Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

; Archives
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Short FAs, 32 Short FAs cont., 33, 34 Context and notability, 35, 36, 37

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list

Short articles - what are reviewers doing?

I have looked at a series of FACs from the last six weeks or so, from articles that could be said to fall into the "short" category for one reason or another:

New York State Route 28N - Commenter raised concerns about prose, summary style, lack of context on the route and missing information on its impact. Promoted.
Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) - Primarily copyediting and formatting concerns raised at FAC; Promoted.
StarCraft: Ghost - General concerns, including whether article could be submitted to FAC (a short discussion ensued on a talk page linked from the FAC), comprehensiveness, sourcing, and copyediting. Promoted.
Mark Speight - Concerns raised by reviewers were prose, comprehensiveness, excessive detail regarding death, lack of context for the reader regarding television show; Withdrawn.
Hurricane Kate (2003) - Discussion over which hurricane articles should be at FAC; apparently, some Wikiprojects discuss the topic themselves. Not promoted.
Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States - Reviewers question whether or not the article can be merged with parent article. Withdrawn.
Hurricane Hernan (2008) - Reviewers question the quality of the prose, particularly overly detailed meterological history. Not promoted.
New York State Route 311 - Reviwers question the quality of the prose, what one calls "padding"; one reviewer also points out details that were left out of the article because of incomplete research; Not promoted.
Space Science Fiction Magazine - Reviewers ask for context for the magazine; frustration that there isn't more information available to answer questions that reviewers have about influence, distribution, etc.; reviewers ask that more on content of magazine be added, such as titles of stories; suggestions for merger; Not promoted. In her closing statement, SandyGeorgia wrote: "As the discussion about short articles continues, I don't consider this a final sentence on this or any other "short" article"

The first thing to note is that reviewers are still concerned about the issue of "short" articles and they are trying to find a way to deal with them. We need to resolve this issue. The second thing to notice is that different reviewers are hitting on the same solution: for an article to be "comprehensive", it has to appropriately place the subject in context, it has to be well-balanced, and (interestingly) it has to avoid excessive detail. Two of these qualities are already clearly covered by the FA criteria, but the bit about context is not. I therefore propose that we define "comprehensive" as "neglects no major facts or details and includes relevant background information". Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a "major fact"? Wrad (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is already in the FA criteria. I suggest we stick to debating the changes right now. Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the addition of "relevant background information". To me, that separates short articles from short articles that deserves the FA star. In fact, I have a favourite short article of my own that I hope to be able to bring ro FAC fairly soon which I think demonstrates that point nicely. But then I would think that, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Utah_State_Route_103/archive1 is another example. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good proposal. Wrad (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Awadewit's effort to re-initiate and focus the unresolved discussion; watching the FA community go at each other over this issue has not only been concerning, but I'm noting that this shadow of discussion, going back to last month, hanging over FAC is affecting our promotion numbers. I'm sorry that FACs are withdrawn, with hurt feelings, before the community really has sufficient time to weigh in on the nomination, and I hope that this issue will get sorted so that clarity about 1b will emerge and help avoid hurt feelings. The last discussion fractured too many different directions, so I hope efforts to move the discussion forward will be successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I am not sure what these terms mean. For example, the focus of the Mark Speight article seemed all out of whack to me. Would "it has to appropriately place the subject in context" take care of that? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many issues were raised in that FAC: the lack of balance could be addressed (and was raised) using the summary style criteria. Other reviewers raised a separate point: readers would not properly understand the man's career without more context. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that our promotion rate is slowing. As a project, we've started to take a closer look at shorter articles, and are having trouble getting larger topics passed. When you eliminate them, how many articles are left? As for Awadewit's idea, she is on the money as usual. However, I don't think this should be applied to short articles only; it should apply for all articles that strive to be our best work. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear - I think this new phrase should be added to the FA criteria, which would apply to all FACs. Awadewit (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would any recent FAs be under threat of a future FAR due to the change? Wrad (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think we should let that stop us even if that were to happen. We should decide on the criteria we want and think are the best. Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting a couple more for archival purposes: the discussion of short articles began with Tropical Storm Erick (2007), which was withdrawn, and Utah State Route 103, also withdrawn. Also User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if the clause is added to the criteria, what would be (or would have been) the effect on the short article FA/FACs above? I think we should have tougher criteria. Concerning Sandy's comment about promotion rate dropping: we should strive for quality and not quantity. If better quality, fully comprehensive articles are getting through and not-so-good ones are weeded out, then all the better. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what this proposal does? Add tougher criteria? Wrad (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key issue is what we intend by saying an article is featured. I believe it originally meant "a subset of Wikipedia articles that are the best we have to offer and which are deserving of being featured on the main page". It still means that to many of us. The alternative, which I think some would prefer, is "articles that cannot be improved any further because they are as good as can be achieved". Obviously the latter interpretation allows more in the way of short articles.

My preference has been for the latter interpretation, mainly because I feel we need something that indicates that state, and "featured" is the closest thing we have. However, if it is to be the former, then I'd like to make that clear. If changing the criteria is the best way to do that, then that's fine. However, the argument against giving Space Science Fiction Magazine featured status that I found most convincing was that it should be merged to an article on the parent company, Republic Features Syndicate. I want to think about Awadewit's proposed wording a bit more, but I'm not opposed in principle. But would specifically allowing opposes at FAC on the basis that the reviewer believes the article should be merged to another article serve the same purpose? Mike Christie (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commend Awadewit for bringing up an actual, concrete suggestion. I hope we consider adding Awadewit's phrase, along with a full discussion of the meaning of the "criteria".

Do we all agree on what the terms in the "criteria" mean? Yes, articles should appropriately place the subject in context; I see many articles passed where this is not done. I also see articles passed that are not well-balanced and that go into excessive detail. Many editors seem very clear on what the criteria mean. Do the editors' various versions of the criteria agree? I stare at the criteria frequently and puzzle. To me the criteria are vague.

Since I have only been on Wikipedia since April, 2006, I do not know what the criteria were in 2005. However, it is clear from looking at some FA's from 2005 that, aside from the footnote issue, articles were not required to be well-balanced then. It would be wonderful if we could clarify all this now. The words in the criteria, without clarification, mean little. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FA criteria seem vague because some of the terms, e.g. "brilliant", "comprehensive", etc., are subjective. Awadewit's proposal to give a tighter definition of "comprehensive" is an obvious improvement. But I doubt that it will lead to any resoluton of the concerns about short articles, unless the concept of "notability" is also addressed. The Wikipedia notability bar is low – rightly so, to allow the widest range of articles to be included in the encyclopedia. But should the notability hurdle be higher for prospective featured articles? This isn't anti-short article, but a recognition that as things stand an inconsequential article with very little content can meet the criteria (even with Awadewit's added words) and be presented as an example of Wikipedia's best work. That, I believe, is the underlying concern behind this whole debate. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems analogous to arguing that a large piece of jewellery embodies greater workmanship (our best work) than a smaller piece, when in fact the reverse is just as likely to be true. There are some subjects on which there is relatively little information available, and if they're historical very likely that no further information will ever be available. I don't see why that makes them "inconsequential", or unworthy of FA status. "Very little content" does not equate to short, in the pejorative sense it seems often to be used in these discussions, if that's all the content there can ever be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I had hoped we'd got away from using short as a synonym for unsatisfactory, but apparently not.

On Awadewit's proposed wording change: it tightens things up a little, but, just as now, reviewers must be prepared to object on their own interpretation of the wording if we are to weed out the articles that are somehow deficient. I don't object to it, but I don't think it is a particularly helpful in solving the problem (on the down side it could cause problems with "long" articles which may now have to include more background detail, forcing the size up further). Personally, I still think the crux of the matter lies in the ability (or willingness) of the editors to find sources. When the reviewers can identify areas in which an article is lacking, what is it reasonable to demand of the editors by way of filling the deficiency? At the moment it appears that a statement of "No sources are available which cover that area" is often taken at face value and the objection voided. Unfortunately, this topic brings us back to the straw poll which killed off the discussion last time. Yomangani ^talk 14:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight. If about ten erudite wikipedia editors (some of them professors and authors on the subject) come to a consensus after months of debate and research that the scope of an article is highly limited, the article can still be featured I presume? Can consensus among subject experts override reams of data that the "comprehensive" criteria usually demands? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I support Awadewit's clarification of "comprehensive" as I have felt some note on inclusion of context was necessary, especially for more esoteric articles. Am not sure about Nichalp's question above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Wrad's question, I meant that the criterion should be even tougher than Awadewit's proposal. As I said (and Brianboulton stated as well), the added clause will likely have little effect on the short articles coming through now. I agree with Brianboulton that unless bar on notability is raised, we will continue to have this problem. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's address these issues. I believe that if we are clear on the criteria, the issue of size will take care of itself. Perhaps, as suggested above, there should be a stricter requirement for "notability", just as FAC has stricter requirements for all the MoS nit picky stuff. Why should we fixate on MoS nit picks to pass an FAC article, when notability is so very easily satisfied and not really addressed? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is boiling down to: do we want every article on Wikipedia to have the potential to become featured? The idea that featured articles are the "best Wikipedia has to offer" suggests that not all articles can be contained within that category, so, in my opinion, it is fine to restrict the category in any number of ways. If we want to institute a higher notability bar than Wikipedia, that is simply another restriction. Clearly, for example, we are much more rigorous about prose, the MOS, and reliable sources than other parts of Wikipedia. Nothing is preventing us from saying "we don't think this is notable enough to be called the 'best of Wikipedia'". Is this what we want to do? Do we want to start drafting a notability criterion? Awadewit (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an article meets WP:N, why can't it become featured? I stand by my previous statements (not from this particular discussion) that FAs are "Wikipedia's best work", not "Wikipedia's most important work". –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Awadewit, basically, yes, as far as I am concerned. And, pace Malleus Fatuorum and Yomangani, I am not against short articles. I am against inconsequential articles of very little content (and I could name some) that try to get featured because there's nothing in the present rules to stop them. Raising the notability bar for featured articles seems an obvious solution. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N intentionally has a very low bar so as to be as inclusive as possible. Why should FAC demand such a high bar regarding dashes, citation formation, linking, prose, etc. that certainly is not inclusive, yet have no bar at all, basically, for perhaps the most important aspect of an article, the notability of the content? I agree that attempting to set criteria for notability is tricky and that no particular topic should be excluded per se. However, this route seems preferable to me than discussions about article length. Can we at least discuss this? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal ignores the discussion last time about unknown, and now unknowable, facts. Plato's date of birth etc. This has to be sorted. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last discussion got bogged down, we are trying new avenues. Sometimes starting a discussion in a new direction is better than rehashing an old one. We never really considered the notability angle last time. I think we should give it a chance. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that, although I can't see anything about notability in the proposal. Nevertherless the old issues don't go away. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first proposal was to add new language to the criteria. The second proposal was to discuss/add a notability criteria. The hope is that the old issues might be solved with one of these new proposals. Let's at least discuss them. Awadewit (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed my opinion on the likelihood of FAC producing a workable notability criterion from what it was when Ling.Nut raised in this discussion back in March. Mattisse's claim that the question of notability is "so very easily satisfied" sounds like wishful thinking to me. Yomangani ^talk 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from Yomangani in that debate, "we struggle to define a binary notability measure for use in AFD so trying to produce a graded one for FAC is highly unlikely to be successful". I think in principle a notability criterion for FAC might be a way to delimit "showcasable articles" from "articles that are the best they can get but aren't showcasable". I agree with Yomangani that in practice ~~doubt~~ it would probably not work. Mike Christie (talk)

Guys, this is a bit disheartening. We all agree there is a problem. Can we at least try, momentarily, to work through a solution? If that solution doesn't work, fine. But let's try first. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken record time, reiterating Awadewit's concern. WP:WIAFA, 1b currently says:

1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;

Does that need adjustment, refinement, or tightening? Even at AfD, notability is hard to pin down: examining what it means to be comprehensive for FA purposes is within FACs domain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability issue won't go away just because it's hard to pin down. But let's deal with Awadewit's proposal first. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Sandy, I believe the comprehensive criterion is fine as it is. Adding Awadewit's context criterion is good, but it will not deal with the problems that we have now. IMO, we should try to address the notability issue first and I believe it will be a separately numbered criterion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a long discussion: methinks I'd best start manually archiving the page again :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an improvement, we should still make it, right? :) Even if there are issues to deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make this teensy improvement. Awadewit (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have a proposal for the notability criterion, but I will hold on until after the context criterion is done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit's "context" proposal

