, occupying the slots and keeping any other requests off the page even though most of them had disputed points, meaning the page isn't currently functioning to give requests to Raul, because articles that get here first and hang on are still keeping other articles off. We still don't have an effective mechanism here. The community is not recommending because voting isn't working; the article that gets here first gets to keep everyone else off the requests page. Maybe things will change when summer breaks are over and we'll see more input ("voting") that will allow the community to make better use of the page ... not sure ... but I still think the voting threshold is set so high that it discourages community input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Startups are slow. With four articles in a week coming up, I think that eight is realistic for a monthly figure. Look, we have to do something or someone is going to remove an article in good faith but be reverted. I think we have to recognize that the challenges to the points in the disputed articles have not succeeded, and go forward on that basis. Otherwise, put the challenges in footnotes or a similar mechanism. We may be headed for a train wreck here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We may. My point in raising the issues has little to do with any particular request (I don't care that much about any of them), but to get editors to recognize that it is directly our fault, not Raul's, that only four articles were scheduled from the requests page in the month that I've been tracking (since July 16). Raul is following our requests, and if we don't fix it, I hope we don't later see editors coming in to blame Raul (which is what was happening when I started following this page). Raul has left it to the community, and the community hasn't fixed it. He's putting up what we give him, and we haven't done better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I know. But it is a systemic problem. Right now we need to put on a band-aid, and the only logical thing I see to do is to give these articles their full point value. Can we agree on that, without prejudice to the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that any particular point assignment right now is less problematic than the lack of a "voting" motivation, to encourage community input. We do need to find a way to label (in the chart) right now who is next off, and I don't want to opine on that issue because of past notions that I'm unduly influencing the page :-) But ... If it's almost impossible to vote an article off, why would anyone vote? I suspect that lowering our vote threshold might invigorate the page, making it more useful, allowing more articles on the page. Not lowering it too far, as that will lead to a different problem (vote stacking), but it's too high now, just a slight adjustment as a trial. (Always glad to grandfather so there won't be concerns about changing the rules in the middle of the game, the concern is to fix it long-term, not about any current articles.) Should we archive off to 10., all of the old proposals that gained no consensus, for a fresh start and less confusion to new readers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's archive off the ones that gained no consensus, keeping the ones where there were no oppose votes. But I think we need hard numbers in that box or confusion and train wrecks will result. I think we view the two efforts to lower votes as either not successful, or we remove the lower point value from the box without prejudice to any later-reached consensus to lower them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching the chart or opining on any article's current numbers: don't want to be accused of anything. I won't object if someone else is bold. A partial archive would be confusing, because too many of the proposal discussions referred to other parts of the proposal. I think if we archive any part of it, we need to start over, or else keep all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, should we archive through 12, Bradman? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm compelled to agree. It's a mess. Let's start over, using the ones that got significant support as guidance. I've made the adjustments to the table.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll archive then as soon as another editor concurs (or no one objects). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Table looks good. So, next, do we want to put the 5-point Jackson in for Augustus as a trial of the community vote? Or do we put in the "safer" 4-point Planet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Or do we put them both in, replacing Peterloo, knowing that Peterloo can come back if Jackson is voted off the island? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should test the system. I think we wait and see if anyone is sufficiently motivated to request them, and in Jackson's case, possibly have their head bitten off. I think we sit back and wait and see what happens. I hate to see valid articles lose their place for a "test".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If we replace Aug 16 and Aug 19 with Aug 24 Planet and Aug 29, the COMMUNITY will not get many on the page. Jackson get –2 points because of there was a musical group on July 31, so that so now it is a 3 pointer. Halgin (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that solves the Jackson issue (somebody update the chart !) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on Halgin's point, I think we are here to let the community make its choices and avoid being heavy handed in the process. Fires, or Jackson, or whatever, may well be worthy choices, but unless one of us chooses to request one of them, we should stay out of the way of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Point clarification

