Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Arbitrary two-week topic ban following an archived FAC

Why: "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." Yet: "If a nomination is archived ... None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it." (emphasis added) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive58#Why_2_weeks.3F. --Rschen7754 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see This has already been discussed by many people way smarter than you so don't expect to be able to contribute to the discussion now ... end discussion. You are missing the whole point of this project and fixating on technicalities over substance. Anyway, you are citing a talk page discussion, hardly a WP:RS wouldn't you agree? Rschen, you've never once lifted a finger to assist me in anyway whatsoever, why exert all this energy now arbitrarily resisting me on a silly technicality? Why spend (read waste) your precious energy (and mine) impeding progress? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why in the world would you need an RS for that? Look, I understand that you're frustrated, but the link above explains why we have a two-week rule ... which is exactly what you're asking about. You've asked for leave from a delegate; please let that play out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The guideline already "allows" for two projects at once, so why should the archiving of one affect/delay/stall the progress of the other? Had I nomed the second article four days ago, Rschen would have nothing to complain about. Don't let red-tape discourage editors and contribute to burn-out. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Gabe, is there anyone whose "geek skill" is language that I can talk with who's interested in working on this and similar articles at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Integrated GA reviews

The proposal outlined here may be of interest:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TFA scheduling

Those with forthcoming TFAs may have noticed that I'm trying to keep at least 14 days ahead with selections. This allows a bit more time to check the article for problems, or to request a change of date without it becoming a last-minute panic, and I hope people like this. However, this might make things a bit tighter than in the past with people hoping to get through FAC in time for a forthcoming anniversary. All is not lost, though. I've just slipped Battle of the Bismarck Sea (which was promoted a couple of days ago) into the list to catch its 70th anniversary, unscheduling something else (with Brianboulten's kind blessing). If you're hoping to get a particular TFA date within a month or two of starting a FAC, can I suggest you drop me a line to give me a "heads up"? That way I can keep an eye on the FAC's progress and, wherever possible, accommodate requests even after scheduling sometimes, perhaps with a bit of juggling of other articles and/or not selecting articles that are too similar around the time of your proposed date. With any luck, this will keep lots of people as happy as possible in the circumstances. In other news, WP:TFAR has plenty of open slots and is always looking for new suggestions... BencherliteTalk 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: if these were placed in the pending list with some remark such as "FAC", everyone could plan around such dates. - In other news: I would nominate but have one in, and "the rules" forbid more than one nomination at a time, right? More are in WP:QAI/TFA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice About Manual Closures

Please do not manually close FACs any more; simply add them to the log as before. VoxelBot is currently on trial. Delistings are not covered by VoxelBot however, due to complications with the code. Vacation9 22:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


I saw somewhere that FAC reviewers in the Wikicup are supposed to disclose that when they review, but searching quickly through WP:FAC, I don't see that anyone has. Is it enough for the delegates to know which reviewers are in the Wikicup? - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I always thought it was only nominators that had to identify as part of the cup (since they get points in the Cup for the nomination, but reviewers do not). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I don't see it in the instructions, nevermind. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing my FACs for Prometheus and Batman: Arkham City

What the hell? No warning no nothing? Comments have been made, work has been done to fulfill those comments and one of them was quite recent. It is not my or the articles faults that people were slow to participate, what does delisting them service? If I relist them in two weeks will people suddenly be more active? There was no need to archive them and waste my time and effort, I would like them restored. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The closure of these nominations appears to have been within the norms for handling reviews which attract few comments. I don't mean to be unkind, but a lack of reviewers for a high profile article generally means that the editors who checked out the article with an eye to reviewing it concluded that it wasn't of FA standard, but they didn't want to take the time to post a review with their reasons why (which I personally find a bit of a cop out, but everyone has competing priorities for their time). From reading the Prometheus article and skim reading the Batman article, I'd suggest that the underlying reasons are a) the articles are too detailed (which is probably the main explanation for the lack of comments) and b) prose issues. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Both have been fully copy edited by the GOCE, and both are detailed to a reasonable level. It seems more akin to the general lack of involvement on Wikipedia in all things. That isn't my fault or my problem, the time was put in, the nominations were opened, and they should be kept open. I answered the demands of those who did comment who didn't then hide their demands and replace with a support vote, considering the demands that were given were met, it is fair to say that they otherwise had support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
That really isn't how it works. Supports have to be explicit and a copyedit by the GOCE, I'm afraid to say, is not a guarantee that the prose meets FA standards. Even if you think the demands you were given were met, it doesn't mean that the reviewer thought they were, let alone that the reviewer thought that the article therefore met the FA criteria sufficiently to add a "support". The FAC process is critically short of reviewers. Leaving up older nominations that are not progressing in terms of obtaining explicit "supports" just slows the whole page down. You can do your bit next time you submit articles to FAC by helping to review other articles. It might also help you see how other people approach article writing in similar, or different, areas to yours, and it might have the additional bonus of attracting reviewers to your articles. BencherliteTalk 23:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The articles are easily FA sufficient in prose and otherwise, and I imagine the FAC process is short on reviewers because people have nominated things, been screwed over by a pointless bureaucracy that says a list is a little too long and decided they're not inclined to help out. I'm not very inclined for there to be a next time when someone can burn your hard work to the ground without comment or warning. They'd only been open a few weeks, Ive had GAs sit on the list for MONTHS. And Wikipedia loses out on two Featured Articles. Thanks for wasting my time GrahamColm. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
How many FAs have you reviewed recently? Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The last I reviewed was Conan the Barbarian. If your point is "Well who are you to complain if you aren't reviewing", I'm generally busy raising articles up to GA and 'trying' to go beyond or helping other people when they ask like with Dying Wish where I was asked and then essentially built the article. I'm not just being a lazy hypocrite. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, I don't want to sound unkind, but if you haven't reviewed a FAC since October 2011 you're not in a great position to be grumpy about the current shortage of FA reviewers (which is a fairly well known problem). I became frustrated about one of my nominations taking ages to be reviewed this time last year, and my response has been to review a FAC every few weeks as a way of helping out. If you're hoping to get several articles up to FA standard this would be a good way to improve your chances - I've found that regularly reviewing articles has improved my writing style, and being a good citizen here seems to have helped attract reviewers to look at my nominations. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I've found being a good citizen here gets you nothing, as evidenced by the result of my FAs. So FA can go FA itself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Your last comment aside, I have some sympathy. The FA process is (for reasons that are, I think, well understood) obsessed with style and referencing and weaker on content. It can be harsh and I empathise with your feelings of having been unfairly treated. However, the suggestions above are on the button. Whether or not it is "fair" reviewers will tend to look more kindly on reviewing the work of an editor who they recognise from elsewhere in the FA process. I also have a confession. I looked at Prometheus, read the first section or two, and realised that although it stood a decent chance of success, that it was so long that it was going to require significant effort on my part. I had just finished another couple of fairly full reviews, so I just put it down. Again, perhaps not very "fair", but we are all volunteers. If you re-submit it, ping me and will provide a review. Ben MacDui 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
FAC or no you should read it some time, in parts maybe, if you are at all interested in it, I think it's quite informative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's normal for nominations to be archived that do not have consensus to promote. It's in the bullet list in at the top of the FAC page. Neither of your nominations had a single declaration of support, let alone consensus. It's true that you did pretty much everything you could, but your nominations did not attract reviewers. Rather than viewing this experience as a waste of time, consider viewing it as a useful round of feedback that helped you get your work polished up further for the next nomination. Nothing has really been lost here, because the work you did in response to the comments you did receive is work that needed doing regardless. If I were you, I'd take some of the advice above about putting in some time providing reviews here—you'll generally find those people more than willing to give you a review later in return. You can ask me as well—I'd be happy to review your articles when/if you renominate them. --Laser brain (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Both articles had open discussions, neither had votes of opposition, you make it sound like they were lost causes, just like the milestone history says "not promoted", makes it sound like it failed because it wasn't good enough. I will look into discussing other articles but it's a time issue, and the time it takes to read some of them is time I don't have, hence the complaint about wasting my time by closing the FAC. Fairly disappointing when one of the highest critically received games of 2011, acclaimed and generally considered best superhero game and best licensed game cannot draw much interest. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If discussion is stalled, delegates are completely within their right to close it (which is no statement about the quality of the articles themselves). I'm rather surprised that you were allowed to have two open at the same time, to be honest. As for interest... a lot of the hardcore FAC reviewers (i.e. the people who review many articles which come through) are not gamers; some may even look at video games with disdain. You're probably tired of hearing this, but its true: more reviews for other people will eventually result in more reviews for you. I generally try and review 3 to 4 articles per FAC, and if someone reviews one of my nominations I try and return the favour by (critically) reviewing one of theirs, assuming they have an FAC open at the time. Once you have "brand recognition", you generally won't worry about too few reviewers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • How long do you have to wait before relisting? And I had two open because I had a conominator for one of them.
  • Rules say two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the number of editors offering to post reviews in this discussion, the FAC delegates would probably allow at least one of the articles to be relisted earlier than that if you asked them. But I would suggest giving the article a good going over first with an eye to trimming out excess detail and polishing the prose. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Darkwarriorblake, you wrote, "I answered the demands of those who did comment who didn't then hide their demands and replace with a support vote, considering the demands that were given were met, it is fair to say that they otherwise had support." I was one of the reviewers that posted comments on the AC article, but I only reviewed the first 50 or so references of the article and did not read any of the prose. Clearly I could not have supported it. I was surprised by its early closure, but apparently there is a problem with leaving up old FACs. Which is kind of strange, because we have so many old video game GAs, some even 4 months old. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • GA =/= FA... timing is entirely different. Just like FAC would collapse if it was on the same timing as FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
C'mon guys, you asked me to ping you, I pinged you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So how many supports are required for a pass, because I have three now, and I'm concerned that it is going to end up closed again for low activity on the reviews beyond the three editors who have been kind enough to lend their support so far. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Its up to the delegates. Meanwhile, you could ask FutureTrillionaire to hide his resolved comments or move them to the talk page. « Ryūkotsusei » 23:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Closed them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can someone who isn't a big gamer or a gamer at all please give Arkham City a look? I've gone to great lengths to make it accessible to the non-gamer and explain those kind of terms where possible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Or is there anywhere else I can post to ask for such a thing? I'm not getting delisted over this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Spot checks for Aaliyah (album)

Is this review for Aaliyah (album) sufficient enough to request spot checks now? Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan, as you had a spotcheck that revealed no issues a couple of noms ago, we don't necessarily need one for this FAC -- an image check is required, however, and I've seen your request at the top of the page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarify wording

The current wording: "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them", is a bit ambiguous.

Does this mean a) "two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them", or b) "two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them, and the nominator has been granted leave by a delegate", or similar. Does one need to first ask a delegate if they can be a nom and a co-nom, or is this a right of nominators, and not a special exception which needs to be granted by a delegate? Either way, I find the current wording a bit nebulous. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I'm more familiar with th GAR process than the featured one, so I was wondering if you guys have anything similar to good article reassessment? I ask as recently i've stumbled accross a few FA's which I would argue are fairly below standard. Is there a proper procedure for dealing with these issues? Thanks RetroLord 12:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FAR and the instructions there. The first step is to raise concerns on the article's talk page. If that does not lead to satisfactory improvements within a reasonable period then a full review can be started. BencherliteTalk 12:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest on again - 1 April to 13 May. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Might be myself being ditsy, but the notice on that page says 15 April 2013 to May 13 2013, whereas above you say 1 April to 13 May. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Dang, meant 15 April....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Title was changed after multiple reviews

Current featured article candidate Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive1 has gone through three previous reviews as cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact (1, 2, 3) before its name was changed. The fourth review is now labeled "archive 1" instead of "archive4". Should this be changed? What is the procedure for articles which have undergone multiple reviews but have had their titles changed? Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


I suggest removing "brilliant" from WP:FA?. It is clearly too subjective, biased, sensational and vague.--Tomcat (7) 08:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on removing it, though I wouldn't say it's those things so much as just wrong, at least for writers of history articles, who aren't generally aiming for "brilliant", and sometimes get shot down when they do ... maybe "accurate, concise, readable, workmanlike"? I'm not suggesting those go into WIAFA, that's just my take. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I like having it there -- it reminds us that "workmanlike" is not the highest target to aim for in our prose (sorry, Dan!). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I can see the point of why folks want it removed...but it is a succinct way to indicate what we are striving for - we have an entirely avoidable epidemic of poor writing all around us today, and it is great to strive for something achievable and great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem if you guys are pursuing a standard of "brilliance" in your FACs. There are currently 680 articles in Category:FA-Class military history articles, and none of them are "brilliant" by my understanding of the word, because they aren't trying to be. In fact, when people do things that writing instructors might think of as "clever" ... saying or implying two things at once, effective use of metaphor, not spelling things out, breaking conventions, that sort of thing ... those things are often objected to by reviewers and co-writers. Some French guy said something like, "When something is easy to read, much effort has gone into its writing" ... so in that sense, when I see a FAC that manages to make a difficult or scholarly subject readable and lively, I have no problem calling the effort behind the prose "brilliant", because I know it takes a lot of skill to get there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant should remain a goal of FAs. "Workmanlike" is indicative of GA, in my opinion. There are editors who can write FAs, and editors who cannot make the leap. GA is a fine goal for those whose prose shows nothing extraordinary. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The criteria should be serious and meaningful. Removing that word won't change the actual meaning of the first criterion, namely that the prose should be of professional standard. And it is clear that the FA standards are higher than other. So a reader won't be surprised that the criteria will require very good prose.--Tomcat (7) 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant writing in a historical encyclopaedia article is different to brilliant writing in poetry; all that glitters does not shine? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I oppose removing "brilliant" from the criteria. In this context I would take it as meaning "very skilful, impressive, or successful". It derives from words that mean "shining" and "clear" and these are good and appropriately high standards for our best articles to aim towards. It explicitly means going beyond removing typos and grammatical errors and giving real attention to making the prose as good as it can be. I'd take its opposite as being "purple prose"; many writers think they are writing well when they use as many long, "fancy" words as possible. It is easier on the reader's eye and brain when we can use the simplest, fewest, clearest words to carry the full nuanced meaning of the references the article is based on. This is difficult and it is meant to be, though it can also be learned. It would be a terrible idea to water down our notional standards; if anything I would support making them more stringent. --John (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that the exact FA prose criterion is "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". This wording indicates that "brilliance" is an aspiration rather than an an absolute. The prose should engage the reader, and be of a professional standard – these are the basic requirements. We strive towards brilliance, and it is sometime attained; but I would not oppose an article's promotion to FA simply on the grounds that its prose might not qualify as "brilliant". I think the criterion should be understood and interpreted just as it is written; it would be a sad mistake to remove the aspiration. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering if anyone was willing to make a comment(s) on the FAC for Denial (Sugababes song) which is here. If not, feel free to ignore this message Till 05:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Increase in TFAR nomination slots

I'm experimenting with an increase (2 to 4) in the number of non-specific date slots available at WP:TFAR. So if you have an article you'd like to see as TFA but you're not holding out for a particular date, please come and use one of the slots! Thanks, BencherliteTalk 09:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Red error messages

A number of candidate articles have recently sprouted red error messages in their sources sections. Does anyone know where these are coming from, and why? I have checked several which indicate ibsn errors, and they are perfectly OK. A few of the articles affected are G. Wayne Clough, Madeline Montalban, Lewisville, Texas and Hurricane Andrew; that's as far down the list as I've looked, and there are probably quite a few more. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's to do with Lua and the Cite news template. I'll drop Dragons flight a note and see if they can help, because it's all gibberish to me. --Dweller (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The error messages are new but the problems are real. For example, Madeline Montalban contains ISBNs 978-0709037155 and 978-0198207441 both of which are wrong per spec, i.e. have an incorrect checksum. Per Amazon, correct ISBNs for the first book are 0709037155 or 978-0709037156, while for the second book 0198207441 or 978-0198207443. Note that the last digit changes when moving from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 due to a different checksum algorithm. The current values need to be corrected.
In Hurricane Andrew there are a bunch of {{cite news}} templates that specify both "Work" and "Newspaper". Those two fields are considered synonyms of each other. It has always been the case that no more than one of them can be rendered in any citation. The error message was added to warn users that one of the inputs (in this case "work") is being dropped due to a conflict. If the information from both fields needs to be included in the citation, then one will need to find a different way to arrange that information in the citation.
In G. Wayne Clough an error message was added to note that two citations specify a field |name= that has never been recognized by the citation templates as meaning anything. In this case, the editor was probably looking for |author=.
In Lewisville, Texas, there is a citation that specifies both |first= and |first1=. Like the Hurrican Andrew case, these are synonyms, and a citation should only be using one of these. In this particular case, it appears that |first= was intended to be |first3= for a third author.
As above, the error messages are intended to indicate real problems with the citation templates that have probably been overlooked in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, even if there are problems with the use of citation templates, is it really acceptable to spray red messages across hundreds, probably thousands, of articles, without warning? Especially when the messages often give no clear idea of the nature of the errors, nor how to resolve them? Sometimes it is impossible to determine what the error is; I have been reviewing Ezra Meeker (not yet a FAC) which has five ibsn error messages. I have checked four of them, and they appear to be correct, per Worldcat (the other I can't check). The simplest solution I can think of is to stop using citation templates altogether - I can do without the hassle. Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The ISBN converter is giving errors for those 13 digit ones. Has Wehwalt been using ndashes instead of hyphens? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I will check those out - maybe that's the "error". Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that was the case, and you have replaced the ndashes. Many editors would not have guessed at that solution, and other error messages are equally opaque. This is not a satisfactory situation. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • One of mine was that the letters isbn were in the template twice. Took me a bit to figure that one out. Opaque error messages do little good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if they were more detailed, yes, but I'm worried that that might bog down the template's parsing time or whatever they use to count speed. At least they tell you what parameter to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Etiquette of opposes question