Awadewit's initial proposal that we add a context criteria is awesome and we should add it. Something like: "The article provides adequate background and context on the subject." Wrad (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as she said, "neglects no major facts or details and includes relevant background information". Let's add it. People are already applying this criteria naturally, anyway, and that's how criteria should be born. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrad, Re: "let's add it"; the discussion is only 24 hours old, on a weekend. Last time, the discussions got sidetracked partly by moving too fast to polls before everything had been ironed out. There's no hurry; we should hear all voices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above was getting out of control, so I decided to refocus it in a new section with a more specific heading. If I had wanted it added NOW, I would have said "Let's add it now", but I didn't. I fail to see how I did anything wrong at all, so please don't chide me for trying to help when no one else seemed to be paying attention to what this whole discussion was originally about. I didn't start a poll. All I did was refocus things, so I really don't see what you're trying to tell me, here. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no chiding there, Wrad, although we're all free to let our imaginations run wild. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis for disagreement here. The fact that this formula won't solve everything is irrelevant - it is a small step forward, away from stasis. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Awadewit compiled reviewers' complaints, she noted that 'for an article to be "comprehensive", it has to appropriately place the subject in context.' I think the word "context" is important to include. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time imagining what sort of necessary background information would not fall under the existing requirement for the inclusion of all major facts and details. Requiring the inclusion of minor factors or minor details does not seem to me a good policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new suggestion says nothing about "minor facts or details". We are simply elucidating on what we mean by "comprehensive", as this has been a problem recently at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that minor facts or details may be required, since evidently the inclusion of all major facts and details - which is already required - is not itself sufficient. The other problem with your proposal is that it fails to address how much relevant background information is required - is it one cited fact? Or all relevant background information (which would create significant conflicts with the use of summary style)? Basically I am having trouble understanding what your addition actually says that is not already there. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking frankly, there are competing visions of what should and what should not be permitted to become FA. The general idea is, are FAs Wikipedia's very best articles, or is any article that is as good as it can be eligible to be FA? In practice, this ideological cleft is being expressed in perhaps a couple different areas, but by far the most clearly delineated cleft is in the area of Short Articles. In response, some ideas have been proposed. The idea of two levels of FA has come up and... apparently it has also died for purely practical reasons (not enough reviewers). There is a related strand of thought, apparently manned only by Gimmetrow, that asks, "Should we leave WP:WIAFA alone & distinguish merely between what should and should not be allowed on the Main Page?" But that one also is not within the purview of the folks who are present. Raul and only Raul decides. And even if Raul did devolve that power out to the masses, this would generate a new process with new rules sucking up more and more time of a limited supply of reviewers and other contributors. So the battleground is WP:WIAFA. If I understand your point, it is a correct one: the current wording of 1b does in fact logically entail all of the new proposed text regarding background & context. But applying rules requires more than disembodied logic; it sometimes requires concrete guidance that instantiates and clarifies the perceived intent of the rule. Hence the new verbiage: it's an initiative from folks who think that short articles must be given concrete guidance on the question, "How short is too short?" An article is too short if it doesn't have background and context. Furthermore, the background and context must be fairly well-developed and adhere tightly to the unity of the topic at hand. Is that.. what you want to hear? :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes to all of that, but I agree with Christopher Parham and Gimmetrow. I don't actually know yet what any one of the three versions of new proposed wording means operationally, how they solve the problems that have been mentioned, or how we will determine if objections on the basis of these proposals are actionable. In fact, they all could be interpreted as contradictory to crit 4, the need to stay tightly focused on the topic, by actually encouraging extraneous detail to be introduced into articles (detail that might belong better in sub-articles). I understand what you all are aiming for, but I don't yet see how any of these three versions accomplishes that aim; can someone give me an example of how these sample wordings would be applied, and what we mean by terms like "appropriate", "relevant" and "adequate"? If the goal is to say that we expect certain kinds of background info for bios, for example, I'm not yet seeing how this wording accomplishes that. If someone could give a concrete example, based on a past closed FAC, it might help the block I'm having at seeing what you all are aiming for here. I am not seeing what this wording accomplishes or what it changes, but I do see a potential problem in that it seems to call for info that might better be excluded per summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could look at the FACs that I listed above where reviewers asked for more context. I generated this proposal from what reviewers were asking for. I would like to point out that we are never going to come up with a precise definition of "relevant". Reviewers and nominators are going to have to come to a consensus about that. (You can't define "brilliant prose", either, for example.) Awadewit (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The only rule that would speak directly to the heart of the Short Articles prob would be a hard-coded wordcount rule, coupled with vigilant enforcement existing rules or guidelines regarding coatracks, trivia, summary style, etc. But then we have other probs. Which tack seems better to you? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suspect it can be done with wording and without hard-and-fast rules: I just don't see that the wording is doing it yet. Lacking is what kind of context and background is being asked for, so we're not violating crit 4, summary style, and tight focus. What seems better to me? I'd rather leave the wording proposals to the many pros on board: just saying I have the same issue that Gimme and Christopher Parham expressed, that I don't yet see what this wording adds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: The "Short Articles Prob" is imaginary. Every time we discuss articles where we feel that promotion was or would be somehow be inappropriate people start trying to address length as if it is the problem, yet nobody has been able to specify why short articles are in themselves problematic. If you can bear to look back through the archives, you'll see that the proposal for a Short FA process didn't die purely from lack of reviewers. Trying to impose a solution that is length-based is lazy and won't solve the problems.

The criteria for the most part don't provide set boundaries. They are always interpreted by the reviewers and the editors. Their application varies from review to review and reviewer to reviewer. The 1(b) criterion as it stands already logically encompasses the proposed wording change it is true, but clarifying it by adding any of the proposed wording changes gives less wiggle room to those wishing to wiggle. I don't believe this really touches the problems in itself but it doesn't do any harm. Yomangani ^talk 10:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. But what, in your view, is the problem? Mike Christie (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a bit distracting to start expounding on that before we've sorted out this bit, but I'm more than willing to come back to it. Yomangani ^talk 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re, the "no harm" argument, I'm thinking of several FACs I've read where "background" information was requested in very long articles, when adding that information might trigger crit 4, length, tight focus on topic and summary style, and where it could very well be argued that the information better belonged in sub-articles. This is my concern: whatever it is you all are asking for, please make sure it's clear that it won't conflict with crit. 4. Imagine if you came to WIAFA with no awareness of this discussion: would you understand the competing requests of whatever ends up at 1b and what is now at 4? And, if words like "appropriate", "adequate" and "relevant" are added, is it possible to specify relevant to what, appropriate how, etc.? I disagree that the current criteria contain unactionable adjectives: a "brilliant" prose Oppose gives me no problem when four reviewers pop up examples of dull, prodding prose (it's usually clear). I don't yet know what is meant here by some of the proposed adjectives. The problem could be the lack of examples given in the disussion; I can think of concrete examples where the proposed wording would not cause "no harm", and could trigger unnecessary length, so it would be helpful to get some specificity in what you all are asking for here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Space Science Fiction Magazine FAC was a very good example of an article where context was missing, that was pointed out, and it was added. But more generally, as with your example of "brilliant prose", if a reviewer is going to oppose on the basis of a lack of context, then that reviewer will need to at least outline what information is missing. In that sense "context" will be self-defining, and will no doubt vary depending on the subject area and scope of individual articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Mark Speight was an article in which context was missing. It was "comprehensive" but it failed to put the subject of the article and details leading to his death into any kind of context. It was just a recitation. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Well then that's three votes for "Your proposals are Mostly Harmless, but won't really help." At what point do we declare this issue sorted out? Just trying to help keep things moving along; don't want the conversation to die because everyone is waiting for everyone else to decide either to declare the context/background idea dead, or decide to keep it moving forward. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that it is highly unlikely that there is one "magic bullet" solution that will solve all of the problems that people see with FAC. If this proposal improves the criteria, I think we should adopt it. Then we should move on to some of the other proposals people have. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

Proposed 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and appropriately places the subject in context.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like. Wrad (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, "context" is a more succinct way of saying "relevant background info", but to me also really emphasises the duty of the writer to (a) supply/explain the connection, and (b) not have irrelevant stuff. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wording I would prefer to see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this wording best. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the "context" inclusion, but it should be explained that not only does it include background, but whatever lasting implications of the importance of the subject. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the specify the context? Should we say "background, lasting implications, etc."? Or is that too specific? Will later reviewers ask "what is context"? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the dictionary definition of "context" at dictionary.com[1] is close enough. How do we know what "lasting implications" means? How lasting? The word "context" is concise, without being too specific. Context can be interpreted to imply background, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I think we should use this wording. I only used "background" to avoid vagueness, but if "context" is sufficiently precise, I prefer that term. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One small step for WP:WIAFA, one giant leap for FAC! Should "subject" be "topic" perhaps? Otherwise, this looks good: concise, and covers the bases Geometry guy 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me, operationally, upon application, the difference between:

it neglects no major facts or details and appropriately places the subject in context, and
it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without wishing to put words in someone else's mouth, but doing so anyway, I'd hazard a guess that Tony would suggest that ""appropriately" in the first offering is redundant. But even if that wouldn't be Tony's opinion it is certainly mine. "Appropriately" is just noise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "appropriately" is redundant. Awadewit (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of asking Tony, but well ... :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing "appropriately". —Mattisse (Talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is now. I tried to think up a topical example (such as Barack Obama's presidential election) which might be placed appropriately or inappropriately in context, but ultimately I think any inappropriateness is ruled out by the other FA criteria. Geometry guy 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is the best wording for a change. Also agree with Gimme below that background is already covered in the current criteria. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you actually agreeing to here? What is "this" that is the best wording? Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's wording ("places the subject in context"). It's now in the criteria, I believe. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit

Proposed: 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and includes relevant background information.

Wrad

Proposed: 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and provides adequate background and context on the subject.

One reason I chose ""background" instead of "context" was because it seemed that the kind of context reviewers were asking for was "background". Does "context" seem vaguer to people than "background"? Awadewit (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about 'adequate', on one hand I understand that if for example there's another article with similar information you don't want to go overboard with content from there, but it seems to me articles should be able to stand pretty well on their own, and I'm not sure 'adequate' is really specific. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In UK we tend to use "adequate" in the sense of "just about OK", the minimum you can get away with. I wouldn't want that impression to linger in this wording. If Wrad were to change "adequate" to "relevant", his is the version I'd go for. But they are all good, and I'd be happy with any of them. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make? Is "background" part of "major facts of details" already? In operation, what would this exclude? Gimmetrow 14:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut (but I do not take credit for it)

Proposed 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details, includes relevant background information and appropriately places the subject in context.

This is just Matisse's and Awadewit's joined together, word for word. I'm on board with those who dislike "adequate" for a host of reasons, the main one being that it shoots for a low-ball standard instead of a high one. I also wanna keep the qualifiers such as "relevant" and "appropriately" to have at least some sort of a cubbyhole in which to shelve arguments against WP:COATRACKs, WP:TRIVIA, and filler for shorter articles. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may soon be three, because I'm about at the end of my tether as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could make it a party: throw enough F-bombs to make Scarian blush :-) OK, let's stay on topic here ... we write articles here, remember, the drama is over there LOL. I didn't say that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the result of this discussion? In my opinion, the first proposal (it neglects no major facts or details and appropriately places the subject in context) is a clear winner. I think that background information is susceptible to overbroad interpretations in contradiction to criterion 4. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the result of the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this change. There is no consensus for it, or even any clear agreement about what it actually means, or what situations at FAC would practically be impacted. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm about to revert Christopher. The short-ish articles that failed and succeeded that were linked above clearly show that something like this phrase (regardless of whether it's the perfect phrase) is already completely relevant to whether an article passes or fails. We're not changing the criteria, we're just being honest here. Also, even if that weren't true, I see clear agreement above from contributors who are in some sense all over the map in their approach to FAC. We rarely get this kind of consensus; we should cherish and nurture it :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA is not equal to TFA (?)

It is my understanding that just because something becomes featured, does not mean it will be shown on the main page. In fact, because we promote, on average, more than 30 articles per month, we are producing so many FAs that not every FA can appear on the main page. Thus, I think we should separate the discussion about FAs from TFAs. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are you thinking they are different? Various distinctions have been proposed - excluding low-notability or very-short articles from TFA - but as far as I know these were not officially adopted. Some differences may be implicit in ensuring variety on the main page, and there is Raul's "short list". Are you thinking about something else? Gimmetrow 01:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:TFA, Raul selects the articles for the main page and "To appear on the main page, an article must already be a featured article (see Featured article candidates), and must have a lead section suitable for the main page." Raul determines all in this scenario, basically. :) The best thing would be to ask him, I think. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is your point in this section? At this time there is no official functional difference between FA and the pool of articles for TFA, except that it tends to exclude articles similar to recent TFAs, and it excludes Raul's "short list". Thus we really should consider TFA when considering FA, unless perhaps reviewers could support FAs but add a "not for TFA" restriction. Gimmetrow 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is also that not every article can even theoretically appear on the main page, so perhaps that should not be our primary concern. Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The discussion of TFA have gone nowhere in the past. As you point out, it is not within our control anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I use TFA as the final standard in deciding if I should support or oppose an article, the idea is as practical as it is symbolic for FA. Even if Jenna Jameson, which Raul has said will never appear on the main page (which is unfortunate - would love to see a gesture toward WP:Censor in doing that..), we as reviewers should prepare the nominator for the idea that some day tens or hundreds of thousands of people will view this article, and imagining they would all know what the bronze star means, see it and understand that it has been rigorously vetted for prose and structure, etc. If there's any time an article goes through as much scrutiny as during FAC, it's during the 24-hour period it's on the main page. As a process FAC should prepare the nominators to defend the article against that kind of scrutiny. All articles that bear the FA star be representative of our finest work in the most stressful conditions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think TFA should be different from FA, on terms of notability. I have no problem with Tropical Storm Erick (2007) being labeled as an example our best work, but I would certainly object to its being showcased as such. People will want to read about something interesting, educating, surprising; not about something dull, however excellent the article about it is. -- Jao (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever we think, Raul determines TFAs anyhow. We do not have control. Any discussion about TFA involves reading Raul's mind. So why waste time discussing it here, when there can be a productive discussion on Awadewit's suggestion (above) and other issues regarding the criteria? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should think of FA's as being at least similar in stature to TFA's. I said this in an FAC comment, and maybe it could be a good way to look at FAC's. I like to think of FA's as being good enough for people to get their proverbial money's worth if they look at it. IMO, that is the crucial difference between GA and FA. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAs are very similar to FAs, true. ;-) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured short article candidates

