User talk:Raul654

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

• Archive 1: August - November 2003
• Archive 2: December - March 2004
• Archive 3: April - July 2004
• Archive 4: August - November 2004
• Archive 5: December - March 2005
• Archive 6: April - July 2005
• Archive 7: August - November 2005
• Archive 8: December - March 2006
• Archive 9: April - July 2006
• Archive 10: August - November 2006

• Archive 11: December - February 2007
• Archive 12: March - May 2007
• Archive 13: June - August 2007
• Archive 14: September - December 2007
• Archive 15: January - March 2008
• Archive 16: April - June 2008
• Archive 17: July - September 2008
• Archive 18: October - December 2008
• Archive 19: January - March 2009
• Archive 20: April 2009 - June 2009
• Archive 21: July 2009 - September 2009
• Archive 22: October 2009 - March 2010
• Archive 23: April 2010 - November 2010
• Archive 24: December 2010 - April 2011

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Epsilon Eridani

Hello,

I'm the nominator for the Epsilon Eridani article. Please could you remove this from the FAC list as it has not received sufficient support at this time and the reviews are more about style issues than FA criteria. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, please could you reject this FAC. The article needs some rework based on a recent paper. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing

Hi Raul - WP:Featured article review/Japan/archive1 looks to be getting close to a keep without FARC. However, it's going to be yours to close, as I initiated the review and have remained intimately involved in it. Also, sent you an e-mail. Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A ping on this, since it seems to be maturing. Your decision, though, obviously. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Promethean

I've closed the AN/I thread. If there are wider issues, I'd suggest that you thrash them out with him or open an RfC/U. However, it'd best to not call him a 'dick' or any other such insults; if part of the problem with his editing is incivility then dishing out more incivility in response is hardly going to help matters. Fences&Windows 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Raul654. You have new messages at Lanthanum-138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Groan!

Groan!

Looking ahead, I hereby award this barnstar for your choice of TFA on 12 April, following the pattern of the preceding week. Keep up the good work! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 02:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Grin - I was wondering when someone would notice that :) Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it, it just seemed silly to bring it up. But then I'm always reading the monthly lists for "similarity".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cites publisher wikilink

In citation templates, should the publisher name be linked?

First time only?

I searched, and can't find a good definitive answer - therefore, here I am!

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a standard for that. Personally, I wouldn't do it - unlike linking authors or titles in refs (which, IMO, is a good idea) I don't think links to the imprint or publisher are particularly useful. Raul654 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Roy Orbison

Raul, sorry to bother you, but you are my only "friend" here who I can ask. Yesterday I did a good bit of work on the Roy Orbison article - added a new section "75th birthday tributes" with some content and six references. My plan was to continue to beef it up as the date of Roy's 75th birthday approaches (April 23) and other tributes become known. I am stunned to discover that all my hard work was reverted by another editor who said two of my references were "questionable" and therefore notability was in question. I thought we were to assume good faith. I don't do shabby work and one of my objectives here is to help as much as I can cleaning-up articles and citing sources (as evidenced by my participation in WP:URBLP). That said, having my hard work so casually dismissed is very discouraging. Would really appreciate you taking a look at the Roy Orbison article and letting me know if you think the revert was justified. Thank you for your time! Kmzundel (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the editor saying Roy Orbison isn't notable (raises eyebrows)?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that is NOT what the editor is saying. I suspect he/she is referring to the musicians doing the tribute concerts and/or the other musicians referenced. Kmzundel (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, listing non notable artists would be a question of editorial judgment. Since there's a fair amount to say about Orbison, I'm sure, I'd lean against it but I'm not doing the writing so I'm not there, so to speak. It seems to be something to work out on talk page, although it is certainly appropriate for you to seek advice from Raul or anyone else who cares to chime in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability can be subjective - especially when we're not familiar with the person/place/thing. I took a look at the venues hosting the two tribute concerts specifically mentioned and researched the artists before deciding to include them. If anything both affirm Roy's worldwide influence. The deletion seemed harsh when so much worse writing is often accepted and/or tagged instead. Kmzundel (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Raul. Check me out. I'm the subject of two unrelated threads here back to back, this one and the one below. I don't think that has ever happened. But Kmzundel, I replied to you on my talk page, where you first posted. Did you forget that you posted there or were you just hoping to find someone who makes less sense than I? --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Aspersions and concerns

