Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your service. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for what you did, planning ahead enough and adding humour to the process. - I hope we will keep that, finding a new way which hopefully rests on more shoulders than any single person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Bencherlite. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to add my thanks to Bencherlite for the work he put into making things runs so smoothly. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you from someone who hasn't participated in this area of Wikipedia but who recognizes the importance of the work you have done. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Adding my voice to all above. You can be proud of what you've done. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your services, Bencherlite. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the immense work you did put in. I'm sorry it became so disagreeable, though I suppose that tends to happen with time. Tezero (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the brilliant job you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
TFA is indeed a different place these days and you've definitely left a very positive mark on it, Bench, not least for streamlining the mechanics of the nomination process. I'm very sorry to see you step down but quite understand, and hope you have even more fun being able to spend more time on writing and reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the hard work you have done to not only maintain, but to improve the process.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also from me for your outstanding work in this role Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for everything you have done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for all the work you've done over the years. I don't spend much time around TFA/FAC, but it's clear that you've done an excellent job. Modest Genius talk 11:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for everything you have done, Bencerlite. Whomever replaces you has large shoes to fill. Resolute 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
My thanks for a job well done are belated, because although I saw the announcement on other pages, I did not realize I did not have this page watchlisted, and could not understand why the community was ignoring Bencherlite's excellent service and his announcement.  :) I only realized I did not have this (the lowest trafficed page of all the FA pages) watchlisted this morning,[1] when I added an announcement to the highest traffic FA page. Thank you for everything you have done, and how well you did it for so long! I hope the FA pages can count on your continued dedication no matter the role you serve. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternative way forward

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

A team of editors is a good idea to share the load (similar to what we currently have at WP:FAC), but I don't think a process similar to DYK is the best route to go for Today's Featured article. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No. Some things are not suitable for endless bickering. Take the fuck articles as an example—in the end someone has to say "yes" or "no" and we all have to live with their judgment. Strong leadership is much better than fighting until "consensus" emerges for issues like this. There is no reliable source or policy that can decide what to do on the main page—it's just judgment. A TFA director is not expected to always make the right decision, and it is likely that a bitterly fought RFC for every sentence every day would produce worse results. Even simple things like whether some articles should be repeated (like the Whitlam TFA) have no objective correct outcome, and they benefit from a reasonably quick yes/no. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, Johnuniq, although I think a team like the group of coordinators at WP:FAC including Ucucha, Graham Beards, and Ian Rose, could work quite well. — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I extremely strongly disagree about the fuck articles. (I personally voted no.) A tally vote, at the very least, is better than simply one trumping vote, which really isn't necessarily any more valid than any of the community's votes, especially if the topic is emotionally provocative. Tezero (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Cirt: Yes, a small team who can make a decision would be good. No more than three!
@Tezero: This is the Internet where a large proportion of people like displaying their courage and notcensored views, so there will be plenty more opportunities to discuss the merits of featuring such articles (search for my user name at the liberty discussion to see my oppose). However, the point is that people argue about which dash to use, and whether my last comma should be removed. They will do that for nearly every main page section on nearly every day. It is not helpful or sustainable. A director who made many wrong decisions would be much better than a knock-down-winner-takes-all democracy for something which needs to work every day. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This position needs to be handed to someone who is respected and competent. Elections will result in a vacillating coordinator unwilling to make difficult calls. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I think a small panel of two or three coordinators, as has already been suggested, makes sense. My initial thought would be to see if at least one of those spots could be filled by someone currently serving as a Featured Content coordinator (no, not me, I'm quite happy with my FAC duties!), augmented by one or two other experienced editors as appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Two or three TFA co-ordinators, yes, to share the workload. I don't see any particular advantage in loading this duty on to a current FAC co-ordinator. The only requirements should be {a} that the persons appointed have reasonable knowledge and experience of the FA process; (b) they have the general confidence of the community and (c) they have fairly thick skins. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn’t suggest the possibility of a FAC coordinator (unless Graham or Ucucha are feeling keen!) but rather FC coordinator(s), which covers a much larger array of people in trusted positions -- one or two of whom may be willing and able to step across without adversely affecting their current areas of responsibility -- as well as one or two others not currently holding office but who are, as you say, familiar with FA and trusted in the FC community (and possessing of think skins)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Think skins? Well...maybe? Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, spelling-and-grammar checker obviously doesn't have "thick skin" in its known phrases list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see some fresh blood in the positions. We have people experienced in TFA, I see no need to ask a FC coordinator from another area to step across. Let's find two or three who are capable and broadly acceptable, and get on with things. Possibly even make it for a set term, but I fear that endless complications will result once we start going down that road.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Wehwalt - new faces would be good - surely we can do this by discussion and not elections. Also fixed terms not good idea. It should be informal and no big deal, as long as the person has some common sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Brian, Wehwalt and Cas, you are all obvious contenders. Would any of you be interested? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Knowing myself, I am a big-picture person but can gloss over details/errors not infrequently. For that reason, a better choice would be someone (a) with a good eye for detail and (b) somewhat firm on errors etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone who'd be firm on best work - ? - The Rambling Man, Sandy or...Fram - all would be focussed on minimising mistakes. Nikkimaria is another who'd be good to ensure nothing silly ended up mainpaged. I guess I am thinking the person is the last checkpoint so needs to be thorough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Bishonen? Experienced and quite capable of dealing with any silliness? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't the TFAR delegate need to be an admin? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Not essential. Move-protection on scheduling is applied automatically by a bot. A non-admin wouldn't be able to edit today's or tomorrow's blurbs if changes needed to be made late in the day but there are always those around who can do so if needed (or who can reset move protection if the queue is changed). BencherliteTalk 19:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a line on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that essentially semi-protects all future and archived TFA blurbs indefinitely. Of course, we would want anybody scheduling TFAs to be autoconfirmed anyway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine a team of respected editors would be a nice solution, so we don't have to have only one person running around and doing all the TFA scheduling like Bencherlite has been doing for the past couple years. Canuck89 (have words with me) 04:00, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

I would not be interested in the position. I respect Cas's views on his own service, and as for myself, am reasonably convinced I wouldn't do nearly as well a job as Bencherlite has (or as Cas would), so what's the point? That's so even as a member of a team. Brian would be good, and I think non-controversial (the same could not be said of some of the names mentioned, including my own).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Folks could take it in turns - look, if no-one wants to do it, then I am happy to do it for six months, from, say, Jan 1 to June 30 or earlier if Bencherlite wants - then someone else can have a go. Not fussed either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tks Cas, but I think a dedicated team would be best; I was just about to post something that I hope will take us forward... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
phew! (audible sigh of relief and shuffle back off to content editing...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed TFA coord team

There is a clear consensus that the three nominated TFA coordinators, Brianboulton, Crisco 1492, and Dank have the community's support for taking over the role from Bencherlite. Further discussion is warranted regarding whether structural changes are necessary for this process, but for now there is a simple need for coordinator(s), and these three editors have been deemed capable replacements. I'll leave it to the four editors to discuss the exact details and date of the handover. Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Hi all, the current and former TFA/FAC/FAR coordinators would like to put forward Brianboulton, Crisco 1492 and Dank as the TFA Coordinator team. They've all indicated a willingness to serve, and I think we'd all agree that between them they represent great depth and breadth of experience in TFA, Featured Content and WP as a whole. They can also call on Bencherlite for advice as they settle in and work out between them how best to share the workload. I hope the community will get behind this team and help them build upon the great work Bencherlite has done over the past couple of years. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. This team should follow wonderfully on the foundation laid by Bencherlite's excellent service, and I am confident, along with all of my coworkers who are active current and former coordinators and delegates, that the three will work out how to share the workload. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • My apologies for the late strike; when the deliberating committee miscommunication of 27 November first came to light (see below), I failed to strike this portion. Bencherlite's service was excellent, his tenure left TFAR in a very good place, and I am most pleased to see Brianboulton coming on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in part The nominees are veterans who have been through the trenches, and fall under what I earlier stated I would like to see in coordinators. However, I would have preferred to have seen first a decision on the manner Bencherlite (whom I thank for his service) was to be replaced, with a less abrupt nomination process and election (if necessary) procedure to follow. The nominees are fully aware of my regard for them, so I need not wrap my support in a cloud of unctuousness (that floating just above this post is no responsibility of mine).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for the named triumvirate. I'm sure all three will be excellent in the role - and they have a tough act to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – three fine and trusted editors. I don't envy them the job but they'll do it splendidly. I agree with those above who comment that Bencherlite will be a hard act to follow, but I look forward to seeing more articles from him at FAC in due course. Tim riley talk 10:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Working out "how best to share the workload" took some time because of difficulties with email servers and time zone differences; all three proposed coordinators have agreed that Brian will act as lead coordinator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Struck, see below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's news to me, and Brian, Crisco and I have already traded emails on the subject. I'd prefer that we not make any announcements related to coordship until these threads have come to some kind of conclusion. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That you two agreed there would be a lead was communicated to the rest of us via Ian, and my role was to confirm email receipts with Brian, who was having email issues. Please take this up with Ian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC) See below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, my apologies for misunderstanding or miscommunication, I suggest we let the three people we've put up for TFA coords pursue their discussions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I am glad that a miscommunication -- not atypical of what often occurs with the written word on the internet, so different than face-to-face interaction-- was so quickly cleared up! Happy Thanksgiving to all. Best to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I share some of the blame here, Ian and I had a slightly different take on our emails ... but that's not typical for Ian (or for me, if I may say so). But there's been no drama at all between Brian, Crisco and me (yet!) - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Crisco 1492 considers it acceptable to abuse reviewers, it is not wise to place him in charge of any part of a review procedure. DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Diffs, please? Otherwise I'll take this as a personal attack. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You indicated on 6 March that comments like this[2][3] were acceptable[4]. You didn't once call anyone out for making accusations of edit-warring and meat-puppetry, when there clearly was no edit-warring or meat-puppetry [I have never edited the article], or indicate disapproval of comments that people who oppose are odd, contemptible, cantankerous, petty or motivated by spite. DrKiernan (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't want to raise false hopes ... although you'd think civility would be pretty clear-cut, it seems to me to be the hardest problem anyone tackles around Wikipedia, or at least it's hard for me. But I'm not happy about what was said to you (I'm not talking about Crisco, I mean in general) ... and even if others disagree with my POV, it's clear that what happened was important to you, and that you were and are a part of the community ... and there just has to be something that FA coords can do about it that hasn't been tried yet, even if all we can do is to listen better. If I get the job, I'll spend the first two months catching up and learning stuff, but after that, I'll raise the civility issue with the other coords and do what I can. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
          • There are 1,380 admins on en.wiki, so are you also going to oppose Dank for not picking on the comments of the now blocked editor? From memory, there were a couple of other admins who commented on the thread, as well as those who were watching it and who closed it. I am not condoning the comments made, but to oppose because none of the admin corp pulled him up on it...? - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment For Crisco to take on this role as well as his role at Featured Picture is concentrating a huge amount of power over Main Page content in the hands of one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 December 2014‎
    Awien, did you mean WP:FLC? Or is Cricso also at FPC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    SandyGeorgia, I'm afraid I have no idea of the process, except that for quite some time now the protected version of the POTD has been prepared by Crisco, and apparently chosen by him since he takes requests on his talk page, and agrees to schedule accordingly. (Also, sorry everybody for the unsigned post - purely accidental). Awien (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    Right, I've been scheduling the POTD since January 2013. I took it on because we were having way too many late POTDs, and I decided that we needed to schedule images more than 25 minutes in advance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment. Sorry, but I can't in good conscience allow one editor to have scheduling authority for TFA and POTD. It is nothing against Crisco, per se, but if he is to be a TFA coordinator, he'll need to resign his role at POTD. If he wishes to remain scheduling at POTD, he'll need to be replaced in the TFA slate. I would oppose for the same reasons if a TFL scheduler were included in the slate. Imzadi 1979 → 21:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    As TFA coordinator Crisco is part of team of three highly respected editors, so I see no undue concentration of 'power'. On the contrary, I think his experience scheduling at POTD is an asset to the TFA team. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I see it differently. It would be different if someone stepped into a second position for a temporary period, but not in a more permanent capacity. People with good intentions can disagree, and on this, we do. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Whether folks agree with Imzadi or not, I think it illuminates the fact that different folks have different perspectives on what it means to have the ability to place things on the Main page. I never would have thought this would be an issue (nor was I even aware Crisco had this on his plate). --Laser brain (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Personally I don't see a problem (and my above support was done knowing Crisco's POTD role). I don't see a concentration of "power" (very limited at most, and ultimately at the behest of the community), but an ability to co-ordinate between two of the six sections of the front page (should the need ever arise). - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Whether folks agree with Imzadi or not, the claims that he was a "dictator" notwithstanding, Raul was only tasked with the FA process, and he delegated that responsibility to others, only stepping in when needed. Crisco is a delegate at WP:FLC, and puts Featured Pictures and, I believe, DYKs on the main page. That is four processes, which puts the old complaints about Raul in a new light.