Just to get the ball rolling, what does everybody think about nominating an experimental short article at Wikipedia:Featured short article candidates? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've had enough experiments: I'm in favor of more listening, and moving at a more cautious pace this time (in the last round of discussions, we moved into "polls" when people hadn't even defined terms, and moving to Short articles would repeat that mistake). Besides, I object to any FA plan that doesn't have Raul's input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can just hear Awadewit's plea to stay focused on the core issues this time (what is comprehensive, 2b, do we need to change WIAFA considering GA is no longer as conceived, the place where the shorter articles were recognized): if the result of those dicussions moves us to Short articles, then I hope we'll get Raul's feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Before we start any new discussions, let's stay focused on Awadewit's concrete suggestion. I think by clarifying issues one at a time, we will actually move closer to understanding the place of short article candidates. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re GA, there has been a certain amount of myth-making concerning its role: it was never, specifically, short articles. The process was initiated in October 2005 by Worldtraveller, with the following mission: "Many articles contain excellent content but are unlikely to become featured; they may be too short, or on too broad a topic, or on too specific a topic, or an a topic about which not much is known. We should endeavour to identify good content that is not likely to become featured." Geometry guy 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "too short" or "a topic about which not much is known" and "We should endeavour to identify good content that is not likely to become featured ... ": that description no longer distinguishes the processes (I'm not sure if it ever did historically, since I wasn't around/wasn't involved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so the original mission actually describes more accurately the problem here: we want to recognise articles which are "as good as they can get", but we don't want to feature them because they do not represent "the best of Wikipedia". It is pretty simple, but we're stuck with so much back history that simple solutions remain out of reach. Even the name "featured articles" is a barrier - a significant number of FAs will never be featured, because there are c.50 new FAs/month and only c. 30.4 TFAs/month. Geometry guy 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing (but I'm not sure): that GA was conceived for those articles which were as good as they could be, but not likely to be featured because of something vaguely related to scope or context (which is where we're having problems now at FAC), whereas now, GA is sometimes viewed as a step on the path to FA, rather than a stopping point for articles that are good but can't become featured because of scope (as opposed to won't become featured with a bit more work). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some may see GA as a stopping point on the way to FA, but I think many also see it as a worthwhile end in itself, and in fact it's both. Not every article can become an FA, for various reasons, but every article can be recognised as being of good quality regardless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some quickly become FAs. Others join a topic or editor's GA collection. That is what is wonderful about GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sandy, we are essentially saying the same thing. And I agree with Malleus that GA now serves multiple purposes. The problem here is that GAs are only required to satisfy a certain minimum standard (and I think that applying a minimum standard cross-wiki is surely a good thing) so they are not necessarily "as good as they can be". Some process is needed to recognise articles which are as good as they can be, without necessarily implying that they are our best work, or should be featured. Geometry guy 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any article that is as good as it can be should be an FA. Wrad (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What benefits would such a system have? As far as I can see it would not provide any specific advantages over taking an article through GA and a peer review (as long as the reviews are undertaken by experienced editors). There is nothing wrong with an article having to "settle" for a GA. I also feel that FA reviewers' time would be better used in the current, "main" FA system. I can understand the time constraints of those working on reviewing featured articles; indeed, my own FAC seemed to have failed through lack of time and editors. Could anyone justify the time needed to carry out this system and outline how these "short FA" articles would benefit? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual Wikipedians needed

Sandy has suggested that we write a Dispatch on the featured content processes on other wikis. We have already had volunteers translate the requirements for the Spanish, French, and German wikipedias. Ideally, we'd like to cover the 10 most popular, so we are looking for editors who can translate the featured content rules on the wikis for these languages:

Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · Polski · Português · Русский

If you are able to read one of these languages (at minimum at the intermediate level), please feel free to add notes about their featured content processes at Wikipedia:FCDW/OtherWikis. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing Dutch (Nederlands). Эlcobbola _talk 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "credit where credit due department", actually it was Awadewit's suggestion at WT:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can get someone to translate the Portuguese one. Awadewit (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos can do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind then. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for notability criterion for FAC

This might cause a lot of talk page archiving work on Sandy's part... or maybe not... this proposal may get completely ignored! :-) I took a look at the notability guidelines on specific subjects. Subjective adjectives are used to distinguish what is a notable topic, e.g., "significant", "prestigious", "selective", "major", "well-established", "non-trivial". So my proposal is to add a criterion 1f.

(f) notable: it covers a significant topic in its field(s) of interest.

Note that like the other FA criteria, it is a subjective one. Asking when a topic is significant is like asking when is the prose brilliant (1a), what constitutes a major fact (1b), when are inline citations appropriate (1c). So someone may challenge the nominators with the question, "What makes this topic notable in the field of xyz?" The nominators will have to make their case (perhaps use arguments from their Wikiproject assessments) and the reviewer decides. OK, discuss. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna be contributing much. I have always wanted a notability clause. However, two probs: First, it will encounter very stiff resistance, certainly from the Short Articles folks, and also from some egalitarians like Malleus and Yomangani. Second, even if we agreed to have one, writing and implementing it would be a huge struggle. So I'm with you, but I fear we stand alone together. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the short article folks out there: this has nothing to do with short articles. Malleus used the analogy of jewelry. This criterion will allow for small or large pieces of jewelry, but they should have high-quality (valuable) diamonds, not quartz. As for the egalitarian argument, we have already hashed this out. We have limited reviewers and if we don't deal with this, then most of the FAC list will be filled with mediocre-notable articles that were created based on a huge list of xyz somewhere (think quarter-mile roads or a short-duration storm that never reached landfall). --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion which I strongly support. Possibly, field of "enquiry" rather than "interest", but that's a quibble. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more with this proposal. Any article needs to be notable to exist. Any higher hurdles of notability are a barrier to encouraging editors to improve articles to FA. How disheartening would it be to polish an article on something dear to your heart to the high levels expected at FAC, only for our reviewers to deem it insufficiently notable. If that happened to me on my first attempt at FAC, I wouldn't be back. How can this proposal possibly help? What problem is it fixing? Very very strong oppose from me. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An FA "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation" – I've always taken that to mean that you can take every criterion and prepend "In a good encyclopedia, ...". For instance, "In a good encyclopedia, articles are well-written," and "In a good encyclopedia, articles are comprehensive." From my point of view, your new criterion doesn't fit in. "In a good encyclopedia, only particularly notable stuff gets a lemma"? I don't think so – a good encyclopedia strives to be as inclusive as possible. Hence the adjective "encyclopedic": if you have "encyclopedic" knowledge, it doesn't mean that you just know the most important stuff about a topic. You know the minutiae. Your knowledge is comprehensive. Granted, in any paper encyclopedia, editors will need to select. But you can judge the importance they attach to comprehensiveness by the fact that, even given the pressures of budget and sales, the most respected encyclopedias still run to an impressive number of volumes. Being electronic, we do not face those same problems.

Also granted that there must be a lower notability cut-off – that follows from the fact that we rely on published, reliable sources, for instance, and from the several criteria for what an encyclopedia is not. But I don't see the need to add another criterion that states: to be part of our best work, a lemma must be exceptionally notable. I think it runs counter to what a good encyclopedia is all about. That kind of criterion would be great if we were writing a text-book, for instance, but for an encyclopedia?

If your main reason for your proposal is "too many FACs, too few reviewers", then a) I'm not at all sure that adding a new criterion, especially one that is bound to lead to heated discussions on what's notable and what isn't, will result in less work for the reviewers, and b) surely there must be more efficient remedies, such as: you're only allowed to submit an article as a FAC if you have contributed to at least four FAC discussions in the week before, or something. Markus Poessel (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main problem with notability in the context of FAC is that this criterion is not actionable. Currently all opposes should be actionable to be valid. Any oppose based on notability (N) of the subject is not actionable by definition. Therefore when someone opposes on the basis of N, under the current rules such an oppose is invalid. So introduction of N will require a serious change in the way the FAC discussions are conducted and closed. There are number of questions: How will notability be decided? By vote, consensus, reverse consensus? Who will determine the result of this process? Would not this turn FAC into a branch of AFD? Ruslik (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from me too. Notability standards at AfD are battlegrounds as is, and have been fought over often and for a long time. This would introduce a whole new bone of contention to fight over. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, I too am against this both for reasons I've stated before and most of the reasons stated by the opposition above. (This old essay of Uncle G's might be of interest here). Yomangani ^talk 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against this. Take a look at Awadewit's list of FAs, and consider an article such as Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, which is well supported by scholarship. Is it "a significant topic in its field of interest"? Not unless the topic is quite narrowly drawn: it's significant in Wollstonecraft studies, but perhaps not in literature overall. A criterion that would disqualify one of Awadewit's featured articles from FA seems off to a bad start to me. But if we allow a narrow definition of "topic", the criterion does nothing at all: even Space Science Fiction Magazine is a significant topic in the field of late 1950s US science fiction digest magazines. Neither outcome seems right.

I suspect those who would like some notability criterion such as this are all on the side of "FA = showcase" articles, not "FA = best a given article can be". I wish we could come to consensus on that issue first, as it would simplify some of the other discussions, but these issues are so intertwined it doesn't seem possible to separate one point and consider in isolation. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I am not currently taking a stance +O or +S.~~ my position is that I am +S in my heart, but i doubt it will pass, and if it does pass, it might be a bear-and-a-half to actually bring to reality.
I think we should point out that the standards of AfD are irrelevant. the whole point would be to introduce a new, higher threshold of Notability for FAC.
However, by no means am I saying that the experience/history of the AfD battles is irrelevant. It is probably very relevant. Eventually there will be a series of battles, which (I suspect) "them bleeding-heart trivia-huggers" will eventually win. NOTICE: The remark within quotation marks was "humor". In the event of a real insulting remark, you will be notified where to take shelter. That will be all. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The criterion is not for defining what should be included in the encyclopedia (where we have unlimited electronic resources). The criterion is for defining what should be a FA (where we have limited human resources).
I would not presume that Awadewit's article would fail the criterion. I am certain she could easily address any challenge based on notability.
The final decision on any challenges based on the notability of an article would be made by consensus as usual on Wikipedia and it would be Raul and Sandy to judge.
FAs are not equal to the best a given article can be. FAs are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors.

--RelHistBuff (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm not typically one to comment on the inner workings of FAC, but this proposal worries me. What I appreciate about the process is that any article is a potential Featured Article. After a certain point (AFD and the rules that lie therein), notability becomes subjective; I may not necessarily believe an article about a small stretch of highway to be particularly notable or interesting, but someone else may think the same about articles dedicated to German polar bear cubs -- impossible, I know! I believe that all subjects, no matter how minor, deserve a chance to be judged fairly by the FA criteria. Besides, the definition of "significant topic" is what is currently sinking the TFAR process in that everyone has a different opinion about what is notable and what is otherwise tangential, which leads to arguing, favoritism and overall unpleasantness. I think that such a thing would be similarly problematic here. Gigantic can of worms, etc. María (habla conmigo) 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the rationale behind the criterion. It took so many AfD's and finally a FAR to delist Spoo, an article about a fictional food which consists almost entirely of primary sources and never properly met WP:GNG, and was such a minute topic there was no way comprehensive coverage of Babylon 5 would suffer if it was wiped from the earth. But according to criteria, if it was back at FAC I couldn't argue "wait a minute, it doesn't meet notability criteria". As we've pointed out with the short article discussion, not every article can become featured, and it seems contradictory to feature articles which shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. At the very least, I want notability concerns to be actionable at FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As someone that's been involved in the notability issues of the past few years, I really caution about this. Some may take the adoption of "FAC must be notable" as raising WP:NOTE to the level of a policy (I know, FAC is not policy, but trust me, people will see it as such). WP:NOTE needs to stay as a guideline because it is a practical guideline, not an easily-enforced policy. That said, I think there does need to be some need to be able to call out an article as lacking the evidence that makes it a stand-out topic for an FAC, but I will note that this is a different quality than being non-notable and thus not deserving an article. There are likely many many articles on WP that have managed to show fringe connections to sources to be kept but are otherwise weakly notable, however, despite making the rest of the article as perfect as possible for FAC requirements, shouldn't be an FAC because it doesn't demonstrate why the topic is sufficiently notable to be an FAC.
I believe this is related to short articles as well, and maybe there's a way to combine these issues. For example, many of the short hurricane or road articles certain have some notability - they exist(ed) and have been recorded, but when a hurricane doesn't make landfall and thus creates no damage, or if a road only lasts for 20 miles and has no notable features, there's an issue of their notability relative to other FAs on the topics. In such cases, at least personally, a better approach would be to combine the shorter articles to lists or another article that groups them, keep all the information present but moved to the new article, and work on getting that one up to FAC or FLC. How to qualify or quantify all this, I don't know, but this is tied to a stronger requirement for notability than what WP:NOTE offers. We don't want topics that barely pass WP:NOTE as FAs, we want ones that clearly surpass the minimum. --MASEM 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Can anyone tell me what a "significant topic" will be defined as under this new criterion? Without a clear cutoff point, all this will do is stir up drama. No thank you; there's already enough of that at FAC. By the way, the shortage of reviewers has nothing to do with the prevelance of short articles. Shorter pages are simply easier to write, and longer, more substantial topics always get more "attention" when they come here. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above oppose reasons but also because this could potentionally bring a lot of un-needed drama to FAC's. D.M.N. (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As suspected, I am very much against adding a notability criteria. It is not for FA reviewers to decide what is or is not notable. I really can't see what perceived problem adding such an inherently subjective and unquantifiable criteria would be intended to address. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think we should create an underclass of articles that can never reviewed with FAC's high standards. For example, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters by Wollstonecraft is not "significant" by any stretch of the imagination, but I appreciated being able to subject it the extra scrutiny of FAC, as I did A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft's most important work and one of the first works of feminist philosophy. (I would like to mention I was horrified to see Thoughts on the main page - Vindication has yet to appear there. Of any of the Wollstonecraft articles, to choose her least important? Ah!) Since so many editors seem concerned about a particular set of articles appearing on the main page, perhaps our real discussion should be about WP:TFA. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) *Oppose - Notability above the minimum criteria in WP:N is subjective and therefore impossible to define. I believe it is apt to reflect bias and personal opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Way too subjective for me. Wrad (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: "Significant" is not more subjective than "reliable", which is accepted without fuss in relation to sources. I am struck by how many of the opposes to this proposal seem to come from an internal perspective, that is, the principal concerns relate to the rights of editors and reviewers rather than to the credibility of the encyclopedia. This credibility is undermined if articles of minimal notability and very little content can be presented to the public as examples of Wikipedia's best work. That is why I support the idea of a modest raising of the notability bar at FAC. This is not revolutionary. It is, I believe, a small step towards improving the encyclopedia. Perhaps, this time, it will be voted down, but I am sure the issue will arise again. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable is defined by WP:RS. Notability is defined by WP:N. Are we thinking of adding to both of these for FAC? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very very strong oppose - This is crazy. You wanna make FAC very subjective, selective and communist? That will never happen, and if that happens, an Request for comment/FAC is in order. I am sorry, but this is acting like a selective big brother syndrome.Mitch32^(UP) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mitch, please take a deep breath. We're just discussing a possible change, and so far opinion seems to be in your corner. There's no need for such a harsh response - those can have the unfortunate effect of stifling people from suggesting other ideas for improvement. Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am getting rather annoyed on how FAC is going, and have totally flipped out over this idea.Mitch32^(UP) 21:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- you will eliminate the fun of Wikipedia for many a young budding literary giant who might be learning and sharpening their skills by trying to get their article about the latest teenage video game to FA. I would hate to see potential squashed by making FA so narrow minded. NancyHeise ^talk 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too subjective. And anyway, what's wrong with the best possible article on less popular articles. Peanut4 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really now. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Is this not covered by the notability guideline? –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and suggest that this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for numerous reasons. First and foremost, FAs are "Wikipedia's best work", not "Wikipedia's most important work", not "Wikipedia's most notable work", and not "Wikipedia's most well-known work". Wikipedia is "the sum of all human knowledge", and its notability guidelines are intentionally low to allow for it to cover a very broad range of topics. To limit what can be considered "featured" to what is arbitrarily considered "notable" would be utterly ridiculous, for lack of a better word. That brings up another issue. What is notable enough to become featured? Would the new rule exclude everything but core topics? Would that exclude hurricanes, roads, video games, geographical locations, etc? If so, we're effectively limiting Wikipedia's status as a volunteer project to which editors can contribute what they wish. If the new rule is implemented, than only the editors who work in significant topics get to receive recognition for their hard work. Additionally, even if there was a guideline regarding the minimum significance for an article to become featured, there would still be unnecessary drama at the borderline articles, which comprise much of FAC. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the only good effect it will have is to encourage people to fix up core articles, but there will be too many riots in the meantime. As for Spoo, that should've been binned regardeless of the proposed change in criteria. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 things I hate about FAC