Do the points for anniversaries extend past multiples? For example, if I were to nominate Myst for September 25, would it get one point for date connection (initial release) or two points for anniversary (15 years since its release)? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One. You need a round number for more than that. Multiples of ten, fifties, or a hundred.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Myst would only get the one point, with a possible second point for rookie editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs a rookie editor? Tehehehehe ... sorry, David, but I'm cracking up here :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Glad that put you in a good mood, so now you won't go after Bradman for tying up a slot for three weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget, the only reason the community got to put up Yao Ming is because Bradman unselfishly held off for two weeks, when the cricket man coulda bumped the basketball man long ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Yao plays the bodyline and would have sent Bradman for a duck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No comeback, I'm cricket-ignorant :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So am I, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

veering this thread back on course :P... so, is that "points consulted a month before" going into effect? 'Cause then i could have a three-pointer! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we sorta gave up on all those proposals, and are hoping for a wider audience and a new set of proposals after summer breaks are over. None of them generated much consensus. On a practical note, two or three points wouldn't likely get you on the page anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dammit then, I'll wait 'till its flipping 20th anniversary, gather up my six points and have at you then! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Two. If you waited for its 100th anniversary, you'd have six. And I'll prestate my support for then!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, six or whatnot if you count how old an FA it'll be and that it'll prolly still be the only TFA i put up... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa ... are you saying (rookie editor?) that with all your FAs, you've never had a TFA ??? Have none of your FAs ever appeared? Check the list at WP:WBFAN for starters ... maybe you are a rookie after all ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicxulub crater appeared as TFA on January 8 of this year. Damn, damn, damn. Sandy, I was going to come back at you with "He who laughs last, laughs best." Now I can't. darn. :P --Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to best the Holiday Inn Express ... can't top that one ... shoulda had a V-8? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How did I miss Chicxulub getting on the main page? That would explain the really random amount of vandalism it got, but still... my head musta' been elsewhere. So much for rookie me :( On the plus side, Sandy, I'm whipping up an FA candidate that isn't a video game, so be ready for the freezing over of hell in the next few weeks. Thanks for the clarifications, all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Age since promotion

There's a problem in the instructions wording:

Age (since promotion to featured article) ...

That wording could be used to give points to an article that has already run on the main page (say promoted in 2005 and run on the mainpage in 2006), when the intent was to give points to articles that have been waiting the longest to appear on the main page. Because it doesn't exclude articles that have already run on the mainpage, there's a large loophole in the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• It might just be then that we don't have a deduction for being on the main page. Perhaps -2 points for articles which have been Featured on the main page in the past two years? CB (ö) 06:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that any articles that have already featured on the main page would be automatically disqualified from running a second time, while there are many articles that have not yet featured once. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've spotted a couple of ambiguities on the instructions. For example, the instructions do not clearly state that for a replacement to take place, the new article must have more points than the old article. Perhaps this weekend, I'll work on a revised set of instructions and see if there's agreement. No changes, simply cleaning up the language. And yes, no double bites at the apple.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst Raul could IAR for some exceptional circumstance or other, this page shouldn't be considering 2nd runs; not while there's such a large backlog of articles that have never appeared. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't quote me, but I think that although Raul has never run a TFA twice, he has not said he would never do that. It remains a very unlikely possibility, but yes, we need to fix the loophole(s). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity in project page instructions

To straighten out ambiguous language, I propose we change the project page instructions as possibles (deletions struck out, additions in bold). I do not think this is controversial, and I propose we implement as soon as people have time to comment.

At top of page: (first three paragraphs to remain the same):

If there are already five articles requested and if the article that you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may replace it, giving an explanation of how the points are awarded and the total. In the case of multiple requests or tied points, reviewers will debate to achieve consensus on which article should be replaced. according to the instructions below.

Adding Requests:

Please nominate only one article at a time. The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article. Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. The archive of previously featured articles is here. If there are already five requests, and the article you propose to add has more points than than one of the articles already requested you may remove a request (explaining in your post the claimed point total) and add yours according to the following: ( remainder of section to remain the same.