Raul, I have been informed that I have cast aspersions in your direction at Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples and Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Amazing Grace‎. I am quite new to adding music .ogg files to articles. There is currently a ruckus at "Amazing Grace" regarding music samples and I an not so impressed with the version of the song that you added in terms of its ability to present a depiction of what the song sounds like to the reader. I have attempted to add samples that I would want to hear if I were a reader. This has led to debate on the article's contents. This leads me to note two things about the article which passed at FAC 15 months ago. First, the author is now claiming that there are particular notable renditions of the song that are associated with it although none are mentioned in the WP:LEAD. If this is the case, the FA process is not working for WP:SONGs. Also, the article has no musical structure section to teach the casual and trained interested parties what the song sounds like. Again this is a notable deficiency in the article, especially for an FA. Since you have enough of an interest in this article to have provide a musical sample, you may want to consider current concerns at Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As a result of this post, I have looked at the talk page and weighed in there: I don't think Dr. Blofeld showing up to support TTT is surprising, unexpected, or constitutes "a ruckus", and I hope TTT will learn more about sound files before trying to "learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing" on a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to bring up stuff irrelevant to the issue, it seems that I had already learned a bit before the example you point to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul, re this. Still no, but this and the thread above. QED. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples) Notable version is not a standard relevant to any other WP:FA that I can find. It seems to be made up for convenience. A quick run through WP:FA shows almost all renditions in articles are not described as notable versions in the text. See "Dixie (song)", Gianni Schicchi, "My Belarusy", "National Anthem of Russia", "Old Dan Tucker", "On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away", Sylvia (ballet), "Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)", Thespis (opera). Sandy of all people knows that notable rendition is a totally made-up standard that is not relevant to any discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of different things at issue here. I've commented where I tried to summarize them and give my opinion. Raul654 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (And Moni, it saddens me to hear that)

FAC recusal

Raul, I'm recused from Lecen's FAC nominations because we've interacted at the talk page of Hugo Chavez. Neither Karanacs nor Laser brain has been online for several days; would you be able to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1? I haven't read it thoroughly, but my sense is that there are no outstanding issues. I may not be able to get online today to promote, so if you see anything else at the bottom of the page and have time ... :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nafaanra language

Raul,

I may be mistaken and am certainly not an expert on the subject, but my impression is that the Nafaanra language was not traditionally written, and that the Nafana people did not read or write until recently. It looks like the picture Mark Dingemanse found was of Nafana people being taught to read Nafaanra using a system of writing first developed in the 1970s. The article says that only 1-5% of the Nafana people are literate in Nafaanra, suggesting that writing in the Nafaanra language has not widely caught on yet. As such, I personally don't think having a written sample of the Nafaanra language is very important to the article (or at least not important enough to prevent it being on the main page). Perhaps a spoken sample would be more useful if you are looking for something to put on the main page when the article runs. Calathan (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A spoken sample would be fantastic - better than a picture - and definitely suitable for the main page. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be several audio clips in the article. Would one of those be usable? Calathan (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, those things (the speaker symbols) are tiny. I would never have noticed if I weren't looking for them.

I like File:Muura.ogg, but I would prefer something a bit longer in duration. Raul654 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to find a longer clip (all my knowledge on the subject comes from reading the article and doing a short Google search). Are any of the main authors of the article still active on Wikipedia? Maybe one of them would be able to provide a longer audio clip. Calathan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship and the upcoming movie

Nothing wrong about the article per se, but is there a conflict of interest posting this on the main page so close to the release date of the upcoming movie on the same subject? What better free advertising than to be mentioned on the main page of one of the most visited sites on the web. Delmlsfan (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until today. No, I don't really consider it much of a problem to feature it close to the movie's release. Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

---

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

unit cohesion - ideas about organization?