    Another question would be, then, considering the standards at DYK and FLC, does Crisco have sufficient history and knowledge of FA standards to put forward TFAR? Crisco 1492, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Venezuelan regional elections, 2008/archive1 was dreadful on every level: could you discuss your support there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Three process. Crisco isn't involved in the selection of lists for the front page, that falls to Giants2008. As to dragging up a 2012 FLC, I'm sure we could crawl back though any editor's record to find something we don't agree with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Involved in selection and promotion in four processes, when Raul was criticized for participation in one. Crisco 1492, could you please answer ? What reassurances can you add about the FLC I link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry Sandy, but you're mixing separate roles and responsibilities together than should not be mixed. If Crisco takes on the role here, he will be involved in putting featured content on the main page in three sections (although primarily only two, AFAIK): TFA, POTD and ocassionally on DYK. He is not involved in putting lists onto the front page. Two of the three processes (TFA and DYK) will be as part of a team, so there is no sole responsibility. I'm not being an apologist for Crisco here, but this is a very, very different situation to that involving Raul. Having a TFA triumvirate ensure checks and balances are automatically in place, as is back-up for absenteeism from the others. On top of that, these three will not have ultimate "power" (a dubious concept here), but this will be at the behest of the community. We are not replacing WP:TFAR with these three having sole control, so there will remain a constant open forum for the proposal and rejection of front page material. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    On the issue of too many roles, we simply disagree. (I would have no problem with Crisco being an assistant to Brianboulton, responsible for vetting images only, for example.) Seeing that Crisco has not responded to my query about his support for editors who write subpar featured content, and how that relates to the standards Crisco will apply in putting content on the mainpage, I have pinged his talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. Issues related to the combination of TFA and TFP (such as coincidental subject overlap) arise from time to time. When this occurs, users criticise the lack of coordination. (Well, those who understand what's happened do. Others perceive the pairings as intentional and complain about "[fill in the bank] favoritism" and such.) Here's a perfect opportunity to establish exactly the sort of coordination that the community desires.
    Imzadi1979: Why, in your view, would Crisco 1492's dual role be problematic? If the idea were to make him the sole TFA coordinator, I might worry that the combined workload would overburden him, but that isn't the case. Your wording seems to imply that your concern pertains to matters of power/influence. Is that correct? Either way, please elaborate. (What negative consequences do you foresee?) —David Levy 06:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    Once upon a time, we had three people scheduling TFAs. Two went missing, and that left scheduling to the third. Things got scheduled, so no one proposed replacing the missing personnel. Should that happen again, even in the interim while waiting for nominations and discussion of additional coordinators, we could have the sole TFA scheduler being the POTD scheduler. No, sorry, the roles should be separate. There's no need to crossover people between the Main Page sections to have them coordinate amongst themselves. Three TFA coordinators can just as easily collaborate with Crisco about POTD without making Crisco a TFA coordinator. LIkewise, Crisco can give the TFA coordinators a heads up without being a TFA coordinator himself. Imzadi 1979 → 07:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't assert that the proposed arrangement is the only viable means of improving TFA–TFP coordination. I regard it as a good way, provided that it wouldn't cause problems in other areas. You assert that it would, but I see no evidence of that.
    You refer to a hypothetical scenario in which Brianboulton and Dank resign, leaving Crisco 1492 as the sole TFA coordinator. You note that "even in the interim while waiting for nominations and discussion of additional coordinators, we could have the sole TFA scheduler being the POTD scheduler". But what's the alternative?
    As your comment that Crisco 1492 will "need to be replaced in the TFA slate" indicates, you're relying on the assumption that his absence from this proposal would result in someone else's inclusion. On the contrary, the plan called for the selection of "two or three coordinators" (and I'm aware of no interested party whose participation was rejected in favor of Crisco 1492's), so imagine a team comprising Brianboulton and Dank. If they were to quit simultaneously or in rapid succession, would we somehow be better off with no TFA coordinator?
    You stated that "it would be different if someone stepped into a second position for a temporary period, but not in a more permanent capacity". How, in your view, is a situation in which Crisco 1492 stays on as the sole TFA coordinator temporarily (while additional coordinators are sought) disparate, let alone worse? In my view, the only material difference is that he'd have TFA coordination experience (instead of abruptly entering a new role).
    Of course, if you have an alternative third editor in mind, please speak up. —David Levy 10:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    Um, David Levy, there were many other names discussed, including yours, put forward by me. The history of the miscommunication in the nominating process is on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't doubt that other editors were mentioned as possibilities. As noted above, I'm aware of no interested party whose participation was rejected in favor of Crisco 1492's. In other words, I've seen no one other than Brianboulton, Crisco 1492 and Dank express a desire to serve on the team. —David Levy 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    On a point of accuracy, I have never expressed a "desire" to serve as a TFA coordinator. I have indicated a willingness, having been approached – there is a difference. Nor is it accurate, as stated below, to say that I've asked that this discussion be wrapped up; I have merely pointed out that, if the new coordinators are to stsrt scheduling from 1 January, there is not much time. If the general view is that the process of appointment has been inadequate to give the new team the necessary authority, then by all means prolong it or replace it with a different process, with whatever bridging arrangements aree viable. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't mean to imply that you actively sought the position. I mean that no one, to my knowledge, has responded to this proposal in that manner. —David Levy 07:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    David Levy Considering how this process evolved (see aforementioned communication issues), a) at what point in your opinion might they have done that, and b) how do you know they didn't? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Any editor in good standing is welcome to respond to the proposal by expressing his/her interest in serving on the team instead of one of the parties named. That hasn't occurred on this page. I can't be certain that it hasn't occurred elsewhere (hence the "to my knowledge" qualifier). —David Levy 19:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Crisco 1492 can confirm, but my understanding is that - as POTD is largely determined by a "first in, first out" principle (i.e. unused Featured Pictures become POTD in order of promotion) – the POTD scheduler's role is limited to making minor adjustments to the order, e.g. to prevent too many birds appearing too close together, to reward new FP contributors with an early POTD date, to mark particular anniversaries (although this happens much less frequently than TFA marks anniversaries). In other words, one person's POTD list for a month would probably look very similar to another's, and so the identity of the person scheduling POTD is not as important as might at first be thought. I also seem to recollect Howcheng ran POTD and "On this day" for years, and I don't think anyone complained about him having too much say about the contents of the main page. As for three schedulers becoming one in the past, Dabomb was virtually inactive save for TFA when I and Gimmetrow were added to the roster, so not surprisingly he dropped out soon after. BencherliteTalk 10:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but neutral on whether Crisco should combine 2 roles. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Everyone is qualified and Crisco is a grownup, if he doesn't think he's up for both after giving it a whirl, he can step down. Montanabw(talk) 05:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agreed to the suggestion that I take on a role as a TFA coordinator knowing that I am also involved in POTD (and occasionally the MP DYK template), and could (as a delegate at FLC) be involved with TFL. I've also added ITN items once or twice. I don't think that this is an indication that I cannot be trusted in the capacity of being a TFA coordinator, but rather shows that I am dedicated to trying to keep the MP running smoothly. I have coordinated with Bencherlite in the past, and to the best of my recollection POTD and TFA did not have any serious overlap in the past 2 years. At worst, there were articles which were related but not the same (last Christmas, for instance, Jesus was TFA and "The Lamb" (a poem about Jesus) was POTD). And yes, Howcheng ran POTD and OTD on his own for something like 4 or 5 years. That's one of the reasons I decided to take on the burden, to free up time for him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support all three candidates. No concern with Crisco having multiple roles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Both Brian and Bencher have called (below) for threads here to wrap up.

  1. Nov 25: Proposal speaking for all "current and former coordinators"
  2. Nov 26: Clarification of miscommunication initiated
    22 supports and 1 oppose before the committee miscommunication was revealed
  3. Nov 27: Miscommunication regarding the original TFA Coord Team proposal revealed
    After the miscommunication was revealed, three new supports and two new opposes, one support struck.

So, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to ping the majority of the persons opining here to ask if they have the page watchlisted or were aware that a miscommunication occurred wrt the original proposal, but this is by far the lowest watched page in the FA process, and this discussion was not listed at WP:CENT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support all three with no reservations. Brian, Dank and Crisco all work hard at FAC, (I salute all of you and often wish I still had the enthusiasm to review as much each of you!), have had eyes on many articles that have come through there, and know the ropes so to speak. And - it's time to let Bencherlite go. Victoria (tk) 19:35, 15 December 2014 (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.

RfC: Team of coordinators, or consensus-building

Given the clear support above for the three candidates to take over as coordinators and the large opposition to this RfC, I am closing this. As I noted above there appears to be a need for further discussion on on the details of TFA and how coordinators should be appointed in the future (see the discussions below), but there seems to be consensus that this RfC isn't going in the right direction. Sam Walton (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Should decisions on the selection and timing of the main page's daily "From today's featured article" slot be made by a team of three coordinators (as proposed above), or by the regular community consensus-building process, used elsewhere on Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Team

  1. Three person team, but with a clearly defined selection process, scope of responsibility, staggered terms per my comment in discussion below. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Nominal support—but see my more detailed comments below. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)I think I inadvertently posted in the wrong place, so it's been moved to the correct position. However, I do not support the full slate that's been proposed above, and can't support the bureacracy proposed below. Imzadi 1979 → 21:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Three person team, which seems to have considerable support, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. A full community vote would be ideal, but wholly impractical. Tezero (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - given the time it takes to establish coomunity consensus, the community couldn't posibly keep up with TFA nominations. We need a small number of users who will make the decisions themselves, asking the community for input when necessary and allowing the community to make specific proposals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support very trusted editors Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus-building

  1. As requester; per my comment above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose this poll

  1. I've added this option to express my strong disagreement with the question itself. It'a false dichotomy based on the incorrect premise that the "team" option precludes consensus-building – something that Bencherlite has gone out of his way to promote.
    However, if the two concepts were mutually exclusive, I'd have to go with the "team" option anyway, as the community has demonstrated (via its unresponsiveness to Bencherlite's continual participation requests) that it doesn't even want to take on this responsibility (to say nothing of the endless problems that likely would arise if it did want to). —David Levy 22:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    You refer above to what you perceive to be a need for "someone (or a small team) to carry out firm decisions". That's not "consensus-building", as carried out else where on Wikipedia. (And your comment properly belongs in the "discussion" section, below.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    You refer above to what you perceive to be a need for "someone (or a small team) to carry out firm decisions".
    Indeed. And in no way does this preclude a consensus-building process underlying said decisions. As noted above, Bencherlite has tried his darndest to incorporate one. He resorts to wholly unilateral scheduling on dates for which no one suggests anything – which, despite his pleas, occurs most of the time. And yet, you believe that the Wikipedia community at large is prepared to handle not just the requests that we already fail to make, but the entire TFA scheduling process. I disagree. —David Levy 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Anyone may make a "wholly unilateral" edit under our usual consensus model; it's called being bold. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, and such edits are subject to reversion by any editor in good standing. Bencherlite's scheduling decisions are not, so it's important to note that he makes them unilaterally when he's left with no alternative. —David Levy 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    If such unilaterlal edits are not subject to reversion, then this is not "a consensus-building process". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Again, I'm describing a situation that arises when no one else chooses to participate in the selection process. What do you expect Bencherlite (or future TFA coordinators) to do in that circumstance? Alternatively, what would happen under your preferred system? Someone has to schedule an article – whether a consensus-building discussion has occurred or not. And in the latter case, that decision mustn't be subject to reversion by any random editor who happens to disagree (leaving us with no article scheduled for that date). What, exactly, do you advocate? —David Levy 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    If Bencherite, or future TFA coordinators, act, then the statement "no one chooses to participate" is false. No special role, and no "revert exemption", is required. The claim "that decision mustn't be subject to reversion" is false in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    If Bencherite, or future TFA coordinators, act, then the statement "no one chooses to participate" is false.
    That's why I described the situation as one in which "no one else chooses to participate" (emphasis added). Why have you materially altered my statement and labeled the resultant misquotation "false"?
    No special role, and no 'revert exemption', is required.
    What do you mean? What specific process do you have in mind? Do you have one in mind?
    The claim "that decision mustn't be subject to reversion" is false in any case.
    Please elaborate. Under the system that you envision (if, in fact, you envision one), how would we ensure that articles are scheduled reliably? —David Levy 13:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. I agree, this RfC presents a false dichotomy. We've had a mixed system for several years that has worked, so it's not an either/or proposition as presented. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. I also agree - the proposal to have a team of coordinators made above is to share the workload which Bencherlite has been handling by themselves up to now. Bencherlite's approach has always been consensus-based, and there are no proposals do change the processes. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Me too - this is a solution in search of a (non existent) problem. It has all been discussed collaboratively and productively and already resolved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Per Cas and the others. I don't see what this has to add to anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. This RfC is pointless but it is good that it was started because it perfectly illustrates how unhelpful it would be to rely on the "regular community consensus-building process, used elsewhere on Wikipedia". Imagine the procedure—every day, all the material to be posted on the main page must be ready before midnight. Meanwhile, someone would start an RfC on whether the featured article for tomorrow should be replaced due to some new argument they've thought of, while another RfC would debate whether the last RfC was closed correctly. Democracy is great but delegation of responsibility for day-to-day events is essential. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. This process is pointless and not needed. Can we snow close it as an unhelpful distraction? - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  8. Democracy is not great, and we don't need it here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    You folks didn't even read the question, which clearly was to assess the sense of the community. You could just !vote "team" (as I did) or present a third option. It was a legitimate question. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    I read the question and presented this third option (for the reasons discussed above). —David Levy 06:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    Personally I did read the question, and the team, but found it restrictive. Let the trio decide how they want to break up the responsibility between themselves, without externally imposed constraints. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  9. Agree this is a solution in search of a problem. No "delegate" or "coordinator" we've ever had has displayed any reluctance to stand down when they could no longer shoulder the burden, and no reluctance to accept community input about their performance. If I thought for a second that was the case with anyone working at TFA or any other Featured Content process, I would be the first one asking them to make course corrections. Anyone who knows me knows I have always been a passionate advocate for Featured Content standards. Fair criticism of the nature of Raul's former position has its place, but it's no more than a red herring in the current discussion since he's long-retired. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  10. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 7 December 2014 (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.