--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it will include all the links, on quick glance, looks fine. Except we do need to remind requestors to explain their points, so I'm not sure why you struck that part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

points in edit summary? ugh ... page gets a lot of traffic, hard to find. Points should be part of post, as originally stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Modified. Also added the no double jeopardy rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. But :-) Are we sure we want to exclude previous TFAs from the page, or do we want to dock points from them? They remain a remote possibility. I thought we would just clarify that the point additions for time since featured only apply to articles which haven't run before. Again, concerned that Raul has not said he would never re-run a TFA, just that he never has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Exclude them. If Raul wants to exercise his discretion (which I think could happen if a major major event, a big disaster or assassination happened) that is his business. With 950 articles waiting their turn, I don't see any reason for "seconds".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine why an article would be featured twice on the Main Page, even if it was de- and re-featured in the meantime. I should be more comfortable if the Director could comment on whether he has any reason to keep double TFA-ing an open possibility for articles, but I believe some practices are so well established that they are unlikely to change. (Remember that most of the British constitution is unwritten.) And, as Wehwalt says, even if it happens, this is purely the Director's prerogative. We have no business implicitly encouraging people to bring articles for second helpings of the Main-Page publicity pie.

Personally, I believe that it would unacceptable for Wikipedia to display an article twice on the Main Page as a response to an event, no matter how momentous; as an encyclopaedia, we should be neutral and not show signs of evaluating events as more important than others. (Not to mention the recentism something like that would imply; hardly an encyclopaedic thing to do.)

That said, if we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of witnessing the beginning of World War III, we could, perhaps, bend the rules a little and feature Evolution for a second time. Fitting last TFA, don't you think? Waltham, The Duke of 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, somebody better bring the "amoeba" article up to speed, and we'll honor our successor as the dominant form of life on Earth. Anyway, I've implemented the changes, making a slight grammatical change (inserted word "if" so as to read "and if the article you propose . . . "--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

With over 960 articles waiting their turn and growing, I don’t see any reason that the community should request re-run TFA. If that backlog go down then the community can reevaluate the rule. A nominator that replaces an article should explain the claimed point total. (Halgin (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)).

Well, with the present arrangements, there is only one way to get that backlog down... I'll leave you do the honours. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 18:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Plea for help

I'm a total novice when it comes to nominating something for the front page and I have two questions:

1. How can I request a specific date quite a long way in advance...December 22 to be precise? 2. How many points would I get for Sunderland Echo? I have never nominated a front page article before and, if Dec 22 is agreed, it would be the 135th anniversary of the paper. The only other FA newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, was on the front page in March, so there would be nine months between them.-- Seahamlass 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, welcome! You can't request that far in advance. I would think you would have four points, one for anniversary, two for no similar within six months, one for rookie editor. I suggest that after October 22, you come back and add the article to the template above. Then, when it falls within the thirty day timespan (details in the instructions), see if it is possible to add the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for the info...just what I needed!-- Seahamlass 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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... [2] - thanks for the comments guys. —Giggy 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

We have some inconsistency in the summary chart application.

1. In earlier discussions, it was decided that regulars updating the page would use the notes to indicate the next removed, making it easier for newcomers to the page to understand how to replace an article. Today, an editor with his own request on the page, who earlier added "next to be removed" to another article similar to his request, [3] deleted the same wording from his own request. [4]

2. Earlier use of the chart included noting oppose percentages, but the same editor noting earlier (lower) oppose percentages on other articles [5] [6] has now removed an oppose percentage on his own request.[7]

If the page is to useful to requestors, the community and Raul, consistency should be a goal. Earlier consensus was to flag "next to be removed" for newcomers to the page, and editors changing applications to defend their own requests on the page don't bode well for whether the community is ready to assume responsibility for mainpage scheduling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, as August 21 has been scheduled (and I notice that both of the articles Raul did not schedule had significant oppose percentages), it strikes me as a moot point. However, since at the time, there were fewer than five requests on the page, there was no purpose in having "next to be removed" next to any article. If the template had been filled, that would have been a different story. Frankly, I'm more concerned about your unilaterally and without discussion (or even a descriptive edit summary) reducing the number of points on the William article (and not on the Augustus article; Aug 19 had not yet been scheduled)[8] which rather confuses me because you said the Augustus article was too much royalty[9] which is also what you said when I nominated William[10]. The Battenberg article, by your own logic, would affect both articles identically, and I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you chose to give William your special attention in that manner. Presumably both articles should have suffered a point reduction by your stated position, and it would have been logical to do Augustus first, as first in date order. In the event, you chose not to do Augustus at all. I should also note that you previously put up William's oppose percentage gratuitiously.[11] when it certainly wasn't the next to be removed, so I'm unclear if your actual practices are consistent with what you are calling upon us to observe.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please do away with the new system?