I have a question for the regulars, and perhaps for the delegates. I am reviewing an article that now has three supports. I'm not convinced it's not FA quality, but I'm not yet convinced it is; I have several niggling questions and would like to see it go a bit further before getting promoted, in case the questions I'm asking turn out to find real problems. There may be no problems, of course; I'm not an expert on the topic in question. Should I register an oppose? I usually only oppose if I'm confident that an article is not FA quality and can't be tweaked into it. The concerns I have could possibly be fixed with some tweaks. I feel it would be rude to oppose, but I also feel I'd be at fault if it were promoted because I hadn't opposed. What would others do in this case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose pending fixes of the issues that concern you. If an article already has three supports it's unlikely to be archived immediately just because an oppose is registered. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That's very sensible. Done; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Just as a general comment, speaking as a delegate and an editor/reviewer, there's nothing necessarily final about an oppose. Plenty turn into supports once the issues are addressed. If you're concerned about appearing rude (I don't think you would) then you can always add "for now" to your oppose, or something similar. As Nikki says, one oppose will not result in immediate archiving, in fact an article can be promoted with outstanding opposition if the delegates feel that the nominator has in good faith acknowledged and actioned the concerns. That said, the delegates read the comments too (if we only counted supports and opposes then a bot could promote or archive) and if sufficiently serious concerns are expressed under a comments heading rather than an oppose heading, they can still delay promotion until the nominator responds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I am interested in the subject of this discussion because I have raised some objections about the wording of the lead of the FA candidate Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom. I don't want to stand in the way of the article being promoted if others feel my objections are invalid. At the moment the matter is at an impasse as the nominator thinks my suggestions are those of an ignoramus and states that he is going to pay no more attention to my criticism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
In such scenarios I put '''Query''' list my questions and usually wind up striking that and moving to support when my questions have been addressed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Like Mike, I rarely oppose unless there are obvious major problems, but I agree that there is no problem doing what he suggests, although making it clear that it may be a temporary position is courteous. @Cwmhiraeth, if the article is not accessible to an "ignoramus", then you have every right to oppose. I occasionally review articles about which I know nothing, and if I don't understand the meaning of a technical term or a term/usage specific to a particular variety of English, then nor will the average reader. You didn't give a diff, but if I see that an editor has been rude to a reviewer, then I for one wouldn't touch that article with a cliché. We don't get paid enough to have to take that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Signpost dispatches

Hi everyone. Would any of you be interested in reviving the old "Dispatches" section in the Signpost, even in a modified form? You can take it in any direction you want, as long as it focuses on content from a Wikimedia site, though I'd love to see pieces like "Wikipedia remembers the Wall" or 'how-to' articles relating to writing, referencing, plagiarism, etc. You don't have to have something every week—I'd be happy with biweekly or even monthly installments. Any interest from you all in doing something out of the box? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi! Would someone mind taking a look through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 67/archive1‎ and copyediting? That appears to be all that the article needs before promotion. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Animal FAs

I am reviewing hartebeest and noticed that it had little information from zoo databases or studbooks. Checking other animal FAs it appears that's standard; zoo populations and breeding programmes are rarely mentioned. I would have thought this sort of information should be required for animal FAs, and have posted a query at the animals WikiProject. Please comment there if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to delist featured image should not fail because voting closed with only two votes

A nomination to delist [2] should not fail (2-0-?) simply because not enough people bothered to vote.

Voting should remain open until enough interested people cast a vote. This image is based on original research, but apparently is not controversial enough to bother anyone. But there is no mechanism to obtain 5 votes within 10 days. Yet were it to be nominated to be featured now, no one would support it. Furthermore, the current image in commons is not even the version that received the featured status.

This looks like a problem with the process. An image that garners featured status should not be able to withstand the first challenge so easily. Rather than simply ignoring a delist vote, editors should actually have to record their votes to oppose it. Voting should remain open until at least 5 days after those votes are recorded. (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This page is about the featured article process, not featured picture process. There is a discussion about that closure here. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
An admin in other discussion sent me here. I did not come to discuss that image. I am here to see about getting the process fixed. Where do I go to get the featured picture delist process fixed? (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest the talk page for the featured pictures process, WT:FP. Imzadi 1979  17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Is my FAC ready to be promoted? It has three supports and it was nominated two weeks ago, is this enough or does it need more reviews? Best, jonatalk to me 21:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review lacking, which I will do. Also, an issue is outstanding from the recent Images review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed that problem. Thanks! jonatalk to me 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help?

Can anyone tell me if this and this source works for them? It's currently being examined here and the FAC reviewer insists for someone else to state weather or not it works for them, on the contrary, it works fine for me. Best, jonatalk to me 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Both links work for me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on TFA images

Readers of this talk page may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs. All views welcome. BencherliteTalk 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dividing up sections within noms

I know the usual sub-sections mess up archiving the pages or something, but is there any objection, in longer noms, to just using ============= or similar to divide up sections? the Middle Ages nom is now a huge length & hard to follow & tackle. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How about using "----"? This will create a dividing line:

Like this. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I will remove any formatting that is likely to be a problem with archiving after the FAC is closed. So I am happy with any solution to the problem. Graham Colm (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Something you don't have to have the added work of removing is preferable I suppose. I rather like a line part-way across the page like:
  • =======================================================

-as it can't be confused with anything else.

Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered archiving points and responses that have been dealt with (particularly prose), if the commenter agrees? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered what a pain in the arse that is for both reviewer and nominator in a review the size of Middle Ages? I agree with Johnbod, I long ago lost track of what still needed to be addressed there, if anything. Eric Corbett 20:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I think collapsing boxes is the least painful, or beseeching reviewers to strike through addressed issues....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
But reviewers may not agree that an issue has been addressed, even though they're wrong and it has. Eric Corbett 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't had problems in the past identifying uncontroversially resolved issues. If there's a problem tracking what's been dealt with, I don't see that that relates to the sectioning. Sectioned or not sectioned, losing track is problematic. I'd be bold and archive some uncontroversially resolved issues from a particular editor to the talk page, and notify them. Or do those things the other way round. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, striking comments is helpful, and I wish more reviewers would take the time to strike theirs (I have neglected to strike resolved comments in my last few reviews, so it's not as if I have room to talk). Hatting is something I would not be opposed to, though there may be some issues with the appropriateness or not of refactoring there. I have dealt with painfully large FAC pages, though, and like Eric (hey, new name!) said, it's very easy to lose track of what's been dealt with and what hasn't. It would be nice to have a standardised way of dealing with comments, especially the exceptionally lengthy ones, once they've been addressed. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Sorry about my last edit. I clicked the wrong button on my iPhone! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral sub-headings

Per, this heading, please note that to promote neutrality at FAC, the instructions say:

For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may want to create a neutral fourth-level sub-section, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use emboldened sub-headings with semi-colons, as these create accessibility problems.

One of the reasons sub-headings were previously disallowed was to avoid this kind of issue. Further, the place to ask if a topic is "real" is WP:AFD; any article that meets notability is FA-eligible.

I've also made several other corrections to the archived and featured logs; pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Now restored; response on user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

A recently promoted FA, History of Gibraltar, has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article on 13 July to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Utrecht. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken promotion?

I know the guide says it can take a few days for the BOT to promote an article once promoted, but Prometheus (2012 film) was promoted on May 31, and its now 5 days later. Can it take this long or has something gone wrong, because User: Erik moved the article while it was under FAC review, maybe the bot can't find it properly? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have worked on any closed FACs for a week or more -- left msg on bot talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

External links

I was recently told that FAC does not like to promote articles that have external links anywhere other than the "External links" section. {{Attached KML}}, when using the "title" option places external links to Google and Bing maps in the title bar, which appears to be inappropriate. I've been upgrading {{Infobox Australian road}}, using a couple of links from {{Attached KML}} to provide links to the same sites and, while there are no external links in the title bar, there are two in the infobox. (see Sydney–Newcastle Freeway) The third link is to a downloadable Wikipedia KML file. (KML files are stored as subpage of the template as they can't be uploaded like other files - see Template:Infobox Australian road/KML/Sydney–Newcastle Freeway) I was wondering what thoughts are on these implementations. Would it be better to format the external links as inline citations and are there any other FAC related problems? --AussieLegend () 00:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tangent: why does Australia have its own template? Why isn't it standardized with Template:Infobox road, like basically every other infobox on WP? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Because there's an Template:Infobox Australian place... yeah I don't get it either. --Rschen7754 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
What makes Australia so special? I mean, it's a road. There are no defining features in an Australian road that requires differentiation from a US road, a British road, a Chinese road, or an Indian road. I'm assuming that it's a strong local consensus, so maybe an RfC would solve the issue? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Because Australian roads apparently are special, and because the American infobox is apparently not suitable for their needs even though it has virtually all the functionality the Australian infobox has. And because the Americans control the infobox. (See WT:AURD and the past two TFDs for more). --Rschen7754 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Well... it's not 'American', it's 'everything but Australian', and given the numbers of Australian Wikipedians I've seen in other projects (read: Milhist), it wouldn't be 'controlled by Americans' for long ... but I'm just an outsider commenting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we've said that several times, but they just don't listen... --Rschen7754 01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hence my suggestion of a wider RfC. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
While it's completely irrelevant to the question, I'm happy to answer this. Australia has had its own infobox since 2006. While Australia has its own wikiproject, in 2010, members of the roads project identified several Australian templates that really should have been merged into Infobox Australian road. Instead, they converted all of the articles using the templates to Infobox road and nominated the now unused templates for deletion under CSD#T3, without ever making any attempt to to communicate with WP:AUSTRALIA. This action seems to be contrary to an ArbCom ruling. It wasn't until one of them started changing articles that used Infobox Australian road that these actions were detected. During a subsequent discussion, where the editor in question wasn't getting his way, the editor nominated the template for deletion. After a subsequent and lengthy discussion, the editor withdrew his nomination. Fifteen months later, with no intervening communication between the roads and Australian projects, the infoox was nominated for deletion, again without any warning.[3] After a much, much longer discussion, there was a "no consensus" result. In all this time the roads project has made no active attempt to enter into discussion about how to address the concerns of Australian editors. Earlier this year the Australian roads project started an RfC concerning a possible conversion to Infobox road. One of the outcomes stated at the very beginning of the RfC was that in the event a conversion was supported, Infobox Australian road was to be retained for some time to ensure that articles that Infobox road could not cater for would still be supported by an infobox. With a view to this, I started converting the Infobox Australian code to be based on {{Infobox}}, as an interim measure, as explained at the RfC. Since it was supposed to be an alternative to Infobox road, I also made some changes that made it look closer to Infobox road. Unlike Infobox road, the new code had to be 100% backward compatible with the existing code. I then set about evaluating Infobox road and, in doing so made several changes and upgrades to the code that enhanced its functionality. After I posted the results of my Infobox road evaluation at the RfC, a subsequent discussion identified a number of issue that had previously been undiscussed. Eventually the RfC was abandoned and participants decided to stick with the updated and enhanced Infobox Australian road which, for Australian purposes, replaces replaces {{Infobox road}}, {{Infobox road small}}, {{Infobox street}}, {{Infobox road junction}} and {{Attached KML}}. Unfortunately, Infobox road proponents seem unable to comprehend that Australia, with its huge size and small population, has some rather unique problems. The new infobox caters for things like Highway 1 (Australia), which is effectively a ring road around the entire continent, with small diversions in Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Apparently though, this is seen as a 17kB single page template "trying to do too much", while Infobox road, with 1,838 subpages (NOT a typo) does just enough and no more. --AussieLegend () 03:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Most of those sub templates are used by {{jct}} from the days when the two shared a code base. As that template is converted to Lua this yea, most of those subpages will be deleted. Imzadi 1979  04:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This isn't quite accurate - there are FACs (recently promoted too) with external links in their infoboxes - see Thoroughbred, Appaloosa, or Norman Cob - all of which show a link to the breed standards in the infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It's commonplace in school articles as well, linking to the school's official website. Eric Corbett 00:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, official links have been fine (say in the Apple Computer article) but convenience links like this are not. --Rschen7754 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, thanks for your comments. --AussieLegend () 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I just need an image review

Could someone do an image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1‎. I think that is all that is holding up this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - no issues, just 2 comments/suggestions (you can add requests to the shared thread above aswell). GermanJoe (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it has a sources review either, unless this is buried in general comments. I will take a looK. The article currently bhas 4 supports no opposes. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New nominations protocol

I don't know what the current policy is, but it use to be that once you had addressed all the issues of a FAC, passed an image check and a source review, you could nominate a new article before the delegates got around to closing your nomination. I've been waiting a day and a half for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1 to get closed. Can I nominate another article now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Protocol is to ask a delegate (or here, as you've done) -- given the length of the FAC list at the moment I'd prefer you wait till it's closed before nominating another. This is on my shortlist for closure anyway and I expect to go through it and others in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Dup link tool

Is there a duplicate links tool? Does it know to ignore duplication between captions, infoboxes or references and the main text?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I see the sidebar link now. I forgot I had it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Most FACs for a single article?

Does anyone know what the record is? (Successful or unsuccessful) —Designate (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the record is but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5 passed not so long ago. I have seen some 7s (don't recall if they passed), but I don't know what the highest passing number is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
A quick search reveals Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive7 (successful) and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive9 / Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F./archive9 / Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive9 (unsuccessful). None of the latter three have an "archive10". I cannot find an "archive8" or "archive9" apart from these three. BencherliteTalk 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jainism/archive4

I have removed the above nomination from the list, as it has been deleted. I am noting it here in case anyone believes that it should be restored and formally archived. No one but the nominator (who requested that the page be deleted) edited the nomination. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive2

Delegates requested to check any issues related to canvassing. I don't doubt that most of, if not all, of these support !votes were made without any undue influence, but I am concerned over the possibility of a tainted process. If the delegates consider my concerns to be a bit too conservative, I will strike my oppose !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have commented there, but I can't speak for Ian who might have a different opinion. Graham Colm (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Depth of reviews

I happened to read the TFA tonight and right away, several statements that looked "off" caught my eye; an examination of the sources revealed issues. I'm concerned that these sorts of issues should be picked up at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hiram Wesley Evans/archive1). (Thank you Crisco for the quick corrections, but my concern is that a more thorough review for accurate representation of sources should be undertaken.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Have checked three sources in that article, found a couple issues (one was a pagination issue) but generally accurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Kudos on you for getting on this so quickly and further reviewing the sources !! [4] Could someone fix one last thing while it's still on the mainpage? There are synonyms for "damage"; can we not use it twice in one sentence in the TFA blurb? [5] I would also like to suggest that three supports has historically been a minimum for promotion, it is not a given, and random spot checks for prose and accurate representation of sources can be helpful, particularly in an environment of declining reviewers. In this particular case, I was alarmed to find on the mainpage statements that stood out like sore thumbs as items that needed to be checked vs. the source. Thanks again Crisco for resolving this so quickly, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry I missed your post here (looks like it came at a time I was sleeping). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone please comment?

It's been two months since I nominated this article. It currently has three supports and one oppose; who has failed to revisit after s/he requested a c/e which was performed in a timely matter. I would really like to see this nomination end very soon since it already has a consensus of passing, but it needs more supports/comments from the community. Thanks, jonatalk to me 00:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Post your concerns directly on Graham Colm's talk page. PumpkinSky talk 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I did and s/he did not replied. Best, jonatalk to me 00:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have replied on the FAC page. Graham Colm (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there really a problem here we're solving?

I admit I'm a bit nonplussed at all the wordiness above. Are there any problems that these RfC's will actually solve? In the past, we've had the current delegates discuss among themselves and present candidates who were essentially ratified by the FA community on an ad hoc basis; what real issues has this created? (After all, I figure the people who have to parse through all the FACs would actually know if they need extra hands.)

My only issue leading into this was that Raul was described in a capacity he has not functioned in for quite some time, and it seems a pretty obvious decision to remove him from instructional materials for a process he is not involved in. I guess removing him as "director" makes the "delegate" language a bit odd, and I can see how "coordinators" implies more scheduling than active discretion on the part of the delegates. But the above RfCs seem like a massive waste. If there's no problem at present, we're essentially adding layers of bureaucracy we don't need for a hypothetical scenario.