See [1]. Your thoughts much appreciated.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 29, 2011

Raul (or TPSs, preferably admins because it will be protected in a couple of hours), perhpas you could take a look at the changes the TFA blurb for the 29th. The primary contributor of the article has made some pretty major modifications. Some of them have introduced prose that doesn't come close to 1a standards while others have replaced the village's location with something about some MP resinging, which I feel has major issues with "recentism" and undue weight. I don't think the blurb is fit to go on the Main Page as it is at the moment, but in two hours, only admins will be able to edit it so I'm backing off to avoid the appearance of being under-handed (by reverting just before cascading protection takes effect) or of using my tools in a dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul is away;[2] I looked at the blurb, see your concerns, and reinstated the original blurb. If the blurb is changed again without discussion, I'll request protection. I can't find discussion anywhere of the new blurb, but it does seem to contain undue text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm here for a few more hours. (The crazy train gets under way tonight once my fiance flies in and we go into final wedding prep). From looking at the edits, this change wasn't so good, but this one was fine. I'm going to fix it by taking the best parts of both revisions. Raul654 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've also let Myosotis know about this discussion so everyone's on the same page. Raul654 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy and well done Raul. Oh, and congratualtions! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mitchell :) Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Raul - looks just great. I only tweaked the blurb because I got a message on my talk page to say I could. I hadn't finished when the above conversation started, and was just trying to work out what might draw people to the article. Myosotis Scorpioides 14:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats from here as well! Best wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article moves

Raul, While I realize that moves like this are technically correct, as none of the zillions of other artworks of this subject as yet have articles, I don't think they are very helpful unless the work concerned is very clearly the best known of the subject, which is certainly not the case here, or in other examples I've seen. At some point the move will hopefully need to be reversed, as other treatments get articles, which will now mean a requested move. Congratulations & I hope all goes smoothly, btw. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article of the day for May 27th

I would like to promote Ernst Lindemann for May 27th's article of the day. Lindemann was the captain of the German battleship Bismarck and was killed in action 70 years ago on that date. How do I go about nominating the article for that day? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, make sure that you read all of the instructions before delving in. Hope this helps, Woody (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article for May 12

Might it be useful to include the year 2009 in the description of this article? It is in the article title, but I found it a little confusing to have all those dates and no year to anchor them to. Thanks. 132.244.72.6 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added that in now, it seemed reasonable to me. Woody (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for minding the shop while I'm away, Woody :) Raul654 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you're enjoying the break! Woody (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wanted to go scuba diving since I was 8 years old, and I finally got the chance on Thursday. It was *AWESOME*. Got moderately sunburned but it was well worth it. Raul654 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Preventing an article from becoming TFA on the wrong date?

Pigeon photography would probably have become this year's TFA on 1 April if I had submitted it to FAC early enough. (There is even more April Fools material than what is currently in the article. E.g. the inventor's house was previously a Catholic church built by Protestants against the protest of an official Swedish delegation, and later a pub.) Now it has been promoted, but I just discovered that there might be a risk it will become TFA before the next suitable date (1 April 2012), with no prior warning. Is there any good process for preventing this? Hans Adler 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly ask Raul to hold the article (I have asked him to hold Statue of Liberty for the 125th anniversary in a few months), but there is no guarantee that it will be TFA next April 1. There's a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and then, you know!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that there is no guarantee that it will become TFA on a certain date. But I think it has very good chances, or I would not have asked. And in fact I would not have taken it through FAC if it were not a perfect fit for the occasion. Hans Adler 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with holding off until next April. But my memory is imperfect, so if I should happen to forget your request and accidentally schedule it, please drop a note here so I can unschedule it. Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. At WT:TFA I saw a comment by an editor who wasn't notified before 'his' article became TFA. I have no idea if this is the norm or was a rare exception. Would a hidden comment at the top of the article help in such a case? Hans Adler 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Such notifications now occur.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks. Hans Adler 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just making sure you know that there's no scheduled TFA for tomorrow, since you scheduled three weeks' worth on 26 April, which run out at midnight UTC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. I've scheduled tomorrow's article already. I'll put more in the queue a bit later. Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I never doubted you. I was just checking. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Today's Featured Article