Actually 11 things that I think might bear discussion, distilled from my subconcious in about 10 minutes, so expect plenty of typos, repetition and gaps in logic. I've put it at User:Yomangan/FAC, as I think it might get a bit unwieldy if I were to copy it over here. Yomangani ^talk 12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your points, Yomangan, and I found myself agreeing, disagreeing, and having no opinion on your points, but found it interesting enough to respond.

I don't know if you mean that the entire system is broken to be tongue in cheek. Perhaps you did. I tend to think Wikipedia is much like a republic democracy, as it has been for ages in the US that people will complain about how the government freakin' stinks until something about it (Bush) becomes so intolerable that people get completely fed up and change something. So we change it by making suggestions, arguing about it, going through drama, politicking, and either getting tired and giving up or seeing it change only to have a different set of people do the complaining. Honestly, I have no idea if a system can change without all these dramatic steps because we are, after all, only people. Complaining about government is a national pasttime that goes back to the first meeting of homo sapiens in caves.

I'd like to think I have such a loftier goal here to produce and review FAs than a minion who reviews AfDs all day. Yes, I am so lofty. We do, however, produce some of the best factual literature on the Internet. And it's completely free to anyone who has Internet access. I think that's kinda cool.

What we must accept: Our standards will change constantly as editors come and go, as better articles are put through the process and have higher standards to live up to.

There will never be stability for the aforementioned reason. We have new ideas. We go through changes. What we expect from ourselves and our fellow editors may be acceptable one month only to become intolerable the next. Whatever comfort we're trying to find in stability, or claiming stability as a goal... we'll just be able to release a lot of stress by accepting the FAC system and Wikipedia itself, while not necessarily unstable, will never be without blemish to consider it complete, finished, or without needing to be fixed somehow. That's a good thing. There is just as much danger in complacency as there is in anarchy.

I would like to say that I completely agree with you on the Swallowing pride point. Whatever we have to do to remind ourselves why we spend months working on an article to see it pass the FA, let's do it daily. Clearly it's not for the money or the notoriety. I don't do it really to put the bronze star on my page, though that's nice. Or to see my name crawl up the WBFAN page, because that reminds me of measuring. I'm sure there are editors who actually churn articles at the barest standards just to do this, but good for them. That doesn't make my articles any less extraordinary or make it any less neat that I am shaping the knowledge for the tens of thousands of people who are reading my articles.

So let's embrace two things: we have to bitch in order to grow and improve. And we have to praise each other in order to make it worthwhile. I have been pushed to excel in ways I did not feel was necessary or possible for me, only because other editors set a high standard in demand and in example. If we make ourselves better writers, researchers, and people, then that is really the best use of our time here. While I realize this doesn't address each of your points, it is what I though while I read them. So thanks for the opportunity to put that in words. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you may wanna strikethrough that Bush comment. Political topics are thataway --> Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of general musings: No process is perfect, therefore all processes are broken. FAC (like other processes) has limitations (real or percieved) and opportunities. Some will translate its limitations into barriers. Others will use FAC to assist in acheiving their goals. The policy wonks will keep the review system evolving as priorities shift. maclean 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The forum rather than the boundary; and TFA as a subset

Things we're having trouble agreeing on include:

Should FA be made up of "the best articles of Wikipedia" or "articles that are the best they can be"?
What, if any, criteria can be used to define such a boundary? Context, length, mergeability, notability?
Should there be a separate forum for anything outside such a boundary? E.g. WP:FSA.
Is there any relationship between the boundary and TFA?

I wonder if it would be easier to tackle the last two items first, since the first two are very difficult to get consensus on. So:

I would like to see all articles that are attempting to be "the best they can be" reviewed here at FAC, using the FA criteria. This is without prejudice to what label is placed on those articles, or what the answer is to the first two points above. This doesn't get us far without agreeing on the boundary criterion as well, but it would be a start at definiteness. Conversely, if there's consensus that whatever distinction is drawn would require a separate forum, that's valuable to know too.
I would like to see the boundary criterion, if we end up with one, aligned to TFA in the following way. Anything inside the boundary is eligible for TFA, and Raul can apply his own criteria. Anything outside the boundary is not eligible for TFA. For example, we were to implement a notability criterion, we might make the less-notable articles into a new class (WP:Low-notability FAs, or whatever); or we might simply leave them on the FA page. I'm not proposing any specific answer to that. However, whatever the distinction was, it would map to the TFA restriction; only articles passing the higher notability bar (or whatever bar we pick) would be eligible for FA.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that FAs should be any article that is "ready for publication" or "ready for TFA". Basically, any article that will make Wikipedia look good, rather than bad, if by some miracle it becomes TFA. In theory then, any FA can be TFA, but the community and Raul ultimately decide what is and what isn't eligible. I have yet to see any article denied TFA status because of length, so it doesn't seem to be a concern. Wrad (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish there were a better way to exclude some articles from TfA. In my own work, there is a mix of articles that would be interesting to a wide audience and those that really, only Texas history buffs or Texas schoolkids will search out. With the limited number of main page spots, I'd rather save them for one of those articles that is more important - and Raul can't be the expert on every topic to know, for example, which Mary Wollestonecraft work made the larger impact on literature or which Texas Revolution battle had a more important outcome. While I would support an opt-out system from TfA, I'd want the primary contributor or the wikiproject to make that call, and to have the ability to change it (when the top priority article for the project has made the main page, maybe allow for the next priority one to move to the TFA pool). I worry about letting "consensus" decide which ones belong in that "don't put me as TFA" category. There are always going to be topics that the majority think are "unimportant" but that a significant minority is interested in, and those should have the potential to be TfAs too. It would be very difficult to determine where to draw the line. And, I would hate to see the standards change. Those articles that might not be destined for the main page should still be held to the same FA criteria as those articles that want to be in the pool. Karanacs (talk)

Since FA should represent Wikipedia's best work, that excludes: non-notable items (not enough secondary sources to demonstrate notability), too short items (items that lack context for the reader, simply don't have enough content, or could be better off merged into another article), and, in general, articles that meet all of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines. I don't see where the whole issue of "what is an FA" is coming in here. I understand that "importance" is subjective, but notability shouldn't be, and importance shouldn't be an issue for any article if all content guidelines are followed; sure, Wipeout 3 is a relatively minor game that few people care about, but as it was determined to meet WP:N, video game content guidelines, WP:RS, and is well-written, it deserves FA. Whether is makes us 'look good' is too murky a criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFA should showcase Wikipedia's "best work", but I think this should be understood relative to the topic. Quite a few articles on TV episodes may be as good as they can be, but some of these probably fall short of the "best work" for episode articles. TFA shouldn't necessarily exclude "relatively minor" episodes, but more significant episodes will generally produce deeper third-party analysis and commentary to draw on when developing the "best" articles. Gimmetrow 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, TFA has its own process and FA shouldn't meddle with that process. In other words, we shouldn't prevent articles from becoming FAs because we think they wouldn't make a good TFA, whether it be because of its lack of notability or its length. Leave the TFA process to decide that. FA is here only to determine whether something is "professional and ready for publication". Wrad (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god I have Wrad to explain what I'm trying to, except clearly :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an error to say that we shouldn't pay attention to what is suitable for TFA. The current definition of "suitable for TFA" is "any FA"; if we change WIAFA we are changing the criteria for TFA. "Suitability for TFA" seems very much in scope for a discussion about what should be FA; I suggest we acknowledge that but agree that we might use the FAC process for some kinds of articles that would not be suitable for TFA.

I also think that conceding limits on TFA might be a suitable compromise between the two ends of the spectrum of opinion here. Limits on TFA implies not all FAs are equal. Allowing articles to use the FAC process without automatically being eligible for TFA would eliminate a big concern expressed by some FA regulars. If we could agree on those points, we could start talking about what kind of articles would not be suitable for TFA, which might be a decision that could acceptably be made on a fairly subjective basis. That in turn would lead naturally to the question of whether articles not suitable for TFA were still called FAs, or were given some other classification (FSA, whatever).

Without some compromise, I'm afraid that the "TFA = FA = best of Wikipedia = some articles should not come to FAC" position is simply too far from "TFA = FA = best an article can be = any article can come to FAC". We've tried a couple of other starting positions above; TFA seems to me to be the best wedge into this gridlocked argument. Mike Christie (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone discussed this with Raul? He is the one who decides what goes on the main page, rewrites the intros for the main page, etc. Recently he featured an old one that went directly to FAR—Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me). I think he has his own ideas, so it is not for us to say. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this might be a good way to compromise. TFA has changed quite a bit in recent months, as a natural reaction to a backlog of articles that haven't been featured yet. The community now has a lot of say in what becomes featured. Along with that has come many trends against certain types of articles. For example, film articles, video game articles, and other pop culture articles have a harder time getting through, as do hurricane articles. Often, older FAs will be suggested, and someone will point out that the article no longer meets the criteria. The article is then pulled from the system. It isn't perfect, but it all works out pretty well. Wrad (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Mike, to me, "professional and ready for publication" basically means "ready for TFA". However, it needs to be acknowledged that some FAs are more notable than others, and those articles are more likely to be TFAs, which I think is what you're saying. Wrad (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Plus there is unease among some of us about anything that could be seen as broadening the definition of what can be an FA, and hence a TFA. If we can agree that in any change to what articles go through FAC, there may also be restrictions on what ends up as TFA, that would help address that unease, without automatically assuming such articles also end up as FAs. Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously any article that doesn't meet the current criteria shouldn't be TFA. Wrad (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the current TFA process rewards points on the age of the article, which has the unintended consequence of bringing to light articles in need of an FAR; it's a side benefit. As for the reaction to pop culture/media articles, it's just because most promotion occurs in those areas and we want variety. But every article is suitable for TFA (assuming it meets criteria); I would pick a history article over any video game article I wrote since the history article is more likely to have importance (Bone Wars over Iridion 3D, for example.) Raul's comments would enlighten this discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(colonophobe) I think we just need a greater quantity skilled of reviewers who are unafraid to pull the trigger. Wikipedia is the #8 (last I heard) site on the Internet. Why are there less than 20 of us here? What we really need is <proposal deleted by various angered & lightningbolt-wielding FAC gods and demigods, link left behind here>. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We desperately need more reviewers, but they won't be easy to come by. I was reading this old Dispatch when one sentence caught my eye: "All Wikipedians are welcome to review articles at FAC and FAR; reviews that are well grounded in an understanding of the featured article standards are most helpful." How many editors around FAC truly understand the criteria? There aren't a whole lot, which leads to the accusations of a reviewer cabal. The problem is that this isn't a welcoming place for newcomers. To be a skilled reviewer, you need plenty of experience with the criteria to understand what does and doesn't meet it. When I was new here, I was afraid that one of my declarations would be torn apart, and that people would think I was a bad editor. I stuck with it and have become a skilled reviewer (I think) with time, but how many others will do the same? Ling's idea is a solid one, but keep in mind that other review processes need more hands too; it's not just us. What we need is more people willing to put themselves out there and help, and there needs to be some acknowledgement from us that newcomers will make mistakes along the way. That's how they learn; it's certainly how I did. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many passers-by get the impression that reviewers are expected to produce a screenful of technical or specific points, and are put from commenting off by this. This has I think changed for the worse even in the last 12 months as FAC continues to turn into a workshop rather than a jury room. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your analogy is most unfortunate. Whatever happens in a juryroom happens in private, without the presence of the accused. I am much happier to see reviewers being helpful and supportive in a workshop environment than I am to see them acting as a jury. Also, juries return verdicts as directed by a judge$, but the verdict at FAC is determined by the FA director or his delegate. Al in all, a very poor analogy IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$Only in the UK, Malleus, or anyway not in the US. There is nothing wrong with jurors being helpful, but they are not supposed to turn into the prosecution or defence. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think that this discussion is becoming too fragmented to resolve any of the issues we want to address. I propose that we focus on one question at a time (tedious, but hopefully effective). What about focusing on the question of whether or not all FAs can be TFAs? Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that question is in itself causing a lot of confusion, because the two are separate processes. It is quite clear that not all FAs can become TFAs, (Jenna Jameson as one notable example), and neither is there any reason why they should. Whatever the criteria for TFA may be from time to time has nothing at all to do with whatever FA's crioteria might be. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, since many people see FA as a way to get their work on the main page, perhaps we need to be more explicit about what the differences are. Perhaps it is not FA that needs a notability criterion, but TFA, for example. Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite.I don't see FA has anything at all to with TFA except insofar as it acts as the source from which TFAs are chosen, rightly or wrongly. The criteria for TFA are already very different from those for FAC, witness my example above. The answer to the simple question "Should all FAs be able to be showcased as TFA?" is clearly "No". From which it logically follows that it makes no sense to have being able to be showcased as TFA part of the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking by my definition of "professional, publishable quality". Wrad (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see FAC move in the direction of Malleus' comment, that TFA and FA are clearly distinct; however, I think he is too definite in saying that's the case now. Aside from anything else, my understanding is that at one point they were very closely tied, in that FAC was the process by which the TFA pool was filled. There has been no explicit revocation of that, and comments above make it appear to me that many FAC regulars still feel that's the right and proper attitude. So I think it would be good to try to get some consensus around this; as Awadewit says, we need to focus on something and stay there.