In short: what are we supposed to be "reforming", why are we trying to do so, and what exactly is the issue with making the instructions true to current practice as opposed to perceived tradition? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It just hadn't been laid out yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Are we really adding bureaucracy? In a nutshell, Tony's RfC [a] removes the current FA director, who hasn't regularly edited in quite some time, [b] renames "delegates" to "coordinators", [c] puts them in charge of their respective pages (FAC, FAR, TFA), and [d] directs them to consult with the community if replacements need to be named. That's all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd echo Ed - it does seem like a fairly minimal change. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really, as recently as Feb 11, 2013 this proposal would have been met with rancorous howling at the moon. So whatever the outcome, it is a significant step.PumpkinSky talk 18:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with David F. I think there does need to be a respected figure loosely in charge, & acting as final arbiter & court of appeal, & that now isn't Raul. Most of the obvious figures don't seem to be available, but I hope we will find someone eventually, at which point the matter is resolved as far as I'm concerned. But I have no knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes, & I know others are more aware of the work there. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't have bothered with any change at all, but if an editor in Raul's position does not edit in several months, without communication, then I am beginning to think we need to rejig things. Even just popping in for an edit or two now and then would have been ok, but not zero communication. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Cas, we need more than a distant figure who pops in for the odd edit from time to time. We need someone with a real commitment to the FA process who is prepared where necessary to put time in, listen to the community, take initiatives and when required act with authority. Just one example: this whole discussion started because I pointed out the the free JSTOR access that was granted for 12 months last November ends in 4 months. This is a matter of considerable importance to editors engaged in developing featured articles; we don't know if or on what terms the access will be renewed. Somebody needs to be pushing the FA interest here – that person doesn't have to be called the "director" and doesn't have to be appointed for life, but we need someone in that position. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
While I disagree that JSTOR access was or should be part of the director's job (it was something Raul did personally because he could, and anyone else can pick up that ball), and I disagree that Raul/Mark was "distant" (he was hands-off to the extent he had to be, which allowed him to be a neutral, uninvolved observer and arbiter when we needed that, in the event of recusals, disagreements, etc), I do agree that the FA process/community (which encompasses FAC, FAR and TFA) needs a director. I view it as unfortunate that Brian's JSTOR question resulted in the launch of two premature RFCs, when we have much to discuss before launching RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I lack the energy or ability to participate much more in this discussion but then I probably participated enough I support Brian's view in its entirety.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is clear and simple: 1) Raul is AWOL and needs to go; all his continued status as "director" does is impede the process. 2) We need to eliminate the "dictator for life" nature of FA governance so that the situation we are in now doesn't happen again. All other things (i.e. JSTOR, etc.) are side issues. I have no particular agenda yet for the ultimate solution here, but the ideas of creating some form of accountable and term-limited leadership are heading in the right direction and the notions of simply replacing Raul with someone or some oligarchy that is equally unaccountable is going in the wrong direction. History is not terribly relevant, save for the last 12+ months when Raul has not been doing his job. Tony has mostly a good idea, but Psky points out its flaws, and the solution is probably in combining the best of both, but I am adamant in my view that the "director" model has failed WP and needs to be replaced along with its officeholder. Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Two constants here

There are two constants in all this: Raul is gone so stopping pretending he's directing anything, and end the "director for life" meme. PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


If I have been a bit off the last couple of days I regret it. I am unfortunately having mood swings due to a medical issue. The waves are dampening down and I am nearly back to normal.Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes, hope all is well. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks it isn't right now but will be fine--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Who is in charge of the clattering train?" (ack. E. J. Milliken)

Can someone advise me of who is in charge of featured articles these days? The system is working well on a day-to-day basis; Ian and Graham are doing sterling service on the FAC, as is Bencherlite at TFA and, I am sure, other delegates at FAR. But they all have specified responsibilities, and cannot be expected to take on work beyond the range of their duties. However, the nominal FA director has shown no involvement or interest in the project for the past five months. I have a specific suggestion, not within the delegates' remit, which could require executive action, the sort of thing that a couple of years ago I would routinely have taken up with Raul. I see no point now in posting my query on his talk; he is not responding to any postings, not even to the gift of a pie. So what would be my most productive course of action? Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in your suggestion. Perhaps here might be a good place to start? Graham Colm (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Graham. I think this is the place to float suggestions, and personally I don't see why consensus can't be reached here - before the train runs away, so to speak. Victoria (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, my general suggestion is that there should be a concerted drive to extend the current free JSTOR access available at present to selected editors. Further, as a general policy aim, we should seek to acquire access through other paywalls, such as Cambridge Journals and Oxford Journals and should begin investigating this as soon as possible. The latter suggestion may not be tenable at present, but we should have an aim and a strategy. With regard to JSTOR, I have a few specific concerns:
  • The pilot scheme whereby 100 editors were given free access to the JSTOR archive expires in November 2013. Are any steps in hand to extend this? If not, it's important that there should be some speedy action in this respect. November is only four months away.
  • Has any monitoring taken place to determine the extent to which this facility has been used by the editors with free access? Do we have any "sleepers" sitting on wasted accounts?
  • Do we know whether any of the editors who signed up here below the 100-place mark have been given access?
  • Raul654 is nominally the WP community's JSTOR contact. Whatever the future of the Featured Article Director title, someone needs to replace him in this specific role, with authority to speak on behalf of the community in any negotiations that may be necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that I am alone in worrying that the complimentary JSTOR access might be withdrawn in November and that there is no obvious leadership in position to renegotiate this arrangement. I'm not interested in another marathon argument about who or what should succeed Raul as FA director, but rather in who is going to take responsibility for this specific task. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Brian, didn't notice your earlier comment. Yes, I am worried because I'm a slow editor, real life gets in the way at times, and I recently thought I should either go on a mass downloading spree or something, because I'll be unhappy when we lose access to JSTOR. I think that a year isn't long enough to gauge how effective it's been - bringing an article to FA takes a fair bit of time (at least for me), so I can only point to a few from this year, but all have relied on Jstor. Victoria (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought Stephen Walling at the WMF had actually dealt with JSTOR. He's currently no doubt stressed-out dealing with the introduction of the Visual Editor, but might be the best person to ask. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Brian, as John says, it was Steven Walling at the WMF who was dealing with JSTOR. My understanding at the time this was set up is that the first 100 would have access for one year, then the next 100 would. It would be great if that could be renegotiated so that lots of us, not only 100, will have continued access, but given how long the first negotiations took, trying to extend the subscriptions could be lengthy too. I'd therefore suggest that you contact Steven asap with your concerns, although he's likely to be tied up with the Visual Editor at the moment. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Today is a holiday in the U.S. but I can answer all of Brian's questions tonight or tomorrow. (I am still in touch with our contact at JSTOR from time to time.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Following up: this thread is slightly noisy so I answered all the questions about JSTOR so far in this thread on my user talk. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit of reading lately on the federal judiciary in the US, so that may have influenced my opinions here. I see the role of the FA Director in two lights:
  1. He or she assures the smooth functioning of the overall FA process by keeping the subprocesses (FAC, FAR, TFA) staffed with the appropriate decision makers.
  2. Rarely, he or she adjudicates any controversies that rise above the level of decision making by the delegates at those subprocesses. This could involve closing FACs/FARs where the active delegates have to recuse, etc.
To keep those roles impartial, I've felt that the FA Director needed some level of independence as well as a level of accountability to the community. Serving in the role "during good behavior" and as long as the person was "willing and able" gave that independence. That the delegates' appointments were insulated from a direct popular vote also gave them the independence needed to truly decide whether or not an article merited promotion or demotion without the potential political fallout at election time. That isn't to say that the community couldn't replace the director, when circumstances warranted, or petition to have a delegate removed as needed.
At this time, I think circumstances warrant some action. I propose that the greater FA community proceed to elect a new FA Director. Interested candidates for the job should have a reasonable period to come forward with a nomination statement, and then the community should have a reasonable period to vote. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What about naming Graham and Ian co-directors? They seem to have been doing all the work for a while. Any thoughts about setting up an RFC to do that? Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Nothing against that, but remember that the FA director also oversees FAR and TFA, so I don't know that this would be the best solution organizationally. --Rschen7754 23:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I have to ask this one simple question. Why is Raul654 still listed as the FA Director when he has not shown up in 5 months? He should be removed immediately, whether or not a suitable replacement is currently available. Not to do so makes the whole concept of even having a FA Director look like a complete farce. For the time being, the current delegates can continue to go on doing what they are doing and be called delegates. Whether there is one person called a "director" at the moment is insignificant. Raul654 should be removed immediately without any further delay. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


Sorry Brian for not responding earlier. A few of the other delegates and I have communicated on the JSTOR subject and I don't think we can add much to what's already been written above. I think JSTOR and the FA Director position were always separate issues, i.e. two different hats that Raul's worn, but since the question of Raul's absence as FA Director has been brought up again, let me offer a few thoughts on that at least -- my colleagues can jump in any time...
I'm in no hurry either to put someone new into the FA Director's role, or to eliminate it. Given Raul's great service to Featured Content over the years, I'd like to see him retain the title even if only in an honorary sense. The delegates were always supposed to take on all the responsibilities of the FAC Director bar appointing further delegates, and making the final decision if there was any issue about whether an article might or might not appear as TFA. Bencherlite has demonstrated that in Raul's absence he’s prepared to take – in consultation with the community -- the final decision re. controversial TFAs, so I consider that a non-issue now. I think there are also enough Featured Content delegates in total for them to consult and allocate responsibilities between themselves if there's risks to a job being performed. For instance Bencherlite is effectively running TFA single-handledly at the moment, but I understand now that Nikkimaria is prepared to make herself available to provide backup at TFA in addition to her FAR duties, which should mitigate that risk. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I endorse Ian's approach and his analysis of the limited role of the FA Director as it had become over time (i.e. to appoint the delegates to do the day-to-day work and to be the person with the final say on TFAs). I agree that the community is able to discuss the issue of controversial TFAs in a way that enables me (as the only active TFA person at present) to close such decisions based on consensus e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Gibraltar. I also agree that there are sufficient delegates available to deal with matters if there are problems at another branch of FA-land. I also agree that there is no bar as I see it to Raul retaining his title as FA Director as an honorary or emeritus position to recognise the work that he did here over many years, with no need to cast around for a successor. I welcome Nikkimaria's offer to assist at TFA, and would also note in this context that Dabomb87 has been in touch to say that he no longer feels able to be a TFA delegate given his current absence from Wikipedia. BencherliteTalk 12:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to defer to the current delegates. I agree that a change of Raul's title to "FA Director Emeritus" would be acceptable, and would help to avoid any false impressions. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Giving him an honorary title of "Director Emeritus" is fine, but any actual power he has should be removed in case he decides to show up a year or 2 from now and tries to retake control. The current delegates can still be called "delegates" as they are now delegates of the community rather than delegates of the FA director. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
My only concern is if new delegates need to be appointed at some point - what will happen then? --Rschen7754 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In the past, new delegates have been appointed by Raul after consultation with current and previous delegates. As I've said above, I think the current pool of delegates should be able to cope with the tasks that need doing, one way or another, for the time being. Should a new delegate be required (as opposed to juggling responsibilities between existing delegates) then I'd hope that, in Raul's absence, the delegate pool could be entrusted to consult and appoint one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It's fair to say that the situation concerning Raul is unusual (and I wish him the best in the case that he's involuntarily inactive on Wikipedia). However, the current arrangements are clearly working well so there seems no need to appoint a new boss of the featured streams of work at present. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. --Rschen7754 08:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

←There's lots of issues here, which seem to be working themselves out above, but I've just gone ahead and edited {{FAC-instructions}} and removed Raul from the header altogether. He clearly has no role anymore there, so there's no need to enshrine it (at least not in the instructions--a history of FA would be an interesting wiki-history if there was ever one, but that's neither here nor there.) In his absence the delegates have done an admirable job, so I think the matter of adding or replacing is best done between them and then presenting candidates to the FAC community as needed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The person who has no role here is you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I fully support Ian's proposal and later comments. Graham Colm (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
David Fuchs, I reverted your change. [6] The discussion is young, and the delegates are competent to install changes once consensus is defined. I will weigh in here eventually, agree with the delegate statements generally, and presume that those making intemperate and ungrateful statements about Raul/Mark are unaware of the full history of a) the FA process that he built, and b) the events leading to his absence. For now, I support the title of "Director Emeritus" for Raul654, and believe the processes to be in competent hands with the current delegates. As time allows (hopefully), I will lay out some things that the community could be doing to better help the delegates complete tasks that were done under Raul's leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I re-added the change, as there's no reason to keep Raul in the instructions when he isn't around to respond to inquiries, and we don't need to wait for the delegate to make every change here (that's nothing against them personally—I like all of them). Should he return, I'd be happy to add him back myself. As for the circumstances surrounding Raul's disappearance, you are correct in saying that many of us don't know.... but we can't take into consideration what we don't know, so we have to go on what we do know, which is that he hasn't edited since February. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Ian's comments. I've also been inactive recently, especially on FAC, but I hope to get a little more active again now. Ucucha (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also support the director emeritus position for Raul. Since things are running well at present perhaps we should leave things as they are but have the delegates feel more free to propose changes in the processes to the community. And also to help out as needed in each others bailiwicks. I do not think there is any need to fill the position of director. When Raul took the position of director nine years ago the process was much smaller than it is now. Raul handled policy, appointments and the occasional recusal; those things can be done by the community and by other delegates.Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
My main concern is that we never reach a situation where delegates are beholden to nominators. We don't want a popularity contest, or the flip side of the coin: delegate behaviour based on fear of voter backlash. That is what has worked so well for years in the undemocratic semi-monarchical arrangement. Tony (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly what we don't want, FA is not special as so many think. By that logic arbs should be arbs for life. PumpkinSky talk 14:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Raul always considered FA land his personal fiefdom and himself Director for Life. These ideas are anathema to the very idea of wiki. FA land should be run more like a project. Raul hasn't done much in over a year and his last edit was in mid Feb 2013 saying he'd post comments in a few days. He never did. He's clearly abdicated and FA tasks have been moving along just fine. The jobs are much larger than one person can reasonably handle. So I think the different tasks should stay pretty much as is with new people replacing the inactive ones on a consensus basis. For example, TFAR lists three people and Bencherlite is the only one that is active. Two more should be recruited. Nikki and Gerda have both helped them and they immediately come to mind. The FA Director title should change to FA Coordinator. Many projects have coordinators emeritus and Raul being an FA coordinator emeritus is fine but that does not mean he should be able to return and usurp his old role again. The various "delegates" should have their title changed to ""XXX Coordinator". They are not delegates, certainly not any more. The FA Coordinator selection should be done by consensus in the usual wiki ways, not left to a same group as some have suggested. Raul did a lot for FA land on wiki but he never should have done it in the manner he did, it was very unwiki, such as his comment about "This is FA related, so I can do whatever I want" (paraphrased). PumpkinSky talk 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Paraphrased indeed, and {{cn}} on your first sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, to get back to Brian's original point about the expiration of JSTOR and the lack of anyone with any authority to advocate for resources that are behind a pay wall for content contributors. It's a serious concern. User:Ocaasi has done fine work in setting up access to one service and has established WP:The Wikipedia Library. This work should be encouraged. I'm not proposing him for featured article director I don't think anyone needs to fill that job since we've done just fine without one for quite some time. But whatever support we can throw behind him would be good.Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we might take all the power from Raul and give him an honorary title of "Director Emeritus" or whatever. Since I started nominating articles for FAC, I have never seen Raul anywhere and the process has worked just fine, thanks mostly to Graham's and Ian's endless efforts, which I appreciate a lot. This means that we don't need Raul anymore, and as such, we should just move on and leave him, and the position he held, in the past. I'm pretty confident that the current delegates are more than prepared to handle FAC just like they are doing. — ΛΧΣ21 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We already went through an RFC six months ago, which confirmed Raul as FAC director. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And he's been directing what for the last year or so? Nothing. If anything he should be removed for not doing his job. I agree with Hac21, they system is working fine without him and we don't need to fill it, as long as we break up the tasks as they are now.PumpkinSky talk 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hawkeye, I believe you mean a year and a half. And the community, whatever the merits, if any, of that RfC, was confirming a somewhat active editor, right now, we are discussing an editor who has not done so in five months. Abandoning his post. Don't they shoot you for that, in wartime?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Pumpkin: "That is exactly what we don't want"—which bit of my post were you referring to? Tony (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying that having one person on a project with so much power is anathema to wiki as is having a "Director for Life". Changing coordinators works fine on other projects and I see no reason it wouldn't here, but again, we don't need one overall director -- that has been proven by Raul not performing as the FA director for the last year or so. I suspect you won't agree, but you asked for clarification, so I clarified. PumpkinSky talk 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Where's Jimmy Wales when you need him? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy gave up his God King status years ago. PumpkinSky talk 03:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Raul is even still alive? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

  • Hi everyone, I've protected Template:FAC-instructions for three days owing to edit warring spurring from this discussion. Can we all work towards a consensus here first, please? I really don't want to have to block anyone here (which edit warring through full protection will likely warrant). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Apologies on the 3RR, I realized I hit it only after I hit save. Silly thing, not paying attention. :-) In any case, any editing there has been superseded by the discussions below. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    No worries. I think I see a consensus being built below *crosses fingers*. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't such edit warring lead to an automatic Arbitration Committee case? (as it would be wheel warring). Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Per WW, "usually". We can avoid it, in theory. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Now that it's been full protected, only admins can edit war over it. Personally, I feel that keeping Raul's name in there is just denying reality. PumpkinSky talk 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Nothing has been heard from Raul in months. He hasn't been actively involved in the FAC process in years. Nobody knows if he's ever coming back. I've also never seen anything definitely showing how he came to be the FA Director in the first place. Did he just appoint himself to the position for life? That can't be right. I understand people have a lot of respect for the things he has done in the past, but it's time to move on. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Raul, to his credit, did much to set up the Featured Article process in 2004. There was discussion then, and he was given the position, which did not contain an expiration date. By the time I joined the process in 2008, Raul was a distant figure who rarely participated in discussions and never in reviewing, and sometimes closed FAC when the then-delegates had conflicts of interests. And he also selected the TFA until he appointed delegates for that, somewhat later (2011?)--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
              • And what does Raul do now as FA Director? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to the discussion: it's clear to me that Raul should not be listed as director on the page, regardless of what he has done in the past, due to his lack of active involvement. I also share concerns about the "director for life" status, if that's what it is. J Milburn (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record: those who are inquiring about the history of the FA process can find an accurate accounting of that history, and a broad community endorsement of the description of the FA director position at Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. It is incorrect to say there is no job description, incorrect to say Raul/Mark was inactive in 2008, and I do hope folks will read before continuing to opine. Best regards to all, and please do remember that what you say here is likely to be replayed in The Signpost; surely in this place where hopefully some of Wikipedia's finest writers convene we will find editors conducting themselves in a way that will bring pride and respect to all who value the bronze star. Admins edit-warring when discussion has barely started? When did Bold Revert Discuss turn into Bold Revert and I'm An Admin So I Can Revert Again ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it most likely won't be 'repeated' in the Signpost—most likely scenario, we'd include include a short in brief. As for admins, that's clearly directed at me, and I've already noted elsewhere that I didn't realize I was at three until after I hit the save button. As I've told you before: surprisingly, people make mistakes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could re-read WP:3RR and WP:BRD; are you unaware that your first revert was edit warring and that 3RR is not a license to revert three times? No, admin was not clearly directed at you or even directed at you ... I saw multiple admins in there, not to mention multiple editors who should have known better. And finally, I hope when The Signpost covers the issue, a neutral editor is located to do the writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I say as a non-regular, I don't understand the urgency of this at all? If Raul has been inactive for 5 months, I don't see how continuing to list him for a few days while the discussion went on was a great harm. I'm not even sure why it was so important to remove Raul, it would seem a simple solution would be to note he is nominally the FA director but has not been active for months and if necessary note in addition that his position has been disputed partially as a result of this inactivity. Some of this could be in a foot note and the precise wording could have been hashed out before editing. I would assume all parties would acknowledge the need for such clarification now that the issue has been brought up here. That being done, discussion could be held in a hopefully calm and civil manner with all interested parties participating in a non obstructive fashion, on whether Raul is FA director or not and/or whether to list them (if necessary, I don't feel this is that important compared to the later). And also whether to reform the governance model, replace Raul or what. As it stands, the instructions are a mess. Multiple mentions are made of a director, but no mention is made of who this is. Might I add I generally disagree (perhaps without mentioning) when people make a big deal out of how dysfunctional wikipedia is, but this sort of thing makes me think perhaps they're right? Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Next nom

I would like to nominate Whaam! ASAP since I am shooting for the 9/28 50th Anniversary for WP:TFA. It would be great if you could promote Drowning Girl promptly or grant me leave to go ahead since it has 3 supports, image review and source review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is surely a matter for the delegates, not for this talk? Brianboulton (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I suppose to ping them directly?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Since I have 2.5 months, I guess I will just wait until it happens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Best format for endnote citations?