Hello. I was alerted yesterday to the fact that the article that I worked on, Taare Zameen Par, is today's featured article. I am curious about its nomination, but I have been unable to find it anywhere in the request page's history. Do you know of an easier way to locate it? Thanks. Ωphois 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It was not nominated. Raul selects some community nominations to fill slots, but the majority are entirely his decision. There would not be anything to see, in other words, other than the TFA itself. Generally, a note is placed on the article talk page, and on the user talk page of the major contributors and/or FA nominators after Raul puts it in the queue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Ωphois 18:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What Wehwalt said. Most of the featured articles that appear on the main page were not nominated, but instead selected by me using a pseudorandom process involving tea leaves, chicken entrails, and a cat named Skipper. Raul654 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, recusal, and plea for help

Mark, my belated congratulations on your wedding, and best wishes to you and your bride for a long and happy marriage !! As mentioned earlier, I've been swamped with IRL business, and am likely to remain so through June. Neither Karanacs nor Laser brain have edited for about a month, so I seem to be all alone at FAC. I've entered a commentary on the Philip Baird Shearer RFC, so would appreciate if you could handle Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. If you have any time this week or next to run through FAC, it would ease the burden on me, considering my online time in the next few weeks is very limited. I've been able to keep up with archiving, but not with promoting. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I'll look it over later today. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

God Hates Us All

Hi Raul, can you take the words during the terrorist attacks out of the blurb for the TFA the 22nd. The album has nothing to do with anything, obviously, and it looks abit odd, and has been out of the lead now anyway. Ta. Ceoil 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, but it's done. Raul654 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good service around here. Ceoil 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping this talk section had some humor about the correlation with the 2011 end times prediction. :( « ₣M₣ » 04:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Someone out there got the joke :) (I 100% intentionally choose that article as a reference to all of us who, when May 22 rolls around, are still here and weren't raptured away. The article title seemed intimately appropriate). Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just posted something about this on my Facebook status, then came here to ask if it was deliberate. Epic. Kudos to you, sir. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant! I just fell off my chair with laughter! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant indeed - I posted the article on Facebook too. David Gerard posted something similar on NewsTechnica called God: "Sorry, you all suck". --mav (reviews needed) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, guys :) Raul654 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert of my question at Talk:Kids for cash scandal

Hi, can you tell me the reason for this revert? --CliffC (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - I didn't mean to make that edit. I think I accidentally reverted you while looking at my watchlist. Sorry, my mistake. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No biggie, I've done that too. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Boletus edulis

Hi Raul, did you catch the report at WP:ERRORS before removing the alternate names from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2011? Graham87 07:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen that before I removed it. I'm not thrilled at the prospect of setting a precedent on this article, but I'll grit my teeth and add two of the names back. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. Graham87 08:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask what the reason for the avoidance of common names is? Surely the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, and the point of TFA is to draw attention to our better articles. If we avoid informing people what we are talking about by the terms they will recognise, and dodge the chance to encourage them to take an interest by presenting the TFA as something they are already familiar with, then we are acting contrary to those goals. Obviously the lead paragraph needs some trimming to fit the requisite size for the Main Page space, and in many cases alternative names will be a suitable place to make those cuts for conciseness, but what is the thinking in making it an assumption that these names, only necessary because wp:commonname has been overlooked, should not be shown on the main page? Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article title is supposed to be the common name, and alternate names should not be necessary - hence, they are cut. Raul654 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But in cases such as this, the binomial is not the common name for anyone except experts in the field, and if there is to be recognition (which is the purpose of naming anything) then at least some of the common names need to be given. Kevin McE (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Hi Raul, I'd just like to say it is a great choice for tomorrow's featured article. I'm guessing it is being featured because of Towel Day. Cheers, IrishStephen (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. Raul654 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I must agree, excellent decision Raul. I very much enjoyed the article. Neftchi (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