I'd answer Awadewit's question above this way: at the moment, yes: all FAs can become TFAs, subject to Raul's filtering out the odd one or two (I believe Jenna Jameson is actually the only FA that will not be considered for TFA). If we don't change the criteria; if we don't come up with some new criterion or definition of the process, things stay that way. I would like to see us put articles through FAC that are not destined for TFA, but I concede that as currently defined FAC does not allow for that. Mike Christie (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much things need to be changed. TFA, for example, already has some notability criteria. I guess you could strengthen those criteria, but the framework is already there. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, TFA has no notability criteria. The date requests page does, but TFA itself does not. We are talking about totally changing the nature of TFA here because as Mike points out, there has never been a explicit rejection of the "all FA can become TFA" idea. Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with A, in fact, very confused by some of the comments above. Raul has said (somewhere) that there is only one article he is currently withholding from the main page (Jenna Jameson). There is no other restriction, and even that is vague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected that idea a long time ago, Awadewit, as I think you know. So did several other editors. That's why we all pushed for increased activity at the TFA requests page. We need to find a balance between honoring notable articles and honoring new FA writers. I think the requests page comes closer to finding that balance than anything else and we should use it more. Wrad (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true, that editors go through FAC for a little screen time on the main page? I really did not think of that. Somehow, I do not believe that is the motivation for most, although I could be wrong. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's possible it may not be true. Wrad (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page time is apparently a motivating factor. See here, under "why do you bring articles through the FA process?", for example. Awadewit (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: TFA should have a notability criterion

Not all FAs will be able to appear on the main page, thus we must find a way to choose them. One way to narrow the pool would be through a notability criterion such as that proposed by RelHistBuff ("the article covers a significant topic in its field(s) of interest"). One argument would be that we should showcase our best and most important work to the world. Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Raul's statements on Resource starvation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which, of course, raises the question of to what extent TFA is for editors or for readers? Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notability criteria we have now is fine, isn't it? We do need to make sure that editors who have never had TFAs are able to get one, right? I think that is important. Wrad (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that we don't need a stricter notability criterion for TFA than for Wikipedia as a whole? Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the points criterion on the requests page is good. It balances notability with new editors and community input. The more we use that page, the better. Wrad (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But those criteria don't apply to all TFAs - this proposal would apply to all TFAs. Awadewit (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an alternative way to make it apply to all TFAs would be to put all TFAs through the requests page. I like that a lot better than just saying "This group of articles can never be FAs." It seems like that creates some serious resource starvation. Wrad (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does any of this make? Raul decides anyway, and I am perfectly fine with that. I think he has better judgment than any "criteria" produced through this process. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul's discretion is limited in that he chooses only from the pool of FAs. If we decide that we wish to limit what is a TFA, we can do that by limiting what can become an FA. Implementing that, of course, would require more discussion than just these few editors here, but the statement of principle is true: Raul's discretion is limited and hence this discussion does have a point. We could, separately, choose to extend FA status to articles we did not feel were TFA-worthy; I agree that rendering that distinction in a way that affected Raul's discretion would probably need agreement from Raul. Mike Christie (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I did not know he was constrained. Somehow I had conjured up the idea that the TFA is one of his few real pleasures. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that on a wiki, the community could change the process if they wanted. I don't think we need Raul's permission to change TFA if we want to alter it. Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Raul is the TFA director. If the community wanted to relieve him of that position and create some other structure for TFA, I suppose we could... but why would we? Raul does a great and largely thankless job. This really does strike me as an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the community could also say "we want a certain kind of TFA", thereby altering TFA as well. There are lots of options here. If we think altering TFA will help solve some of the problems at FAC, we should go ahead and make those changes. Note: many reviewers are uncomfortable about every FA appearing on the main page, but we have not found a way to restrict the FA criteria to anyone's satisfaction. This proposal tries to restrict the main page criteria instead. Awadewit (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think that there's anything wrong with the kind of TFA we have now. (Of course, I would say that today, when Doctor Who missing episodes is on TFA. I fully admit my bias here.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks to Raul!) Is this not an overemphasis on the main page? In almost three years of active participation here, I have never once read the main page article. In fact, I hardly ever look at the main page, unless I expect something of mine to be featured on it. No data to base this on, but I would hazard a guess that most readers are drawn here by entering something in "Search" and since Wikipedia, because of its deal with Google, nearly always comes up first, or close to it, they go to a specific article. I would like to see some data on whether this "main page thing" is mainly a preoccupation of a few editors, or whether it is actually of such importance that this is an "issue". —Mattisse (Talk) 05:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are making it an issue. We need to try and solve the problems with FAC. In the ongoing debates, this is one that kept coming up - some editors did not want all FAs to appear on the main page. Rather than dismissing this concern, let's try to address it. Let's see how widespread this feeling is. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to the stats, the Main Page is the second most highly visited page on the English Wikipedia, after Special:Search. See also here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is on the main page, it can expect to receive over 80,000 views in one day. It can expect edits possibly reaching into the hundreds. The article will also be emailed to users as the "article of the day" through various programs, and downloaded to people's PDA's (I know, my PDA does this). This isn't just an editor issue, rest assured. Wrad (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you followed an article's stats to see if this interest continues beyond the 80,000 views in one day? (That is still only a proportion of the 197,059,001 main page hits. And although some article receive constructive edits, most receive a large number of vandal edits.) I think this is an editor preoccupation and not for the general readers. But then, FAC is for editors and not general readers. So this TFA question remains important for that reason. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main criterion in TFA (as I understand it) is suitability of a particular page for a particular date. In my opinion, notability is an implicit part of this criterion. If the article is of little notability, than it is unlikely to be suitable for any date. So I do not see any need to change anything, as notability is already implicitly required. Of course, you can argue that this criterion should be made explicit, but it is another matter. Ruslik (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those constraints only apply at the date requests page. Raul is free to pick any other FA for all of the other days. What we are proposing is limiting the pool from which Raul can pick. Awadewit (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that making this criterion explicit is exactly what's under discussion here. The lack of additional explicit criteria for TFA has been repeatedly cited by editors as an issue when we talk about FA criteria; that is, we've see comments such as "changing FAC to allow X would lead to X appearing on the main page, so I'm against it". Personally I'd be willing to add some limitations to TFA criteria, if that would lead to an overall consensus on the issues we've been talking about. For example, I'd be happy with a limitation designed to prevent Space Science Fiction Magazine, had it reached FA, from being a TFA, on the grounds that it is too short, or contains too little context. Notability is less likely to be suitable as a criterion, I feel. If we want to only discuss the notability option, rather than other possible TFA criteria, then I'd suggest someone who likes the idea of a TFA notability criterion goes through, say, the first five or six articles in each of several FA categories, and indicate which ones they think would be acceptable FAs for notability. Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no criteria for TFA; Raul basically picks whatever takes his fancy. What criteria there are apply only to the date request page, from which what, only five TFAs are chosen each month? Has Raul agreed to be constrained by anything that might be decided here about what others feel is fit for the main page? If he hasn't, then I fail to see the point in discussing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a wiki - we can change the process if we want. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of this wiki are run like dicatorships though, and the dictators have to agree to relinquish some of their authority before anything can change. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can take back some of that power, if we want, or we can ask Raul to use it differently. (Viva la revolution!) Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: many reviewers are uncomfortable about every FA appearing on the main page, but ... It is not clear to me that this has been established as a widespread concern or as a concern at all. In fact, the focus of this discussion isn't clear to me, either :-) Also, there are several misstatements throughout. Raul does not choose only five requests per month from WP:TFA/R; the restriction is five requests at a time, which does not equate to five requests per month. And the main criterion in TFA is not suitability of a particular page for a particular date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This concern has already been made clear in previous discussions. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I saw the concern expressed, it was about the standards at FAC (whether we were passing articles at FAC that we would never want to see on the main page). That problem is solved/solvable at FAC, not TFA. I don't see a widespread concern that not every FA should appear on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples I found in a quick archive search - there are more (these are all from different people):

" I certainly think TFA should be different from FA, on terms of notability. I have no problem with Tropical Storm Erick (2007) being labeled as an example our best work, but I would certainly object to its being showcased as such. People will want to read about something interesting, educating, surprising; not about something dull, however excellent the article about it is."

"I do wish there were a better way to exclude some articles from TfA. In my own work, there is a mix of articles that would be interesting to a wide audience and those that really, only Texas history buffs or Texas schoolkids will search out. With the limited number of main page spots, I'd rather save them for one of those articles that is more important"

"The lack of additional explicit criteria for TFA has been repeatedly cited by editors as an issue when we talk about FA criteria; that is, we've see comments such as "changing FAC to allow X would lead to X appearing on the main page, so I'm against it". Personally I'd be willing to add some limitations to TFA criteria, if that would lead to an overall consensus on the issues we've been talking about. "

Eligible for the star but not for the main page" (from a proposal regarding excellent short articles in the archives)

On "Excellent short articles proposal: "To get maximum results, the "game" should be as attractive as possible, so I completely support the "featured" designation rather than "excellent", although of course these articles should never make the main page." Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a change was already enacted at WP:WIAFA to address these concerns, which were about what was being passed at FAC. These discussions started in October, and November FA production will hit the lowest level in about two and a half years, to about half of what it was before these discussions started. How much deeper is the intended cut, do we want permanent resource starvation, and do we want only core articles on the mainpage? That seems to be the direction this is heading. I submit that our readership is more varied, and that these issues have more than been addressed by proposed changes to WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the notability criterion for TFA directly; I'd rather see a TFA criterion based on one of the other issues we've discussed, such as context, comprehensiveness or length or mergeability. I do think an agreeement on some such constraint on TFA might be helpful in catalysing further consensus within the group. With regard to resource starvation, I feel that limiting what can be a TFA and limiting what can be an FA are identical in their resource starvation impact at the moment. The debate over the last couple of months has been as much about whether we should expand FA's scope (to shorter (etc.) articles) as whether we should limit it. Resource starvation doesn't seem to me to be an issue until we look likely to come to consensus on a proposal that would reduce the pool that Raul can draw from. Mike Christie (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The important point is that Raul chooses; what happens at WP:TFA/R is a sideshow. There is no criteria for TFA and Raul is free to pick whatever he likes from the FA pool – and not to pick whatever he doesn't like. This proposal is only worth consideration if Raul has agreed to be restricted in his choice of TFA candidates. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can change the process if we want. This is not the dictatorship of Raul. Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.--ragesoss (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe Raul was appointed/chosen by our founder Jimmy Wales who has whatever control he wants (dictatorship, if you will) and does not assert that Wikipedia is a demoncracy. He can decide Arbcom members regardless of votes, for example. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul was doing the main page job and was confirmed as FA director by a vote many years ago. Gimmetrow 00:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of misinformation being posted to this talk page is escalating. Raul was not "appointed/chosen" by Wales; he was chosen (and endorsed) many times by the Community. I'll leave the rest of the misinfo posted on this page to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'm not sure of the relevance of this regarding the current situation. Are you saying that Raul, whose interest in FA seems confined to scheduling the main page articles, does not have to be consulted if we decide to constrain his power? That we have more power in determining his role than he does? I am very unclear how much power we have if he does not agree. The answer to this question would clarify the point of this discussion. Is there an answer? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, we can change the system if we want. The wiki works by consensus. That is the answer. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change is tough when even small changes can't achieve consensus; I think I may be in manual archiving mode for a bit :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if we could talk about the system, please, instead of what we personally think of Raul, I think that would help, too. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the system currently stands, any article which is FA is potentially TFA. Raul obviously does some selection to pick the TFAs; this selection is a form of filtering. In my own opinion, Raul's filter works pretty well - he has not selected for TFA any of the handful of FAs that I personally wouldn't want to appear on the main page. If people want additional filtering, they can place the filter between FA and TFA, which I think would at least be impolite without Raul's OK, or before FA. The latter can be handled either by changing the FA criteria, or by objecting to individual articles for not being WP's "best work". So far, objecting to individual articles seems to work fairly well. It should continue to work so long as that sort of objection is taken into consideration when closing FACs. Gimmetrow 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not really convinced that the system is broken. I mean, yeah, I would like to have the requests page field all TFAs, but I'm not thinking that the whole site is going to fall apart tomorrow if it doesn't. I think it will all just naturally come together in time. Wrad (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not either. But I think we should identify the document, guidleline, policy or whatever we want to change, if we do want to change anything. Perhaps if we looked at that, and decided on a concrete way of proceeding to change it, if we want to do so. There are limits to consensus Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Exceptions but I am unclear on this situation. Raul was "radified" here. There is some discussion of his role there also:

Before an article is put on the Main Page, the Featured Article Director will list it as "tomorrow's featured article" for at least 24 hours. One article will be listed as tomorrow's featured article, and one will be listed as an alternate. Any editor can comment and discuss the choice. After reading the comments, the Featured Article Director will freely choose which of the two articles to feature on the main page.