What is the best format for manual endnotes? I want to start doing manual citations (not the templates). I really hate how long it takes to fill out those templates field by field...

Criteria that I am looking for (priority order):

1. Approximate the "cite templates".

2. I don't want article titles omitted like in a science journal.

3. Easy and fast.

4. Some published, "real" format like MLA, APA, AP, etc.

TCO (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do Chicago pretty easily—see South American dreadnought race, etc. There's a couple exceptions that I do, namely the inclusion of ISBNs and OCLCs, but it's pretty adaptable to Wikipedia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I do a hybrid MLA/wiki type style with author, date, page number inline, the rest written out really close to MLA (which is very streamlined now) in the references section. Whether books or on-line sources, I simply follow a consistent format. See Alps (not FA but shows a mix of books and online sources). Much much faster than citation templates - which I did at one time use. Victoria (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Format to be identical to the templates. Or else at least be consistent within the article, whatever you pick (I use Chicago in RL situations, mostly) However, the templates are actually not too tough to use once you start getting good at the interactive mode of reflinks. I'm no fan of squinting at the screen to add a zillion { and | and = whatevers, nor am I fond of the silly fill in the box form, but with interactive mode on reflinks, it does about 90% of it, you only occasionally have to go in manually when the metadata of a page doesn't provide what is needed, and in my case that's about equal to how many times I have to go in manually to fix my typos anyway... Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried the Reflinks thing with Russell Saunders. Fail. It inserted # tags all over the article. And for the citation, it did give me an article title for the url, but other than that didn't do anything else (no date, periodical, etc.)
It only works for books, but have you taken a peak at the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I"ve never seen it do that, ever. It works on all templates for me, though for hardcopy books I've never tried it. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the "it" in "it only works for books" meant the Google Books tool, not Reflinks. I was offering another reffing tool to try out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I put the sources in "References" as eg (from Gold glass):
  • Francis, Peter, Asia's Maritime Bead Trade: 300 B.C. to the Present, 2002, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 082482332X, 9780824823320, google books
  • Grig, Lucy, "Portraits, Pontiffs and the Christianization of Fourth-Century Rome", Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 72, (2004), pp. 203–230, JSTOR

- and the citations in "Notes" as "Francis, 87" and "Grig, 220" etc. This way translates easily from the JSTOR & google books formats you can cut and paste. It also allows multiple cites in one note, which I do a lot. Citation templates are awful, not least because all hell breaks out when you rearrange the sequence of text, as you often need to do. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

In what way do you find "all hell breaks out when you rearrange the sequence of text" when using templates? One of the reasons I took to the {{sfn}} family of templates was because it made slicing and dicing text easier for me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


Once more, we seem to be without a bot. VoxelBot last ran on the FAC pages on 7 July, when it did something rather strange. Since then, it has continued running but has not archived or promoted, or done any of its usual FAC tasks. This looks a little untidy, as it did before, when various places are advertising as open FACs which are closed. I left a note on the bot talk page and on the talk page of its operator, but nothing yet. Perhaps we need to do this manually again for a while? This was the discussion last time this happened. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a message for the other operator a few days ago, and sent an email today. If no-one responds in the next day or two then manual it'll have to be, I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Had an reply email overnight here that suggests it should be back on line, not certain when it will actually start hitting closed FACs, so stay tuned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Running again -- tks to Vacation9 for getting it back online. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion for renomination

I ask permission to renominate Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 as a featured article. Though the nomination received very little feedback, all concerns raised were addressed. It was failed on July 14, but the bot did not close the nomination until July 23. I feel it failed because I personally did not seek out reviews. This time, I will do so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You can proceed with the nomination. Please be careful when you request reviews not to solicit support. Graham Colm (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest also notifying, first and foremost, individuals and Wikiprojects which are familiar and/or previously involved with the article or its reviews. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nominations viewer down? - image checks

Is nominations viewer down for anyone else? Can't see FAC-summaries (which is a pain while surfing through the nominations). If anyone has an active FA-nomination, who needs an image check please ping me or post on this talk page in the thread above - happy to help. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it hasn't been right for a few days for me. Graham Colm (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for checking - left a note at the tool's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed now, thanks to Gary King. GermanJoe (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations in FA review

I've noticed several FAs lately (most recently Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded) whose citations are a bit of a mess, but that hasn't been picked up in FA review. For example, that article frequently misuses the cite template parameters (e.g. publisher = [[Danish Singles Chart]]. Hung Medien). In the first place, Danish Singles Chart is a 'work', and Hung Medien is the 'publisher', so it's wrong to lump the two together; and secondly, the publisher has no value at all to anyone checking references, so it would be best omitted entirely (and the documentation at Template:Citation#Publisher specifically recommends omitting it for periodicals (such as work=Billboard|publisher=Nielsen Business Media, which occurs multiple times). Other previous FAs have had similar - though not so extensive - problems with cites. It seems to me that this is an area of article quality that's not getting enough attention in FA review. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Jump in and review! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I do that? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just pick an article at WP:FAC, open its review page (the edit tab next to its title) in a new tab so you can edit as usual, and add any comments you have about referencing or grammatical issues after consulting the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Chris: While you're right that pop music articles often unnecessarily contain publisher details for periodicals, both work and publisher are often placed in the "publisher" parameter to get around the fact that the "work" field automatically italicises, which is frequently unwanted. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I was involved in a discussion about this some time ago (on WT:Citing sources, I think, can't find a link), where the consensus was clearly that cited websites, for example, ought to be italicised, because they're a 'work' just as much as Billboard. Now, that came as surprise to me because it's not usual practice, but there was no dissent from that view, so perhaps we ought to be making it more widely known. In any case, it's wrong to misrepresent the facts to achieve some desired formatting. There are other less ugly ways. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Some quick responses: Firstly, I don't think a discussion on that talk page "some time ago" can have a monopoly on citation styles. The MOS disagrees with you, noting that while some website names should generally be italicised, others should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Certainly not the strong position you're forwarding. Secondly: There are plenty of featured articles (and legitimate citation styles used in highly respected publications) which do not italicise website names, and I sure as hell won't start italicising when it isn't warranted. Thirdly: There's no misrepresentation going on- a citation template does not exist to convey The Truth, it exists to help us format. If it's not helping us format when we use it as intended, we should use it as it was not intended or do away with it altogether. Fourthly: What, short of not using the template, is a "less ugly way"? If there is one, I'd like to know it. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well actually the MoS says to italicise "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content ... Online encyclopedias and dictionaries ...". That covers practically everything that citations generally refer to. If the template doesn't do the type of formatting that people agree is required, then it should be amended to provide that facility. Gaming the template is entirely the wrong approach. I've seen cases where people have added wiki formatting to citation parameter values to get the appearance they want. I don't like it, but at least it's not messing with the facts by misrepresenting a 'work' as a 'publisher', for example. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"If the template doesn't do the type of formatting that people agree is required, then it should be amended to provide that facility." You assume that either we're going to be italicising or not italicising every possible "work". That simply isn't the case. If I'm writing about a band and citing their own blog or website, I wouldn't italicise then. If I'm linking to a result in a database, I almost certainly wouldn't italicise the database's name. If I still want to use the template, I shouldn't have to go and change the template when it is perfectly fine for other cases. "Gaming the template is entirely the wrong approach." I have no idea why you believe this. The template is a tool. We're not "gaming" or "misrepresenting" or "messing with the facts", we're using the tool in a slightly different way than its creator assumed we would. As long as it displays as we want it to for readers, what does it matter if we're using the template in different ways? J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not making any such assumption, If people agree that there are two classes of website, those which the MoS feels are equivalent to newspapers, magazines, etc., and therefore to be italicised, and those which are of a different nature (a band's own website is a good example), then there should be two different parameters, which the template would format differently. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Good idea! We could call one "work" and one "publisher". I'll go and suggest that on the template's talk page right away. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha. So will you then be putting "Danish Singles Chart" as the 'work' and "Hung Medien" as the publisher? Or will you pretend that they're both the publisher? Or will you omit the publisher anyway as it's completely useless? Or will you mislead everyone by putting "Danish Singles Chart" as the publisher? We have a fundamental disagreement. I think it's important that the values we enter in the template parameters should bear some relation to their actual real world meaning. You don't care about that, you only care how the formatted output looks, We're never going to have a meeting of minds on that, so I'm not going to argue with you any longer. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Chris is right. The citation templates have definite semantics, which are made use of in various places. (For instance, I can pull the bibliography off of one of my articles into Zotero because of that, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals regularly harvests the list of journals we cite.) If the templates were solely for formatting, we'd call the parameters "italic" and "non-italic", not "work" and "publisher". If you're solely concerned with the aesthetics of your citation, you should be formatting it with wikitext, not one of the citation templates. Choess (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Chris, I'm not "misleading" anyone when I place things in the "publisher" parameter which aren't defined by you as a "publisher". Suggesting that I am is, you guessed it, misleading. Repeatedly suggesting that I am is moronic. Anyone looking at the citation can clearly work out what is meant, and that's the important thing. We're meant to be here to write articles, and we have citations to support the article. We are not here to argue semantics for the amusement of citation formatting enthusiasts. Obviously, you live in a realm where what's important is what a template says, and not conveying information to readers; so yes, we have a fundamental disagreement here. I edit Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. I've no clue where you think you are. Please, if that's what's important to you, go and edit the template space, and stop trying to force your views onto article writers. (Choess, data scraped from cite journal is going to be fine, as that's a vaguely well formatted template. The italics aspect of the cite web template has been causing problems for years.) J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is, in your "realm", "semantics is bunk". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Curly is looking at "We're meant to be here to write articles, and we have citations to support the article. We are not here to argue semantics for the amusement of citation formatting enthusiasts." and appears to be taking that as an insult to the field of semantics rather than an expansion of the term "debate semantics" (meaning spend time arguing over the wording of something and not the actual meat of the issue) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Query for delegates

My Garden Warbler FAC currently has four supports and no opposes, but a fifth editor has been commenting for nearly three weeks now. I'm just concerned that this might have the effect of an (unintended) filibuster and lead to the FAC running out of time. I don't know how long he will take to finish, or even whether he will cast a vote either way in the end, since he doesn't always do so. Basically, I'd just like some assurance that this article will be given time to complete FAC, since the circumstances are unusual. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no set time for a FAC to run, Jim. Myself, I prefer to let active reviewers complete their commentary whenever possible, although both Graham and I have promoted long-running noms when there are still some minor points outstanding but significant support is present. In this case, as the reviewers who have declared a position are in favour of promotion, I don't think there's much danger of the nom being archived out of hand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, the problem seems to have gone away since he has now supported. In due accordance with sod's law, he's supported the day I posted this (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination viewer buggy?

71 open FAC noms – wow! I wonder what the record is? Anyway, I just noticed when I open the FAC page with the nomination viewer, it only shows the first 39 candidates (the last shown is Wordless Novel; although all candidates are listed in the contents, I can't open the last ones). Anyone else having this issue? Sasata (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Same thing for me. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You can access the nominations after pressing "Expand All" for now. Usually there is some special wiki code or character, that can break the viewer (maybe in Worldless Novel or the next one after it). GermanJoe (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Removed one included template, should work again. General note: Please do not use templates on nomination pages. GermanJoe (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Big new open access source

Hey all, dropping a note here for FA writers and reviewers... the University of California system, one of the largest higher ed. systems in the U.S. if not the world, recently announced they're going to publish all peer-reviewed work by UC under open access policies. Books and journals will be available for reading in full at Steven Walling • talk 20:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant move! Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No comments

To User:Ucucha, User:GrahamColm, and User:Ian Rose, or anyone else who may be able to help: I nominated the Knights of Columbus article two weeks ago, but it hasn't generated any comments yet. I reached out to a couple of the wikiprojects that may be involved to drum up some attention, but nothing so far. If no one comments on it, does the nomination just wither on the vine? What happens next? --Briancua (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, generally if there's no comments after a few weeks it will be archived and the nominator will likely be given leave to renominate in less than the normal two-week waiting period following an unsuccessful FAC. In this case, if you've let some projects know, without result, the other thing is to leave neutrally worded notes on the talk pages of any editors who have reviewed the article before, e.g. at GAN, Peer Review, or an earlier FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I will try and take a look today. Ping me if I haven't turned up there within 24 hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested closure of both RFCs

I've requested closure of the two RFCs, suggesting that they be closed together since they are so closely related. --Stfg (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. It's high time the community move on. I am certain little, if anything, will come of dragging this on anymore. PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

4000th FA

See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#4000th_FA — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 15:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How commentators should respond to comments

This rule only refers to nominators: "Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider."

How should commentators respond to each others comments? Under the same guidelines as the nominator? Or, solely in their own section (as in an ArbCom case)? Without any restrictions? Or what? Strangesad (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Slow bot?

Just checking up on the bot: S&M (song) was promoted a week ago and yet the bot hasn't botted on it yet, even though more recent promotions have gone through. Is this a problem because of the number of archives it has to deal with? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't say for sure, mate -- messages have been left for the bot creators about a few FACs that haven't been closed recently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's great - cheers Ian. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Over at FLC, we're having problems with article talk pages not being updated after closures. I wonder if the bot is having trouble functioning well in general. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive comments?

Please see this bird FAC:[7] Snowman seems to be misunderstanding sourcing principles. He suggests changing the article based on a photo he has found on Google, which supports his own interpretation of sleeping posture, and ignoring what the actual written sources say. That is original research. Furthermore, he demands adding taxa to the cladogram that are not even mentioned in the source the cladogram is based on. That is original research as well. Those comments are disruptive, and are degrading the reliability of the article, not improving it. Am I wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any bad faith on Snowman's part. He is a thorough reviewer who will check every sentence if necessary. I think the problem here is that birds are often described as sleeping with the head under the wing, when it's rarely the whole head, and often just part or all of the beak. We have a conflict between a literal interpretation of the words (Snowman) and a conventional one (Funkmonk). Snowman has suggested a compromise with the cladogram. If there is no scope for compromise with the sleeping, just note the fact and let the delegates decide. I can't imagine that this article will be failed archived for the sake of a couple of words. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not suggesting he is disruptive on purpose, just that he might be interpreting the FA guidelines in a wrong way. At least with the photo, others seem to agree. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


The request to close the two RfCs has been up at WP:AN since the 13th, and I can see why this might be a hard one to close. I can think of some ideas that might offer at least something to everyone and possibly make things easier for the closer, but I'm not going to suggest a compromise unless there's interest. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's hear them. It's time to move on. Everyone has had plenty of time to get their bickering done. PumpkinSky talk 20:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The main sticking point seems to be #6 in the first RfC, "the FAC, FAR, and TFA coordinators in committee—after consulting with the FA community—determine any further changes and fill vacancies." I don't know which way the closer will go on this, because there is previous consensus pointing in both directions, it seems to me. The community of editors who participate in, for instance, FAC (a "community" in the same sense that many wikiprojects are ... it kind of is and kind of isn't) are entitled to ... and inevitably will, whether they're entitled to or not ... arrive at various understandings, and if such a community wants to appoint people and charge them with making a call on when certain standards have been reached, there seems to be ample precedent for that all around Wikipedia, including at the Military History project and the Guild of Copy Editors. There is however one difference that is significant, at least for some editors: FAs are promoted by implication (in the Signpost, on the Main Page, and elsewhere) as defining our "best work", and it does seem a bit unfair to claim one day that FAC is a self-sustaining, self-governing subcommunity and that it sets the bar for everyone the next day. It's not reasonable to expect that someone who doesn't participate at FAC (for whatever reason) will give a flip about, or think they should be held to, standards developed at FAC. So ... I really don't have a good guess which way the closer will go, there are arguments from "previous consensus" in both directions, and there certainly isn't a strong consensus in any one direction evident on this page. I can say that, if I were closing, there's a proposal that, if advanced by either side, would soften my judgment and make me more likely to think that they're being conciliatory and cognizant of the difficulties: a proposal to make an honest effort to create "competition", in some sense, for FAC. That might mean something as simple as an effort by the FAC community to help various A-class processes produce high quality articles and to promote the results, perhaps in the weekly wikiproject column in the Signpost. If we can kill off the mindset that only FAs are worthy of promotion, then it will be harder to make the claim that the FAC community is trying to enforce its own standards on everyone else (which I personally don't believe is the case), and harder to deny the FAC community the same rights that many other subcommunities enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there can possibly be read to be consensus on that. Or on much else.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
How about this...close the RFC on all other points, and leave that #6 "to be decided later by a yet to be determined process". Holding this open isn't doing anyone any good. The one thing that really needs to happen here, to reflect reality and allow the community to move on, is Raul's name to be removed from all the FA pages and the delegates to be called coordinators. As Wehwalt alludes to, the danger is in claiming consensus where there is none on many points. PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If you think you may lose without a legal settlement, then you may choose to agree to a settlement, even one you don't like. There's a long string of previous RfCs and other decisions on Wikipedia that have established that subcommunities are entitled in some cases to do things their own way, and another long string of previous decisions that have established that subcommunities can't set the rules for everyone. Since there's no strong consensus visible here, there's a good chance the closer will be influenced by precedent ... and which way they'll be influenced will depend on whether they see a besieged subcommunity that's making an effort to be accommodating, or whether they see conscientious editors who don't choose to belong to this community being oppressed by standards that they never agreed to. If either side chooses to be conciliatory and generous, they make it less likely for the closer to see the image that they don't want the closer to see. But it's your call, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see it as winning or losing, but reflecting reality and letting the entire community to move forward. This pair of RFCs just hanging here is doing no one any good. They could both quite legitimately be closed as no consensus, but that won't solve anything; and there is a lot of precedent for RFCs accomplishing nothing too. PumpkinSky talk 22:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am all in favor of our documentation accurately reflecting what happens on wiki, so I would fully support some sort of re-write of our TFA policies and guidelines at this point. — Ched :  ?  19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mobile view

The number of people viewing our articles using mobile devices, and our mobile-friendly presentation, is growing all the time - AIUI, it's already at around 50% currently around 15%.

