Talk:E. Urner Goodman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article E. Urner Goodman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
February 2, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
March 28, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page
Current status: Featured article

Main page FA vandalism[edit]

This article is being vandalised and there don't seem to be people reverting it. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is today's Wikipedia Main Page Featured Article, we can expect a sharp increase in vandalism. I requested short-term protection while the article is featured on the Main Page, but was turned down per WP:MPFAP. According to this essay, 90 vandalisms in a 24-hour period is "average" for a Main Page Featured Article, so it seems to be tacitly accepted. JGHowes talk - 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know that, but my point is it's not being reverted. Usually when an article makes the mainpage it has a few sets of eyes on it (usually the primary editors who brought it to FA status). Those people seem to not be on the job. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, vandalism seems rather light compared to other Scouting articles that made TFA and it seems to be reverted pretty quickly. There has been some collateral vandalism on Boy Scouts of America, but nothing major. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
When I posted the original comment and the first reply, it wasn't being reverted quickly. But right after my comment here, I posted on the help desk asking for fresh eyes, and since then reversions have been quicker. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Compared to the TFAs for Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell and Scouting, the vandalism was rather light. What was unusual were the number of vandalism only accounts that were created and blocked during the TFA. After going through a few TFAs, I find that you can't get too wrapped up in the attacks; there are lots of editors who will come around and fix things. I had to work late that last wo nights and one of our editors is out on vacation, so the Scouting project was a bit under represented. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I revert vandalism on a lot of front page articles and I was just trying to be helpful. I certainly didn't get 'too wrapped up in the attacks' - I don't perceive vandalism as an attack. But you seem to have your own opinions, that's fine. Best wishes and happy editing. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

TFA Link[edit]

TFA page view statistics: I just took a look at traffic for 28 May 2008 when this article made TFA, including the links in the lead:

See Wikipedia article traffic statistics for more. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Death Date[edit]

The death date in the infobox doesn't match the one listed in the article. Can someone please correct this? The Core-Man (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of vandalism that has already been reverted. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)