May 28

Dear Raul, I want to propose Azerbaijani people as featured article for May 28. The date has a special meaning as it marks the Republic Day or Independence Day for the Azerbaijani people. However I do not know the exact procedure on how to get a featured article of the day. Could you please help me on this matter? Neftchi (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I saw you have put this at TFA for May 28, don't know whether you were aware it was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 6, 2006? Woody (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Doh. I checked to see if it was an FA, but I didn't check if it had appeared on the main page. I'll revert myself. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

29 May

Hello. I want to suggest Manchester United F.C. as 29 May Today's Featured article because there is a tournament final on the previous day (28 May). TGilmour (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 UEFA Champions League Final (to save Raul having to look for which final you're talking about). Bencherlite^Talk 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The tech behind TFA

Hi Raul. I'm currently volunteering to build the backend for the proposed Today's featured list, and I'm wondering if you could point me to the key templates that are used for TFA, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Thanks in advance. — Edokter (talk) — 17:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing is to get the archive and footers in place. Using the featured article stuff as a template, I've started it for you here -- Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a full list of pages I created:

• Template:TFL archive/day
• Template:TFL archive
• Template:TFLfooter
• Template:TFLempty
• Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 30, 2011
• Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011

Hope that helps. Raul654 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That will get me along nicely. — Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photography

I notice you've scheduled Pigeon photography for later this month. You might want to pull it; I believe it was written intentionally as an April 1 TFA, and I think it makes sense to keep it back. While we do have other potential candidates, AFAIK they're all on English history or US places, which have been the themes for I think every April 1 TFA since it began, whereas this is on a non-Anglosphere topic and very different to those which have been used before. (As you probably know, I dislike the liturgical-calendar "April 1 is odd topics, October 31 is morbid topics" approach to TFA but if we're going to have this tradition, we may as well do it as well as possible.) – iridescent 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about -- it's not scheduled as far as I can tell. Raul654 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Today's featured article/June 6, 2011. I wasn't notified, either. I only noticed because the article was protected. Hans Adler 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's Dabomb and not you; he may be unaware of the previous discussions. I'll ping him. – iridescent 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I needed to purge the archive. I was seeing the first article he scheduled, not the pigeon photography article. Yea, he's probably not aware that that's an April 1 special. Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All fixed. I figured little things like this would crop up as Dabomb gets up to speed. Raul654 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

While I'm here, are there any other unusual situations I need to be aware of? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has their own personal bailiwick when it comes to FA scheduling. Certain article authors don't want their articles go up, ever; other people think certain categories are over-represented and don't want to see those articles scheduled again anytime soon. You'll just have to discover these things as you go along. And don't worry if you make a mistake or someone drops a note on your talk page asking that you reconsider a choice you've made - it's bound to happen. Be polite and reasonably accommodating (particularly towards the wishes of the articles' authors) :) Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of things like that.. I'm going to be on the road most of June (8th-23rd) so probably not a good idea to schedule any of mine during that period. I won't have sources, I won't be around on a regular schedule, etc. etc... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing on my articles: Statue of Liberty is going to be nominated for October 28, its 125th anniversary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I previously wasn't one to push for a TFA request for any of the Michigan highway articles because I'm trying to pin down some better designation dates. (M-28 and M-35 date to the system creation, but the initial system highway designations were only assigned on paper.) That said, M-6's first section opened to traffic on November 20 2001, so I'm planning on requesting that for the tenth anniversary this year. I know the guys behind SS Edmund Fitzgerald are looking at at the anniversary of the sinking (November 10) for a possible TFA. Imzadi 1979 → 18:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured list looks just about ready

I know that you've seen the current thread on the main page. But just to keep you up to date, we're just doing a final few checks and tweaks to the Today's featured list process, with the intention of requesting formal approval tonight. Everything going well, the first list will hopefully go on the main page on June 13.