Discussion

If a team is appointed, what is their remit; their term of office; and their recall process? [I have posted a pointer to this RfC on {{Centralized discussion}}.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. Three person team of coordinators
  2. Selection process by a community consensus or vote (Not sure details yet, probably a more-than 50% !approval by voters in a limited time period, but not an endless "consensus" discussion) - maybe 2/3 !vote majority with the voting system a one-person-one !vote as is used for arbcom. (I'm thinking an amalgam taking the best of both of ArbCom elections & the RfA process, each of which have their weaknesses). Some method that is prompt, minimal drama, doesn't allow a few disgruntled trolls to derail it, but results in responsible, qualified people. I'm not particularly wedded to this system, just throwing it out there.
  3. Staggered three-year terms, one person up each year. The first group will have one person serving one year, one for two years and one for three so that the staggered terms are created. (If Bencher were to stand, Bencher probably would want the one-year term)
  4. If anyone steps down in the middle of their term, their replacement may be selected by the remaining two to finish out that term and then may stand for selection on their own.
  5. Removal for misconduct could be the same as a desysop of an admin or other community sanctions. I oppose a recall process independent of this because it's troll bait.
  6. TFA proposals not supported by community consensus would require a unanimous public vote by the coordinators to run
  7. Close calls or highly controversial proposals for TFA (i.e. the "fuck" articles and the like) require agreement by 2 of the 3 coordinators.
I oppose that idea as strongly as I've opposed anything at Wikipedia in the nearly ten years I've been an editor. The last thing we need is a complex system of governance – built around elections (with editors casting "support" and "oppose" votes based on the answers to questions like "Would you run an article with 'fuck' in its title?") – invented to solve an entirely nonexistent problem with a non-broken process. —David Levy 22:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the current system is that it burns out the people doing it. The idea of having a team is a good one for that purpose, but the "appointed for life' aspect of ithas always troubled me. Dictatorships and oligarchies, however benevolent, lead to problems over the long haul. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The "appointed for life" aspect disappeared with Raul. It's understood that a TFA coordinator must be up to the task. If and when one "burns out", we won't be stuck with him/her. There's no need to over-complicate this. —David Levy 06:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The current system has worked for years, and I think formalized elections would do more harm than good. The point that this RfC in general misses is that it's a nearly 50-50 split as to how many TFAs are suggested by the community, and how many have to be selected by the delegate/coordinator/"whatever the title is called this year". If we went to a purely consensus-driven model, what happens the first time when we're facing a 12 midnight UTC deadline with no TFA selected? What about the next day when another hard 12 midnight UTC deadline approaches and the community is still arguing over the day before? Who determines consensus in the discussions on every nomination? Do we really need to have a minimum of 365 (or 366) discussions. Unlike DYK, FAs have already been reviewed by multiple editors to assess their suitability for the bronze star, and it doesn't always take another review to verify that an article still meets the criteria.
One potential problem I see about multiple coordinators is the ability for each of them to assume another one has a day covered when in reality no one has. We had a few unscheduled days because of that situation. I trust that any new coordinator "team" will take on the teamwork aspect of things and coordinate amongst themselves to avoid scheduling issues of that sort.
If we set up a formalized election system as above, we still have other issues. David Levy already mentioned one. However, there is at least another. Montanabw's scheme is very rigid, and it doesn't seem to allow the coordinators to take vacations. Point 6 requires unanimity, yet we can't always guarantee that all three coordinators will be available to vote. That also sets up the dilemma that they can't trade off responsibility amongst themselves to fill in the scheduling gaps left by the community proposals. The proposal would also seem to disallow the community to appoint a fourth (or fifth) coordinator on a temporary basis to allow one of the permanent team to take a leave of absence to deal with real-world considerations or to just take a well-deserved break. Sure, we could remove that person from office, but Point 5 implies we could only do that for misconduct, so if a coordinator needed a short-term break, he or she would have to resign and lose the ability to come back in a few weeks.
In short, the current system has evolved in such a way that it just plain works to ensure that we have a TFA each day, and it takes into account suggestions from the community. It has been flexible enough to deal with circumstances. We even have a set of emergency TFAs ready in case an admin has to step in during extraordinary circumstances that require immediate action. Therefore, I 'oppose a community-consensus-only model and formalized elections. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually Imzadi, the current system nearly broke down entirely when Raul burned out. Bencher has done a far better job than Raul and is to be commended for asking to step down prior to a crash and burn, but the reality is that it's a burnout job with no term limits. It's time for more formality. Montanabw(talk) 05:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Raul considered himself Featured Article Director for Life – whether present or absent – with absolute authority over anything and everything related to the FA process. If not for that attitude (and the community's reluctance to challenge it), the system wouldn't have nearly broken down. For obvious reasons, that situation won't repeat itself. —David Levy 06:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
We do agree on Raul, at least... ;-) Montanabw(talk) 09:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely with David: the TFA process has been working very well, and there's no need to over-complicate things. Sharing the workload is a good idea IMO, but the process should be kept simple and as drama-free as possible (as has always been the tradition in the featured content coordination processes). Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. There is no need for a complex governance process, and I have grave reservations about community processes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You favor dictatorship then? Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see False dilemma (which also applies to Andy's poll). —David Levy 06:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
What I'm curious is if you have any better ideas beyond "the current system is perfectly fine." There also was nothing preventing a third option being proposed above (which I kind of did) Montanabw(talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What I'm curious is if you have any better ideas beyond "the current system is perfectly fine."
Ideas for what? Revamping a system that we regard as perfectly fine?
There also was nothing preventing a third option being proposed above (which I kind of did)
Again, I did add a third option. I'm not sure that you understand why. —David Levy 03:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per above. No need to fix what isn't broken. --Rschen7754 02:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's no need not to fix something that could be improved. Tezero (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and reject both RFCs above. The FA process benefits from stability and well-worded RFCs developed after discussion of issues (of which we have had a good number); hastily worded RFCs are never effective. These two are particularly unhelpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with FAC, it is about TFA and the reality that the job seems to burn out people. I hesitate to support lifetime appointments and no process for change. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think Montanabw's made some good points. Term limits also gives the coords a chance to ask themselves: "Do I wanna do this for another [three years]?" Predictable term limits gives the coords and the community the time to prepare another coord as well. I sympathize with what Andy's brought up, but watching Bencherlite trying to get more community input demonstrates that the community just isn't sufficiently interested to keep the engines running. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    No specific term ≠ lifetime appointment. The "process for change" is to find new TFA coordinators when they're needed. —David Levy 06:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Normally when people have concerns about how I might behave, I like to respond, but I don't think that would be wise here. All I can ask is that, if you're worried whether I (or Brian or Crisco for that matter) will be sufficiently accountable and responsive to what people are expecting, look at whether we've been accountable and responsive in the past ... we've all been here a long time, and everything we've done is out in the open. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I actually have no issues with the qualifications of Dank or Crisco or Brian as individuals, I'd support them if it were a selection process. But I remember how hard it was to get rid of Raul, who refused to let go even though he wasn't doing the job, and yet when others stepped in to do the job he was avoiding, it created no end of dramahz and wasted bandwidth. I simply differ from the herd here in my belief that a neutral, impersonal structure would both protect those currently doing the job and protect the position from becoming a sinecure as it was with Raul. No one needs either the inability to remove someone if they aren't up to snuff or the potential drama of constantly having people called on the carpet for certain (inevitable) times they piss off someone. Terms and standing for reappointment would eliminate both problems. Montanabw(talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Speaking from the herd, the issue with Raul was unique: for whatever reason, Raul had a bunch of haters who were far too aggressive in their attacks on his position. That caused others (myself included) to fight back. Also, Raul set up the whole procedure and had taken wikibreaks before, so many people thought he should be given a lot of room. None of that applies now, and there is no reason to think the community could not handle any problems that arise. If we had a bunch of rules about three-year terms and so forth, there would still be a possibility that the triumvirate might start arguing among themselves in three months, or they might go crazy and refuse to run anything but Gibraltar topics. A fixed term would not avoid all conceivable problems. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, because Raul invented the "featured article director" concept at a time when Wikipedia's informality resulted in vagueness, no one was quite certain of his exact standing or how to go about determining it. It was similar to the ambiguity surrounding Jimbo's role in years past, when questions like "Does Jimbo have the authority to do x?" were answered with "I'm not sure. Let's ask Jimbo." But unlike Jimbo, Raul was unwavering in his conviction that his authority on matters FA-related knew no bounds (whether that meant unilaterally deciding that certain material was unsuitable for the main page or should be scheduled in a manner contrary to consensus, unilaterally appointing delegates to assume the role with which the community entrusted him, or unilaterally banning an editor from a discussion page and protecting it to gain the upper hand in a dispute). As discussed above, the current situation is nothing like that one.
    Incidentally, I defended Raul too (despite not always agreeing with him), as he generally did a good job and was targeted unfairly. But that was before he began behaving erratically and eventually abandoned his responsibilities entirely. —David Levy 03:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple

Since there are two different RFCs going on above, and an accumulation of unchallenged statements that differ from my recollection, I've started a new section to address the cumulative.

Terminology
I sometimes refer to delegates rather than coordinators because all of the former and current delegates and coordinators at FAC, FAR and TFA were nominated and appointed as delegates-- a few then had a name change to coordinators (September 2013). Since we were all initially delegates, it is, for now, easier for me to type one word instead of the convoluted "former and current director, delegates and coordinators". The group I reference includes (in chrono order, not linking those inactive): director Raul654: FAC SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, Laser brain, Ucucha, Ian Rose, Graham Beards; FAR Marskell, Joelr31, YellowMonkey, Dana boomer, Nikkimaria; TFAR Dabomb87, Gimmetrow, and Bencherlite.

Burnout
There are several references above that this job tends to "burn out" people. To my knowledge, that has either never or at best rarely been the case. On this list, the majority of turnover was due to routine, commonplace, real life changes in personal circumstances (things like marriage, babies, moving, finishing school, changing jobs, illness, and so on). Of particular concern, the next most common reason for turnover was hounding by various sockmasters and users returning to edit to revisit a previous grudge (and that accounts for the majority of turnover at TFAR). I've been involved with every discussion of delegation in the FA process, and I'm not aware of anyone "burning out". If Bencherlite burnt out, he can clarify. I am aware of four delegates who were hounded out. And those who don't know history risk repeating it.

Timing and location of discussion
This page is the least watched of all relevant FA pages, and this discussion was conducted over a major US holiday. It's perhaps not surprising how little input there was here. Just sayin' so folks will take that into consideration the next time a similar discussion is warranted.

Scope of responsibilty
Until September 2013, every discussion of Raul654 as FA director met community consensus for his role, and Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership even defined the job explicitly (see definition of the role of FA director in the 2012 RFC). I see very few editors in the discussion above who weren't around when Raul was director, and served in that role by broad and frequent community consensus, so I doubt that most here don't know this information, but for posterity, the record of things being said here about Raul and how the process previously functioned should not go unanswered and unchallenged. Anyone who hangs on to the idea of Raul as dictator would most likely not be in a position to recognize it if the very same problems they claimed happened with Raul were still happening today.

Clarification please ?

  • 1. David Levy said: "Yes, and such edits are subject to reversion by any editor in good standing. Bencherlite's scheduling decisions are not, so it's important to note that he makes them unilaterally when he's left with no alternative. —David Levy 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

but then:

  • 2. Raul was unwavering in his conviction that his authority on matters FA-related knew no bounds (whether that meant unilaterally deciding that certain material was unsuitable for the main page or should be scheduled in a manner contrary to consensus, ... " David Levy 03:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

    I have a different take on numerous points in that statement, but to address this one specifically, pls clarify. A sockmaster committed what amounted to a breaching experiment at TFA to challenge Raul's authority to schedule TFAs. You seem to be saying now that the TFAR coordinator decisions are not subject to the bold revert usual, which was exactly Raul's interpretation. That sockmaster was eventually community banned,[5] (and it is illuminating to see who opposed the community ban) but only after the community had failed to support Raul in the very role it had only months earlier ratified in an RFC or to address the ongoing disruption in the processes by socks. Raul did not "abandon his post" as all of the discussion above implies. Raul quit editing Wikipedia when the community, and even the arbs, failed to reign in two prolific sockmasters and one editor returning to revisit an old grudge. The community eventually banned one sock, but too late to salvage what had happened to the FA pages. The same sock is responsible for the departure of Gimmetrow.

    So, David, does the TFAR coordinator have or not have responsibility for scheduling, and what is your suggestion as to what they should do when a sockmaster reverts them?

    Montana says "I remember how hard it was to get rid of Raul, who refused to let go even though he wasn't doing the job", and that may be her opinion, but I disagree that this is what happened. He let his delegates do their job, and stopped editing when he was hounded out by a sock, and got no support from the community or ArbCom to end the socking.

    Term
    Again, from David Levy: "The 'appointed for life' aspect disappeared with Raul." It did? Raul was not appointed for life, and was no more appointed for life than any current delegate: he was repeatedly reaffirmed by the community. What has changed vis-a-vis our current coordinators? We as of now have no re-confirmation procedure, and we have no director to initiate improvements when they are needed. As someone who worked with Raul for more than seven years, I disagree with numerous characterizations made of him throughout these discussions. He nominated me for appointment following on several serious disagreements we had, and I disagreed with him numerous times on different issues, several of those differences substantial. To my knowledge, he never interfered with a delegate processes or decisions, nor did he tell us what or how to do our job. He put forward nominations for delegates to the community, and when the community affirmed them, he left them to do their job even when they disagreed with him. He did step in when the PROCESS was floundering (it is now). We did not have communication snafus in his delegate nominations.