Okay, this page has confused me, a first for a Wikipedia process, I must say. This page is quite unlike any of the other processes on Wikipedia—nowhere else do you find a point system, kicking off older entries in favor of new ones, and all of this. I think that the strict limit of 5 entries on this page hampers its ability to do its job effectively. For example, last night I attempted to nominate an article for September 1, and got reverted because I didn't demonstrate that I had more points than the page I removed, or something like that. Which, really, I didn't want to remove the old page, but I had to, and I'm not sure why. The page I removed wasn't for September 1. Again, I point at all the other processes on Wikipedia, where you basically just throw up a heading and underneath that, there's a consensus-determining discussion. Quite simple and it seems to do the trick everywhere else, why does this need a more bureaucratic process?

I understand there are some vital things you guys need to pick up on like anniversaries, time since last similar article and all that, but it's unwiki for it to be all boiled down arbitrarily to some number which determines whether a request lives or dies. Reducing stuff to a number takes the human element out of a discussion and that's not the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. Also, for someone unfamiliar with the points system (me) it really seems quite boggling and difficult to understand. The "time since last similar page" criteria seems especially tedious, requiring research through the TFA archives for similar pages. If I'm going to have to do research, I'd prefer it go toward improving the mainspace directly.

I would advocate replacing the system with something similar to WP:FAC or even one of the many deletion processes (hey, WP:MFD seems to still be chugging along with more than 5 entries on there, they must have done something right) or even the old system that was in place here—I was only an occasional user of it so I'm not sure how well it worked for the maintainers, but using it was pretty simple and I managed to use it successfully. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the current system seems to cause ill feeling and confusion, I'd be happy to see a new system. I have no idea what it would be though. Feel free to make a proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO it's not this process per se that's causing the (undoubted) ill-feeling and confusion; that's being caused by its underlying rationale. However, looking just at this process it seems clear that the combination of voting and a points system leads to a great deal of confusion. Why not lighten the ceremony and just develop a points system applied to as many candidates are put forwards for the currently open slot. Limiting the candidates to five because that's all that Raul will accept is putting the cart before the horse. Just pick the five top-scoring candidates at the end of the cycle, and forget all the largely irrelevant argey-bargey of voting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Killing the 5 article rule and letting consensus decide is what I've always wanted here. Wrad (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The 5 article rule is problematic, I agree. My preference though would be to elaborate on the points system so that editor's wouldn't have to waste their time arguing about what is, after all, pretty small beer. As many nominations as you like, top five point-scrorers at the end of the cycle are proposed to Raul. Job done with minimal fuss or drama. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a step in the right direction. Wrad (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how you filter or otherwise pick which ones I see - as long as when I sit down to schedule requests, I only have to deal with at most 5 of them.

A secondary concern is that Sandy is now spending ever-more time maintaining this page, which is something I'd like to see remedied. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of her time is spent dealing with headaches over what to take out. This might help. Wrad (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

<-(5x edit conflict) Right, I think the 5 article rule is one of the biggest problems of the current setup. As I noted above, I had to replace an article nominated for a day in August with my nomination for September 1. I was reverted because my nomination had fewer points than the one it replaced. That means that my nomination was in 'competition' with the one from August, which it shouldn't be, because I didn't want the spot that the other article had.