An exact working model of the main page can be found at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (live): this contains the source code that we intend to use.

Edoktor has created an "always Monday" version at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (visible), so that users can see what the page will look like when lists are there.

The meat and bones of the process itself can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured list and Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions.

To my knowledge, the only major thing we haven't done is protected everything that should be. That's not an oversight, but down to the fact that myself and RexxS are non-admins, and we're two of the people best-placed to deal with any minor issues during the formal approval stage. The proposal will run all week, but if it is going well, we will lock down everything that should be protected on Wednesday, and double-check that we haven't missed anything on Thursday and Friday.

As someone with quite possibly more relevant main page experience than anyone else, I was wondering if you had any final thoughts before we go ahead with this? Regards, —WFC— 18:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All the template that are used when a TFL appears on the main page have indeed been protected. The TFLs themselves become protected automatically through cascading protection. — Edokter (talk) — 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection is unnecessary. The main page and main page/tomorrow are both cascade protected, which means that as soon as blurbs are <24 hours from hitting the main page, they will not be editable by non-admins. (Check the TFA blurbs to confirm this - they are cascade protected, but otherwise not protected at all).

Also, the blurbs themselves have been a bit wonky. The featured list should be the first link in the blurb, that link should be one of the first phrases in the blurb, and the writer should be careful not to introduce any new errors (like this one) This blurb, for example, should be rewritten so the link is at the beginning of the blurb. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the templates to be protected, as TFL is not present every day, vandals could still have their way with the templates from tuesdays to saturdays. — Edokter (talk) — 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Raul, for the advice on writing blurbs and your specific edit to improve TFL June 13. We are just beginners in this arena, and while we learn the ropes, your input and guidance is much appreciated. I'll try to write up advice such as you give above into a hints and tips section if I can find a suitable page to place it on. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost—could you please check?

Hi Raul, long-time-no-speak! Could you please check over what I've written about the FL slot on the main page? I've also asked the other guys to do so. Thanks. Tony (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean ??

We like to think we take prose, the Manual of Style, and Wikipedia's policies such as verification even more seriously than featured article candidates.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The questionable statement pointed out by Sandy not withstanding, it looks good. Raul654 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The offending sentence has been removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still curious what it means :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It means that someone fucked up. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it means when you have a full week to scrutinize anything that hits the main page, you have the luxury of taking everything very seriously ? We don't all have that luxury -- we rely on the reviewers that show up. Anyway, it didn't seem a very gracious comment, glad it's gone :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd interpret it somewhat differently. I'd say that as the new guy on the block FL is desperate to prove itself, and what was meant was that as such they're very keen to make certain that MoS compliance and so is rigorously enforced; the rest was just the normal foot in mouth stuff. But as you say, prepping one article a week is rather an easier challenge than dealing with tens of articles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Although I've yet to come across a week with tens of days in it. —WFC— 01:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So have I. Have you been drinking? Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Trial program" at WP:TFAR

The non-specific date nomination slot has now been in place for just over one year - is it now time to say that the trial is over? Bencherlite^Talk 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, by all means. I didn't realize it was still labeled as a trial. Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Availability note

Mark, I'm going to be away during June 21–28. Hopefully there should be no problems, but let me if there is. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but since the primary author was reluctant and the general consensus was to save Bart for a more "special" date, I switched him out. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I make it a point to defer to the author's wishes. I hadn't seen Scorpion's comment, but if I had, I would not have scheduled it. Thanks for catching that, Dabomb. And I'm also going to be traveling from the 23rd until the 26th, but I'll schedule them ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bought in for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bought in is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bought in until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bought in for deletion

You were "informed" twice of the AfD discussion? Ouch. I'm sorry.