    Who is in charge of the clattering train? (credit to Brian boulton in FAC archives)

    See WP:FAS and Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#Promoted and archived FACs by month and multiple current discussions at WT:FAC. The FA process has no leader, and no one is coordinating the "big picture". So, while

  • FAC is processing HALF of the number of nominations it processed historically,
  • and promoting them at record-high rates on increasingly scanty review,
  • FAR has fallen from processing scores of FAs monthly, to processing almost nothing, resulting in
  • Typically two-thirds of FACs being promoted monthly, the FA tally now above 4,400, but only 1 or 2 FARs processed monthly, with a demote rate that has fallen from 8% to less than 1%.[6]
Before he gave up and was chased out, it was Raul's job to do something about this, and he did. He appointed people who would do the jobs that needed to be done (as he did when appointing Marskell and Joelr31 to oversee the processing through FAR of 50% of the then-current FAs when citation requirements changed in 2006-- a process which saved 33% of then-current FAs).

We now have thousands of FAs on the books that need to be reviewed for compliance, and I'm seeing a couple of editors interested in determining the scope of the problem and initiating discussions about how we might revamp FAR to handle this problem. In a vote-driven model, without a director, I'm wondering if anything will happen. So, the value of the FA star is devalued by the potentially hundreds (thousands?) of FAs on the books that are now deficient.

Lots of questions. The FA processes have a long history of discussing and putting up well-worded RFCs to address the issues. TFAR has benefitted from Bencherlite's excellent leadership, but there are problems in the process, sans leader, that need to be addressed. But putting up hasty RFCs, without discussion of the problems now in the FA process, will not lead anywhere productive. There are mutliple items on the table at WT:FAC, and more to be discussed, so that a well-formulated RFC can be put forward to resolve the issues left pending in the last RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sandy, one of the concerns you express, above, is that FAC is promoting nominations on "increasingly scanty" reviews. As you know, I am a regular observer of the FAC page, and I can't see the evidence for this. On the contrary, it seems to me that uber-reviews are becoming increasingly common – partly because it's harder now to get a detailed peer review that it used to be. And the lengths of time that some noms spend on the page doesn't suggest that much is being promoted prematurely. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see some evidence of "increasingly scanty reviews" as a trend because I think the opposite is the case. It's difficult to be scientific with so many FAs but here are some randomly selected FACs from the past few years:
When I first joined WP (in 2007), FACs were less thorough than they are today. I think FA standards and the quality and depth of reviews has greatly improved. I am sure that someone will point me to an example of a recent "scanty review", so to set a sort of bench mark, take a look at The Shape of Things to Come FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Brian, I would be careful to not equate length with quality (the length and messiness of current reviews is another issue, and a lot of that mess used to be at peer review, but without Ruhrfisch, I understand that isn't happening.)

@Graham: I am not suggesting we compare current or previous standards to the level of review in 2007, so that's pretty much a red-herring.

Here are from FAC archives sample statistics from May 2008, April 2008, and February 2008; what comparable statistics have been kept or reviewed recently? I am not seeing anywhere near that level of data in current reviews, but you may have numbers I've not seen at WT:FAC. (Side note, those are discussions of reviewer awards: rewarding reviewers and writing Signpost dispatches (Template:FCDW) were ways to keep the FA pages invigorated. Perhaps reinstating those would help.)

Current stats: in the absence of comparable stats, I had a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2014, just starting down the list: The first promotion had two and a half supports (a partial prose review should not be a full support). The second promotion had four supports. The third promotion had three supports. The fourth promotion had 3 1/2. The fifth had only 2 1/2 and no independent review. I'm sorry that happens to be an Ian Rose nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Garnet Malley/archive1), just going down the page in order. It is preferable to see uninvolved review (that is, non-MilHist members for jargon, etc), and a partial prose review should not count as a support. Can I stop now? FACs are passing routinely now (rather than as an exception) on incomplete review and very little support.

Specific sample: Stephen Hawking (now demoted, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1) was promoted on scanty review. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive3 shows two partial supports (one on prose only, and one on comprehensiveness), and three supports, one from an editor who states that the article is "hugely improved since it's last turn under the editorial microscope". By checking the previous FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive2) and the changes since in response to that FAC,[7] that statement is shown to be demonstrably false. There were NO improvements to the article between FACs, and in fact, the FAC could have been removed on that basis. Another way to insure more complete review is to ping previous opposers to determine if their opposes have been resolved (mine at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1 were not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Sandy, regarding Garnet Malley: although I am a member of the MilHist WikiProject, I don't think anyone would consider me so involved in the project that my review was not an outside review, especially since I've never contributed assessed content on aviators. Things like this happen; one person may occasionally work in a broad field which allows them to review articles which are outside their field of expertise, but still technically part of the same project. A WikiProject Women writers editor reviewing Sappho, but who focuses on Toni Morrison and other 20th-century African-American writers, could readily be considered independent because of the very different contexts of the different subjects. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As Brian noted above, FACs can take a long time to close owing to fewer reviews. Something that can compound this situation is that the FAC coords will quite often wait for a review from outside the article's immediate project area before promoting. Personally I've either waited for, or actively sought on behalf of nominators, reviewers from outside the Video Gaming, Roads, and MilHist projects, just to name three, to ensure the best coverage of an article before promotion. Can we accomplish it every single time? No, but I think promoting an article is ultimately a risk-based assessment, and this is one of the ways we mitigate risk. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty well versed in the problems with recruiting, training and retaining good FA reviewers (and I once promoted *one* FA on only two supports, just to get people moving-- it worked then-- now people think 2 1/2 supports is the norm).

    The decline in reviewing, though, is not a reason to give up and pass FAs on little support, or fail to review old FAs. There are many things that can be tried: keep stats and archives updated; initiate talk page discussions of trends and problems in reviewing; ping in reviewers when expert content and uninvolved review are missing, or deficiencies are noted after multiple supports; revive and write Signpost articles; reward good reviewers; point out review deficiencies on FAC talk; etc.

    If we are just going to give up and rubber stamp FAs up the line while not reviewing older FAs down the line, then it becomes increasingly hard to justify mainpage space for FAs relative to, for example, GAs, or to even understand why, in an era of declining editorship, we have separate GA and FA processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who hangs on to the idea of Raul as dictator would most likely not be in a position to recognize it if the very same problems they claimed happened with Raul were still happening today.
I can't speak for others, but I want to make it clear that I've never characterized Raul as a "dictator" (or anything similar). More on that below.
I have a different take on numerous points in that statement, but to address this one specifically, pls clarify. A sockmaster committed what amounted to a breaching experiment at TFA to challenge Raul's authority to schedule TFAs. You seem to be saying now that the TFAR coordinator decisions are not subject to the bold revert usual, which was exactly Raul's interpretation.
Raul was the correct party in the scheduling dispute. He was not, however, entitled to protect a community discussion page or to unilaterally ban an editor – let alone one with whom he was engaged in a conflict – from said page. But he believed otherwise.
I should point out that "unilaterally ban" isn't commentary on my part. Those are Raul's exact words. He also announced that he was "arbitrarily banning" the user from the page.
Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Authority to ban, wherein neither "being right" nor "being the featured article director" is an exception.
That sockmaster was eventually community banned,[8] (and it is illuminating to see who opposed the community ban)
You noticed, I hope, that I supported the ban rather passionately. In a subsequent discussion (to which I've linked below), I stated that "the user in question was a trouble-maker (and was banned by the community shortly thereafter), but that doesn't justify Raul's response."
but only after the community had failed to support Raul in the very role it had only months earlier ratified in an RFC
I'll note that I was among those who supported Raul in that discussion.
Raul did not "abandon his post" as all of the discussion above implies.
On 11 February 2013, Raul stated that he was "discussing this with the delegates and [would] have a proper response in a few days." To my knowledge, no such response materialized. (Perhaps you were privy to additional information that wasn't made public.) When I expressed my hope that he was alive and well, this wasn't sarcasm; I was genuinely concerned that something serious might have happened to him.
Raul quit editing Wikipedia when the community, and even the arbs, failed to reign in two prolific sockmasters and one editor returning to revisit an old grudge.
He went "on wikibreak" in response to demands that he "abide by the same standards we hold other admins and editors to" and accept that he's "bound by policy like the rest of us".
That's not to say that he wasn't mistreated by some. (Above, I explicitly acknowledged that he was targeted unfairly.)
So, David, does the TFAR coordinator have or not have responsibility for scheduling,
I've stated unambiguously that he/she does.
and what is your suggestion as to what they should do when a sockmaster reverts them?
How about pursuing the normal dispute resolution process (as opposed to protecting a community discussion page and "arbitrarily banning" an editor therefrom)?
Again, from David Levy: "The 'appointed for life' aspect disappeared with Raul." It did? Raul was not appointed for life, and was no more appointed for life than any current delegate:
Agreed. I don't mean that Raul actually was appointed for life. That was a misconception stemming from ambiguity.
he was repeatedly reaffirmed by the community.
As I mentioned above, that includes me. In the 2012 discussion, I wrote the following:

Raul has occasionally made comments that seemed to imply that the position is his in perpetuity and includes the authority to make any and all decisions related to the featured article process (with no possibility of being overruled by the community). And while I'll admit that this bothers me, I can think of almost no situations in which he's actually used his purported powers in a manner that seemed inappropriate. In general, he's receptive to input and seeks consensus-backed implementations.

Unfortunately, the situation later changed.
What has changed vis-a-vis our current coordinators?
The ambiguity is gone. It's clear that the coordinators serve at the community's pleasure.
To my knowledge, he never interfered with a delegate processes or decisions, nor did he tell us what or how to do our job.
He impeded progress through inaction. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 15#Time to replace Raul654 for details. —David Levy 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, David Levy. Yes, I was always aware of your positions, and consider you to be an astute observer of the process. We disagree on some of the events/descriptions above, but both views have now been offered; in the interest of Bencherlite's desire to wrap this up, and out of respect for your positions, I won't take up space debating each one.