As for a proposal, I think a viable option would be to do something similar to WP:IFD and have a subpage for each day. Put the nominations up on the daily subpage (if you want August 22 you put your nomination on the August 22 subpage), each nomination under their own header, then everyone !votes support/oppose on them. Do away with the points—while those things are good to consider, they should be considered by the people commenting on them and used to back up their position, same way that people on the deletion processes use various policies to back up their positions. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott - see my above comment, re: "as long as I don't have to deal with more than 5 at a time". Your proposal violates this condition. Therefore, it is not acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This process is already too time-consuming as it is, as Raul said above. Let's just work out a proper points system and make it almost automatic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wrote my proposal before I learned of Raul's desire to deal with only 5 of them at a time (edit conflicts). I'm sure we could find some way of staggering the outcomes so that the scheduling works easier for him...possibly have all discussions end 1 week before the proposed day or something so at most he'd only have one article to add to the schedule each day.

That said, I think that it should only be automatic nominate-and-forget when your nomination is unopposed. I think that whenever two or more articles are competing for the same slot there should actual consensus-attaining discussion like elsewhere.

I'll post to VP to try and attract some more people with some ideas for designing a process that works well for all involved. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You've kind of reinforced what I was saying about misunderstanding the underlying rationale. Raul wants to be given a batch of (no more than) five FAs to be considered when he sits down to schedule the main page for the upcoming month. He doesn't want to be given an article for each day. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood the rationale myself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What if we were to vote on one FA a week, with the fifth in a month reserved for some sort of wild card? Scrap the whole point system and leave it up to editors. Or if the wild card idea is no good, just vote on one every six days. In case of a tie, we go with the oldest FA. That removes a lot of the contention, and frees up time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Raul doesn't necessarily schedule every week, and that he's asked for a bunch of (no more than) five at a time. Scrap the voting and and go with a developed points system is my suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but we have no good way of dealing with disputes. Which is why I would scrap the notable topic point as too subjective, and refine the "similar article" to, say, categories, with the periods reduced to account for the smaller number of categories. If we can eliminate the subjectivity, then we can make our lives a lot easier.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite. It really doesn't have to be the morass of confusion that it presently is. A simple, straightforward points system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what I've proposed below. We might want to adjust the point system from time to time (as in Sandy's "Once in a blue moon" proposal for rare events), but it would take most of the heartburn out of things.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A good start. But on the subject of "once in a blue moon", Raul can handle those events himself. This process is simply making five suggestions for the next scheduling cycle, any of which may or may not appear on the main page on the suggested day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, leave that aside there. I'm afraid that if we fiddle with the point system as preparation to adopting something like I've proposed below, we'll never get to stage 2, judging by how tied up we got when we had some proposals last month. If we go with something like below, we are making efficient use of what we are allowed to do, and Raul is free to troll through the other articles on the page which have not made the top five.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the distinct impression that we're struggling to agree that we agree. All that needs to be done so far as I can see is to agree on the points system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with the point system we have now, as modified below. We can refine later. If you have an alternative, I'd probably agree with that too.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you and I could quickly come up with a points system that we could both agree on, to be fine-tuned as necessary, and agree that was the right way to introduce some sanity to this process. But probably we need to hear from a few others before we declare victory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason we're not able to do away with voting or any community consensus mechanism is that just about every point assignment mechanism that has been put in place has been gamed, so points are often challenged: hence, the need for community input. Alternatives are to either eliminate any option for any discretionary decisions by the community (items like notability) with wrote mechanisms and strict definitions for point tallies, or continue to allow the community some means of input and correction when points are gamed. As long as the system allows for points to be gamed, it will also need to include a mechanism for community input, and hoping that we can just put up the articles based on maximum points will remain an optimistic but not usually achievable goal. Also, the five-article rule is not the core problem here; what has been pretty clear is that, whether five or fifty, the issues will be the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so my proposal below has a dispute resolution mechanism, if there is a dispute, there's an up or down vote on the dispute. That seems to resolve your concern, Sandy. And it frees up your time, which was Raul's concern above, that you had to devote too much time to keep this page running.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes ... I think it will mostly work, or at least is worth a try. I'm disappointed that it takes some "voice" away from the community, by making tallies cut and dried. There was a time I hoped that community consensus would be more important than mechanistic point tallies, but it's time to try something else; we're just not getting enough community input here, and anything that isn't cut and dried has always led to issues. As to my time, I wanted to closely follow this page long enough to figure out what was happening here, and that took several cycles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 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: [12] [13] 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)

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)

Wow

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