Is this what we are thinking about changing, if we want to change anything? If so, how would we go about changing it and in what way do we want to change it? Are there other policies/guidelines regarding this? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) We can say they have to be notable - and let Raul decide from there. 2) We can create a pool of such articles that we decide on as a community and then Raul simply selects from that pool. I'm sure there are more options. The general question is whether we want to restrict TFA in this way. The mechanics of it are less important, in my view. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we did, suppose he did not agree to go along with that? I am not clear that he would be restricted to any confines we put on his choices, if the quote I have given above from his "ratification" is indeed a description of the process. It says he chooses the two articles, he listens to community comment, he freely makes the choice between the two. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would almost be better to just let Raul know our concerns so he can take them into account, then keep an eye on the requests page accordingly. Wrad (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, option 1. Wrad (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of getting into a power struggle with Raul when we have no real complaints over how he does his job. I am not sure what we are complaining about. It does seem like bring our concerns to him would be the path most likely to lead to constructive change, if we can agree on what we want. (I am not clear about what we want, except more power to control the main page choices, in general. Do we have specific complaints about his choices?) —Mattisse (Talk) 05:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is complaining about Raul - he is simply scheduling FAs. If you want to see the concerns of editors on this page, see the list of quotes that I provided above. Awadewit (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing this discussion seems to be missing is the fact that in addition to Raul's natural judgment, there are already two "filters" which can be used to oppose an FA becoming TFA. One is the process at TFA/R, where any editor is welcome to express opposition to a TFA proposal. If someone put Jenna Jameson up at TFA/R, I'm sure that there would be a vigorous debate, even ignoring the fact that Raul has said that he won't use that one article as a TFA. The second "filter" is communication with Raul. If an article is promoted to FA, or under consideration for promotion, and editors have concerns about its appropriateness for TFA, Raul is easily accessible and quite reasonable. If there's a compelling argument why a particular article should be featured but not put on the main page, why not make that argument to Raul? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73

Millennium '73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some fresh FAC reviewers on this one. The FAC has seen a few of the same people commenting back and forth, but could use some previously uninvolved editors to take a fresh look and give an evaluation. Comments would be appreciated. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the debate at the FAC has taken place between this controversial article's top-five contributors. Awadewit (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder

I would like to call attention to the deplorable way Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder has been handled and also its associated talk page. Personal attacks have become regular, as you can tell from the edit summaries. There has been no attempt to clarify whether WP:MEDRS or WP:IAR applies to a medical article. It appears from the talk page, that a popular vote will determine this question. This is very discouraging. It leaves the question of standards for medical articles hanging and it allows systematic attacks of well-meaning editors to continue. I have to seriously question if I will participate in any more FACs. If you want to know why it is difficult to get reviewers for FAC, this is why. Thanks for hearing me out. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of the trouble is coming from one editor, yes? I personally think that if FAC ettiquette rules were stricter, it would be a smoother process. By stricter, I mean that if an editor is hurting the process, they are blocked from the page somehow, for an hour or a day or something. I realize that might be a controversial view, but I think if we had a no tolerance policy on personal attacks, harrassment, and bickering, it would be a more peaceful place, reviewers and nominators would be happier, and FACs would go smoother. Wrad (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that one editor was me, at least I was the target of the abuse, because I was under the impression that a medical article was supposed to follow WP:MEDRS. If someone besides the editor that was harassing me had said, no, you are under a misunderstanding, as the real standard is WP:IAR, then I would have known. I think before anyone could block me, I would have to be warned that I was misapplying a standard, and then if I insisted on that standard, perhaps there would be a reason to block me. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's get the chronology clear on this one shall we? See here, and let anyone who cares read through it. Oh, and the section above it is amusing, as I apparently have ADD - very funny. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha)

I have warned Mattisse for that outrageous comment. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been warned [2] that I will be blocked because of a joking comment I made on my own talk page in response to User:Casliber's continued harassment of me on my page, I will not respond to any more comments by User:Casliber on my talk page. I respectfully request User:Casliber to stop harassing me on my talk page. I have never posted on his talk page and do not intend to do so. I will stop commenting on his FAC article also, as I have been repeatedly personally attacked and demeaned there. Consider this a formal withdrawal. I have been successful driven away from that FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, joke or not, that's a poor choice or words to use. You could have not used it. Jokes about guns and bombs at inappropriate places such as airports and planes can get people arrested. Please use more discretion when replying considering the situation and places. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have ADD and am proud of it. It was pointed out on ANI that Casliber knew it was a joke and that the Admin was wrong in his block warning: 07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha), nevertheless, it is too scary for me to continue involvement with these threats. Casliber has driven me away from further involvement with his FAC. I will never Oppose another FAC again. Way too dangerous. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewer/community response to contentious FACs

I watched the FAC for Major depressive disorder off and on until several days ago when it seemed to implode. I was out of town for the past couple days to return and find it a pretty embarrassing display. I have in the past seen very personal comments between editors during the FAC process become more of a show than the article itself; a couple of them have gone to the ANI page. I considered them rare occurrences. However, with MDD it appears that perhaps we should have stepped in to prevent it from going as far as it did. How should we as FAC contributors respond to the derailing of the process? I'm asking for the community's input on what should be done in the future by all of us to ensure the comments provided in an FAC review stay actionable and about the article only.

Since many editors clearly spend a lot of time, energy, and in some cases money on trying to get an article featured, many of us have a personal stake in the FAC process. Once we spend time and energy to review an article, we as reviewers then also have a personal stake in the discussion so the environment is already highly charged. In some interactions, however, this crosses a line from discussion about what should be fixed to making accusations about an editor's personal qualities, or claiming that dissent is an attack. Participants will be quite unwilling to voice their honest opinions if they will be labeled personal attacks, or the commenter categorized merely as a member of a cabal. So - who steps in to say what has gone too far?
Where do we draw the line between intellectual banter and commentary that is no longer helpful for the article or FAC as a whole?
Are these decisions SandyGeorgia and Raul should be making, or is this up to all of us to determine what we will not tolerate?
Should we all take the responsibility of moving any comments not about the improvement of the article to the FAC's talk page, or just reverting them from the FAC?
Should individuals be warned in the FAC or their talk pages once, twice, then three times for derailing the FAC discussion to follow with some kind of admin action? --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have some method of putting problem editors in time out, then the good editors will leave and the number of FAs will shrink. People need to understand that attacks aren't going to be tolerated here, somehow. I think that the easiest way to do this would be for regular reviewers and nominators (neutral parties) to warn editors who may be slipping a bit. Wrad (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the issue is raised, but Dweller has apparently come under some scrutiny for attempting to enforce some decorum and the NPA policy at FAC. As to number 3, I am concerned at how I often I have to intervene because no one else does it. I do not consider it should be my role, and I don't ever recall seeing Raul intervene in a FAC, because other people did it for him. I hope you all can sort something workable here: NancyHeise is also calling for more enforcement, and in that case I also had to step in myself. It is not ideal for me to have to step in and sort issues when a FAC degenerates to personal commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller threatened to block me because of a comment I made on my own talk page, responding to the harassment on my page, that Casliber admitted was a joke - 07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha). Dweller was defended and did not "come under some scrutiny for attempting to enforce some decorum and the NPA policy at FAC." That is a distortion of events. Dweller's warning had nothing to do with the FAC page directly, other than that my comment on my talk page to Casliber was in response to the harassment on my talk page that stemmed from my "Oppose" on the FAC. Casliber spent all last night adding more, while I was asleep, then the block warning to me came after that, saying I should have been blocked without warning. I have been harassed unmercifully on my own talk page by Casliber and his supporters over that FAC. I think there should be some provision against harassing commentators on their talk pages. In any event, I will never "Oppose" an article again. I certainly will never seek to impose standards, as it was my misunderstanding that WP:MEDRS applied to medical articles that caused all the trouble. Someone should have kindly informed me I was wrong about that long before. Now I know that WP:MEDRS does not apply and that WP:IAR does. It would have saved a lot of trouble if that had been made clear early on. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Karanacs do it once or twice, but that's it. It would definitely be good if we were our own police on this. Wrad (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct (I doubt that the followers of AN/I have a solid understanding of the workings of FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I comments were addressing the warning about my comment on my own talk page. FAC did not come up and was not the issue. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wanted to avoid the kind of "enforcement" I have to do in the classroom, but I can do it. Awadewit (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another question is: Who is a neutral party? Someone who has no stake in seeing the article get promoted? Someone who has never argued with the editors in question?

Shall we determine what the line is? I know what other editors take personally and find offensive I do not. Should those who watch FAC simply remove all comments that aren't actionable and about the article, including positive or light-hearted interactions? --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Not the light-hearted interactions! Thank you for hyphenating that compound adjective, btw.) Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that you never just remove something (unless BLP or NPA policy requires it): you never know what I might find useful in evaluating the big picture :-) At most, remove the commentary to talk, but always leave a link to talk on the page (I view the entire FAC page, which doesn't show talk tabs, so if there's no link to talk, I might not realize commentary was removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you would prefer a link to the talk page saying something like Comment by UserX moved to article talk page by UserY: comment not actionable. Or other wording? --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just put "Off-topic commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/articlename#Section heading" (which gives readers a direct link to the talk section). The problem is that when the FAC page moves to archive, all those links have to be updated, so this really should be a rarely used option because it creates a lot of work. Optimally, the off-topic and personal issues would be nipped in the bud before this becomes necessary, because it's a lot of work. A lot of work. The first two RCC FACs required practically non-stop intervention and moving and rethreading on my part, and I don't know if others even realized how much work I was doing to try to keep it on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent. Free the colons of Wikipedia!) Slow response: FAC is FAC and Community is Community. FAC is a process whose goal is to discriminate between FAs and non-FAs. Sandy and Raul should be in charge of FAC 'as just defined. When people start food fights or worse, it's interpersonal behavior, and interpersonal behavior is Community. We should all be involved in pouring balm on chapped egos, hiding sharp objects like forks and knives. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How far, Ling.Nut? Would editors here support an admin block of another editor who has attempted to disrupt an FAC several times? What if the editor may have valid concerns but goes about it wielding a verbal hammer and trying to cower everyone who tries to discuss it by using accusations of cabalism? Could we potentially post a sentence or two at the top of the FAC page, or an amendment to Dweller's reminder to play nice that editors who participate in disruptive behaviors will have their comments moved and may be blocked? How about a warning box at the top of the FAC after an editor or two notices discussion has headed south, to say "This FAC has been noted to cause passionate responses. Editors who make comments that are not relevant to the article may be blocked?" --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It occurred to me with regard to the discussions about editors' unwillingness to vote "oppose", and about FAC becoming a workshop rather than a forum for decision, that it might be good to ask commenters to limit themselves to only two or three comments on the FAC, and add additional specifics to the article talk page (not the FAC candidate talk page). That would move some controversies on article talk pages, and would make the article talk pages the workshops. Which is fine; that's what they're supposed to be. FACs would then be short lists of oppose, support, comment, with "see talk page" where appropriate. FACR would have to be cited on the FAC page, not the article talk page, for opposes, and opposes would still have to be actionable but might say "see examples given on article talk page". If this siphons off the workshopping tendency to the article talk, we might be left with a more "support or oppose" culture at the FAC page itself.

If this approach were to be adopted, editors such as FAC regulars could then snip FAC comments to article talk to comply. This would help manage the "out of control FAC" problem; it would become "out of control article talk" and might then cause a FAC fail on the stability criterion, come to think of it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct assessment; it is not optimal to have disruption move from the FAC to the article, nor to have to watchlist two different pages. That is why I recommend summarizing FAC concerns and comments on the FAC talk page, where everyone following the FAC will see them by watchlisting one page, not two, and where everything related to the FAC will be kept in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not challenge references

I think it would help if the "rules" were clear, so I would not have spent so much time challenging references. I was under the genuine assumption that for the MDD article, since it was an offical medical diagnosis that WP:MEDRS applied for referencing. If I had been told in the beginning that it did not, and that WP:IAR, I would not have been challenging the references. Now I know better than to challenge references, and will never do so again. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Oppose

People should realize that if they "Oppose" they will be harassed on their talk page by the nominator and supporters of that nominator from the beginning. I was harassed for weeks. I certainly will never "Oppose" again. I usually do not, so I was not ready for this experience. If I reacted poorly, I apologize. Truly I do. I spent a lot of my time on the MDD article and have made 213 edits on it myself in the last few weeks, cleaning it up and fixing references.[3] I am now one of the major contributors. I was not prepared to have my comments ignored. I am sorry that I took being ignored so badly. I was too interested in the article being good, and I take responsibility for that. I wish the article name had been changed, so it did not reflect an official diagnostic category; then I would not have been so invested in its accuracy. Again I apologize for the disruption. I pledge not to challenge references again, as that is where the trouble came. I am very sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start this topic about you, Mattisse. As I said above, I have seen contentious articles devolve into personal accusations from editors I respect - a couple in mind happened months ago. I haven't watched any of the nominations for Roman Catholic Church, although it does not surprise me that the discussion got heated. As the FAC process evolves, we as its participants need to decide how far we will allow personal commentary to derail the FAC process. The main event should be the article, not the egos of two or more editors who feel slighted in some way. Major depressive disorder has only been the most recent in a few articles I have watched in which the commentary turned hostile. Where I thought it associated with the topic or with a particularly rough editor, now I can see hostilities will be welcome to return until FAC participants recognize it, remove it, and communicate the inappropriate behavior to the editor(s) in question. --Moni3 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely do not know how to handle the situation at MDD, other than not to follow up. My comments were argued against by five or six people going on irrelevant tangents, threading down the page. Yes, I did enter in, and several times I tried to redirect the topic back, which I now know is wrong. I also don't know how to handle the situation when the nominator says he has addressed a problem and he has not. If I bring it up again, I am accused of repeating myself. The MDD article took an enormous amount of time on my part checking references. I guess I wanted my concerns at least to be addressed and did not handle it well when they were ignored with edit summaries like yawn, blah. I guess I should have just let the article alone and accepted that not all FACs are going to be well scrutinized for accuracy and correct referencing. If I had been able to let go of that feeling that the article needed to be accurate, I could have disengaged. However, that is hard to do that when you know the subject matter thoroughly and have for years. But so what? I should have let go. I hope I have learned something from this experience besides never to oppose again and to ignore the accuracy of references. I have never had this trouble before and I have participated in many FACs in the last couple of years. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to make this discussion a general one about solving this problem rather than a specific one about individual articles. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the contentious FAC general issue

I was offline yesterday but very pleased to come back and see a discussion started about how to deal with contentious FACs. I've seen more and more of these lately, but it looks like we do have a small consensus that reviewers/FAC regulars may need to step in occasionally and remind nominators or reviewers to keep comments directed solely at the FA criteria. What does not look resolved yet is how to do this or who should be doing it.