I am concerned about one thing you said, though: when a determined sockmaster is interfering with scheduling, pursuing normal dispute resolution channels could present a difficult situation in future scenarios (that is, FA sans a director or leader) ... there may not always be time before scheduling to "pursue normal dispute resolution channels". That's one of the reasons the community endorsed a director, and gave him broad authority to prevent such problems. Another example of same is me pinging Raul in the middle of the night when a TFA had to be removed for copyvio. The buck stopped with the director. We no longer have such a person, and we now have three "coordinators" and no clear place where the buck stops. At least Raul (and Bencherlite) put his head (their heads) on the chopping block every day (and chop they did). May the current coordinators fare better if/when sockmasters, aided and abetted by the community, come after them. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about one thing you said, though: when a determined sockmaster is interfering with scheduling, pursuing normal dispute resolution channels could present a difficult situation in future scenarios (that is, FA sans a director or leader) ... there may not always be time before scheduling to "pursue normal dispute resolution channels".
I'm not referring to the scheduling itself (which, due to our automatic protection system, no non-administrator can modify within 24 hours of an upcoming TFA appearance). I'm referring to interaction with the editor. Only a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation has the authority to issue a ban unilaterally (unless a relevant ArbCom sanction is in place, in which case it isn't actually unilateral). Likewise, it's improper to protect a page to gain an advantage in a dispute; if such a measure is appropriate, an uninvolved admin can handle it.
While I'm sure that he harbored no ill intent, Raul misused administrative tools in a manner that needlessly escalated a dispute posing no immediate threat to Wikipedia.
That's one of the reasons the community endorsed a director, and gave him broad authority to prevent such problems.
The community gave Raul the authority to handle a variety of day-to-day tasks related to the FA process, not to bypass policies in his dealings with all matters connected thereto.
Among other things, Raul was in charge of TFA scheduling. He wasn't in charge of smiting anyone in disagreement with that statement.
Another example of same is me pinging Raul in the middle of the night when a TFA had to be removed for copyvio.
That never should have been necessary. We now have a list of featured articles set aside for such an emergency. —David Levy 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, David Levy. This would be a good time to wrap up (per Bencherlite), but consider your position in the (no longer at all unlikely) event that an admin edit wars an up-and-running TFA selection. Maybe to replace an up-and-running TFA with "fuck", for example. Raul believed he had broad authority. We now have no director, no leader, and a "team". And I don't believe the scenario I propose is at all unlikely (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Archtransit as but one example), nor am I convinced we have any idea what to do if/when it happens. In the past, it was clearly Raul's domain. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. Is there some question as to whether such an act would be considered inappropriate under the current system? If so, that's news to me. —David Levy 19:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry David Levy :) What has always been considered inappropriate is no longer; that is, remember the old RFA jokes about "I don't think he'd replace the main page with 'fuck'?" Well, first, that is now possible. We have a fuck TFA. And second, we would always be remiss to assume we don't have sockmaster admins willing to exhaust throw away accounts (see Archtransit). Then, third, emergency desysops take time to accomplish. So, suppose in the meantime "fuck" is being wheelwarred into TFA? Where does the buck stop? If Brianboulton removes it, repeatedly, will he be chased out as Raul was? (I realize we have differing opinions on where Raul erred wrt the tools, but let's work with this scenario ... what is Brianboulton to do ... wait for an emergency desysop? And what if he can't show clear consensus not to run "fuck"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
What has always been considered inappropriate is no longer; that is, remember the old RFA jokes about "I don't think he'd replace the main page with 'fuck'?" Well, first, that is now possible. We have a fuck TFA.
You linked to our second "fuck" TFA, in fact. Why you've done so eludes me. A featured article with "fuck" in its title has nothing to do with a vandal's replacement of arbitrary content with the word "fuck" (just as a featured article with "platypus" in its title has nothing to do with a vandal's replacement of arbitrary content with the word "platypus").
And second, we would always be remiss to assume we don't have sockmaster admins willing to exhaust throw away accounts (see Archtransit).
I agree. And once again, I'm don't see what bearing this has on the matter at hand.
Then, third, emergency desysops take time to accomplish.
And that's no different today than it was when Raul was the featured article director.
So, suppose in the meantime "fuck" is being wheelwarred into TFA? Where does the buck stop? If Brianboulton removes it, repeatedly, will he be chased out as Raul was?
For reverting a rogue admin's vandalism? Are you serious?
(I realize we have differing opinions on where Raul erred wrt the tools, but let's work with this scenario ... what is Brianboulton to do ... wait for an emergency desysop?
Of course not. I'm baffled as to the source of this concern. What gives you the idea that the featured article coordinators must stand back and allow misconduct (let alone that which is severe enough to warrant emergency desysopping) to occur? Where and when, heretofore, has anything of the sort been suggested?
And what if he can't show clear consensus not to run "fuck"?
Are you under the impression that the community has revoked the TFA coordinator's (or coordinators') authority to schedule articles?
In this context, "clear consensus not to run" something is an irrelevant concept. Presently, we have more than 1,300 featured articles that haven't appeared as TFA. Most or all have no "clear consensus not to run" them. This doesn't mean that random editors are welcome to replace a scheduled article with one. Unless I've misunderstood, you're referring to a hypothetical situation that couldn't have arisen when Raul was the featured article director and can't arise now. (Someone might try to do what you've described, but it won't be tolerated.) —David Levy 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I linked to the first "fuck" article that came up on a search at WP:FA-- no significance-- we had similar in the Prioryman TFA you linked above (no fuck involved). No clear consensus on <whatever> would be a better hypothetical. I'm trying to offer an example of how a very legitimate dispute would be handled very differently considering current circumstances (ignore the "fuck" example-- it could be anything ... running two TFAs, running a repeat TFA, whatever)-- that is, current situation being that the FA pages have no community endorsed director, and the authority granted to the coordinators is unclear to outright contradictory in many statements above. Raul had a job description (see 2012 RFC)-- these fellows have none. The scenario I am proposing is that edit warring TFA (for example, over "fuck" or anything else) can now be positioned as NOT rogue, rather any other content dispute among admins. What does a TFA scheduler do if there is not clear consensus one way or another, and an admin edit wars over TFA? Raul thought he understood the authority granted to him by the community, with a job description, and others disagreed with that authority. Now we have not only no director, we have no one person in charge of TFA, and we have multiple TFA concerns (fuck being only an example for discussion purposes) that don't result in clear scheduling consensus. When a coordinator has to make a call, that might result in edit warring an up-and-running TFA, what authority are we giving them? Raul was community confirmed many times. We now have a coordinator team that is endorsed by a small fraction of the community discussing here, with no job description, and no one person where the buck stops. What if coordinators themselves disagree (hypothetical future). The question is, how in your opinion this "wouldn't be tolerated" when we have multiple times seen TFAR discussions that don't come to consensus, and we could have admins edit warring TFA. If I'm not making myself clear enough, my apologies ... again, time to wrap this up, but there are many scenarios where our new proposed setup could result in legitimate admin edit warring over TFA. PS, sorry, edit conflict, so I may not have addressed all of your post, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to offer an example of how a very legitimate dispute would be handled very differently considering current circumstances
And I'm struggling to see this assertion's basis.
The scenario I am proposing is that edit warring TFA (for example, over "fuck" or anything else) can now be positioned as NOT rogue, rather any other content dispute among admins.
And I'm saying that this claim is unsubstantiated.
I asked whether you're "under the impression that the community has revoked the TFA coordinator's (or coordinators') authority to schedule articles". Indirectly, your answer appears to be either "yes" or "maybe". My answer is "no".
Under the current system, the TFA coordinator is responsible for scheduling TFA (just as Raul was). Other users (whether they're administrators or not) aren't welcome to alter articles' scheduling arbitrarily – and having three TFA coordinators won't change that.
You seem to perceive ambiguity that simply doesn't exist.
Raul thought he understood the authority granted to him by the community, with a job description, and others disagreed with that authority.
Indeed, others disagreed with Raul's belief that certain policies didn't apply to him.
When a coordinator has to make a call, that might result in edit warring an up-and-running TFA, what authority are we giving them?
On what do you base your determination that the TFA coordinator(s) lack(s) clear authority to determine what article is scheduled as TFA?
Raul was community confirmed many times.
And perhaps Brianboulton, Crisco 1492 and Dank will be as well. As in the case of Raul, that can't happen before their service begins.
We now have a coordinator team that is endorsed by a small fraction of the community discussing here
Raul became the featured article director as a result of this discussion. The community is significantly larger now than it was in 2004, but such matters will never interest more than "a small fraction" of its members.
with no job description
As noted above, I don't perceive the ambiguity that you do.
and no one person where the buck stops.
Evidently, you regard this as inherently problematic. I don't.
What if coordinators themselves disagree (hypothetical future).
Most of those commenting on the matter trust Brianboulton, Crisco 1492 and Dank to share their responsibilities (and resolve any disagreements that arise) smoothly and efficiently. If that trust proves unfounded, the community can revisit its decision to approve the arrangement (just as it would have if Raul's solo effort had failed).
The question is, how in your opinion this "wouldn't be tolerated" when we have multiple times seen TFAR discussions that don't come to consensus, and we could have admins edit warring TFA.
I see no logical basis on which to foresee the community tolerating the "event that an admin edit wars an up-and-running TFA selection". None of the structural modifications that have occurred (or are planned) have resulted (or will result) in a difference material to that hypothetical scenario. —David Levy 22:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
David Levy, yes, your positions have been made clear based on our discussion (they weren't initially), mine have not (my fault, not yours), so while not taking more space to try to get the concerns across, if push ever comes to shove, I hope the broader community shares your perception. This discussion took place on the least watched of all FA pages, has involved only a couple dozen editors (prior recent FA discussions involved over 100), and there is no clear consensus or procedure in place for nominating and selecting delegates, nor is it clear to me that we aren't set up for several unfortunate scenarios to unfold ... but, my shortcoming in not being able to convey those adequately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

Sandy raises a lot of interesting points, which I don't personally have time to deal with now (so this shouldn't be taken to be disagreement or agreement with them). However, many of them are leading away from what prompted the whole discussion, namely my wish to be replaced as TFA coordinator, and I don't want my retirement to be held up by other issues. I have now scheduled TFAs up to the end of December 2014, and that seems to be a natural end point for me; if principal authors of TFAs to be chosen for early January are to have sufficient warning, then the process of selecting such articles needs to get underway a couple of weeks in advance at least. So, unless someone acts sooner, or there are reasons why I should not do this, I intend to ask on 11th December 2014 (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, unless someone thinks of a better venue) for someone to assess the consensus on my being replaced and (if appropriate) who by. Discussion of other issues will be unaffected. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Schro, please refrain from altering the page.[9] I think Bencherlite knows how to handle and thread discussions, and so do I, and I quite disagree that these posts are unrelated to the RFC to which they were added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Georgia, I'll alter what I think is right to do so, so you can at least make the smallest pretence of AGF, and try not to maintain an iron grip of censorship over comments and threads you may not agree with: this is not your private domain (or Bench's, come to that). Your thoughts about FAC and the standards of reviewing are not entirely relevant to the selection of the TFA delegates, which is the aim of the thread. Prolonging the conversation just for you to air your own private hobby horse isn't a massive help. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Attitude. Anyway, there are two RFCs with multiple unchallenged statements, which have now been answered on the RFC where they were presented. If Bencherlite wants to reposition his comment, I'm sure he can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A comment of "attitude", and an edit summary of "ho hum"? Good grief... I see the AGF fairy still has to make their seasonal visit. SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for closing this up. The way I see it is that Bencher wants out, there are three good editors proposed to take his place as a group to share the workload, and that proposal is a good idea. Now, some structural changes were proposed to go along with this transition, but it seems very few people want to take any kind of look at doing any structural changes at this time. The tl;dr edits above detract attention from some problematic stuff that could happen again if person-neutral structural changes don't eventually get put into place. But they won't at present. So speaking as one who threw out some ideas but recognizes that there comes a time to drop the stick, I'm dropping it. Let's move on so Bencher can train and mentor the new folks before he bails out entirely. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now, some structural changes were proposed to go along with this transition, but it seems very few people want to take any kind of look at doing any structural changes at this time. The tl;dr edits above detract attention from some problematic stuff that could happen again if person-neutral structural changes don't eventually get put into place. But they won't at present. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Well, I'm one of those "very few people" who want to take a look at the structural issues, but I've said that this wasn't the time or place for two RFCs that weren't well thought out. Discussion usually precedes a well-positioned RFC-- which is certainly needed to determine succession in the FA pages in the absence of any procedure-- and characterizing a discussion of those issues as TLDR doesn't inspire confidence that an effective RFC can or will be launched in the right time and place, based on examination of the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, we actually agree on something Sandy. So, per my comment that I'm dropping the stick at present, let's just quit jawing about it for now, promote these three people for now, and then figure out if we need to do the coordinator selection differently in the future. Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Time slipping by

It is not for me to say when this discussion should be closed. I will merely point out that 1 January 2015 seems an appropriate date for the new regime to begin its duties. I believe that a minimum of two weeks' notice should be given for every scheduled TFA appearance, which means we ought to start scheduling by 17th or 18th December, just over a week hence. Training and familiarisation of the new team has yet to begin, and as Christmas nears, people will become busier... Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Though there was substantive disagreement about the manner in which the new TFA coordinators were put forward (and about the appointment of Crisco vis-à-vis his other responsibilities), I posit that there was not substantial disagreement enough to impede the immediate way forward. Therefore, we should close this morass with the agreement that the new coordinators should move forward with their responsibilities and begin scheduling on 1 January 2015. We should also commit to opening a well-formed RFC within the next 30 days, the goal of which would be to determine community consensus on how and when coordinators should be appointed in the future. I am willing to work with anyone who's interested to compose this RFC and make sure we have agreement on the wording and goals before opening it. Thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We most certainly need an RFC (as of now, we have no nomination process, no FA director, both FAC and FAR floundering, a muddled process here, and the need for coordinators at both FAC and FAR to replace missing coordinators and get things moving). I hope a well-formed RFC will be put forward based on discussion of the issues, and not launched prematurely on a little-watched page. I am willing to participate (sandbox?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
(groan) do we have to? I worry that it will get drowned in process but whatever....I can see your point....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hell no, see my comment below. Montanabw(talk) 01:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunate, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I see two issues. The nomination process got muddied, and there are even bigger concerns with one of the three candidates, who apparently are being proposed as a "take it or leave it" slate. Because of those concerns, the better action would be to submit each candidate as individual nominations rather than risk opposition to one tank the bunch. The muddiness of the situation calls for clarity, and sadly, I think that clarity here means starting over with an exact proposal to be discussed. Otherwise, I think there will be questions over whether or not the community has given the new coordinators a mandate, or whether each will be acting under a cloud, deserved or not.
So if we craft a focused set of questions to be discussed ("Does X have the support of the community to act as a TFA coordinator? Does Y have the support of the community to act as a TFA coordinator? Does Z have the support of the community to act as a TFA coordinator?") and then advertise it in the appropriate places, we should gain the clarity needed to ensure each has the appropriate mandate to act once the RfC has been closed. We have about 3 weeks left of the year, so assuming we shorten the normal 30-day RfC period to 14 days, that leaves us enough time to have this decided by this year-end deadline.
If Bencherlite absolutely won't continue in the position past the end of the year, then we may need to agree to appoint a provisional TFA coordinator for a defined limited period of time to get through the end of the RfC. I would posit that appointing the full slate of all three, with the questions and concerns in place, even on a provisional basis, will not be a good thing. Imzadi 1979 → 20:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Question, Imzadi. I don't mean to negate or marginalize your position at all, but do you feel like there's been sufficient disagreement with Crisco being a coordinator to actually halt the appointment process? I full recognize (and stated above) that we should construct an RFC to determine how this is done in the future. But, considering the many comments of support above, what do you hope to accomplish by holding an RFC for each coordinator? --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Laser brain: actually, I do, but I just saw that a) the discussion's been closed and because b) you didn't ping me, I had no idea you mentioned me in your comments 6 days ago. At this point, I would assume my opinion is now worthless as the appointment is a fait accompli. The candidates should not have been presented as an unalterable slate, and I will personally view Crisco's appointment as being "under a cloud" for the time being. I hope he proves me wrong, but should there be the perception of impropriety, he should not be surprised if an RfC is ever started to specifically recall him from the position. Actually, a recall RfC where there's an appearance of impropriety would apply to all of those newly selected, but Crisco's starting from a much weaker position based on dissenting opinions about the propriety of his multiple roles with the Main Page. Imzadi 1979 → 00:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • FFS people! Promote these three well-qualified people before poor Brian fries, then take the process to the drama boards to see how we should to do it differently in the future. (Current drama pretty much proving the point that a formal process should be created, eventually) There is a need for a process, but there clearly is not enough time to do so now, and the three-person team concept does not seem to be in dispute, just the selection process and possibly the selectees. Montanabw(talk) 01:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your concern, Montana, but poor Brian will not fry, I assure you. Amazingly, my life does not revolve around this issue. I am prepared to wait for as long as necessary; my only concern is that if the new team is to assume responsibility for TFA from 1 January, the matter needs to be concluded quickly, to allow time for training etc. And I think "appoint" rather than "promote" is appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ... the three-person team concept does not seem to be in dispute ... Montanabw(talk) 01:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Wrong. Please reference the original miscommunication (see above) in the discussion, relative to the original proposal put forward in the name of the entire deliberating group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone misses it, the actual Rfc's way up the page are now closed. So, farewell then, Bencherlite ...., and thanks for all the fish. Johnbod/ Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rape/murder featured article

Are you guys for real? Reconsider this decision before you ruin a million people's day.