I recently discovered that the template {{Listen}} was not showing in our mobile view. The template is used on a number of FACs about music, musical instruments, or where we have other audio recordings. No-one seems to have noticed this until I did.

I suggest that no FAC review should pass until someone has reviewed the article in the mobile format to check that all the expected content is present.

This can be done on a mobile device, or by changing the URL from:


in a desktop or laptop browser window. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've viewed articles on a smartphone, but not edited from one. It's okay for simple tasks and browsing, but it's a scaled down version as you don't get the history tab, your preferences, etc. Very scaled down in fact. PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, would you be willing to help develop a list of what "expected content" comprises (or maybe just what the exemptions are)? What I'm afraid of is that there are technical reasons certain things might not be displayed in the mobile view that editors might not be aware of (i.e. Did a programmer make a technical decision that {{Listen}} can't be displayed in the mobile layout?). I fully agree that mobile display should be part of the quality check for any article. --Laser brain (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Yes, I'm happy to help in any way I can. Off the top of my head:

  • you wouldn't expect to see the same page chrome (the navigation sidebar, the footer etc), which is not part of the article
  • coordinates don't display in the "title" position (that's a bug that needs fixing; I'm onto that)
  • sister project templates (e.g. {{Commons cat}}) don't display
  • navboxes don't display
  • categories aren't shown

Any colleagues who have questions about similar issues are welcome to ping me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  • history, prefs, and contribs are nowhere to be found
PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Video files display only as image files. If there's a way to play them, I can't figure it out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
They would be the "etc." in "chrome". BTW, I wasn't clear above; {{Listen}} was fixed, and now displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Side point for the curious... the percent of mobile visits is around 15% of total traffic,[8] not 50%. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I must have misheard the figure. Still, if I read your charts correctly, its increased from 147 million to 1.85 billion in under two years - that's a significant number and a significant and continuing change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing Gimmebot

One of several of the ongoing effects of the missing Gimmebot (who was chased off of Wikipedia by socks, indeffed users, vanished users returning to revisit grudges, and those supporting technical issues that had no positive effect on articlehistory but did make Gimmetrow's job harder, but I digress), I see that we still do not have a replacement bot to complete articlehistory templates.

In the absence of a functioning GimmeBot, perhaps someone can manually add the links to the oldid of the featured version: for example see today's TFA, where one cannot link to the featured version. Presumably same is happening now on Peer reviews, GAs, etc ... one of the trickiest jobs done by Gimme was retrieving the oldid for an accurate articlehistory. At minimum, perhaps we can alert FA writers to manually add those links, using Dr Pdas articlehistory tool (sample here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on getting a new articlehistory bot made; in the meantime I've been doing the most important bits manually (we have been manually closing all FARs since January, and I still end up closing lots of FACs when the FAC bot fails to run properly). Oldids on TFAs hadn't occurred to me as an important thing to check for, but I see your point. I just checked everything scheduled thus far. Moving forward, it would be helpful if our regular nominators could pitch in by making sure their article talk pages are tidy and complete. Maralia (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on, Maralia. If I knew anything about coding, I would help. Is there a way we can get the source code for Gimmebot and use it for a new bot? I wonder if we should make a cheat-sheet for the tasks needed for article talk pages and add a link to {{FACClosed}}. Something like "Click here for a list of important tasks to update your article history." --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that we can get that code ... Gimme was pretty thoroughly mistreated before he left, and I wouldn't blame him for not looking back. It was always my understanding that the work he did was difficult and time consuming (and I'm sure many remembered how often I lamented that he was almost never thanked-- particularly by those he most served). Maralia, you know those tasks as well as anyone ... I guess (haven't had time to check?) that the oldids are not being added on anything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Voxelbot successfully closed my nom of HMS Warrior (1860) a few days ago, but it's been problematic of late and that hasn't been true of all noms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That's true Sandy: the FAC closing bot doesn't do oldids at all (or use the actual timestamp of promotion, or incorporate PR/GAN/etc). The bot op has declined adding those functions, so we're just muddling along with what we've got for now.
Laser brain, I could do that, but I'm reluctant to push even more technical/administrative minutiae on our writers, you know? Maralia (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This all sounds quite similar to issues I have raised at WT:FA. Not sure if any of you watch that page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Part of the problem is that the bot owner, Vacation9, has been missing in action since July 9. — ΛΧΣ21 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

Some of you have already seen this, but for those of who haven't, you may be interested in the Million Award, a new initiative to recognize editors who bring one of Wikipedia's most-read articles to GA or FA status. The three tiers recognize articles with annual readerships of 250,000, 500,000, and one million, calculated independently of main page appearances.

If you've ever had an article that meets these criteria, feel free to add the award to your user page, or let me know and I'll be glad to present it to you. And do keep it in mind for newly promoted articles--looking at current submissions, things like Joseph Smith, Sea, George S. Patton, and Julianne Moore all have sufficient readerships to qualify. Thanks everybody for your work in this area -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an excellent idea. Thank you for coming up with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, great idea. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
How do a choose another 90 day period with that calculator? FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
By taking 3 consecutive 30-day periods, so far as I can tell. Others proposed "looking at another 90-day period" to me but I haven't been able to make the stats program do that yet. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The stats tool use to let you produce full years at a time. If this award is going to become prominent, someone should request that functionality be returned. However, I have been adding up one month at time to get full years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have already asked Henrik (who seemed interested), and as of yet there is no formal requirement to use any one counting method. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mystery redlink

Why is there a redlink in the middle of the blurb on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page? Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2013 - no candidates have been archived so far this month... BencherliteTalk 21:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
True, but generally we'd have set up the page and taken care of other monthly housekeeping tasks by now -- with the turn of month falling on Father's Day and being under the weather with a bug since then, I'm afraid I hadn't gotten round to it yet but shall do shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC on governance of the FA forums

This RfC focused on how to adjust to Raul having become inactive and how the featured article forums would be governed in the future. Tony put forward a six-part proposal about how to move forward. While few objections were made to most of his proposal, part 2 had a non-trivial amount of negative feedback and part 6 had significant negative feedback. There was also a second proposal which modified parts 2 and 6 of Tony's proposal.

It is fairly clear that parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 have consensus--there were very few objections to any of those parts.

As for part 2, there was consensus on giving the title "honorary position of Emeritus FA Director" to Raul. There was some worry that about what powers or role Raul might play have, but the proposal as worded gives him nothing but the power to offer advice--something that would be true of any editor of Wikipedia. In any case, there was weak consensus to enact part 2 as long as it is clear the position is honorary and has no role not available to any editor.

Part 6 had no consensus. On one hand, there were serious worries about forming a cabal/clique and a belief that choosing functionaries should be subject to community consensus. On the other hand, there were worries that opening up the selection of functionaries to the community would be a popularity contest and we'd be best to " Let experienced individuals who know what they are doing pick new people" as IRWolfie- put it.

All this means that a new, narrower, RfC will be needed to determine community consensus on the issue of replacing coordinators. At the least that RfC should clearly ask the community to determine the following:

  1. How long the featured article coordinators will serve.
  2. How the featured article coordinators will be chosen when those identified in parts 3, 4, and 5 of Tony's proposal are no longer serving.

This new RfC will be fairly challenging to write in a fair and clear way where the discussion doesn't get bogged down and there aren't so many alternatives that determining consensus becomes impossible. Further, those questions don't really have a default to fall back on, so the closer(s) of that discussion will need to find a consensus even if that consensus is very weak.

In any case, there isn't a tremendous rush--a governing model based on coordinators was agreed to by the FA community. And who will fill those roles, for now at least, was agreed to. It is just the long-term issue of selecting future coordinators that needs to be addressed. Hobit (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For the future RfC, I suspect it might be difficult to determine what options should be listed. As such, I'm going to include what I think are reasonable options and they can serve as a default if the community can't otherwise decide what options to present. For the term, I'd suggest options of 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and "lifetime (until they become inactive or retire)". For the way of choosing I'd suggest "That the FAC, FAR, and TFA coordinators in committee—after consulting with the FA community—determine any further changes and fill vacancies", "election by the FA community" and "election by the entirety of the Wikipedia community". Defining the "FA community" would be difficult and would need to be worked out either before the start of the RfC or as part of it. I'm hopeful people can do a better job with options than the ones I've presented, but I wanted something to fall back on.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear colleagues, current circumstances suggest that it's time for a structural adjustment in the governance of the three FA forums (FAC, FAR, and TFA). Two problematic issues inter alia have been discussed on this page: first, Raul, who has been FA director since 2004, has not edited since 11 February; and second, the director's role is not well defined and has involved little or no activity for some years.

The proposal, with minimal change in mind, is that we make three adjustments: (a) no director; (b) current "delegates" renamed as "coordinators", since their roles would no longer be delegated; and (c) the coordinators in committee—after consulting with the FA community—determine any further changes and fill vacancies.

The last is a pragmatic compromise to avoid the popularity contest that would result from voting for coordinators, while enabling the community to express its views on any proposed changes or appointments. It acknowledges that we already invest considerable trust in the FA coordinators (currently "delegates"), a trust that in my observation they have never abused.

This is the formal proposal:

  1. FA director: That there no longer be a position of FA director,
  2. Emeritus FA director: That the community record its profound gratitude to Raul for his creation of and service to the FA project over the past decade, and that he be asked to accept a new, honorary position of Emeritus FA Director, in which he might offer high-level advice in relation to the FA forums.
  3. FAC coordinators. That the current three FAC delegates be renamed FAC coordinators and continue in their roles without reference to a director.
  4. FAR coordinators. That the current two FAR coordinators continue in their roles.1
  5. TFA coordinator. That the only active TFA delegate, Bencherlite, be renamed TFA coordinator and continue in his role without reference to a director.2
  6. Changes and vacancies. That the FAC, FAR, and TFA coordinators in committee—after consulting with the FA community—determine any further changes and fill vacancies.

1FAR is already run by coordinators, without reference to a director.
2Dabomb has indicated to Bencherlite that he is no longer available for TFA duties, and Gimmetrow (Gimmetoo) has not edited since January 2013. It has been noted above that FAR coordinator Nikkimaria has agreed to serve as a backup TFA delegate/coordinator.

This has been advertised at WP:VP, WP:CENT, and the talk pages of the other featured-content forums. I look forward to input from the community. Tony (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; please use the discussion section below.

  • Tony (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Open to changing my mind. I have my concerns about proposal 6. I trust the community to be able to deal with the appointment of new coordinators without it becoming a popularity contest. I believe that Raul only ever governed by consent anyway. – Shudde talk 11:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a step in the right direction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support—although I would prefer that the proposal address the possibility of appeals from the decisions of the new coordinators, or the potential for total recusal of the coordinators pool at an FA subprocess. Imzadi 1979  15:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This looks like a great way forward, very sensible proposals. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, for now, with the exception of #2. We don't need more funny hats and we don't need a Byzantine system of honorary court titles on this wiki. I'm sure Raul doesn't need it either. If and when he returns, and wishes to get involved in the process again, the proposed system is quite sufficient to get him reenabled in any way people feel appropriate – e.g. as another coordinator. Fut.Perf. 16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support except give the emeritus director the same role/privileges as the other directors. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Although it has several things that may need to be polished, but they can be polished later. This is way much better than our current situation here. — ΛΧΣ21 17:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I read it as the advice offered does not have to be taken. --Rschen7754 19:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems sensible. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a needed change. Everyking (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although I suggest that, should Raul not return to active editing, there be a process to remove any emeritus title he holds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a step in the right direction. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support 1, 3, 4 and 5 only. We don't need to invent any new titles, and as Nick-D says below, what is "the FA community"? If all six options are offered only as an irreducible package, I cannot support them. — Scott talk 13:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because we need to reform the existing creaky system of FAs. Wer900talk 20:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'd also skip the emeritus thing, but if it pacifies somebody, so be it. --99of9 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Why not? It's a logical progression in the hierarchy of the site. Kurtis (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support most of this. The exception is #6. My preference would be that the coordinators be elected, and that the length of their terms be defined. And selection of coordinators needs to be opened up to the entire community, not just the FA community, which might be difficult or impossible to define. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as addressing the current situation and a step in the right direction. Community and new coordinators (which are part of the community btw) can discuss further details. I trust the current volunteers to keep an open communication and to work on occurring problems with all interested editors and reviewers. GermanJoe (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A necessary step in the right direction. Concerns about Raul abusing his new position referred to in #2 feel like raw nerves and/or hyperbole, as #2 mentions 'advice' only. If Raul oversteps that mark, he'll rightly cause quite a stir. #6 seems to be good enough for the moment; no doubt another RFC will appear in a year or two to consider issues that have arisen from this new model that haven't been addressed in the interim. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This all seems pretty straightforward and is a minimal change based on how things are done currently anyways. SilverserenC 01:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support While I'm personally in favor of a more open process, this is a step in the right direction and better than nothing.Acer (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I've read the RFC and the history it links to, and I'm unconvinced. On a site whose governance depends on consensus, a fiefdon like this is absurd. This is a move in the right direction. I would like to see #6 tightened up and would like a clear system for appeals to be added. --Stfg (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - removal of the director position and bringing keeping the roles at a equal level is really a good direction.  A m i t  웃   23:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds eminently sensible. Don't feel the need for emeritus status or high level advice, unless it is assumed or offered, respectively, with the reticence of Pope Benedict. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'd like to see all of the bureaucracy scrapped, but this is seemingly at least a step towards restoring Wikipedia policy here, in particular: WP:CON. I think that regardless of this discussion, giving raul a title which only has value in name, while recognising institutional memory, sounds fine to me. If members of the community can choose to give barnstars and the like, members of the community can assuredly give this. (Presuming, of course, the title has the same effect as having a barnstar.) - jc37 22:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Let experienced individuals who know what they are doing pick new people. We don't want another RFA. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; please use the discussion section below.