If I make a comment or declaration at a particular FAC, is it appropriate for me to issue warnings (gentle or official) or move inappropriate comments? Or am I considered an involved party at that point and should request an impartial reviewer to take a look and see if action should be taken?
What types of action should we be taking? Note on the FAC page asking everyone to please focus on WP:WIAFA only? Personal note on the talk pages of the editors who are getting too far off-topic? Just remove the offending comments (even if that means we have to refactor because some of the comments are useful and others are inappropriate)? Official warnings and/or blocks? I have been very reluctant to give official block warnings or to block someone for actions that have taken place at FAC because I do not want to drive anyone away from FAC. Even in the most contentious FACs, if a reviewer or nominator is being a problem, they generally have made at least a few good points that need to be recognized, and I'd hate to discourage them from ever coming back. On the other hand, if we don't draw the line now, are things just going to get worse? Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-tracking this conversation.

On neutral parties giving warnings - I don't believe the nominator(s) or major contributors to the article should be the ones to do this, even if they are long-time established regulars to FAC. They should ask SandyGeorgia to look into it, who could then suggest an impartial person to police the nomination. Ideally it would be someone who has not contributed to the FAC, but since we're so low on reviewers, this may be impossible.
While the derailment of Major depressive disorder was very disappointing to watch, perhaps it would have been avoided early by someone screening out personal comments from the discussion. I'm in favor of moving these comments as the first step. But at what point is an escalation inevitable and circumstances are necessary to place a warning on the FAC and on contributors' talk pages? I don't know. This is uncharted territory for us. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one of the problems, as Snowmanradio, the other opposer to MDD has pointed out [4] at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte is all the snide demeaning comments, made with little words, in edit summaries or at the beginning of remarks. It wore on him also. And he did not even formally "Oppose". He had the sense not to, so he was spared much of the venom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of events at MDD FAC

Given that Mattisse removed this from her talk page making it hard to follow I will repost. I will reiterate; actionable criticisms I am happy with. I am posting the chronology of the early part here and see what viewers make. I am sick of Mattisse repeating that I have harassed and made personal attacks on her.[5][6][7][8] and being 'driven off' [9]She is obfuscating that it was she who began all this mess, which I tried very hard to keep calm and constructive:

Right, here is the sequence of interactions from the beginning of the FAC until the time of Eusebeus support (it took me 2 hours to look through these). Timeline shows you started this:

here you join in with some comments.

[10] here I reply 28 minutes later, agreeing with both, and then notifying I had reworded 4 hours later.

here you make a suggestion which I believe we took up

here I concede your point on Kent and this has been hard to find.

here you highlight prose, which I answered here and tried to fix up but was tricky.

here I think you misinterpret me, I didn't say I was going to use the word conjectural and I try and clarify...

here you make a suggestion, and here I agree with you

The next few diffs we talk about rating scales, and you say this which is odd as the extra ref I got you just removed and I replaced (???)

In the middle, PMID crashed

here you raise some good points, which have been very tricky to thresh out with good secondary sources, and I do concede we did not get on the religion issue sooner, but it is frustrating for me to see it frequently talked about yet insanely hard to cite, until I (finally) found one on google after juggling a bit

here you mak a note of primary sources, I concede it has taken time to whittle them out

here you list some, I kept you updated 2 hours later

here we are back to religion again but the mood is still good as far as I can see; I am having no problem at this stage.

In between, Garrondo notes the 'non-asked for little speech'

...and here it starts. Note I do not/did not have a problem with paras 1-10, though was taken aback by "Further, I am shocked (naive as I am) that anyone would register a "Support" for this article on an important topic without carefully reading it through."

here I begin explaining and trying to address.

here you pull me up on nihilism (which is actually mentioned in some psych textbooks, but you were right in that it wasn't the right word. Still you are starting to get bitey here. And here I concede the point.

here you chime in and repeat yourself again and complain about points not being addressed. This speech was uncalled for and quite threatening. There was material cropping up which I was dealing with steadily, and had dealt with some of your by this time. As I said, some refs were elusive.

here I am staying calm and positive

....and here you go again - ironically, you complain of page length and decide to question other editors' supports.

Meanwhile others are attempting to address concerns still

here I make a measured comment as by this stage I am becoming worn out by your previous comments and I say that "reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom." was pretty much what your comments felt like to me.

[11] you apologise here

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder&diff=next&oldid=249520639 here I try and show my appreciation and note the points you have mentioned are valid.

and here...um...you come out of the blue again

So here I try and wave an olive branch.

here you rejoin in a more constructive/neutral way

and here is a pretty drastic comment but I do concede added in a neutral manner.

here you sort of half offer to help...and here I try to show my appreciation.

here is a thankyou from you.

but here you decide not to look uin your book and qualify with a rather exaggerated and inaccurate statement about references.

This page shouldn't be a referendum on who was/was not acting poorly on a specific FAC. In this particular case, since the FAC has been brought up repeatedly here, I'd recommend that if someone wants action taken to file a Wikiquette or RFC. Let's keep it off of here, though, please. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not being checked at FAC

Because the great Ealdgyth is currently on vacation, hardly any FACs since 16 November have had a sources check. Does anyone else know how to use the checker tool (or what it is)? I'd accept training if someone would train me, but for the present I feel I can't do much. Is there anything that can be done, apart from waiting for Ealdgyth's return? Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "link checker tool" just checks the links (it is on every FAC page in the toolbox to the right). You have to assess the sources yourself, however. That is what checking sources is - going through the notes and seeing if they are reliable. It is extremely tedious and we should bow down to the God of Ealdgyth for doing this. Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancoltan also has been training in evaluating sources, but ideally, all reviewers should be doing this, to lighten the load on Ealdgyth and decrease this trend to specialization. Everyone active at FAC should have a working knowledge of how to evaluate sources. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, and Ealdgyth has a cheat sheet somewhere in her userspace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't everyone look at the list of sources? That's the first thing I do when assessing an FAC. Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was always my first priority as a reviewer as well, and I didn't even go to the next level if the article wasn't reliably sourced. But ... I've seen many indications that few reviewers are even considering this, and we even get Supports over long list of questionable sources. It's a mystery to me, as WP:V is a core policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I've somewhat forgotten about reviewing sources. I'll try to review some tonight. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth just used the link checker tool. It is extremely easy to do and takes at the most 5 minutes per article using the link checker tool. Takes no special training, except knowing to check some links, despite what the link checker says. He did not evaluate the links, other than the minimal checking that they are not dead. A little extra checking by the user can ensure that the redirects go to the right place. In fact, I often check after he has, as have found dead links that have become dead since his check. Also, sometimes he finds links dead that are actually fine. With a little extra effort, not much, you can check the link for relevance of content and reliability of source. Of course, this only applies to web sources. Anyone one can put book references in and someone must have the book also to evaluate accuracy and appropriateness. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order, I did not "Just" use the link checker tool. I'm home, and will be doing FAC tomorrow morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was ever in question; it was one of numerous misstatements filling up the FAC page which are best let go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Unless of course the book is online, like on Google, which is where I get a lot of sources for my articles from. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a wonderful resource. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the webchecker tool completely misses any link within the {{LondonGazette}} template so they need to be checked manually. That was a note to all reviewers actually, as I have had to fix a few dead ones through my time here. Woody (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry, I was mesmerised by the Ealdgyth mantra: "Sources look OK, links check out with the link checker tool" . I can do links. I can do some sources too, but there are some subjects, e.g. wrestling, film stars, where I simply don't know whether a source is reliable or not, and have tended to rely on others. This discussion has made me feel a little guilty about my inactivity in this area, particularly as I owe the FAC process an enormous amount for the time it has spent reviewing my stuff in the last year. So I'd better buckle down and become a trainee sources reviewer. I may have to ask for help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a fair amount of real checking with link checker tool if you go to the actual links, and don't just check for the dead ones. Subjects like wrestling has some experts, User:Giants2008, User:GaryColemanFan, names you get used to seeing reviewing those articles. Hurricanes and weather the same way, as some other topics. You become familiar the names. Also, scientific topics and such, usually editors knowledgeable about the subject matter turn up. A wonderful resource, I find, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can ask questions and quickly get answers that I find quite useful. For example, there are some medical specialists who monitor that page and give good answers and suggestions for other sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth did not just use the link checker tool - she helped nominators figure out which sources were reliable and which were not. Awadewit (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth made it clear in statements on FACs that no endorsement was intended. Ealdgyth just listed the fishy sounding ones, which takes a few minutes, and asked the editor to justify them. But checking them out is not hard. All you have do to is follow each of them and look at it. Usually, it is not hard to tell per WP:RS whether it is a legitimate source. For things like wrestling, etc. I suggest my comments above. I had thought that WP:MEDRS applied to medical article, but apparently that is not true anymore, and WP:RS applies. There are special guidelines for science articles, but the science editors are good about policing that. Ealdgyth did not address non web-based sources. I don't think the job involves nearly what you do for images. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think source checking is hard - it is tedious, as I said. I've done it and clicking all over websites and tracking down books is very time-consuming. Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking sources is indeed more tedious than difficult. Sometimes, issues are borderline, which leads to some difficulty at FAC, though. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that Ealdgyth didn't deal with books or verify whether the material was actually sourced by the citation. Ealdgyth just used the link checker, picked some fishy looking links, and asked the nominator to justify them. No one checks anything else, like whether journal articles say what the editors claim. If someone did, Major depressive disorder would never had so many supports. I checked them, and that is where I got into trouble. I don't recommend doing it unless you are prepared to encounter hostility. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking is entirely different - we have no fact-checking system at FAC, you are correct. I've always thought FAs should be fact-checked, but that is a different issue and I don't see that we have the resources to do that at the present time. Ealdgyth checked to see if the sources were reliable. That is a huge help. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Ealdgyth did is not hard and takes only 5 or 10 minutes at most for most articles. For example, I just did it for the new Major depressive disorder submission. I have done it many times. I would do it for FAC, hands down, if I did not have such a negative feeling about FAC and the way I am treated there. So I will not do it. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it hard? Maybe not. Is it important? Definitely. Verifiability is a core content policy. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But if you do it at FAC you will encounter enormous hostility if the nominator is popular. Some nominations are foregone conclusions, so I don't recommend doing it. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes it hard checking others books etc. as well as any offline content. Some material can be intuited as there is a sense by checking online that a reliable published source will concur with it. I do feel a bit embarrassed about some of the sourcing for MDD which has now been just about rectified, and I have learnt alot in the process. Mattisse I repeat again, I did not have a problem with your checking sources and appreciate you did that so please stop misrepresenting the unfolding of events on the FAC. If someone else wants to look at the chronology above I would appreciate it, I am getting tired of being repeatedly accused of this.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for recognizing the tremendous amount of work I put into that article, even if you did try to get me blocked today. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I did not notify Dweller. I note that you have refused to comment on the chronology provided too.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be blocked, since I am on probation apparently by Dweller who is lurking, so I will be careful here. I will not comment on your chronology other than to say I noticed it was extremely selective and self-serving and did not include 90% of the talk page and FAC posting. It also neglected to show all the demeaning remarks by Cosmic Latte and others who made mincemeat of any attempts I made to list cohesive remarks at the FAC Further, your chronology seemed to stop around November 5 or so, leaving out approximately 3 weeks. Plus you did try to get me blocked. It was a direct result of you malicious posting that Dweller wanted to block me without warning for an innocent remark, you know very well, on my own talk page after your continuous posting there. I should never have let my guard down enough to joke with you. That was a dangerous mistake I made that I will not repeat with you. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the chronology was to show the genesis of the problem. I will make no comment on Cosmic as that happened later, also I was referring to your comments on me which you keep making, and you chose to remove this from your talk page. OK, you figure I have left out some implicating comments from the period? Produce them then, otherwise just drop the comments about me and my alledged attacks or your attributions to how events unfolded. I will drop it if you will. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. The genesis, Book I? Is this ~~god~~ speaking? Don't want to be blocked by your friend, so please note the strike out. Cheers, (I love it when someone ends a hostile remark with "Cheers") —Mattisse (Talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheers" is part of his signature, IIRC. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is extremely irritating when the remark the "Cheers" follows is disparaging or in other ways negative. Very obnoxious and obviously impersonal. Why bother to sign off with an insincere or incongruous "Cheers". Very inflammatory, from my point of view. I have discussed this with other editors in the past. No one likes a pat, insincere "signature". Especially, something like "Cheers" following a threat or other negative comment! —Mattisse (Talk) 06:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we have come a long way from sources. Perhaps we should get back there. Awadewit (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. Gee. I'm so glad to know my source checking was not hard or take a long time. I guess that hour or so every morning where I read sites and looked at footnotes and stuff can be handled by others easily enough. Guess I don't need to bother with FAC in the morning then, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join the crowd; let it go; keep up the good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ealdgyth. Couldn't tell by the articles, as I often follow up behind you and found problems. But I'll not bother anymore, since it is not a big deal. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I think we should all try to avoid attacking Ealdgyth and her work at FAC. This work is very unlikely to be done by any other editors, and it would be great shame if we lost her to discouragement. If you have indeed found issues after her check, why not just point it out? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Err" is one of those unfortunate terms used by editors, I guess, to express disapproval. No more hurricane supports for you! To answer your question, sometimes I point it out on the FAC page if I cannot take care of it myself. Usually, it is just an error, so I just inform the article editor. Sometimes, when there are major problems, I spend time finding alternative sources. However, since Ealdgyth is going to do all that now, the double-checking, replacing sources and such, I guess I won't have to bother. So I will cease and desist. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should add that if Ealdgyth had been around to check the Major depressive disorder FAC, it would have saved me much grief! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed I read each source and double checked that the information sourced to the footnote is reflected in the article, but neither is the source check as simple as "check the links". I look at the formatting of the sources, I check the publishers, I check they aren't vanity presses, that they are from reputable publishers, that journal articles are to the best of my knowledge respected journals or other news sources, that other issues connected with sourcing follows things. When possible, I spot check the online sources against statements in the article. I generally also, if I have the printed sources in my library, spot check them against the statements in the article. I'm sorry that you don't approve of what is done, and I'm sorry you're so obviously upset with FAC processes. Amazingly enough though, this thread didn't start out as about MDD, but somehow lately everything discussed about FAC seems to go that way, doesn't it? But it would be nice if discussions on the FAC pages that are unrelated to specific articles didn't always turn into a discussion of the faults of the MDD FAC, you know? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ealdgyth, for that clear explanation of what you do. I started this thread simply because I was concerned that, in your absence, FACs weren't getting the usual source checks, and wondered if I could help. I have been doing a bit, and am happy to continue doing so. It a bit like checking my bank statements - not very interesting, but necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I believe when someone does mass mailing to many people, not just contributors, that is canvasing. For example, in the case I am thinking of, A. Nobody was not a contributor but nonetheless a receiver of a mass mailing. But, of course, this FAC is sponsored by the FAC foundation. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice to contact people who have participated in an FAC when it is restarted so that everyone can restate their comments. This is a courtesy, not canvassing. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sandy had said on that FAC page that it was alright to notify contributors, but since this is an FAC Foundation sponsored FAC, I am sure your statement will become true. Why should we worry about details when our director has an investment in this article, being, I believe, the fourth highest contributor (after me) since the first FAC started. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting in 1-2 sentences on the FAC page about restarting FAC noms and notifying previous contributors. Nice accusation there Mattisse. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to all parties: stop turning WT:FAC into a personal battleground. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Casliber; on future restarts (which are very rare), I'll be sure to leave an explanatory note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is A. Nobody a previous contributor? How about that other "contributor" somebody "sentence" who said the introduction had improved? You didn't notify him, so I can't get his name off your spam list. So what does "contribuor" mean, as he said as much as A. Nobody. Oh yeah, he didn't say "support". I can't find his exact name as the prior FAC is inaccessible from my point of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd always want to be notified of a restart, whether I've previously supported or opposed. Similarly, I'd want to be notified if an article that failed a previous FAC came back - which is a much more common occurrence. I think that notifying all contributors, positive and negative, is the best way to avoid accusations of canvassing. As is the obvious point that even more than other !votes on Wikipedia, FAC is very much not a vote, as one (unaddressed) well-stated, WIAFA-based oppose will counterbalance any number of supports. An official line about notifications in the instructions is not a bad idea. --Dweller (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint about canvasing is that often, when that happens, there are a pile support votes within a day or two of nomination, as occurred in a recent one, with the support editors admitting they had not read the article for a month or more. I believe editors should read the article before voting, but politics are inevitable. I agree with your suggestion that it would be a good idea to emphasize that it is not a vote. If you look at FACs, some are reasonable, but some are very much conducted as a vote. In a recent FAC, someone tallied up the "votes" on the talk page, regardless of how considered the "vote" was. So that seemed to confirm that weighing in with any sort of an opinion was a vote.