I'm still looking for where decisions are actually made, here... It would be nice if that were linked to somewhere prominently.

Adamw (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Adamw, could you give some more details? I'm not seeing this proposed FA anywhere obvious. Nevermind, I'm blind. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 18, 2014 for anyone who wants a link. Sam Walton (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Adamw, in the first paragraph of the page associated with this talk page is the line, "Community discussion of suggestions takes place at the TFA requests page." Perhaps you could let us know which article concerns you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks SamWalton; I'm not sure how that article is any different than what one would read in a newspaper, so whatevs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
And here is the discussion: [10] Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is shocking and horrific, as much as this, this or this, but it is dealt with here in a sympathatic and neutral way, unlike many most mainsteam news outlets. Reflecting what the world is and what it does is part and parcel of what are all about. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I assume you mean Murder of Leigh Leigh, scheduled for 18 December. It was promoted to "featured article" status earlier this year in this discussion: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Leigh Leigh/archive1. Shortly after that, it was nominated to appear on the front page as "Today's featured article" at the community requests page (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests). The nomination itself is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Murder of Leigh Leigh. The request was for any available date, rather than a specific date. As the TFA coordinator at the time (decisions for TFAs scheduled on and after 1st January 2015 are now the responsibility of a new team), I took the decision to schedule the article for 18 December, as there were no other nominations for that day. (In fact, in the absence of community nominations, I had to make my own choices 53% of the time in 2014, but that's another story - in this case, there was a community nomination which was supported with no reason not to run it). I strongly disagree with your view that a million people will have their day ruined by reading a sober and balanced article about a murder that happened 25 years ago. Murder of Joanna Yeates was TFA in September with no adverse comment at all.
The decision process is explained at WP:TFA and WP:TFAR.
If you have any particular views on how the article can be improved, then you are of course welcome to edit the article in the usual way and / or make suggestions on the article's talk page. BencherliteTalk 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for digging up the relevant discussion. A small suggestion for the future, that these discussions be archived rather than deleted.

As for the TFA decision itself, I think we can do a lot better than the news. Here's some humor to make my point better than I could. Most people are going to shrug this off as Wikipedia trying to look like the local T.V. news... but for the many survivors of violent sexual crimes, you're going to really mess with their heads. I don't see why we would want to do this. The TFA discussion makes it look like nobody considered this angle, which is going to be really unfortunate when people come searching for an explanation.

Comparison to other tragic current events is not quite fair, cos this is a skeleton we're dragging out of the closet, so we have all the choice in the world. It seems that the purpose of this category is to show off article quality? I don't care to argue about that, but I will say that with 129 references, there are a total of 5 words spoken by the subject of the article, which makes for pretty poor NPOV and not much of a model to follow.

All I really have to add to this conversation is that we might consider the topic and impact of showcasing TFAs, not simply the article's quality.

Adamw (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir :) The worst TFA debacle I witnessed was when TFA put a missing girl's bio (now declared dead) on the mainpage, on her birthday no less, when that bio contained off-topic text slamming her mother's personal life. Putting a slam against the victim's mother on our main page, so that is what the mother could have seen on her daughter's birthday, was disgusting. We should stop using birth dates and death dates as choices for TFA selection: the former FA director never did that, and I was the editor who inadvertently gave weight to birth and death anniversaries to our (former) point selection system-- against the wishes of the FA director-- not realizing those points would be used to run the unfortunate bio.[11] There have been many times when our choices of death anniversaries may have shown disrespect to families; I think we should stop doing that. In this case, though, other than empathisizing with your concerns about victims, I'm not sure we're putting anything out there that isn't in papers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) General comment: what do others think about placing a link to the nomination discussion - if there was one - on the article's talk and/or the talk of the scheduling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something I was surprised to see that there wasn't a link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 18, 2014 so I'd support this. Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Adamw: I gave you a link to an archive that already exists of the TFAR discussion, so we're way ahead of you on that front! In fact, all TFAR nominations have been archived since April this year after I created a system of subpages and templates for nominations, and I've nearly completed the process of creating retrospective archives from November 2012 to April 2014 to cover the whole of my time as TFA coordinator.
@Gerda Arendt and Samwalton9: there's already a discussion at template talk:Article history about this, in which SandyGeorgia has already commented. It strikes me that the article's talk page is the most natural place to have a link, and article history the most natural place to put one. Although the new TFA coordinators may have other views, @TFA coordinators (ping! hello!), I would strongly advise against creating talk pages of TFA blurbs just to have a link to the TFAR discussion (where one exists) - such pages are on nobody's watchlist (apart from the TFA scheduler) and are more often than not created because someone can't find WP:ERRORS. A quick review of TFAs from this year shows talk pages of blurbs were created on average once per month. Creating a talk page solely to link to the discussion gives the false impression that the blurb talk page is a good place to discuss issues about either the selection process or the article itself, when it isn't. BencherliteTalk 19:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, makes sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
What he said. And holy cow with all the complaints at Talk:Main page about TFA, while TFA requests sits pretty much empty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the TFA process may have drifted away from wide visibility. If it's a group of five people voting on the TFA requests, but dozens are talking about it on Talk:Main Page, then that's a signal that there are a lot of people who don't understand where the real discussions are taking place.
There does appear to be a slant toward Warfare articles -- the last six months each had 4-5 Warfare articles per month, which seems like a lot to me. Looking ahead to the January requests, there are three articles nominated so far, and two of them are Warfare-related.
This month, there are four TFAs that are specifically about people being killed in Asian countries -- three about bombing Japan (Bombing of Singapore (1944–45), 509th Composite Group and Colin Hannah), and one about Vietnam (December 1964 South Vietnamese coup). All four are within ten days of each other (Dec 13-22). Then a strongly-supported nomination for January is No. 1 Squadron RAAF, which also bombed Japan. I hate to ask it, but is it possible to give Japan a break for a while, and talk about bombing someone else? -- Danny (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are the choices: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. But then they can be pruned down by User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page. Seems we have lots of MilHist FA writers, but if you'd rather have an animal, mushroom, dinosaur, hurricane, video game, pop singer, coin, or ship, there are plenty! Of course, people complain there are too many of those as well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good -- I was wondering where that was. Thank you! I'll go look for some interesting and peaceful subjects. :) -- Danny (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The number of complaints about TFA scheduling that I've had to deal with in the last two years is actually comparatively low, set against the number of people who read TFAs. People seem to be more sensitive this week because of the Fuck-related TFA earlier in the week - a decision that had a lot of input from people who don't normally participate at TFAR, because it was well-advertised. The decision was never going to please everyone, because there are two opposing viewpoints on such matters. Frankly, though, a complaint that an article about the 509th Composite Group doesn't make it clear that the atomic bombing of Japan was a terrorist act displays a rather fundamental lack of understanding about the NPOV policy. Similarly, no-one complained at all about Murder of Joanna Yeates earlier in the year, even though that was a more recent incident than the murder of Leigh Leigh. What no-one seems to want to do is to go through WP:FANMP and give a list of unacceptable TFAs together with (and this is the really important bit) coherent principles for deciding unacceptability.
We always have a lot of warfare TFAs because we have a lot of warfare FAs, and we have a lot of warfare FAs because lots of people write them. In 2014, there will have been 61 warfare TFAs. Based purely on their percentage share of the pot of unused FAs, we should have had about 70. So, on one view, we haven't had sufficient warfare TFAs to keep up with the rate at which they are being written.
Fewer warfare FAs appearing at TFAs would mean that we would deplete the smaller categories faster and have nothing left in them more quickly. Even now, there are no unused FAs in any of the following topics: awards, decorations and vexillology; chemistry and minerology; computing; food; language and linguistics; mathematics; philosophy and psychology. A further group of topics (education; engineering and technology; geology and geophysics; health and medicine) have just 5 articles between them in total. If people want to see more of those articles, then someone has to write them. TFA can only work with what it has. There are reasons for running all of the articles you mention. The Bombing of Singapore article marks the 70th anniversary of this part of the war (it was going to appear last month, but it got bumped by Gough Whitlam for his memorial service); the 509th Composite Group was formed 70 years ago today; I chose Colin Hannah to mark the centenary of his birth; and in fact nobody was killed in the 1964 South Vietnamese coup, which appears at TFA to mark its 50th anniversary and is a rather less well-known episode of history (and in fact we often get requests to run more TFAs relating to non-English-speaking countries, so the coup article helps with that). As for next month, for which someone else will be making the deciison, you've already been told that No. 1 Squadron didn't bomb Japan. If you're going to complain, it helps to get your facts straight.
Feel free to write an article to FA standard, or to nominate something at WP:FANMP to appear on the main page. Bear in mind, though, that past complaints include too many mushrooms, too many hurricanes, too many video games, too many TV episodes, too many etc etc.... so there are no easy answer, particularly for the TFA coordinator(s) who have to make decisions day-in day-out. BencherliteTalk 23:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Tks Bench. Danny, as I said over at TFAR, and Bench has said above, No. 1 Squadron RAAF never bombed Japan (nor did any other RAAF squadron for that matter). They did OTOH bomb Japanese forces invading Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. If you're keen on the idea of something about bombing someone other than the Japanese, then No. 1 Squadron RAAF is the one for you -- per my TFAR nom statement, they're presently bombing ISIL forces in the Middle East... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll take mushrooms any day over tasteless topics like books about the word "Fuck". There are enough tasteless topics in the potential universe of articles that an editor who wants to be annoying can write endless featured articles where the title uses words like "Fuck", "Shit", "Cunt" and so on. Do we really want to feature such articles with regularity? Do we really want to feature an article about The Human Centipede where there are thousands of movies more important and noteworthy that aren't being featured? I think that there should be more common sense and less robotic adherence to rules when selecting FA. Some FA shouldn't go on the home page ever because the topic is not appropriate for a wide audience, one that includes a lot of underage readers. Wikipedia is not censored, but we can certainly consider tastefulness when deciding what to put on the front page. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, Please feel free to join in the TFA selection process. It's a quiet enough place the needs people to both select possible articles, and help decide on the suitability of others. It's all well and good complaining about it after the event, but if you took part in the process you may understand that there is no "robotic adherence to rules" anywhere, or that concepts such as "tasteless" are little more than personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Your intolerance of topics that you regard as "tasteless" and unsuitable for the main page (apparently on the basis that your standards of taste are either objectively correct or should take precedence over other subjective standards, for reasons unspecified) and criticism of Wikipedia's failure to showcase "thousands" of articles that you've chosen not to improve or nominate is eclipsed only by your condemnation of editors who do put in the effort, which you perceive as evidence that they "[want] to be annoying". Wow. —David Levy 14:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made major contributions to two very difficult featured articles, and am perfectly well within my rights to criticize a process that produces bad results. Why would I want to join a discussion group that has demonstrated little to no common sense? I don't need the extra conflict. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no "discussion group": there is an open process for comment from all editors. As for the "bad results", your POV is one thing, but the consensus of the community doesn't agree with you on this point. You may well made contributions to two FAs (difficult? They all are, in their way) - many of us have - but that doesn't stop you from adding a support or oppose at TFAR from time to time. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it is much easier to snipe from your high horse rather than participate in the discussions. But while that is certainly a choice you can make, don't be surprised when consensus continues to disagree with you, and don't expect many people to take your subsequent whining seriously. Resolute 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made major contributions to two very difficult featured articles
I'm not questioning your contributions to the project, which I assume you made with the goal of improving Wikipedia (not, as you assume of others, "to be annoying").
and am perfectly well within my rights to criticize a process that produces bad results.
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm expressing mine, which is that you're casting aspersions on editors' motives and denigrating their hard work, simply because they focus on subject areas that you find uncomfortable or unpleasant.
Why would I want to join a discussion group that has demonstrated little to no common sense?
Why would you want to take part in decisions whose direction you seek to change? Is that what you're asking?
How do you define "common sense"? Is any outcome inconsistent with your preference (which, of course, you refuse to convey until after the fact) indicative of its absence? —David Levy 15:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, The Human Centipede appeared as TFA on 31 October 2011. Here is the discussion for reference (I have gone back through the TFAR history to create an archive, because the current system of archived subpages only began in April 2014). "Gropecunt Lane" appeared even longer ago, in July 2009. After going through the history, Gropecunt Lane was never nominated at TFAR - it was a decision taken solely by Raul, so there is no discussion archive I can create. The TFA system has changed significantly since 2009/2011 and those decisions by Raul shouldn't be used to beat the current system. For instance, I don't think that the Human Centipede nomination was widely advertised (compared to the situation for the two TFAs this year that had the word "fuck" in the title, where pointers to the discussion were left at the Village Pump, Talk:Main Page, user talk:Jimbo Wales and on {{Cent}}, among other places, to ensure that a much wider group of editors knew about the nominations rather than the decision being reached in semi-secret and presented as a fait accompli). You can find the discussions in Category:Wikipedia Today's featured article successful nominations if you wish, and if you've not reviewed them recently you may have forgotten quite how many people participated in them. The "discussion group" on each occasion included many people who have never contributed to any other TFAR discussions, so obviously the advertisments worked in terms of drawing people in.
The view you take, that those two "fuck" articles should not have appeared as TFA, is not the one that was the consensus view, as judged by yours truly as the TFA coordinator at the time. (I'll add that nobody after the most recent discussion asked me to reconsider my conclusion on the grounds that I had misjudged consensus or supervoted or otherwise come to a conclusion that could not be justified on the basis of the discussion). Neither decision was reached through the workings of a closed-shop clique of TFA insiders. In these two instances, at least, the community got the TFAs it wanted, and if some other parts of the community do not like it or think that the commmunity lacks common sense then their problem is with the community not with me or TFA/TFAR. If you think that the participants lacked common sense, there is little I can do about that. The TFA coordinator is in a very awkward no-win position in such circumstances - closing decisions against the weight of arguments in the discussion ends in charges of dictatorship and supervoting, closing decisions in line with the weight of arguments leads to complaints from the losing side of censorship or stupidity, as the case may be. But there we go - that's why the TFA coordinator gets paid twice as much as any other admin on the site...
If you can think of ways of improving the discussion process so that more people participate, then I'm sure the new TFA coordinators will be happy to listen. If you can gain consensus somewhere for a set of principles that would prevent further articles that offend or annoy you from appearing as TFA, then please go ahead. In the meantime, though, decisions in such cases will be reached upon the participation of those members of the community who show up. And if Cirt or anyone else decides to write an article to featured standard that has a swear word in the title rather than something that others might think more interesting or important, then (a) there's nothing that can be done in the first place to stop them doing so, (b) any nomination of it for TFA will be advertised as widely as before, I expect, and (c) it may well be the case that the community next time round reaches a different view. I'm just glad that it won't be me making the decision next time. BencherliteTalk 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest for starters that we never feature articles using swear words in the title. Second, I suggest that we never feature porn-related topics or X rated works such as Human Centipede. That would be a really good start and simple to implement. Jehochman Talk 16:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well feel free to propose an RfC along those lines if you wish. In line with the recent 'advertising' of the Fuck TFAR, I suggest you leave neutral comments advising people of the existance of the thread at Village Pump, Talk:Main Page, user talk:Jimbo Wales and on {{Cent}}, among other places. I suspect it won't get too far - but as with the articles you are complaining about, the community will decide. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
On what do you base these suggestions? —David Levy 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Common courtesy and common sense. When my grandmother visits the Wikipedia home page I don't want her to be shocked and never visit again. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
On what do you base the premise that your grandmother and those who share her sensibilities are owed this "courtesy" (and that the application of such a standard is a matter of "common sense")? —David Levy 16:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Courtesy is owned to all users. A fundamental principle of building a website with good usability is don't surprise the user (paraphrasing). When a little old lady visits the home page of a general purpose encyclopedia, she will be very surprised, even shocked, to see the word "Fuck". Her reaction will be, "What's wrong with these people?" and she will leave, never to return. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If you believe that all users are owed this courtesy, why have you suggested a standard based on a particular group's sensibilities? —David Levy 16:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
How many users will be shocked by not seeing the word "fuck" on the home page? Jehochman Talk 16:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
My point isn't that the absence of such content would shock anyone. It's that your suggestion fails to address material that your grandmother might find acceptable while others don't. —David Levy 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Grandma Hochman is very proper. I am sure any content that failed to offend her would be acceptable to 99.9% of users. Jehochman Talk 17:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this anecdotal analysis of your grandmother's beliefs and their applicability to Wikipedia's readership at large. I hope you understand my reluctance to rely upon your personal observations and statistics arbitrarily derived therefrom. —David Levy 17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me teach you a bit about marketing and designing websites. When building a website it is standard practice to imagine three or four or five "avatars". Each is an imaginary person using the website: a little old lady in England, a male high school student in India, a middle-aged African American nurse in St. Louis. It doesn't so much matter which exact avatars you choose, just choose some that represent large segments of the user population. Now ask, how will each of these people react to my website design and content? If you use the word "Fuck" on the home page the little old lady is offended, and never returns. The high school student giggles and creates an account because he thinks Wikipedia is hip. The middle-aged nurse thinks the site must be some sort of unreliable prank like UrbanDictionary and stops using it. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
How about you don't try to teach or preach here, but open an RfC instead. I doubt you'll convince the small audience you have here (no-one seems to have altered their position yet), so why don't you see what the site's general consensus is? - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this method, the knowledge of which didn't elucidate the logic behind your focus on the sensibilities of Grandma Hochman and people like her. Then you conveyed your determination that content acceptable to her would be acceptable to 99.9% of Wikipedia's users, thereby alleviating my perplexity. I thank you for this remarkable insight and wish both of you well. —David Levy 17:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, there are four letters one word, many more in Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, a good topic for the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a policy based reason why these topics should be verboten, or is it really just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you trying to force your own sensibilities onto others? Resolute 23:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA stats