Strong Oppose See alternate below. PumpkinSky talk 12:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose There is no reason why the community should not be able to handle the selection of coordinators in these areas. It does so quite well in other areas. Number six is unfortunately an invitation for cliquery to eventually take over. No unlimited powers, no unlimited terms, no depriving the community of an effective voice in the process. I also decry Tony's misconduct in the matter, his desire to get have his proposal considered first, his email canvassing of delegates, and his edit warring so I have upgraded (?) to Strong OpposeWehwalt (talk)|
Oppose #2Sorry but that sounds plain ridiculous. Raul is another member of the community, and not the king of FA. 16:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talkcontribs)
Strong Oppose all (including below) recognizing Tony's best intentions for the FA process, and I will lay out my reasoning in alternate sections as I have time later. In the meantime, there are numerous either outright false or misleading statements throughout the discussions on this page, and I suggest that all have a good read of the RFC held in the not-so-distant past which clearly lays out the history of FAC, the description of the FA director, as well as broad community support for the director position. Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership gives an accurate history of the FA process, errors on this page notwithstanding, and explains why a director is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
[Maximum of 50 words: I've moved the rest of this post down to the discussion section. Tony (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)]
You have no right to edit or move other people's comments. Given the canvassing and edit-warring you have engaged in, why would you be trusted to do so fairly?You are the proponent. No one has asked you to serve as coordinator.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a request for COMMENT: I am aware of no guideline that permits the person launching the RFC to dictate the size of subsequent responses. Perhaps someone could provide one? At any rate, I have left most of Tony's move in place and restored one sentence which I believe to be important: I have limited time, but do hope people opining here would have at least read the RFC. Choess, I saw a request from you somewhere on this page to elaborate on my ideas ... I am hoping to have a block of free time later today. Once again, I urge restraint and careful consideration here; I believe we are capable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Per SandyGeorgia. There is no reason for this. There was an RFC only a few months back that re-endorsed Raul as FA director, and his semi-retired status was not overlooked. I am not sure who the "FA community" referred to are but they appear to be "editors who have never written an Featured article, and are not involved in the process". Presumably it was added to prevent the delegates from simply scrapping it. Let's do this for them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of the six positions, I support #1. No director has been needed for almost a year, as far as I can see, we don't need one in the future. - I don't know why new people to help the FA processes (however these people are called, if at all) would be "chosen" by those already active, - it seems not in community spirit, therefore I oppose #6. I am willing to help as far as I am able, without any title, as I did before. It would just be nice to get a thank-you (not this) if you help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's unclear what is meant by the "FA community" in this context, so I can't support this proposal - this would be saving up trouble. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, essentially echoing Nick and Wehwalt. What makes someone part of the "FA community", exactly? Is it that they comment on FAs, that they write them? In either case, this would inevitably lead to insurmountable problems. If something goes terribly wrong with the FA system, I don't want the people tasked with resolving it to be defined as "the people who, by dint of tolerating a terribly broken FA system, qualify as part of the FA community". It lends itself to poor governance review, should governance problems crop up, because the group it excludes from having a voice is those who have an issue with the system. Ironholds (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sandy; imo we do need a new person as director, as Raul seems to have completely dropped away, but not changes to the system (decided by this sort of process) otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The problem isn't with the system, but with the director himself. Raul has doubtlessly done a lot for the FA process, but he just isn't around at this time and really hasn't been on a consistent basis for years. When I supported him at the last RFC, I was assuming that he would become more active again, but that didn't happen. If it was up to me, we would be deciding on a new director now. The prospect of choosing one scares me, as I've said before, because of the hostility that shows up any time we have a serious debate on the matter, but we're at the point where things can't continue this way. Still, I think the idea of a director remains valid, and the concept still works at FLC. I like the idea of having somebody who can weigh consensus on difficult FACs/FARs and provide guidance in general. And how would the "coordinators" consult with the FA community? We (the community) already ratify delegates now, so this isn't changing anything in the current system. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to me that the system is working; however we need to figure out how to proceed with a means by which delegates and a director can be legitimately agreed upon. I nominate Sandy to succeed Raul...Modernist (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose T. trichiura Infect me 15:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose there may very well be good reasons why the governance model needs to change, but I don't think this has been sufficietly established. More importantly, while I don't deny the good intentions behind this proposal, it does seem it was rushed, insufficiently discussed and poorly implemented. That means it's entirely unclear if this is really the best way to reform. And I don't think the set up of this RFC is good for such discussion as it was set up to discuss one proposal (even if a package of proposals are contained within that proposal and people are free to reject those they feel unnecessary) with the later addition of another. (It also shows on other ways like the lack of clarity surrounding some aspects of the proposal, as highlighted by others.) I'm not even sure if an RFC is needed so earlier on, or it would be better for interested parties to have preliminary discussion leading either to a a small number of options to be put to RFC, or a more structured RFC seeking feedback depending on what those participating feel is necessary. BTW, I'm not sure if this exceeds 50 words, but I ask this be kept here as I feel my comments in their entirety are needed to explain my position for admins trying to determine consensus. And while I appreciate the desire to keep general discussion structured, I'm not sure that a hard word limit is the way to go. I'm also pretty sure there's no guideline allowing any such unilateral imposition. And yes, I appreciate the irony that these comments may push it over but given the controversy above even if it seems to have been resolved I felt it best to pre-empt. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written because point 6 creates an ill-defined clique of the Featured Article Community that could further cause disputes over who belongs to the clique. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Use of pejorative descriptors like “god”, “king”, “dictator”, “oligarchy”, etc. and allusions thereto in the surrounding discussions strikes me as unintelligent and obtuse conflation of oversight of mere process(es) with governance of a nation state. The role of director is and generally has been that of an independent (i.e., as auditors use the term – neutral, free of conflict of interest) and informed observer who may act as an end point of escalation/final arbiter when necessary (note, importantly, that “observer” implies a hands-off approach). I don’t recall Raul oppressing the huddled masses, rendering editors into pillars of salt, or banishing those who poach his deer. To believe FA director is a position of power in line with the aforementioned pejoratives is to fail to understand the FA process(es) and the role itself. If semantics are at issue and “director” is too commanding a title, choose “chairperson”, but removal of an appellate position would be unwise. The current structure and functions are necessary to the process, but they do need active editors. Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
That is, other than his attempts to ban (and block) Br'er Rabbit, whose wikicide did not vindicate Raul (though I hear there's a rant a-prepping to the contrary which argues at extreme length and screams about sockpuppets and sockmasters and other matters unlikely to ensure the peace is kept around here). He also went forth on his talk page against those he deemed his opponents, including myself, which surely was not putting production before personality, for not respecting his Divine Right to FAC, and against PumpkinSky, which led to the infamous conversation here in which his close ally Moni3 blocked PumpkinSky, indef and without warning, two hours after calling him an "idiot" and a "dingus" (closely akin to the conduct which Hawkeye7 was desysopped for for blocking Malleus), and two minutes after SandyGeorgia had complained that "Did I say, a few hours ago, "Oh, I'm so sure all will be promptly, courteously, and correctly dealt with at ANI !!!" Yep. Ok, no action, and people removing the template from his talk even though it's confirmed. I've been ... ummmmm ... informed that Rlevse still has friends in powerful places. Not only has there been no block, there's not even a tag on his page. Yay ANI !!! So, what's the next step for getting this account blocked? I'm noticing how little the community gives a darn about the sustained disruption that has been visited upon FAC for months now." Moni3 had, as I recall, also threatened a block against PS during the so-called RfC, which certainly helped put the chill on opposition there. Given that PumpkinSky has returned to help pen the most-viewed TFA in history, again, I think he is well-vindicated. And it says something about the climate of fear around here that although Moni's misconduct was (to my knowledge) reasonably widely known, no one had the guts to do anything about it until 28bytes finally unblocked him, and 28bytes was then promptly elevated to bureaucrat with near-unanimous support. We were all afraid ...
The past administration was more about personality than production. In what way was Raul independent when he was ranting against productive FA writers such as myself and PumpkinSky for having the temerity to question his indefinite term as director? Would you hire an outside accountant with a public grudge against the CFO? Raul's absence does not make the heart grow fonder, and I urge everyone to read a few threads before going on a nostalgia kick. I hope for a fairer, less personal, less permanent, and less emotional administration in future. We cannot afford to turn the keys to the kingdom over to anyone without checks and balances, such as term limits.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
And let's not forget Raul's onwiki "pitchforks" statements where he colluded with Moni against me and got me blocked--the one Wehwalt is talking about. PumpkinSky talk 12:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I’m sure this is all quite fascinating, but, as an attorney, I would expect you know better than most the utter meaninglessness of speculation. Nowhere here is a coherent explanation of why a director position is detrimental to the FA process. The situation you reference 1) undermines notions of divinity or dictatorship (Raul, an admin, would not need to use Moni to block adversaries if actually in position of unchecked power) and 2) would still arise under a community election model (admins so elected are perpetually accused of acting as a cabal, and equally as baselessly). Where are diffs of Raul acting unilaterally to the detriment of the project or the process? Where, next, is an analysis of how this action was the result of a corrupting effect of the position, not attributable to Raul as a person? Where is an analysis of how the RfC was not (and would not in the future be) a power check? (Name an editor so “chilled” by the purported collusion so as to have avoided participation therein; then name 68 more to equalize support for an elected roll.) It seems rather telling that the response addressed the sentence in which I was being glib rather than the sincere points. Speaking ill of an editor is not an abuse of power, and good works do not “vindicate” misbehavior, a notion of which PumpkinSky is likely aware. Эlcobbola talk 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
As you wish. You spoke of the need for independence, the need for someone who was "neutral, free of conflict of interest". I believe what I put is evidence that Raul was not. This is not a court of law; I need not follow the rules of evidence as locally implemented. I believe I have adequately shown that the governance model is somewhat capable of improvement, as evidenced by specific incidents which amount to a course of conduct. You, on the other hand may choose to view it as the best of all possible FACs and that is your privilege.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose any special status for Raul who in my experience has pushed some sort of agenda, I am not certain of its exact goals, for years. A formal thank you is not objectionable but ratification of his activities is not. Replacing an old clique with a new one would not be progress. The process needs to be open without veto power by some "respected" leader. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose, FA directors/delegates/whatever should be chosen by community consensus and not by fiat. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; please use the discussion section below.

5 out of 6: Which I guess is "neutral." Cannot abide the idea of replacing the current system with something apt to become exactly the same thing. Will comment further on the thread below Montanabw(talk) 19:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. Would like to see Sandy's proposal further developed. I don't think it's appropriate for us to retain someone who's de facto abdicated as an official part of the process. Can see arguments both for retaining the role of director and for distributing remaining powers among delegates. Choess (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Choess, I am seriously busy through mid-August, but I hope to find a block of free time in the next 24 hours to write up something. These RFCs were launched prematurely, and there is much that should be discussed in terms of what options are before us before people start "voting" on RFCs. It is always unfortunate when someone launches an RFC without adequate discussion, and we have shown many times at FAC that we know how to discuss, frame, then launch ... my time is so limited for the next six weeks and it would be most encouraging to catch up here and find people behaving in ways that bring respect to these pages. I'll be back as soon as I have a block of free time and can address this con calma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't feel rushed. At the time I was presuming that this RfC might actually go somewhere, and I wanted to be able to weight the alternatives of single director (for which there's no formal proposal here) vs. committee of coordinators. (I think there are advantages and disadvantages for both). Since the whole thing is now collapsing in the process-and-formatting bickering that precedes a non-consensus close, I don't feel a particular sense of urgency. Choess (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thanks for understanding ... unfortunately, too much of what little editing time I had today was taken up with some of the unnecessary back-and-forth, and merely correcting a few of the many misstatements that are throughout this discussion. I have every intention of writing something up, but would prefer to do it when I can devote a full block of calm, uninterrupted time without IRL pressing demands. In particular, I want to address examples of situations that have come up in the past as they influence the decision about a directorship relative to delegates, but it is challenging to write about often confidential and very delicate situations, extending at times to RL, in which full disclosure would violate Wikipedia policies-- there are numerous examples that have been unaccounted for in these discussions, but how to write about those examples presents a problem. I sincerely hope that before the time comes that I can write something up, we will see participants here showing a willingness to work together towards productive solutions and the framing of a well-considered RFC. (Also, thanks Brianboulton for the response!) Best to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved in FA matters at all, but any system (either the old or the proposed one) that relies on a hierarchical setup of functionaries strikes me as somehow un-Wikipedian. Or maybe it's just me who thinks that too much fuss altogether is made over these little golden stars?  Sandstein  07:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


  • The one deficiency that I see in the proposal is the potential need of a "supervisor" for the FA process to handle a) appeals from the decision of one of the subprocess coordinators or b) decisions in a subprocess when all of the coordinators are recused. It would be unfair to ask a co-equal coordinator to override the decision of another co-equal coordinator in the event of a disagreement over the closure of a nomination at FAC, FAR or TFA. Likewise, it isn't far-fetched to imagine the situation when all coordinators would end up recused from a nomination. At least with the directorship, there was the nominal avenue of appeal, and the backup of someone able to step in at a subprocess on the rare occasion when the delegates were recused or unavailable. Note: I do not want such appeals sent to the community, as such an action, would in my opinion, undermine the independent and impartial role established for the leadership in the overall FA process. Imzadi 1979  15:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct. And we have had such situations in the past (those who don't know history ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments from SandyGeorgia moved unnecessarily: [Moved from the second half of SandyGeorgia's post in the Oppose section—maximum of 50 words, per instructions. Tony (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)] Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership gives an accurate history of the FA process, errors on this page notwithstanding, and explains why a director is needed. "Coordinators" do not, cannot, and will not be able to uphold what has always made FAC work, which is the ability of delegates to ignore pile-on, buddy , rubber-stamp, "vote"-style supports and who are empowered instead to allow one well-placed oppose to prevent the promotion of poor articles to featured status. (FAC is not a vote-- diminishing delegates to "coordinator"-style vote counters will diminish the process.) The position of FA director, in that sense, is distinct from, for example, a MilHist coordinator. This proposal will, in sum, eliminate that ability and diminish the FA process to another vote, with quality of articles diminished. I will initiate a discussion as I have time, implore newcomers to read the old and very thorough RFC, ask those assuming that I have not emailed Raul to please use some common sense (I am not *that* useless), am dismayed to see that admins have edit warred over something well within the competence of the delegates to handle, and am reminded that some behavior here has amply demonstrated exactly why a director is needed. I implore the delegates to convene and nominate a new director from their ranks and put that person forward for community endorsement. That is all I have time for now, other than to remind folks here that we have in the past demonstrated the ability to put forward well considered RFCs that have broadly endorsed the position of FA director, time and time again. For the sake of what value remains in the bronze star, could we all please show some respect and restraint? And could we please frame RFCs correctly? The history and duties and job description are well laid out in a very broadly endorsed and fairly recent RFC; I encourage caution and restraint in tossing out something that has been so broadly endorsed as working in the past, merely because those who brought FA to a successful place were ungratefully chased off of Wikipedia by those who sought to eliminate the position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That is precisely why we are here; the god of FAR abicated, leaving a vacuum. So long as there is an odd number of coordinators, I see no worries with a coordinator model. That said, another solution would be a term of service for leadership, sort of like US Judges on the lower-level courts (where no one person is designated "chief justice"), with the coordinators rotating "senior" status on an annual basis so no one person becomes entrenched. Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no idea if I should Support or be Neutral on this. Is there a difference between being a coordinator and a delegate? GamerPro64 20:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Delegate means you were appointed by and working for someone. Coordinator is more in line with the consensus model. PumpkinSky talk 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Huh. Never knew that. Guess I have to change my status at Featured Topics then. GamerPro64 20:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • GamerPro, that is a very good question, which no one yet on this page has accurately addressed. I hope to find time later today to explain that and address some other inaccuracies on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I tell ya. This is becoming really confusing at this point. Sure I work at a different sector for Featured content but seeing that Featured Articles are usually part of Featured Topics I just wanna see if there's something to this discussion. GamerPro64 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • So, in the interest of correcting inaccuracies above:
  1. FA coordinators will, of course, have the same power as the delegates have now. The argument given above—that the coordinators at the Military history Project don't have the ability to ignore supports or opposes in its A-class reviews—is wrong. The only difference for FA coordinators vs. delegates is in the name.
  2. The previous RfC was one year and five months ago. That's far longer than "a few months back", and it is clearly enough time to allow consensus to change; I'm one of those who have switched sides.
  3. The need for a 'supervisor' is really one that everyone should decide for themselves, but appealing to one or both of the other coordinators/delegates is clearly an option, and one that has worked well at the Military history Project and the WikiCup. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Coordinators should not have the absolute power to set policy, but certainly they should have discretion, as stated, to close nominations to ignore improper votes. I think that's fundamental to being asked to determine consensusWehwalt (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little nervous about the "votes" formulation. As I understand it, when an article comes to FAC, the FA director or his delegate is responsible for determining whether or not it meets FA standards. Since that's a herculean task, and so as to be less skewed by personal bias, the delegate solicits input from members of the community. But it isn't a "vote" in the sense that if six people support, one person opposes and provides a counterexample that the delegate agrees is valid, the article won't be promoted, numbers notwithstanding. "We will continue refining until all valid objections are satisfied" is, after all, closer to the proper use of "consensus" than a majority vote. (I suspect we're in vehement agreement on the general thrust here—that for the purposes of this proposal, the coordinators should collectively enjoy the powers of the director to determine consensus—but I wanted to clarify.) Choess (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we're all in the same camp here—I'm not opining that they be given unilateral power, just the leeway to discount FAC votes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by Hawkeye7's comment; as Ed pointed out, the big, high-participation RfC on the subject was seventeen months ago, not "a few months". Furthermore, when I look over it, I see comments like this: "I would prefer if Raul got more involved in the day-to-day operations of the FA process," "a discussion on what should happen when the current Director is no longer able or willing to continue would be beneficial," "As long as he continues to discharge his functions, she should not have to spend time on campaigning to keep the job," "I hope that well before he leaves Raul will try to set up some succession system," "I would like to see a more visible role," "I would like to see a yearly (Dispatches-style?) report back from the Director and delegates in each area on how each process is going". I do not see this as an endorsement of "semi-retirement", and indeed, many people explicitly endorsed the idea that Raul's role should be re-examined by an RfC if issues with his performance arose—as we're doing now. Choess (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
And yet the proposal above would institutionalize the same sort of appointment process that left us with Raul, whose enthusiasm curve for the project could easily be mapped. While we are blessed with good coordinators now, the same might not always be true. I do not think it's a good idea to brook a repetition of watching Raul (not the person who used that name, but the "character". Undoubtedly the man who used the name "Raul654" to edit Wikipedia is doing good work someplace) slowly becoming inert, and why a proposal would be brought which would expose the community to a possible repetition, is beyond me..--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, that was what, an eight-year trajectory from "someone needs to take charge of this" to phoning it in? This seems like overplanning for events of that frequency. Moreover, replacing the delegates seems to have run along without too much drama—and if all the responsibility devolved on them, they'd have a good incentive to encourage inactive delegates to resign (more work for them). More later when I have time. Choess (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really... Raul was enshrined by an op-ended process in 2003. This process would instead have the coordinators/delegates propose a respected editor to the FA community to confirm. I'm leaning more towards elections, but I also fully suppose this step, which is far better than what we have now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I see Tony's proposal as, say, making the "consent" stage of the American Senate's "advise and consent" purely optional. Which would reduce it to irrelevance.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I interpret it as a requirement, something that the delegates aren't currently held to... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We saw, I think, when Raul briefly rumbled back into life in 2012, that he ignored possible delegate candidates, such as Brianboulton, who were too closely associated with those he deemed his enemies who had had the temerity (in his mind) to try to oust him. While the present active delegates are all good eggs, the day will come when they move on from Wikipedia. Nothing lasts forever. Enthusiasm arcs have a downward side, too. They will one day be replaced. Allowing for a self-perpetuating oligarchy is a grievous error, just because Tony does not trust the community is no reason to have it a College of Cardinals, with or without a pope. At least they retire at 80.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding the words I think do not make that false allegation any more accurate. Wehwalt, I do not have time to track down every misstatement on this page, but I know that somewhere on this page you mentioned that in wartime, people would be shot for <whatever>. Please lower the hyperbole here; this is not wartime, it is a website, and that was a most unnecessary and inflammatory statement ... hopefully we can keep our statements accurate and in perspective so as to advance the discourse. Never did Raul or anyone fail to consider Brianboulton; at one time, Brian himself said he couldn't do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
For once, Sandy and I find ourselves in agreement. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Uh huh. Well, Sandy, welcome back to your old hates and targets. We've kept your stool warm for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Once again, wehwalt, please lower the hyperbole and personalization ... there is a job that needs to be done here. Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Re: The ed17 and User:Brianboulton, perhaps Brian can update his status re interest and availability should an opening arise? I doubt that I am the only one who remembers that he once expressed that he wasn't available; perhaps that has changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
He I believe has both stated his willingness to help at one time, and his unavailability at another. To my mind, he would be a credit to any process he sought to lead. And is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Clarification. I thank Wehwalt for his kind words. Sandy, your recollection is substantially correct; I have never sought to be a delegate or to assume a leadership role. I'm not even an admin, nor will ever be. I can't be bothered to rake up the diffs, but I may inadvertently have muddied the waters by saying, on more than one occasion, that I thought Raul should have appointed "alternate" delegates for FAC and TFA, who could be asked to act in the short term when the substantive delegates were unavailable. This was at a time when Sandy was acting effectively on her own at FAC, and when the TFA system had almost broken down. I indicated that I would act as an alternate, but thankfully we have moved on from those times and the need has declined. I see my WP role as a content builder and as a reviewer. I will within reason help anybody out who asks, but I want no formal position or status. I certainly don't hold it personally against Raul that he didn't take up my suggestion (though I think he should have), and I have absolute confidence in the current delegates. I do think the featured article process needs active rather than symbolic overall leadership, and I hope that the current debate will establish this by some means, without too much of "let's tear each other apart first". Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the gentle comments and I apologize to you for any misstatement I made regarding you. That being said, my commitment to a process where some would have it that I should never even have an effective say in choosing the leadership (non-voting stock not included) despite the immense time I have spent on it is not inexhaustible. Being a peon is not savory to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I do regard 17 months as "a few". And yes, the MilHist coordinators can override Support and Oppose votes in A class reviews - and I have done so. It is not a vote, and it is not some exercise in consensus. Our A class certification says that an article has been verified by the subject experts. If it's wrong, I'll still fail it no matter how many supports it has. But the visibility and authority of the MilHist coordinator falls fall short of that of the FAC delegates. We are only a small and fairly insignificant project; but the delegates bailiwick is Wikipedia-wide, their visibility goes right to the front page, and they have broad reserve powers to enforce this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment I see this as an attempt to forewarn (and get on side) the incumbent delegates by a partisan who has made it clear he does not support any sort of effective role for the community (that is, one that the community can make stick) in the featured article areas, to set the rules by which his own proposal shall be considered, and, to make sure that his proposal gets the favorable position at the top of the queue without giving warning so that no one else gets in first. He, no administrator and no neutral, has event taken the liberty of editing and moving others' comments [9] for violating the rules which he, a partisan, has set. One cannot be both a proposer and coordinate the RfC, and there has been no agreement on who should This is an attempt to get one's way by being first in line (by willful concealment of intent). Unfair way of doing business.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Far from the conspiracy theory you're looking for, it was a courtesy to warn each delegate, and as I explained to Bencher in a subsequent post you seem to have missed, I was concerned about the potential understaffing of TFA before writing the proposal. As it turned out, this wasn't at issue in the proposal, and I should have read the dialogue between Bencher and Ian Rose further up this page. As far as getting the current delegates "on side", the RFC doesn't need that, and I don't care what they think or how they vote: the RFC seeks consensus from the community, and the view of delegates is relevant only insofar as they are part of the community. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. There's no need to shout in the edit-summary; if this "comment" section blows out, I'm going to move it into the discussion thread below. Tony (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory? I simply state what's fair for one is fair for all. You gave privileged advance warning to a favored few. Now, had you simply posted your intent, with courtesy notices on the delegates' pages, I could have had no objections. As it stands, though, it smacks of gaming. As do threats of moving comments, which you lack any privilege to do by all the conventional rules. At least last time, the RfC coordinator assured us he was neutral. You are a proponent and should not move the comments of those who do not agree with you. And if they are removed by another, well, we know Tony sends emails.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

