Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

WT:TFA

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

wp:TFT

I am wondering what would people think about linking a FT to a running TFA. For example, today's TFA, "Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)" could have linked to the discography topic had it been not a GT, but a FT. Perhaps link it somewhere around the "Recently featured:..." part? Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Angelou

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is the 1969 autobiography about the early years of writer and activist Maya Angelou. The first in a six-volume series, it is a coming-of-age story that illustrates how strength of character and a love of literature can help overcome racism and trauma. In the course of Caged Bird, Maya transforms from a victim of racism with an inferiority complex into a self-possessed, dignified young woman capable of responding to racism. Angelou was challenged by her friend, author James Baldwin, and her editor, Robert Loomis, to write an autobiography that was also a piece of literature. Because Angelou uses thematic development and other techniques common to fiction, reviewers often categorize Caged Bird as autobiographical fiction, but the prevailing critical view characterizes it as an autobiography, a genre she attempts to critique, change and expand. The book covers topics common to autobiographies written by black American women in the years following the civil rights movement: a celebration of black motherhood; a critique of racism; the importance of family; and the quest for independence, personal dignity, and self-definition. Caged Bird was nominated for a National Book Award in 1970 and remained on The New York Times paperback Best Seller list for two years. However, the book's graphic depiction of racism, sexuality and childhood rape have caused it to be challenged or banned in some schools and libraries. (Full article...)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is part of the Maya Angelou autobiographies series, one of Wikipedia's featured topics.

Recently featured: Hare coursing – Meningitis – Museum of Bad Art

Something like this, perhaps? Bencherlite ^Talk 14:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a topical example, as it turns out... Bencherlite ^Talk 14:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something even more subtle than this, but this would work. Nergaal (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the idea of linking a FT to TFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not sure about the formatting, but it's a perfectly good inclusion. —Designate (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm all for this. Being a delegate for FTC, I think this'll help get the project and the Featured Topics some well needed exposure on the main page. GamerPro64 05:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A most excellent proposal by Nergaal. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noted here a lot earlier that this has been happening since July, using {{TFATOPIC}} immediately after the blurb e.g. Part of the Sega Genesis featured topic.. "Today's featured list" does the same now too. See Wikipedia:Featured topics/Main Page appearances for the details. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with the M's?

Is the queue now in alphabetic order and is having an alliterative title a new FA criterion?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's some odd connection between the letter M and the first week of October, then it looks like just a fluke; there's no such pattern before Oct 1 or after today.87.69.198.33 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No fluke but on the contrary my deliberate choice, for a bit of fun. The answers to Maunus's questions are "no" and "of course not". Bencherlite ^Talk 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus with three m in the signature is the mucho macho better person to ask than GA. (I received an answer from Mimfmeak on my talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two featured articles at a time?

I vaguely remember when Barack Obama and John McCain were featured on the main page together on Election Day, 2008. I don't, however, recall any other time when the TFA blurb was shared, and I have a suitable anniversary in mind for a possible second time. June 23, 2016 will be the twenty-fifth anniversary of Sonic the Hedgehog - the character, the Sega Genesis game, and the franchise. I raised Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) to GA status last month and am planning to put it up at FA sometime this coming year, and I was thinking of doing similar work with Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game), which was itself produced for the original game's 15th anniversary. I think it'd be cool to show two very different entries in the series that nonetheless share the same, unrevealing name, side-by-side, but am open to other suggestions - I think it'd be a shame to limit this TFA to one Sonic article, if any is chosen at all. Thoughts? Tezero (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the second time, but it still would be an unusual thing to do - see WP:Today's featured article oddities. Good luck in your improvement efforts - you've got plenty of time to get there. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator

I have been scheduling TFAs for nearly 2 years now and it has reached a stage where I am finding it to be less rewarding and more of a chore. I have lots of articles that I would like to write, or improve, but virtually all of my on-wiki time at present is taken up with scheduling articles and the like – and my on-wiki time is getting increasingly squeezed by work and family commitments, which must of course take priority.

So I have decided that it's time for me to give notice of my intention to stand down as TFA co-ordinator as soon as my replacement(s) can be found. The first step will probably need to be to decide on a process for choosing a TFA coordinator, since no new appointments have been made to the FAC/FAR/TFA processes since we stopped having an FA director. I expect that this will take some time, particularly as Arbcom elections will attract lots of attention in the next few weeks and then we are into the Christmas period. There is no immediate rush – I will carry on scheduling until my services are no longer required.

It may surprise you to learn that most days nobody makes any suggestion for what to run – I am left to my own devices, helped only by resources such as WP:FADC (which I have spent a lot of time completing and keeping up-to-date) and WP:TFAREC (ditto). This can be great fun, and I have on occasions used the freedom to schedule allegedly amusing runs of articles (see WP:TFAO), or articles that I have particularly enjoyed reading. I have spent many happy hours reading the very best that Wikipedia has to offer the world, and am left in awe of those who can produce superb articles on such a wide variety of topics – particularly those who can seemingly write an FA in the time it takes me to tie my shoelaces!