Going off on a tangent, all this fuss about TFA looks to me like Wikipedia-internal navel-gazing. Here are the "Fuck" page views, and it can be seen from these stats and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed that mainpage views are declining over time, even if we account for the lack of recordkeeping from 2014. Tourette syndrome got a similar number of views when Tim Howard did his thing in the World Cup [12] (that was a missed opportunity for mainpage exposure of TS that highlights why I disagree with this recent trend of scheduling so far in advance-- when Tim Howard became front page news, that is when we could have launched TS as TFA, but I digress). TFA and TFAR are becoming irrelevant-- who goes to the mainpage of Wikipedia anyway except ... Wikipedians? (Well, I never go there because I can't tolerate seeing the abuses in ITN and DYK, but that's a whole 'nother topic.) It's all about google hits these days anyway. I don't see that what is on the mainpage of Wikipedia is that relevant anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The main page gets about 10,000,000 views per day.[13] I feel that this is a significant number, and we should be careful about what we put there. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, so I'm partially wrong (so lots of people look at the mainpage,[14] but an extremely small number of those people click through to TFA-- TFA is becoming irrelevant). Anyway, Jechochman, if you want to propose restrictions on TFA, there are two ways to do that: via an RFC, or via opining at Today's Featured Article Requests. Railing on this page about TFA selections goes nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Just saying TFA is becoming irrelevant does not automatically make it true. No matter how many times you say it. Resolute 23:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
We should ask a developer to look at the stats and tell us the click through rates for the various area on the home page. It is standard web design practice to look at these stats and remove or replace content that isn't if interest (evidenced by low click through rates). What we need is a click map for the home page. Does anybody know how to get access? Jehochman Talk 14:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for this change to the Falkland Islands text?

Hey all, Falkland Islands is currently scheduled for January 6; this is the paragraph we're looking at. I just got a suggestion at Talk:Falkland_Islands#Today's Featured Article to change "In 1982, after Argentina's invasion of the islands, the Falklands War resulted in the surrender of Argentine forces and the return of the islands to British administration." to "In 1982, the Falklands War resulted in the surrender of Argentine forces that had occupied the archipelago, and the return of the islands to British administration." That changes the meaning slightly, so as a first step, I'm asking on the article talk page and here if anyone has a problem with the change. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. In 1982, after Argentina's invasion of the islands, the Falklands War resulted in the surrender of Argentine forces and the return of the islands to British administration.
  2. In 1982, the Falklands War resulted in the surrender of Argentine forces that had occupied the archipelago, and the return of the islands to British administration.
  3. In 1982, after Argentina's invasion of the islands, the Falklands War resulted in the surrender of Argentine forces that had occupied the archipelago, and the return of the islands to British administration.
  4. In April 1982, Argentine forces occupied the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. (per DrK below)
I have to see them side-by-side :) Glad you asked, because it's a potentially POV-laden issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, 2 is better; 1 implies that the British were not administering the Falklands (Argentine POV), 2 is more correct. Better and more clear is a combo of both (3). Argentines in 1982 were convinced the Falklands (Malvinas) were theirs, and information about the invasion was withheld from the public (except those who had access to the BBC). It was a shock to most Argentines to discover they had been booted. It's a POV-laden issues, as many Argentines still insist the Malvinas are theirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the change to the text, actually. It appears to imply that the occupation had been legal and the British administration determined by conquest rather than the democratic will of the islanders. I don't see the Argentine POV in the first option, if anything it favors the British POV by saying it was an invasion and not a liberation. You could avoid the whole issue by "In April 1982, Argentine forces occupied the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War." DrKiernan (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That works nicely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Options 2 or 4 are good. The problems with 1 and 3 are the text ("after Argentina's invasion of the islands") that creates a strange read. The invasion is part of the Falklands War. Options 1 and 3 indicate that the invasion occurred before the war (it technically did, but not for the purposes of historic retrospect; added that invasions are an act of war in and of themselves). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 03:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. I'll keep the article watchlisted for now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New FAC and FAR Coordinators proposed

Far too many warfare articles for my taste

What would be the appropriate discussion forum to post this complaint: For my taste, TFA is far too often about warfare. -- Julia Abril (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Julia, This is an appropriate forum to start the discussion if you wish. There are two observations that spring to my mind: firstly, editors write on articles that interest them, so we have a larger 'stock' of military-related articles to appear than some other topics (in some topics, there are no FAs available for selection that have not appeared previously). Secondly, articles tend to be selected through WP:TFAR, which is somewhere that normally needs more editors to become involved in the selection and consensus-building process, and your input would be more than welcome as part of that process. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. We have excellent editors interested in military history, but need more people concerned with other fields and interested in nominating TFAs. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I entirely agree with both points made by SchroCat (and Dudley Miles). Just to add some meat to the bones (and by way of explanation, I was the person selecting TFAs in 2013 and 2014 - TFAR supplied about 45% of the slots available leaving me to exercise my personal choice for the remaining 55%):
  • The general rule (broken on less than a handful of occasions in 10 years) is that featured articles only appear once as "Today's featured article"
  • At the start of 2014, we had 1,337 featured articles yet to appear as TFA
  • Of these, 256 were warfare articles, or just under 1 in 5 (19.1%) - this is because we have a lot of active editors at WP:MILHIST and elsewhere who write lots of featured articles about warfare topics
  • If things were decided on a strict mathematical basis, then we would have warfare TFAs 19.1% of the time (i.e. 70 articles per year, as 19.1% of 365 is 69.9, which works out at 5.8 per month)
  • In fact, we had "only" 61 warfare TFAs last year, and there are only 4 warfare TFAs scheduled for January 2015.
  • Reducing the number of warfare TFAs still further would mean that other categories would be emptied even more quickly than they are already being emptied - there are no TFAs for selection in chemistry, computing, language, mathematics, food and drink, philosophy... and other topics (education, engineering, geology, health and medicine) have just one or two potential TFAs awaiting their turn.
  • You may not like them, but warfare articles are very popular with readers - 3 out of the most-viewed top 5 TFAs last year were warfare articles, and it was the third-highest category for median TFA page views - see my earlier analysis at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Merger of TFASTATS and TFAREC / 2014 TFA page views.
  • The warfare potential TFA section covers a very wide span of history, from 200BC through the Norman Conquest, the American War of Independence and the Napoleonic Wars to the wars of the 20th century. Geographically it covers Europe, North and South America, Asia, Africa and Australasia. It covers articles about individuals, units and equipment, battles, incidents, wars, ships, and so on. It is a very varied section - more so than many of the other sections, in fact.
I hope this explains why we have as many warfare articles as we do. Unfortunately there is little to suggest beyond (a) nominate articles at TFAR, as that is a very good way of getting them onto the main page, and (b) getting non-warfare articles promoted through WP:FAC helps increase the options available to the TFA coordinators. Pinging them for their input: @TFA coordinators . BencherliteTalk 14:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not having had the opportunity to schedule yet, I can't comment from experience. But, based on my experience at POTD and the birds, Bencherlite is correct. There are times when a certain subject is just plain overrepresented, and the only way to fix that is to improve content outside of that subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deferring to Brian and Crisco. I've been a coordinator for the military history wikiproject for years, and I would have no objection at all if Brian and Crisco want to reduce the number of military history articles at TFA. Agreed with others that that would probably require other wikiprojects stepping up and producing more Featured Articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've nothing specific to add, except to mention that in January 2015, my first month of responsibility for the TFA schedule, only 10 out of 31 came though the TFAR process. We need more activity there. As pointed out, scheduling has to broadly reflect the proportionality of the available FAs, of which, currently, more than 40% are in either the warfare, biology, or sports categories. Until other project areas step up their output, these categories will continue to dominate TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your detailed answers. Let me just add one thought. Perhaps there is some positive feedback in the system: Once people have figured out how to write an excellent battleship article, it becomes easier and easier to write more and more battleship articles. Whereas in other fields, there is no pattern to follow, and requirements for getting an article into the TFA pool seem prohibitively high. -- Julia Abril (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That pretty much holds true for all articles. I've never written a battleship article - but I'm well up the list of FA nominators and no article is ever easy at FAC. They all have their issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ealdgyth. There may be a general template to follow, but the information available is going to vary from subject to subject. An obscure lost film might be able to get to FA with only 1000 words, whereas an Oscar-winning blockbuster will need at least 2500 to adequately cover the subject. (Films being where most of my FAs are) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Julia, I think it's possible we could do more than we're doing now to help wikiprojects to get up to speed at FAC, at least with the issues I deal with (prose, mostly). I'll run some ideas by the other TFA coords in a day or two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a change to the TFA text about Philip Seymour Hoffman and got reverted; now it says that PSH was "mainly known for his work in independent films". Could someone please read the TFA or skim the article and tell me if that makes sense to you? Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The current version "While mainly known for his work in independent films" seems to drawn the claim from the reception section: "Most of Hoffman's notable roles came in arthouse films, including particularly original ones, but he also featured in several Hollywood blockbusters", which isn't the same thing (being in, as opposed to being known to be in). Loeba does have a point about the use of two "also"s in the sentence, so perhaps an alternative may be "Known for his work in independent films...", which changes the emphasis enough to bring it more closely in line with what the article actually says. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
"Known for" was what I had settled on ... then my train of thought got derailed before I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a good illustration of the problems of "known for"— there's no indication of the group of people that "knew" him. If you're assuming the population at large, and if it is uncontroversial to state that Hollywood blockbusters are generally seen by more people than independent films, then he may very well be more "known" for his blockbusters, even though he acted in numerically more independent films. If the assumed group is fans of independent film, then the answer will be different. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I think your argument may hold water if it were "Best known for", or the current "Mainly known for", but not for the proposed "Known for", which is deliberately ambiguous. He was known for it, we just don't specify who by. – SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Good ideas guys, thanks, I'll go ask the nominator to read what you're saying and to check what the source says. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in light of comments here I've tweaked both the article's lead and the TFA blurb to "While he mainly worked in independent films..." That okay? Thanks all --Loeba (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No objection (but I haven't seen the sources). - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Having some familiarity with both the article and sources, I think this works well. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

TFA protection?

