User talk:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page

Sign up here

...if you're interested in joining a new WikiProject, working title Wikipedia:WikiProject Old Featured Articles Audit.

I would like wider help and am concerned that the fact it's in userspace is offputting.

My idea, which can be refined, is that the new WikiProject would aim to:

reviewing and perhaps monitoring the suitability of "Old" FAs for Main Page
fixing or soliciting appropriate help with them
listing poor ones that can't be rescued at FAR
helping the FA delegates and WP:TFAR regulars with suggestions of good articles that have waited a long time for their moment in the sun

If there's not much interest, I'll leave this as a userspace project. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard-pressed for time nowadays, but if any road articles show up here I can take a look, and might be able to assist a little bit. --Rs chen 7754 09:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it work as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement? Bencherlite ^Talk 11:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it would. I wasn't aware of QAI. Do you think they'd want to take it on? --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not; it might attract a few more hands to their other activities, and fits in nicely with their interest in TFAR. I'll ping the talk page (or, since I've recently signed up, our talk page!). Bencherlite ^Talk 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, query here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFA delegates

Brianboulton, Crisco 1492 and Dank, are you still using this/finding it useful? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deferring. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, I've used this several times. I've also reviewed a few, albeit mostly after considering the articles for TFA and finding them lacking. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it'd be more useful if it was the other way round - that you guys would want to come here to find potential candidates for blank days. Is the shortcoming that there are too many gaps, currently? If so, perhaps we can work towards completing the list, year by year? --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do that too ;) I've selected several of the "Good to go articles" based on reviews here, and noted such on the page. But yes, there's a lack of "okay" articles which can be scheduled. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Movies/TV programmes and their plot sections

Should plot sections be referenced, or are they tolerated in FA criteria? Is this documented anywhere? --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way...

to get a bot to automatically remove pages that appear on Main Page? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank Mike Christie Jimfbleak - any ideas? I hate the idea of wasting time, yours or mine. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to action these rather than letting them sit around ... that would fix the problem of information becoming out-of-date. We're overconstrained at TFA every which-way, but still, I think it might work to (from time to time) take everything from the oldest year here, submit it at WT:TFA and ask people to approve or disapprove, and everything that gets approved moves off this page and on to suitable dates at WP:TFAP. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Presumably you mean all the ones that aren't ticked? You could leave all the ones crossed here, and plonk back the ones rejected, so you keep a list of articles deemed not appropriate. That way if anyone wants to work them up... --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Things rejected at WT:TFA get a red X, and those items sit on this page. When someone fixes the problems, the red X changes to a green tick, and the next time we tackle a year's worth at WT:TFA, all the articles from earlier years that have received a green tick get thrown into the pile. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can also keep plodding through from time to time. Others, like Casliber have been known to join in the fun. Could do with a hurricanes/storms fan though. I find them ... difficult. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as automatically removing them, I doubt FACbot could do it. The quickest way to check is to look at the talk page, which only takes two clicks (one if you have pop ups installed). The "maindate" parameter has been pretty reliable; only seen one error so far in the FAs I've looked at, and it always shows up in the talk page header, so it's easy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's right, there are always going to be errors and forgetting to move a scheduled page off FADC or FANDC is one of the more common. The maindate parameter on the talk page is quick to check and, as he says, is very rarely omitted. A bot would be great, but it's not something I could write. The other thing that should always be done is to run checklinks; you may well do that anyway, but I know not all reviewers of old FA do, which leads to proposals of articles with multiple dead links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could really do with...

...some help from reviewers used to articles about storms, music and TV/film articles. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And birds (Casliber?) and roads. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid al-Mihdhar

I think it'd be inappropriate to run this on Sep 11. Not running it ever is tantamount to breaching NOTCENSORED but if/when you do, you'll get howls of protest and accusations of insensitivity. You can't win. If you do run it, I'd suggest it goes on a random date, not even his date of birth. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated at TFAR to run on his birthday, leading to predictable uproar. I pulled it as soon as I was aware, and as far as the existing FAC coordinators are concerned it won't run on his birth or death dates. Although there is a better case for September 11, I tend to agree that a random day would be better. No reason why it should be permanently withheld though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say avoid whole month of September. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Wail al-Shehri --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to edit-conflict with you guys, so ...

Here are some things I'll be adding to the page when the editing slows down:

Tôn Thất Đính was discussed at WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_137
TFAP lists at least one of the articles here (Hewitt).
Keith Miller: there are 3 different articles on just this guy. I ran one last November.
Falaise pocket ran in August.
At least one of these (Super Columbine Massacre RPG!) is listed at WP:TFANO. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. You also need to spread out some of the regulars here: birds, roads, storms, ships and members of the 1948 Australian Invincibles team. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've eyeballed TFANO and TFAP; the two I mentioned above are the only two that jumped out at me from those lists. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred the information in this section to the page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all 2010 articles that have run at TFA (that is, I checked the article talk pages). - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Brian and Chris's notepad is right, the 2011 list will be shorter; do you want me to do that one too? - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! WP:FA2011 should help with formatting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Rick Bot is still running on pages such as WP:FA2011, adding the TFA date for new TFAs. I don't see why it couldn't run on this user page as well ... although Rick Bot would have to be educated about the differerences between the tables here and the ones at FA2011. That way, we'd only have to go through checking once as to whether things have run already at TFA, and Rick Bot could handle the job after that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this request, I'm doing the same thing now with 2008 that I did with the other years. I fixed FA2008 first, adding dates for the ones that ran at TFA already. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started going through the 2009 list and didn't find any that have already run at TFA, did you check that list already against the article talk pages? - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]