I won't pretend that the last two years have been problem-free. I have made mistakes, inevitably, and no doubt different people would come up with differing lists of them. But I have done my best and I think that TFA/TFAR is a rather different place to what it was two years ago. I hasten to add that I can only take a small part of the credit for that – there are lot of regular contributors who have worked hard to help improve the general atmosphere at TFAR and improve the TFA process, by nominating articles, commenting upon nominations (whether in favour or against), improving blurbs, adding or fixing images, notifying editors of forthcoming TFA appearances, operating bots, and the like. Particular thanks to those who, by manual edits or creating a bot, are doing their best to replace the bots that used to operate in the TFA field but that are now sadly offline. And that's without even starting to think about all those involved in the FAC / FAR processes with which TFA is inextricably linked. I'm not going to start naming names because any such list would be invidiously incomplete. Thank you all. Without you all, the job would have been impossible.

I'm sure that whoever takes over (and I would suggest that perhaps it's a job for more than one person in future) will enjoy the continued goodwill of the community. They will, of course, have any advice and support from me that they need. I have really enjoyed scheduling and feel very privileged to have been allowed to do it at all, let alone for two years. Yours demob-happily, Bencherlite ^Talk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you did, planning ahead enough and adding humour to the process. - I hope we will keep that, finding a new way which hopefully rests on more shoulders than any single person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bencherlite. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add my thanks to Bencherlite for the work he put into making things runs so smoothly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from someone who hasn't participated in this area of Wikipedia but who recognizes the importance of the work you have done. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my voice to all above. You can be proud of what you've done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your services, Bencherlite. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the immense work you did put in. I'm sorry it became so disagreeable, though I suppose that tends to happen with time. Tezero (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the brilliant job you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

TFA is indeed a different place these days and you've definitely left a very positive mark on it, Bench, not least for streamlining the mechanics of the nomination process. I'm very sorry to see you step down but quite understand, and hope you have even more fun being able to spend more time on writing and reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hard work you have done to not only maintain, but to improve the process.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also from me for your outstanding work in this role Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything you have done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all the work you've done over the years. I don't spend much time around TFA/FAC, but it's clear that you've done an excellent job. Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative way forward

Rather than appoint another coordinator, or team, I propose that we find a way to allow the community to develop consensus, much as we do for, say DYK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A team of editors is a good idea to share the load (similar to what we currently have at WP:FAC), but I don't think a process similar to DYK is the best route to go for Today's Featured article. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Some things are not suitable for endless bickering. Take the fuck articles as an example—in the end someone has to say "yes" or "no" and we all have to live with their judgment. Strong leadership is much better than fighting until "consensus" emerges for issues like this. There is no reliable source or policy that can decide what to do on the main page—it's just judgment. A TFA director is not expected to always make the right decision, and it is likely that a bitterly fought RFC for every sentence every day would produce worse results. Even simple things like whether some articles should be repeated (like the Whitlam TFA) have no objective correct outcome, and they benefit from a reasonably quick yes/no. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Johnuniq, although I think a team like the group of coordinators at WP:FAC including Ucucha, Graham Beards, and Ian Rose, could work quite well. — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I extremely strongly disagree about the fuck articles. (I personally voted no.) A tally vote, at the very least, is better than simply one trumping vote, which really isn't necessarily any more valid than any of the community's votes, especially if the topic is emotionally provocative. Tezero (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Yes, a small team who can make a decision would be good. No more than three!

@Tezero: This is the Internet where a large proportion of people like displaying their courage and notcensored views, so there will be plenty more opportunities to discuss the merits of featuring such articles (search for my user name at the liberty discussion to see my oppose). However, the point is that people argue about which dash to use, and whether my last comma should be removed. They will do that for nearly every main page section on nearly every day. It is not helpful or sustainable. A director who made many wrong decisions would be much better than a knock-down-winner-takes-all democracy for something which needs to work every day. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This position needs to be handed to someone who is respected and competent. Elections will result in a vacillating coordinator unwilling to make difficult calls. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a small panel of two or three coordinators, as has already been suggested, makes sense. My initial thought would be to see if at least one of those spots could be filled by someone currently serving as a Featured Content coordinator (no, not me, I'm quite happy with my FAC duties!), augmented by one or two other experienced editors as appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three TFA co-ordinators, yes, to share the workload. I don't see any particular advantage in loading this duty on to a current FAC co-ordinator. The only requirements should be {a} that the persons appointed have reasonable knowledge and experience of the FA process; (b) they have the general confidence of the community and (c) they have fairly thick skins. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn’t suggest the possibility of a FAC coordinator (unless Graham or Ucucha are feeling keen!) but rather FC coordinator(s), which covers a much larger array of people in trusted positions -- one or two of whom may be willing and able to step across without adversely affecting their current areas of responsibility -- as well as one or two others not currently holding office but who are, as you say, familiar with FA and trusted in the FC community (and possessing of think skins)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think skins? Well...maybe? Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, spelling-and-grammar checker obviously doesn't have "thick skin" in its known phrases list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some fresh blood in the positions. We have people experienced in TFA, I see no need to ask a FC coordinator from another area to step across. Let's find two or three who are capable and broadly acceptable, and get on with things. Possibly even make it for a set term, but I fear that endless complications will result once we start going down that road.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wehwalt - new faces would be good - surely we can do this by discussion and not elections. Also fixed terms not good idea. It should be informal and no big deal, as long as the person has some common sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]