[Moved from the opening, where it certainly doesn't belong. Tony (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)] :Because of Tony's repeated removals of text where he does not want it to go, I have begun an AN/I thread to address the question of Tony's edit warring to maintain this area as he wants it, though he has no warrant to do so with reverts here and here and [10]. The canvassing included this. Editors may feel free to join the discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Question: What is strong support or strong oppose? Does it confer some advantage—to the POV that it summarizes—in the determination of consensus or it is just ritual display? I've used it myself on occasion ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"FA community"

Two editors above have queried the intended meaning of the term "the FA community" in the sixth item of the proposal: "That the FAC, FAR, and TFA coordinators in committee—after consulting with the FA community—determine any further changes and fill vacancies." I thought it was unnecessary to spell it out; perhaps I was wrong. The assumption, I suppose, is that the coordinators would advertise any consultative process on the talk pages of all three FA forums and seek the views of anyone who wanted to give their opinion (of course, any editor can advertise a discussion further afield if they wish, as I've done for this RFC). At the moment, community opinion is given no official role when changes in the numbers of delegates/coordinators, and the filling of vacancies, are under consideration. Item 6 guarantees that the community's voice must be heard.

What is surprising is the feeling among a few editors here that other arrangements for the administration of content forums are somehow insulation from the development of cliquey behaviour. Yet several quite differently run forums are marked by cliquey governance and poor or even chaotic standards. Fortunately, a significant majority of people here see that maintaining high quality and disciplined leadership at FA forums requires a certain distance from popularism, and that the latter is likely to be an inevitable feature of an electoral system. This is why I've framed this compromise. Item 6, embodies a cautious, moderate step, and yes, it is a central and indivisible feature of the proposal. Underpinning it is the reality that it's actually rather hard for the people who run FA forums to ignore community opinion on structural proposals for coordinators. Tony (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't consider this acceptable. Changes, filling of vacancies, electing additional coordinators, etc. should be handled by community consensus, and not by a small clique. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the process

As someone who hasn't weighed in on this process (I think it's pretty rushed and would have benefited by more discussion before being taken to the RFC stage).... some of the recent comments don't really help me want to participate. It's getting well into personalizing the dispute ... let's take it away from who did what to whom and stick with discussing what concrete changes will make things better. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Who did what to whom and the fallout and whys are very pertinent as to what should no longer be, a sole person being unaccountable to anyone, that's why the history is germane here.PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry if it is distasteful, and I am still weak from my hospital stay and perhaps my judgment is not all it should be. But there are instances where Raul and his close allies used their positions against those they deemed their foes. Ignoring that fact only spreads a myth that all was sweetness and light under his regime. A smarter man than I spoke of what absolute power does to people. A widespread theme in the comments on the RfC was "well, there's no problems at FAC, so why make a change?" Yes. There. Were.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
BINGO. Raul ran FA land like his personal fiefdom and attempted to stomp out all dissent. If need be I can post all the evidence I have on it. PumpkinSky talk 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Feel free. Let's have things out in the open, then maybe we can have some proper discussion before someone starts another snap RfC on rushing us back to the same system or a close clone thereof.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
But Raul is gone, isn't he? And all of these proposals divest him of any (meaningful) title or responsibility should he return. To use the phrasing of the FAC process, are there actionable objections about the conduct of the current delegates? I'm an outsider to the political brouhaha, but some of the commentary in this RFC feels to me like an effort to seek vengeance against Raul by proxy, to demand that the people he opposed (whether rightly or wrongly, and I'm not interested in finding out which) are given a direct hand in the project that was once his. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • just forcing the bot to be fair. PumpkinSky talk 21:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternate RFC on governance of the FA forums

Tony1's proposal just above is close to what I'd propose myself, but I can not abide by item six. I simply feel that the FA processes should not be treated differently that other parts of the encyclopedia, that the community is perfectly capable of handling coordinator rotations. The FA coordinators should not be a self-governing group. The whole idea is anathema to our basic principles. I also have a minor quibble with item 2, and would change the last clause about "high level" advice. If Raul returns, he can chime in just like any other editor. Therefore I submit the following alternate.

This is the formal proposal:

  1. Incorporate the RFC proposal about by Tony1 with two exceptions: The phrase "in which he might offer high-level advice in relation to the FA forums" is removed from item 2, and item 6 is changed to read "shall be handled by community consensus".


Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; please use the discussion section below.

  • Support PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is better than the first proposal, but I support either one. Everyking (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. — Scott talk 17:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support basic concept notably the "no dictator for life" provision. May need some refinement, but that will happen. Montanabw(talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This would be fine by me too - I'm happy to trust popular democracy amongst FA thinkers. --99of9 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: This pretty closely matches what I said in response to the first poll on the page. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This addresses my issue with point 6. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Anyone with a position of responsibility should be chosen by the community. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is my preferred option but I'll settle for the original proposal if this one doesn't get enough traction. The current status quo is the worst scenario.Acer (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support reinforcing community consensus. Meh about worrying about giving Raul a gold pocket watch as he retires. Regardless of whether these proposals pass, any wikipedian can give another Wikipedian a "title". If the concern is that this title gives some sort of advisory "power", then just clarify that. Otherwise this just sounds rather puerile to me. - jc37 22:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; please use the discussion section below.

  • Oppose both suggested amendments to the original RFC. This is too radical; my concern is to fix an issue without capsizing the boat. Forcing popular democracy would remove the discipline that has made FAC what it is, and the ability of delegates/coordinators to distance themselves from the whims of nominators and reviewers. I'd rather be conservative for the moment. It's safer. Tony (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal does not address the powers of the coordinators nor does it provide for the case which we've just experienced of an incumbent who loses interest in the project. And have these RFC's been advertised? that was part of the problem last time. There was an objection to outsiders as I recall.Wehwalt (talk)|
  • Oppose—proposal doesn't ensure the independence and impartiality needed of the leadership to make the tough decisions needed of the respective positions. Imzadi 1979  15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not politics, and never should be about politics. --Rschen7754 19:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons I gave in the section above. The FA processes do need a director, as this discussion has demonstrated. I also urge participants here to discuss before launching RFCs (and also to discuss before edit warring on FA pages that benefit from stability). We have launched effective and well-worded RFCs before; perhaps we can do it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The role of coordinator or delegate or whatever inherently involves making decisions that will make people unhappy. Our consensus processes for that are terrible; we only accept RfA because we can't agree on a replacement, and ArbCom elections are not that much better behaved. The abstract principle of community consensus is not sufficient reason to introduce RfA-style dysfunction into a fairly well-running process. Choess (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (sorry), pretty much per Choess. I think there is little to gain and alot to lose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Question. Can someone give me a real no joke explanation of why FA land is so different (I've never heard one) from RFA and Arbcom? Based on this logic we should elect arbs for life and scrap the whole "wiki is a consensus collaborative environment" meme. PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • FA works. RFA and ArbCom are totally broken. Face-grin.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Not good enough. Are you saying arbs should be elected for life? Admins appointed by Jimbo or what? And that the meme that wiki works on consensus model be dumped? PumpkinSky talk 09:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We already handle the addition of new delegates by community consensus. Every time I've seen a new delegate, they have been supported by other editors on FAC talk; a few have been ratified by the community, I believe. If people object to a certain editor, they have every opportunity to give their opinion; if enough had given a negative opinion last year, Raul wouldn't be the director now. Not to mention that we should avoid becoming more like RFA and ArbCom at all costs. I'd hate to see the top content process on Wikipedia become purely a popularity contest. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment above. I acknowledge that this proposal was set up in response to the above proposal, but I still think it would be better to discuss more rather than !voting on a bunch of ad hoc proposals. Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my opposition to the previous proposal. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Rschen. This cannot be a popularity contest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hawkeye7. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The argument that "FAC shouldn't be political" is a red herring. Social pressure would keep even elected delegates from going off the reservation and favoring people. First, there aren't that many doubtful cases at FAC. Second, overt favoring would be picked apart by very bright people. Exactly what could delegates do to favor? Promote their friends on two supports and their opponents on four? These things would be noticed and their positions undermined. PumpkinSky talk 12:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Choess and Hawkeye. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Advice is non-compulsory, so removing that phrase isn't needed. I don't like weakening #6, because I fear this will turn into a spectacle like RfA. Here, where we're trying to achieve professional standards of prose, and frankly not all reviewers are up to that standard, it's good that FAC has three delegates who are up to it. They are competent to put new candidates of a similar standard before the community, and the community should have a veto on new candidates, but this way we can hope to avoid another RFA-like farce. If later the system decays, we should cross that bridge when we come to it. --Stfg (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Democracy isn't the solution to all problems. I believe that the community as a whole is capable of making good decisions and setting appropriate standards, but the community as a whole is not capable of judging individuals on the basis of technical skill sets. That's probably some of what's wrong with RFA. It's certainly what's wrong with ArbCom elections. In both cases, there's a lot of electioneering and politics but comparatively little to determine whether the candidates have the core skill set the position requires. Also in both cases, it's inside football; administration and arbitration are internal processes. FAC is externally-facing; more so than the other cases, it requires technical competence in order to keep our quality seal an actual seal of quality, and I have no faith that community elections can or would discern where that is or is not present. If the cost to ensure that is enshrining some form of apostolic succession, even with the realization that I will never be one of the chosen, then so be it. The project and its product are more important than my, or our, voice. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I prefer the original proposal, see my support there. I doubt, a more "democratic" approach would improve anything, that couldn't be improved by simple civil discussion. Maybe the problems in the past weren't solely structure-based, but partially caused by faction-building and personal sensibilities on more than one side. Voting every few years would increase that problem instead of fixing it. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikiprojects vote on coordinators all the time and they work just fine. I still don't see why FA-dom is so special. There's no valid reason FA-dom should have a director for life/indefinitely. To carry on Raul-ism in FA-dom the FA coordinator may as well hang a sign on his/her user page that says "my way is law and is the only way". PumpkinSky talk 22:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; please use the discussion section below.


Can we merge the two proposals to one before we start voting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to do that and Tony does not object, it's okay with me. I didn't want to just start changing his work. I'll ping him.PumpkinSky talk 12:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What if everyone started an "alternate RFC" because they objected to one or two elements of the existing RFC? The proper place for this is in the original discussion section. Tony (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Why should only the first person in the door get to make a proposal then?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I am eager to see your proposal on this, Wehwalt. PumpkinSky talk 13:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My thought is that the community should select coordinators, but these people would not then be eligible for another term until a period of time out of office had passed. I was thinking along the lines of two-year terms and six months then out of office. I would also make it clear that the community sets policy, and that the delegates have discretion in how they judge consensus. If they think a vote is abusive, they can disregard it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Notices at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFCs_on_FA_changes, Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests, Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#RFCs_on_FA_changes.PumpkinSky talk 13:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems silly to start two or more RfCs at once; it'll doom them all, IMHO. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Item six is simply not acceptable. That's as unwiki as it gets. We've already been putting up with the FA-fiefdom for 11 years. Enough already. Let's vote on each line item or all variations at once. This issue needs to be settled after so many years of stagnation. One RFC option at a time will take forever.PumpkinSky talk 14:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ed. I worry that voter fatigue could become an issue if people have too many places to vote. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Pumpkin, the safeguard I've proposed is to build into governance the seeking of the community's view on filling vacancies and other managerial changes (even though it's ultimately up to the committee of coordinators, which is in effect how it's been for some time). Tony (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No Tony, what you propose is for what is left of Raul's fiefdom to maintain its powerbase and the illusion that FA is special and exempt from wiki's standard policies. PumpkinSky talk 16:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not aware of any delegate who has been appointed by anyone other then Raul. Raul has said in the past that he consulted with delegates, but I seem to remember some delegates posting that they had not heard from Raul on the matter, so I don't know.Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment noting above, where I suggested, another solution would be a term of service for leadership, allowing the tiebreaker role of a "boss" but not the risk of entrenchment and rot, with the coordinators rotating "senior" status on an annual basis so no one person get too fond of their magic wand. Montanabw(talk) 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Where did the commitee get their power from? The community. I don't see how WP:FA reached the point where the commitee of coords was somehow above the rest of the community. RetroLord 16:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Because Raul founded the FA "project" back about 2004, always considered it his personal fiefdom where he could do whatever he wanted, was "director" (read "dictator") for life, most of the community always kowtowed to him, and the result is what you see.PumpkinSky talk 17:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not like its a bad thing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yea - I support some reform here no doubt. Now I admit that I'm saying this through gritted teeth - but someone should probably - just out of courtesy - email Raul too. It's only fair since it does affect him. Maybe Sandy could as I know they were familiar with each other on wiki. I would love to be pinged once this goes live and official in the "RfC" and WP:CENT sort of way. — Ched :  ?  14:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • @Imzadi 1979 by that logic arbs should be arbs for life, so where's the difference? There is none. PumpkinSky talk 17:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • reply to PumpkinSky's question above in the "Oppose" section. I can give two reasons why this situation is different from RfA and ArbCom. The first is, essentially, the reason I gave in my opinion: the RfA and ArbCom election processes are fairly dysfunctional; the problems with FA seem much more limited in scope and generally manageable. I admit I'm rather bemused that, after expressing your great dissatisfaction with ArbCom failing to take your case against DocJames, among other things, you're eager to recapitulate the community consensus-building process that produced that ArbCom here at FA. Second, I disagree with your implied premise that unless we subject all delegates or directors to individual examination, they are appointed "for life" or don't have "community consensus". The RfC a year and a half ago didn't confirm life tenure for Raul; what it confirmed was that the community did not see the wisdom of removing him at that time, nor of establishing an election system. Now, we're holding another ad hoc RfC, and while we may disagree on the details of how to do it, I'd say there's a decent consensus developing that the FA process should be headed by people who are actually here and editing and that someone or something should replace him. In short, the 2012 RfC established a consensus (which seems to be holding up in this RfC) that FA staffing should be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, rather than by a regular system of elections or RfWhatevers. Such a consensus does not exist for RfA or ArbCom. Choess (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @’’Choess’’ section. Thanks. That’s the best explanation for that viewpoint I’ve heard yet. While I understand much better, I still do not agree with all of it. I also think you misinterpret some of what said and some things I said are rhetorical. Yes, I think we all agree RFA and AC are dysfunctional. Every wikiproject I am familiar with either holds formal elections or an ‘’ad hoc’’ poll to choose new coordinators. The problem with Tony’s RFA wording on that, despite taking “community input”, whomever the current coordinators are still select their own replacements. As Wehwalt says, this makes it a self-perpetuating oligarchy and that is why fervently oppose that model. The ‘’ad hoc’’ system that some wiki projects use would be fine with me (not ones where a coordinator picks his/her replacement). Yes, it’s clear that my alt RFC will likely fail. That’s fine. I still have the right to propose it. Tony’s version is roughly at 50/50 now but many of the supports are partial. I agree that there's a decent consensus developing that the FA process should be headed by people who are actually here and editing. It’s the specifics of how the coordinators are chosen that are hanging these up. I feel the community can soon agree on a new FA coordinator process after taking comments from both RFC versions. PumpkinSky talk 15:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The argument that "FAC shouldn't be political" is a red herring. Social pressure would keep even elected delegates from going off the reservation and favoring people. First, there aren't that many doubtful cases at FAC. Second, overt favoring would be picked apart by very bright people. Exactly what could delegates do to favor? Promote their friends on two supports and their opponents on four? These things would be noticed and their positions undermined. PumpkinSky talk 12:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
        • No, but you getting closer to understanding. The problem is that you're looking at it from a people perspective rather than an article perspective. The whole purpose of the delegate mechanism ("apostolic succession") is to preserve Raul's original vision of exactly what a featured article should look like. The delegates have been chosen precisely because they share that vision. So whether he's here or not, the spirit of Raul is to some extent present in every featured article. What you see as a self-perpetuating oligarchy, I see as a set of featured articles mirroring the same ideal. You change the process, you change the definition of what is a featured article. Any I for one don't want any part of what you are proposing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
          • No, Raul has a lousy idea of what a FA should be. He has more former FAs than current FAs. Writers and reviewers much better know what a FA is than Raul. He had the original idea, but you give him way too much credit. Your post sounds like you're talking about Saint Raul, and he was far from that. Should wiki erect a shrine to Saint Raul? Changing the process does not change what an FA is; that's such an extreme extrapolation I won't even belabor the point. And I don't want any part of what you are proposing, so let's call it a draw. Thanks for responding. I do appreciate that. PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • fixing dumb bot PumpkinSky talk 20:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there a way to ...?