However, I don't agree that one "oppose" even well-considered will derail. The supporters can obfuscate the "well-considered oppose" so that it becomes meaningless. In the end, I do think it is a vote, regardless of what is stated. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's bad. Something that Sandy's always been very hot on is picking out serious opposes and holding them above being outweighed by any number of supports, especially trivial drive-bys. Perhaps this is something the FAC regulars can help with - discouraging and disputing this kind of behaviour. Tallies of "votes" are just ridiculous. Sandy, perhaps an addition to my tag for contentious FACs could be a reminder that it's not a vote, or even a !vote? I'll draft something when I have the head. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe everything you read on this page lately, Dweller. I list declarations on talk pages when the FAC has been so badly disrupted that it's no longer readable. That doesn't make it a vote, and anyone who reads it as such is misguided. I'd also encourage more discussion as to whether we should be tagging FACs as contentious, as that might not work in favor of the article's best interest. In all of the contentious FACs, it's not been the FAC or the article as often as it's one or two editors causing the disruption, so perhaps the focus should be on dealing with editor behavior on talk pages, and leaving the FAC cleaner for subsequent reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to make that clear when doing tallies, especially when numbering the editors' names on a lists under Labels Support and Oppose as you did here, as it gives the impress of counting [12] I am listed by name as Oppose while 9 editors' names are listed under Supports. What is the point, however confusing the page, of making tallies and lists of names, if lists and tallies do not count? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging a FAC as contentious? <bonks forehead> Now why didn't we think of that earlier? That is of course merely common sense. I... am very leery of coming down with a heavy hand at FAC because you know, I sometimes think a little impersonal conflict or heat can be constructive. But how many admins do we have at FAC? The first step would be tagging a FAC contentious, along with a big note to tell everyone it's been tagged contentious... I sometimes miss templates atop a page, if someone else posts immediately thereafter... the next step would be for an admin to start gently persuading folks that they don't want to stand tall in front of The Man. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't always agree with Ling.Nut, but this time I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Matisse: I haven't read the MDD FAC, which is apparently the source of your obvious frustration. May I ask, simply and clearly, what do you want? Sorry to point you out etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut, it is hard to convey. Only two of us opposed, and the other had the sense not to actually vote oppose, so he was not trashed as much. It was a very uncivil FAC, with no order being maintained. A little of the flavor comes from this [13] from Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte where the other opposer of the MDD FAC is trying to convey, in a gentle fashion, why it was so unpleasant for him. He lists some of the unpleasant wording chronically used by that editor. It was just generally uncivil. I have never experienced anything like it. It was like a gang rape. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Mattisse, it was nothing like a gang rape; it was a disagreement amongst friends. From which, according to my favourite philosopher, truth springs. Disagreement is crucial to the success and integrity of the project, and the way disagreement is handled even more so. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a dispute among friends. Where do you get that idea? Those people are not my friends. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the overblown rhetoric out of this discussion. FAC is not "like gang rape" in any way. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself. You did not experience it. It has totally changed my attitude toward FAC. I have never experienced anything like it since I was chased by sock puppets for six months. Allow me to have my feeling without being so dismissive. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be dismissive. Virtual attacks, however horrendous, are nothing like the brutal physical attack of a rape. I find the entire comparison sickening. Awadewit (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Eek, I should've known the question would reopen the debate. But Matisse, if you have probs with Latte and Casliber... I would think that the appropriate thing to do would be to head to some dispute resolution forum.. Wikiquette, RfC etc. Talk FAC is for reforming the FAC process. Aside from Sandy's suggestion of a "Contentious topic" template & my addition of an admin on hand, the behavior of individual editors is not within the purview of FAC. And the template/admin suggestions are actually simply doorways to take interpersonal disputes away from FAC and into dispute resolution forums... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut, do you live under a rock? Those processes are useless, time consuming waste pits. I had to go to ArbCom to get rid of the pile of sock puppets after me, after numerous RFCs, Mediations, Dispute resolutions. They are worthless. They make the problem worse. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Aside from Sandy's suggestion of a "Contentious topic" template ... I have not suggested a contentious template: on the contrary, I don't recommend it. I'm concerned it is unfair to prejudice an article and a FAC when the rare cases of FAC disruption usually come from very few editors, and those editors should be dealt with outside of FAC. A FAC should be templated as a last resort: the problem to date has been that no admins have dealt with disruptive behavior on FACs, obliging me to frequently intervene (and now we also have suggestions that FAC commentary should go to article talk pages, which merely moves the disruption out of sight). See my post above, since this idea is not mine: "I'd also encourage more discussion as to whether we should be tagging FACs as contentious, as that might not work in favor of the article's best interest. In all of the contentious FACs, it's not been the FAC or the article as often as it's one or two editors causing the disruption, so perhaps the focus should be on dealing with editor behavior on talk pages, and leaving the FAC cleaner for subsequent reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity: it was my idea. (that's why it's in my user space) And if Sandy thinks it's a bad one, or needs rethinking or further thought, I'm happy with that. Most (vast majority) FACs do proceed without problem, it's true. --Dweller (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea at all, Dweller; I'm just saying it should really be a last resort, rarely needed, only if other attempts to deal with the disruptive editors are unsuccessful. I spent hours reorganizing the MDD FAC several times to try to impart some readability to the opposes; perhaps other editors don't realize this, as they only see the finished product, and not the interim chaos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. But I share your concern for nasal trimming --Dweller (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)* @Sandy. OK, I saw "I'd also encourage more discussion as to whether we should be tagging FACs as contentious" and missed the latter half. Sorry. It wasn't your idea. I retract tht statement.

@Matisse. The processes we have are all we have. The situation as you describe it seems to me to be a classic case of an interpersonal conflict. All we have for interpersonal conflicts are... the processes we have for interpersonal conflicts. If you don't feel that they work, then I don't know what to suggest. But I would suggest that FAC is still not the place to resolve interpersonal conclicts. It simply is not the correct forum. It's like going to an art gallery to watch a baseball game, or going to a dentist to get glasses. It just isn't the right place for tht activity. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeking to solve them. I'm not stupid. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Sandy pointed this out up above, but it has been lost in the slugfest. Anybody interested in revisiting it? I see little point in pushing ahead with discussion of other changes if they are likely to be reverted on the same basis. Yomangani ^talk 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Christopher Parham the only Opposer, then? Just asking. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I did not revert, and didn't object to the attempt to add it, but I think Christopher was right that there was not a definite consensus for it and that it was not clear how the new phrase would be interpreted in practice. I think it was reasonable for someone to revert.

How about nominating four or five editors, who represent some of the differing points of view on this, to work together at the Wikipedia:Content_review/workshop and try to come up with a consensus suggestion for review by everyone here? That workshop has been silent for a while; the idea was to give interested parties a separate location for the conversation. It had one success -- the automation of peer review -- but has not been very active for a while now. Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better? I would propose (ducking) another method, but I suppose it will be shot down: I would suggest that everyone (except me) participate in a "brainstorming session" to come up with better verbiage. I would further suggest that arguments be kept to a bare minimum; only comments that refine or seek to refine a given suggestion should be offered. No Opposes to any suggestion allowed, for a period to be agreed upon (beforehand or after the fact, whatever). I'm just thinking, crap, the cycle is endless: we have one or two ideas, we bicker over them endlessly, etc. Then while we're busy bickering over proposals unlikely to pass, no one is thinking of new ones. How's about we temporarily skip over the bickering part? Just a thought.Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need specific proposals to debate, I agree, but we need to be sure that once they are agreed upon by those discussing them, they are not reverted by one person. If one person can upset the consensus, then these reform efforts are fruitless. Awadewit (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly true. It appears that this mythical wikipedia "consensus" is at best illusory if one editor can overturn what's been agreed between the other interested parties. What's the point? There will always be someone who disagrees with anything; should that person have the deciding vote? "Consensus" on wikipedia is simply another name for "stasis". Nothing changes, except insofar as it just continues to get worse. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense is intended to either Mike or Christopher, but I just reverted Christopher's reversion of yesterday. After carefully reading the FACs that were linked in that discussion, it seems clear that the community already uses this standard to determine what passes and what fails. You can argue that the wording isn't perfect or that we don't know exactly what it means yet, but I think it's clear that the criteria including Awadewit's phrase are a better representation of reality than without. Even if that weren't true, please re-read the discussion. We rarely get that kind of consensus around here; let's cherish the moment! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the community already uses this standard is that it is already present in the criteria and has been for a long time. An article that does not establish context does not contain all major facts and details about the topic. Nobody, so far as I can tell, has claimed differently. At the same time, there's no agreement that the outcome of any past or future FAC would be changed by this addition. The implication that this is a "reform effort", when nobody believes that it alters either the spirit or practical application of the criteria, mystifies me; immaterial changes in wording do not constitute reform. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the additional wording apparently makes the criterion clearer for some people and you believe that it doesn't doesn't alter the criteria there is no reason to remove it. Hooray, consensus re-established. Arf. Yomangani ^talk 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher, we have worked together at WT:MOS and WT:Layout and you are good at seeing these things ... when you take the time to read it through and think it through. Don't cut corners here; there are a lot of FACs to read in order to pick up the pattern. Read those links above, and consider whether coverage of "context" or "background" isn't a reasonable way of describing whether recent short-ish FACs have succeeded or not. IMO it's a much better description of what's actually happening than just looking at how the relevant "facts" of the subject were covered. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]