Good luck,
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC) (changed on 20:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Tight scheduling for TFA chosen blurbs

Raul, I don't know whether this has been a chronic problem, but the default situation for the selection of some TFAs seems to be precariously close to the time they have to be locked. This meant, for example, that the other day the community was denied direct access to the ability to edit the blurb. A 24-hour lead-time would enable proper support for the finished product, for you and the delegate. I'd previously imagined competition so intense for these spots that they'd be queued in line for a week before their MP appearance: but it's not so. Can you advise whether it's a short-staffing issue? I started a thread on the MP talk page related to this. Tony (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Tony here; scheduling far in advance would be good in other ways as well, as it would give time for people to notice if there were reasons not to run an article. ("I was saving that for his 100th birthday", "I'm about to do a total rewrite", "I'll be on vacation on that day and it's likely to prompt a lot of questions only I can answer"…) – iridescent 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you guys talked to Dabomb87? I had the impression he was doing much of the actual scheduling right now and that he had pledged to keep 3 or 4 days ahead. My favorite excuse (not used yet) "Can you schedule it for after the 27th when the statute of limitation runs out?"--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Dabomb87 is away for a few more days. Don't expect anything from him until 28 June at the earliest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There must be a serious staffing/time issue: the blurbs for tomorrow onwards, for the rest of the month, are blank. Tony (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading these comments, I've started an RfC here to measure support for a proposal that blurbs for the three featured-content sections on the main page be posted for community input at least 24 hours ahead of the deadline for cascade-protection. Tony (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

MOTD

I'm just curious as the currently oldest still active participant, where did MOTD originate from? I've noticed in the history that you and Pstudier are really the oldest still active users from when our project began. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know. I've only edited there once. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't remember but I didn't originate it. Paul Studier (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony1's corrections

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the broad range of changes that Tony1 is introducing into blurbs, including John A. Macdonald. They go well beyond mere corrections see here, and seem to vary from TFA practice by for example, having the death year have only two digits when the century's the same. I would have no trouble with minor changes to conform with MOS (though I think we can assume a recent FA is more or less MOS-compliant). But now we have an article blurb which has significant textual differences from the article lede. There should be some deference, I think, to the principal author and/or nominator, or if Tony wants to make changes that go beyond obvious MOS issues, at least he should open dialogue with the writers/nominators. These aren't corrections, he's making judgment calls (i.e. whether or not the comparison with Mackenzie King should be in there) that I think are unwise and that really should be left to the editors who improved the article and brought it to this point, or at least to the director or his delegate. As I am about to check out of my hotel, it will probably be several hours before I can reply to any comments, but I will accept whatever you have to say about this without further complaint, but Tony1 had a month to suggest whatever changes he wanted to the blurb while it was sitting at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a real hide to completely revert my edit in one swoop, damaging the text, introducing inconsistencies, and then claiming some precious principle that text in a blurb should be the same as in a lede. They are two different genres, and the original editors of the article, if they're still around, are quite welcome to edit the blurb too. I suggest you take lessons in English, Wehwalt, before you tell me how to write. Tony (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I made two edits in four minutes, the combined diff is here. As you will note, I recognized the validity of your concern over the generic term "prime minister". The rest seem purely judgement calls, plus the variation from TFA practice I noted above. This article sat at TFA/R for almost a month and no one complained about the blurb. Where were you then? I'm not going to get into the "take lessons in English", Tony, let's stick to business.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Raul, Tony went to my latest FA C and opposed within minutes of the above. He had not reviewed oneof my noms in a year.That raises a serious conduct issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was quite open there about the logic of my review, in which your lead failed by any standard and I had to oppose. I hope you're able to make the suggested changes in your own FA lead, which neatly parallel your objections to non-admins' participation in the blurb copy-editing process, and your unexpected principle that a blurb should depart from the lead of the associated article (whereas the blurb serves a quite different purpose to the lead). Thank you. Tony (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've begun an AN/I thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Raul, could you please help fix this? Thanks so much. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Never mind - all settled. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Walk the walk

[3] If you're going to accuse me of something this serious and unethical, then you should be prepared to go through with your threat to seek "consequences" for what you say has taken place. If not, I recommend that you retract your statement, or I will act on it. I'll give you 24 hours. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)