Is there a way to get a list of current FACs without going to the main WP:FAC page? Because all the individual archives are transcluded on that page, it takes an eternity to render (if it does so at all) on my system. (Is there any real resaon for those transclusions anyway?) --Stfg (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates should work for that, but is sometimes off 1-2 candidates (has 62 actually, but only 61 transcluded). GermanJoe (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Calculus hasn't been updated (yet) after the nomination was removed on 11 September. GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:FACL currently has 47 entries, and there are currently 47 articles in the above-mentioned category. The older ones at least all seem to be ongoing FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR is virtually empty at present - is there anybody out there?

At the time of writing, only one article is nominated. If there's something you'd like to see as TFA in October, now's the time to nominate it. If you're thinking further ahead, then the "pending" list can now be used to note possible dates up to a year ahead rather than just 3 months ahead, which might save me picking something now that you would rather was held for a better date. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 11:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like next month could need some filler animals. Hasn't been a dinosaur there for a while either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Please, no more mushrooms. Can we recycle some older FAs that haven't appears in the last half-decade? Jehochman Talk 13:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Why should we? There is tonnes of stuff that hasn't been featured there already, it's just a matter of nominating it. Mushrooms go because people nominate them. Same with birds, TV show episodes, and video games, which are also overrepresented. Personally, I think any mushroom is more worthy than some forgotten old video game or random Simpsons episode. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Define "overrepresented", please. For TFAs from January to late October 2013 (so nearly 10 months), there have been 8 video games, so less than one per month. If they were run at TFA in strict proportion to the percentage of FAs yet to run on the main page that are about video games, you would have had about 14 or 15, so one could argue video games are underrepresented at TFA. TV show episodes (leaving aside the fact that an episode of The Simpsons hasn't been on TFA for over a year) - again, just 8 episodes in that period. See User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad#Going just by the numbers... for more. As for re-running old FAs, we are yet to finish running every current FA from 2006 or earlier (over 50 left in that group), let alone 2007 or 2008. BencherliteTalk 20:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not complaining myself, I'm just saying that rerunning old TFAs is not the way to go, and that if someone wants different kinds of articles up, they should nominate them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of keeping the current system of not rerunning TFAs. One and done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeplechase 2013

The Lads of the Village cropped.JPG
The Triple Crown's 2013 Steeplechase Event is here!
Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year
All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible.
Crown of Italy.svg

ΛΧΣ21 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright question raised during an FAC

In the FAC discussion on Sea, a copyright issue has arisen regarding the use of a text quote from a copyrighted book. I have opened a discussion on it at the talk page. Just to be clear, I am seeking comment on the copyright issue only - I accept that there are other substantive questions about the merit of the quote, but it is the copyright argument which worried me. Any input appreciated. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion now appears resolved, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Image question

At the current Amir Hamzah nomination, an image is being put through Wikipedia:Non-free content review‎ (which can take upwards of two months). Delegates/fellow reviewers, must the FAC wait for the NFCR to conclude before promotion (if promoted)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

My thought is that as long as it is understood that the nominator will abide by the outcome, that should not be a barrier to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In the absence of statute, it's nice to have precedent, and I'm pretty sure one of my RAAF bios was promoted with an outstanding question on an image, the understanding effectively being as Wehwalt puts it above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks Ian. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Within the whole article it's a minor issue anyway (and tending to "keep" in the actual discussion). Shouldn't hold up things, especially when the nominator can't influence the speed of this process. GermanJoe (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • True, true. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A meta question about wise editors because of FA standards

Which Wikipedia editors do you think are the best at handling tricky or controversial neutrality issues on Wikipedia? I have an idea for a new anti-WikiProject "WikiProject", for lack of a better word. And I'm recruiting. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Third opinion" already exists. The talk page implies that they are only occasionally sought, perhaps because they are not well known. I don't know how effective they are. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking to create a cabal of expert opinion through meritocracy. There are 12 remaining slots in the project space. As of now, I am the neutrality cabal. This is an acceptable temporary situation, as I can channel the spirit of the wise cabal elders without being overburdened. Hath anyone an inkling to the wise of the wiki? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea, Biosthmors, but it might be helpful to write up something about what you propose to do for the project page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The cabal is "an internet gathering" with "... [a] decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives". So being bare-bones is the plan. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC elections

Emblem-WikiVote.svg Thank you for participating in the 2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected.

Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat.

Everyone is invited to participate. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-English text in featured articles

I have just added {{lang}} templates to the non-English text in yesterday's featured article, Les pêcheurs_de_perles in these edits (I don't promise not to have missed some). Articles should not be listed as "featured" if non-English text is not delineated in this fashion. Can this be added to the relevant criteria? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Should this not be either covered under the Manual of Style (which FAs have to follow)? But I'm looking through the MOS and not seeing where the use of this template is mandated. See MOS:FOREIGN. If I'm missing where it is required, please let me know. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It is under MOS:ACCESS#Other_languages. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Then, yes, it should be already covered and should not need spelling out specifically in the criteria, since compliance with the MOS is specifically part of the criteria. Now... how easy it is to keep up with all the minutiae of the MOS is another story entirely. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I am happy with this. It doesn't affect the readibility of the article. I have corrected one template error in the "Musical numbers" section. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there not simple FAC checklist? Perhaps there should be one, in which this could be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That would have to run to 1000s of checks. For items like this that are invisible to the vast majority of editors, it's probably up to those passionate about it to be aware of the issue and raise it consistently - the MOS is of size and detail such that ultimately, specialists will need to be responsible for keeping articles in congruence with the rules. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, the MOS is unclear on that. What counts as "foreign language"? Personal names? Names of works which are repeated over-and-over-and-over? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not possible to legislate for every edge-case, None the less, the vast majority are clear-cut and should be marked up; the rest considered and, in case of dispute, discussed to find consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not really. What about names of non-English language ships? cf South American dreadnought race, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Phase I. There's a lot of 'edge cases' that aren't clear-cut. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I was told the template was not to be used for names. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The MOS doesn't say that. An article like Chrisye has at least 50 different words and phrases that can be interpreted as "not English", including the singer's name. These "edge" cases (implying that they are vastly fewer than other instances) are, in fact, not so. Names which are not common in English are quite visible in the English Wikipedia, and applying rules differently just makes us look disorganised.
Also, does it matter that a word will be mispronounced by the text reader? Persons who are reading the article without a screen reader are just as likely to mangle the pronounciation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Another note:we are not required to follow the entirety of the MOS. MOS:ACCESS#Images (ALT text) has not been an FA requirement for something like two years now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As a screen reader user, I find changes in the spoken language of a webpage depending on the lang tag to be annoying, and have turned off this "feature". However some others really care about this issue. I imagine it'd be annoying to hear a different language from a screen reader every second word, so it's probably not a good idea to have the article title marked up with the lang template. Graham87 06:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You would think so, but as I said before this new "criteria" it seems Andy is pushing is not thoroughly thought-out yet. Then we get to fun articles like ? (an Indonesian film). Would the software even read it, at all, and would it know to change the language?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not a "new criteria", it's been in the HTML specifications since HTML 3.0 in early 1995, and the accompanying web accessibility guidelines since their introduction in 1999. We should not be concerning ourselves with the behaviour of individual user agents - which, as Graham indicates, may in any case be configurable - but with ensuring the underlying markup is compliant with the such standards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
We're at WT:FAC talking about criteria. Any understanding of a bare "criteria" outside of WP:FA? smacks of deliberately not looking at the context. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
As Ealdgyth says above, "compliance with the MOS is specifically part of the criteria". That's existing criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor is going to change the interface, and thus some of the criteria, but it's too early to decide what to keep, what to tweak, and what to lose; people aren't in the mood to bring up VisualEditor issues again so soon after the RfC. I'm hoping we can have some successful discussions on Flow before we tackle VE again. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Andy: As I already pointed out, ALT Text is also part of the MOS, yet has not been part of the criteria for at least a year, probably closer to two. "Compliance with the MOS" as a criteria is, in practice, "compliance with most of the MOS". Considering how many shortcomings the templates you want required have, I doubt this should be considered an actionable request, and very much doubt it should instantly be considered part of the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew about this guideline, nor did I think about the implications of what it is used for. I imagine many of my previous articles (including those featured) don't follow this guideline - when I have time I might go back and resolve that. Although having said that, I'm not sure what it will do when it encounters lang="rw" - do most screen readers know how to pronounce Kinyarwanda words? :) Regarding persons mangling the pronunciations when not using a screen reader, I'm quite sceptical on that. Many people know how to pronounce words in French, German, Spanish etc. and those same words would sound grating if the screen reader pronounced them in an English way, for example "Les Miserables". It sounds like @Crisco 1492: doesn't agree on that, but has also found a good compromise by turning off the feature, so hopefully no controversy there.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you meant Graham87 re: turning off the screen reader. As for "mangling pronounciation": a random sample of ten people, of the street, would likely show you wrong. We'd end up with at least one Lez Mizzerablez or something worse. Since I write about Indonesia, mostly, I can guarantee much of our readership doesn't speak the language. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham87 says above, "I find changes in the spoken language of a webpage depending on the lang tag to be annoying, and have turned off this "feature"." Graham, or anyone, tell me more ... why is it annoying, is there an annoying pause, or is the pronunciation not that good? The people who create screen reader software could easily, if they chose to do so, provide an app to paste all italicized text into an auto-language-detection page (the success rate is near 100% for the languages we're usually dealing with, when there are clues in the text for which languages you're trying to detect) ... the question is, is this something they haven't gotten around to yet, or is it a design decision not to add language codes, because their users feel the same way Graham does? Personally I'm torn in 3 directions ... I'm working on copyediting software, which tends to put me in the ACCESS camp on many issues, but professional copyeditors, publishers and writers would scoff at a requirement to insert special codes by hand in front of every foreign word in a 600-page manuscript, and the general direction of the community (in reviewing, VisualEditor discussions, and elsewhere) these days seems to be simplification rather than complication. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little towards simplification myself. I don't think the topics I work with would be as well supported as those with French, Spanish, German, or Italian text, for example, and we have numerous bits of featured content on Vietnam (which I also doubt would be well-supported). I mean, Microsoft only released Spell Check (i.e. something so basic I can't remember not having it in Word) for Indonesian in Office 2013... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
@Dank and Crisco 1492: I just find it annoying to have the voice changing all the time. I'd rather have JAWS say "less miserable" [sic] than suddenly switch into French to say "Les Miserables", and then back into English again. If I really wanted to teach JAWS how to say Les Miserables properly, I'd teach it to use a basic English approximation like "lay mizza-raabl". However I'm only fluent in one language – English – unlike the other screen reader user I mentioned above, so that could influence my opinion. The built-in languages sound quite good, but as Crisco implied they're all European; however it's possible to add some high-quality voices in other languages, and the latest version of JAWS has added even more languages, including Indonesian. Graham87 13:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought as much; thanks for the clarification. I must say, that is an impressive list of languages (though I note such fairly large languages as Swahili or Urdu don't seem to be listed). However, as they are mostly not included automatically (i.e. interested users have to download them individually), what percentage of readers would be helped with these templates?
(I'm not going to discuss technical issues like different spelling systems, which doesn't seem to be supported in our current templates, yet, though that would also be an important consideration). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think too many users would choose to download the language add-ons without a specific reason. There are also some other speech synthesisers that support even more languages; the most popular of these is E-speak, which is open-source, and supports quite a few languages, some better than others (though anybody can help improve them ... hint hint). :-) Graham87 14:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Looks like a worthy project. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Your "lay mizza-raabl" example totally nails it, Graham87, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder; do "Latin names" of biological taxa need this? That sounds ridiculous. Names of non-English cities or landmarks? Loan words? I think dismissing "edge cases" is stupid; edge cases are going to be the norm. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Archived FAC

My nomination for Of Human Feelings was just archived, with the explanation "no consensus". But out of the five editors who commented, only User:Quadell opposed and exaggerated a few close paraphrasing issues as "systematic", with a bogus claim that many of the sources were inaccessible when in fact they all are online--I offered them to request which in particular they'd want me to check for them, but they did not respond to my last comment I made a week ago to them. I revised the nine issues they pointed out (some of which were nitpicking of musical terms/phrases). I don't see how this was "no consensus" with one impractical objections; Quadell did not take me up on my offer in my last comment, and they could have checked the sources themselves as they had with the nine they had pointed out, which conveniently were not difficult enough for them to access. Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the nomination ran for nearly seven weeks and there had been no activity for nine days. It received two supports and had one oppose based on a spotcheck that revealed problems with close paraphrasing. To judge whether a consensus is reached I like to see at least three unconditional supports from established editors and no unresolved opposition. This was not the case and I decided to archive the nomination as having not reached a consensus. When a spotcheck reveals issues the integrity of the whole article becomes a concern and Quadell was right to request a more thorough check. The onus is not on the reviewer to do this - but it helps. Graham Colm (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There were three supports, including the first here and the other "supports" in bold. Quadell could only find nine issues out of the sources he checked; I find it hard to believe he could not check at least most of the sources without difficulty, and I even offered to check any he could not for him, but he did not respond at all. As EddieHugh pointed out in his response, the example Quadell believed could not be accessed could in fact be accessed, so if the onus isn't on me, perhaps Quadell could backup his sweeping accusation and meet me halfway. I'm pretty sure he was able to access more than just those nine. Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to Dan56's concerns here. In particular, the difficulty that a FAC nominator can end up unaware that the onus is on themselves to address an issue even when the person raising the issue fails to respond to them and the issue is disputed between the two of them anyway. Having said that, if it's nine separate issues of (possibly) close paraphrasing in one article, then that is a serious problem, not an "only nine" situation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think on the face of it, I would not expect to see an article promoted 3-1. And I agree with Demiurge.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I revised each of those nine sentences pointed out by Quadell immediately after he brought them up. Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm a "close paraphrase skeptic", in the sense that when people say there's close paraphrasing and I have a look, I don't always think that the problem was so extensive that it points to a pervasive problem. In this case, assuming Quadell's examples are accurate, I think it's likely that you could use more practice, and I don't think his request, or Graham's archiving, are out of line with the way these things are usually handled. Since you asked. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying Quadell's examples are the only instances, and that he should look further himself and prove it. Apparently he claims to have been able to access certain book sources where the close paraphrasing occurred, yet says that the other cites to those same book sources are beyond his ability to check? Dan56 (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Not the way it works -- if a spotcheck reveals concerns, it behooves the nominator to go through the article and double-check that close paraphrasing of the sources is eliminated throughout, not just where problems were discovered. Once that's done, the original concerns can be re-checked by a reviewer, and another spotcheck should be conducted in areas of the article not previously spotchecked. If both those come up reasonably clean then we can have confidence that the whole article is clean. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Piling on a bit, but there's also quite a bit of IDHT going on here. @Dan56, nine having been found, nobody's going to believe that they are the only nine. It would be some coincidence if Quadell had happened to look at the only nine cases while all the others were not cases. Secondly, it is not incumbent on reviewers who find problems in spot checks to investigate further. That fact that others are accessible online does not negate that. I agree with Demiurge and Dank. --Stfg (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see the various sides of the discussion here, and have a suggestion as a relative newcomer. Where the nominator has asked a question of a reviewer (especially when that reviewer is the only one with stated, remaining objections), someone should state directly that the nominator is responsible for addressing that reviewer's objection and should not necessarily wait for a response. Archiving and later commenting "Not the way it works", and then explaining how it does work, seems the wrong way round: wouldn't it be better to inform nominators and warn of archiving rather than assume that they already know? EddieHugh (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Your point is well made but I think that when a reviewer opines that an issue as "systematic", it's reasonable to expect a nominator to check throughout, no matter what the stated issue is, and I don't know that I'd class the nominator in this case, with six FAs to his credit, as someone relatively new to the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should respond. I admit that I missed the third support but I was more concerned with the problem of close paraphrasing and I do not think that the issues were "sweeping". I spotchecked a few of the quotations in the article before deciding to archive the nomination and I had problems with verification. This might be because Google Books can be a pain - I don't know how to locate the page in question but can only search for strings of text. There was no clear consensus after a long time at FAC and the essence of my concerns outlined above, with regard to integrity, still stand. I don't know what the nominator seeks to achieve by having this discussion. The FAC is archived and the bot has run. The article can be renominated in two weeks time. This is not a deletion discussion. Graham Colm (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't expect me to go through each citation again and transcribe them? If no one wants me to check specific ones but all, then I'm fine with it staying GA if this is what's keeping it from being passed. Why bother renominating it? Dan56 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)