Just curious, how long has it been policy to automatically semi-protect TFAs? It seems like a sensible policy, but I remember a not so distant time when IP editors could edit them.– Gilliam (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. Move-protection is applied automatically, but semi-protection depends on the circumstances. If an article was semi-protected before TFA day, it will remain semi-protected on TFA day; if an admin thinks that the level of vandalism on TFA day warrants semi-protection, then it can be added even though it is the TFA. BencherliteTalk 23:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What confused me is at Female genital mutilation, the bot User:TFA Protector Bot has protected the page, leaving the protection notice reading "Upcoming TFA (bot protection)".– Gilliam (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The page was already semi-protected, and has been since February 2013. The bot added the move protection, but retained the edit protection. Resolute 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Maindate

I am used to seeing a line on the talk page like "is on the Main page" on TFA day. Today, it says "will appear". However, if I edit the article, I get the correct ""Tintin in the Congo" is today's featured article." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It always helps if you put links to pages you're talking about. Talk:Tintin in the Congo is displaying correctly for me, so I suspect you simply needed to purge your cache (and editing the page would fix that). Anyway, you missed the real problem, which is that the message generated is "This article is currently on on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article". I have left a message for the person who has rewritten the template to change "on on" to "on" fixed the problem myself. BencherliteTalk 11:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Not that I understand everything you said but it displays correctly now without me doing anything. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll try and explain. (1) You had been to that talk page before at some point when the TFA appearance was pending and had been marked as such in the {{article history}}. (2) When you did this, your internet browser loaded a copy of the talk page, which included loading a copy of the article history template which had the words "will appear". (3) You went back to the talk page today. (4) Your internet browser did not load a brand-new version of the article history template for that talk page, but reused the one stored in its cache, hence the words "will appear" still showed on your screen, but on nobody else's. (5) For anyone else visiting the talk page today who had not visited the page previously [such as me], their browser loaded a fresh version of the talk page and the template, which said that the article is currently on the main page. (6) Only you had the problem that the talk page still said "will appear" because it was a problem with your internet browser, not with Wikipedia. Such problems are common and can be fixed by following the instructions about purging your cache. (7) The separate problem, of the article history saying "This article is currently on on [duplicated word] Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article", has been fixed. BencherliteTalk 14:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again. I understood all of the above but not that it appeared correctly without me purging or editing, but don't have to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick note on copyediting lead sections

Just a note to say that, before now, I haven't been doing a lot with copyediting the lead sections of articles before their TFA day, and now I'm starting a phase where I'm going to be leaning in the other direction and doing (arguably) more than the minimum that needs doing. The point of this phase is to generate a lot of examples of what might or might not need doing, so that we can talk about it later and see if there's something like consensus on just how much should be done. I'm not asserting some kind of right to rewrite lead sections to suit me ... I'm just noting that there's a job here that wasn't getting done. (Bencherlite has goaded me into tackling this now, but it was going to have to happen sooner or later.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

...

For a little over two years, the TFA paragraph on the Main Page has ended with "(Full article...)" (with a link). I'd like to remove the ellipsis, but Bencherlite believes we have a long-standing consensus for it. I don't. The discussion that produced that is at Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#Featured article link. Note that mention of the ellipsis is missing from the entire discussion, until the end:

It's a shame that the "..." is completely gone now. Would it not be possible to have "(Read the full article...)" and "(Read the full list...)"? It's kinda more inviting... and it lures you in... and urges you to read further... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.206.234 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the IP that this would be a good change, space permitting... --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And that's all there was; the TFA coords Dabomb then decided it should be in the current form. There's a lot I could say about this, but let's keep it simple if we can: could someone give me an example in professionally copyedited text of "X..." meaning "You will find the thing X if you click here"? ("More..." doesn't count ... that and "More to come..." are set phrases that gained traction in, as I recall, the 80s. What we had was fine for the first 9 years of TFA.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Times use the ellipis on their article blurbs, which is the one I know off the top of my head... - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, that's an example of what ellipses usually mean ("we're breaking in the middle of a sentence, off in mid-discussion, the rest is somewhere else"). I can't recall seeing a use of ellipses in the sense they're being used in "Full article..." (outside of the "More..." set phrase), but I don't read as much as I used to, and I often find these days that I'm not up on some new trend, maybe I'm missing this one too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that covers what The Times's practice is – I've seen the end of a sentence followed by the ellipsis. My personal reference would be to retain it, fwiw. – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I changed my wording to "breaking off in mid-discussion" (in the middle of a sentence or not). There's actually a well-known reason I'm asking for examples rather than opinions ... the brain deals with orthography (punctuation, spelling, capitalization, etc.) in a different way than it deals with words. After even a very brief exposure to odd orthography, people will swear that they've seen it before and that it's perfectly okay. This isn't an example of our brains being stupid ... the most efficient way to write and read is to grab the meaning and put all the extraneous stuff (including orthography) out of your mind. This is what gives copyeditors fits ... we're constantly struggling with people who are completely positive that something is commonplace, but somehow can't find any examples of what they're talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The only other thing I'll add is that we are not constrained by what other sites/publishers do and don't do: we are mature enough to have our own unique MoS and can use whatever punctuation we want in any way we want. I agree with the IP from a couple of years ago - "It's kinda more inviting... and it lures you in... and urges you to read further..." and if it makes people want to read further, that's good enough for me. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a whole 'nuther conversation ... and a fun one ... but I think it muddies the issue here, Schro. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it muddies it at all: it's a rather important factor that needs to be considered. We do not need to follow other style guides because we have our own, and if we want to use the triple dot as an "inviter" to read more, then we are entirely able to. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
An example is just a click away. There is a human-computer interface design paradigm that items that generate another page or dialog should end in an ellipsis. That's why your File menu says "Exit" but "Save Page As..." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That looks like an example of my point, not your point, Hawkeye. The ellipsis is used for an incomplete sentence, as usual, but not for "Exit", which is a complete thought, again as usual. Can you give me a link of what you're talking about so I can check? - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(e/c with Hawkeye x 2) Personally I'm not sure I see much of a difference between "breaking off in mid-discussion, the rest is somewhere else" and (Full article...) at the end of a blurb, pointing from a very abbreviated summary of an article to the whole thing. There's a separate issue of whether the ellipsis should be preceded by a space, as per WP:ELLIPSIS, but that's secondary of course to whether there should be dots at all. I prefer having an ellipsis as a guide into the full article, as has been done since the start of TFAs, but have no strong views on whether it should be preceded by a space or not. Incidentally, you've overlooked that some of the participants in the 2012 discussion put forward options that included "...", and nobody spoke out against them; you're also incorrect in referring to "TFA coords" in the plural, since at that time the title was "TFA delegate" and (more importantly) was only held by Dabomb, as it predated my appointment. I have left messages at T:MP, WT:FAC, WT:FLC, and WT:TFAR, since this isn't something that the small number who watch this page ought to have a monopoly on deciding. BencherliteTalk 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I struck "coords" and added "Dabomb". And no, I didn't overlook that some suggested ellipses; they suggested ellipses used in the usual sense, except in the set phrases "More..." or "Continue...". They left off ellipses in the other cases. No one spoke out against them because, in that discussion, they were used in the usual way, until the very end (the two comments I quoted above). - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My partner John just put an interesting spin on this that I hadn't picked up on ... he's never seen ellipses in the sense used here either, so he thought it was in the nature of an emoticon ... the equivalent of adding a chat-room wink, or in this case, a special symbol that means "there's more coming" in a chat. I have no objection to that usage at all ... if that's the tone you're looking for, a chatroom rather than something professionally copyedited. In that case, perhaps I should start every TFA paragraph with "Hey you guys, check this out!" - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Great strawman argument, Dan! BencherliteTalk 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Uh, no, I only meant to bring up the point that we need to look at tone as well as meaning. I only have the one argument, but it's a good one. Btw ... I'm kind of surprised this is so hard, and I've learned a useful lesson here I think, I'll stay away from hard orthography questions in lead sections (though of course I'll do the best I can in the TFA paragraphs). - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. I struck, and I'll come ask what's up. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this is going down in flames ... I'd like to withdraw the proposal, with some observations.

  • There are lots of copyediting questions I could have asked here. Some thought this was a poor one to lead with, and at this point, I agree.
  • We don't have many copyeditors on Wikipedia, and the ones we have usually don't offer their services freely to nominators. A few people (no one here) regard copyeditors mostly as the obstacles they're trying to get past so they can get that star or whatever, as the people who are keeping them from saying what they want to say the way they want to say it. It's true that some copyeditors are kind of a pain, and the whole profession is a bit stuffy. The better copyeditors help writers make their writing bulletproof, so that their readership doesn't misunderstand it, misrepresent it, rewrite it, or look down on it for irrelevant reasons. One of the best ways to increase throughput at FAC and make the experience more pleasant and more focused on the things that actually count (i.e., not focused on copyediting) would be to recruit more copyediters. But I suspect they're not going to come until more Wikipedians get some insight into how copyeditors go about their jobs and arrive at answers (answers that you're free to reject, of course). That's all I'm going to say about that for now. I'm pessimistic about quick resolutions to this problem, but optimistic about the long term. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Audie Murphy on March 17

Is there some reason Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2015 does not have the image with it? If there is some concern about it, there is always this one: File:Audie Murphy-DW ORIGINAL PUBLICITY PROMO PHOTO.jpg — Maile (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't seem to be getting any answer on this. But there is also this possible image File:Audie Murphy Whispering Smith 1961.JPG. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Pinging the powers that be: @TFA coordinators BencherliteTalk 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I woulda done that, but surely they have this page watchlisted? Maile, I suggest patience is the order of the day, since fortunately the 17th is quite a ways off still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure they do, but a ping never hurts. It also gave me the opportunity to add the pretty box at the top about {{@TFA}}, which not everyone will know about! At a guess, it was an oversight since the image is in the nomination with no adverse comments. BencherliteTalk 20:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I had already stuck in the Whispering Smith photo. Usually if there is a problem with an image, somebody says something and asks if there is a different one that can be used. I don't care which one is used, but it seemed odd without any at all, and no comment about it.— Maile (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Dank prepares the TFA blurbs, and normally deals with image issues. I am sure he will respond here if there are any further issues with this image choice. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really, Crisco did everything involving images up through Feb 28, and then when someone pointed out the rollover captions weren't being done starting March 2, I started doing those and adding size=133px as needed. I can do more if necessary, but since I haven't worked with images before, there would be a learning curve. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:TFA title

I happened to notice that User:AnomieBOT II was logging an error that it couldn't find the bolded FA link in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 14, 2015 to create Template:TFA title/March 14, 2015, which turned out to be because it was looking for '''[[link|text]]''' (and similarly for <b>, and unpiped of course) while the blurb contained [[link|'''text''']]. I've updated the bot to also recognize the bolding inside the piped portion now, but it would be helpful if people frequenting this process could somehow keep an eye on whether the pages are getting created in case something similar happens in the future. If nothing else, duplicating the short list at Template:TFA title#Next days somewhere visible to people working this process would help. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anomie. As long as it recognizes '''[[link|text]]''' and [[link|'''text''']], I think we'll be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) TFA

I got a note on my talk page about Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) being scheduled and unscheduled for TFA. I was thinking we could save it for the 50th anniversary of its chart debut on May 20, 2017.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, and will defer scheduling it for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I happened to notice that the blurb for today's article removes a redlink, so I had a look in the archives of this talk page and found this, which tells me this has been discussed before. I'd be interested to know why redlinks aren't included on the main page -- I think redlinks are a good way to engage new editors, though I know not everyone shares that view. Is there a discussion of this in more detail in the archives somewhere? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Deathrow

Just got a notice that Deathrow (video game) will be up for TFA on July 23rd, but I had left a note on the talk page that I would prefer for it to run on its anniversary in 2017. Please replace it with another? – czar 20:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@TFA coordinators @Brianboulton – czar 17:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Personally, I think that marking the anniversaries of the release of video games is a meaningless gesture – I doubt the significance is apparent to anyone other than the main editor of the article. But as you did leave your note some time back, and I failed to see it, I will do as you suggest and replace it. There can of course be no guarantee that the date in question – 18 October 2017 – will be available when you come to nominate this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow

Can't believe u guys missed the chance to put that nice FP for Trinity. That would have attracted such a huge traffic. Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/Archive_7&oldid=1151014515"