Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Old FAs

Hey Raul, I have taken the liberty of making a list of the FAs that were not on the Main Page as of August 18, 2004 and have still not been there, and are still listed. I sincerely hope you are giving priority to these.

-- Earl Andrew - talk 05:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know people like to have recent FAs on the front page, but can we recognise some more of these old ones too, please? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Banging my drum again, but there are now lists of the featured articles by date promoted, also listing if (and when) they were on the front page: see, for example, Wikipedia:Featured_articles_nominated_in_2003. The older ones surely deserve their day in the sun. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
And again - go on, some of these deserve it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If Roy Orbison is any indication of quality, I think this proposed approach to "dealing with the old" is problematic, as FA quality and standards have apparently improved significantly in a short time (even, in certain subject areas, over the last few weeks). That's certainly been the case from my personal observation of specific articles, and the comments of others from here and there (e.g. WP:FAC, WP:FARC) would seem to support this view. I'll try to take a look at other articles in this list, but for me, at present quite active in FAC, the practical requirements of FAC seem to be multiplying. Almost identical work is required not only in FAC, but TFA, FARC/reviewing current FAs, and Peer Review. This kind of undercuts the perceived value of working on FAC, when substandard FAs are simultaneously appearing on the Main Page, and there are likely dozens, maybe hundreds more waiting in the FA collection... ("Comprehensiveness", as interpreted a reasonably acute and/or knowledgeable-on-the-topic reader/FAC reviewer, seems to be the main issue with old FAs, with writing quality coming in second...)
Also, a bad Main Page article can put more stress on the FAC system, by creating precedent that encourages lower quality nominations. This is particularly...bad with pop culture stuff, like recent songs and artists, because writing "encyclopedia articles" for many of these simply hasn't been done before, so FAs are often the only examples to go by...).
Another way to put this, if I want to work on improving FAs, should I focus my efforts on FARC before FAC? --Tsavage 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Given the number of people who read and contribute to WP:FAC, your individual contribution would probably have more effect if you concentrated on reviewing old FAs and nominated the poor ones on WP:FARC or WP:FAR. It has to be said that some of these old FAs still compare well - for example, I think Order of the Thistle would pass FAC today, which shows how valuable Emsworth's contribution has been.
Good places to start would be the older entries in the Featured log, and Taxman's list of featured articles with possible references problems. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, my last was a mainly rhetorical question. Put another way, is it more useful to bail water (remove existing bad FAs), or to plug the leaks (FAC process ensuring more bad FAs don't get through)? I'd rather plug leaks, and that also seems to be most useful, as the "bad FAs" will remain more or less static (subject, of course, to ever-improving standards), and the ship doesn't seem to be sinking. ;) From my recent experience, I don't think "given the number of people who read and contribute to WP:FAC" means another pair of eyeballs is not needed. In fact, I haven't nearly found myself simply going with the majority on each of the FAC I've commented on, therefore, perhaps my input is not redundant. I believe the Main Page FA is really the thing we are discussing here. As for that, ensuring that only currently valid FAs make it to Main Page sounds like a reasonable goal... Thanks for the feedback! --Tsavage 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What is meant by placing requests at the top of the page, in other words, how do I nominate an article?AndonicO 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)AndonicO


Question

Would it be helpful to suggest both a minimum and a maximum character (or word) limit for the description on the Main Page? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Older Requests

I think this page should be split into two parts, with the second part having old and yet-to-be-featured-on-the-Main-Page article requests that have not appeared on the Main Page in the last six months. Most of these are requests that have not been accepted (and probably will never be) depending on various reasons. The reason behind this suggestion is that this page is bloating in size, and splitting would certainly help. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that an older request hasn't been main paged yet necessarily means that the article will never be main paged. As I understand it, the list of FAs deemed unsuitable for the main page by the FA director is rather small. (I'd still rather do away with the whole system altogether; I don't think there's anyone who doesn't want an FA he or she worked on to be placed on the main page . . . . ) — BrianSmithson 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree this page is getting bloated. I don't think splitting it is a good idea (it's just one more thing for me to pay attention to, in fact, and anything that makes my workload heavier is an inherently evil thing). If anyone has an idea about how to tackle the increasing page size without adding to my workload, I'm all ears. Raul654 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps splitting it in two sections: the first, with FAs requesting to be featured in a particular date, and another for FAs without no particular date in mind? That kills the problem of "dated" articles getting lost in the rest of the requests.
As for making the page smaller, per se, the only thing I can think of is of using the evil {{hidden}} hack. Titoxd(?!?) 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Besides the obvious general and date specific requests, I think this is useful to allow feedback by other editors on requests which can range from simple support or opposition to improvement of the article lead (i.e. the recent Stephen Colbert and Macedonia articles). It also seems it would help Raul to already have a modified lead for at least some articles chosen for the Main Page. Would it be possible to just have the article names and comments here, with the proposed modified leads linked but on a separate page (similar to the separate semi-automated peer reviews on WP:PR)? This would be work to set up, but would keep all the requests together in one less bloated place, and once set up, nominators could put their requests in both places. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This page may be helpful

Articles that have not been on the main page

What's going on?

I noticed that an article I added to the request list, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. has been removed from the list without being added to "this month's queue." Am I missing something? MLilburne 10:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A number of articles have been removed by user Bole2. I don't know why. I was under the impression that only the "Featured Article Director" (Raul654) could schedule articles. If I were you I would ask Bole2 what's going on. If you don't get a reasonable answer, either revert or talk to Raul about it. Hesperian 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article which have or are going to appear on the main page should be removed. Buc 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that it's going to appear on the main page? As far as I can tell it hasn't yet been scheduled. MLilburne 14:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies you are correct. Either Raul had second thoughts about it being on the main page or it was vandalisem. Buc 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check to see whether the other articles you removed have actually been scheduled or not. MLilburne 14:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The imageless Aaron Sorkin article

It's been brought to my attention that an article does not go up on the main page without an image. Is there a precedent in which an article did go up without an image? It might be a good idea to start a policy in which articles that don't have free use images of the person in question have an image in it's place that says so. Something along the lines of "Free use photo not yet available" to highlight the problem. Could such an image be used for the Aaron Sorkin article?-BiancaOfHell 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, an article won't be on the main page if it doesn't have a picture that can be used. I went ahead and found a Flickr user willing to donate an image, so that won't be an issue for the Aaron Sorkin article now. ShadowHalo 18:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, amazing. so the process works. Did you talk to the Flickr user and they agreed? I'll have to check Flickr from now on. Your experience should be chronicled somewhere so that others (like myself) can learn from this.-BiancaOfHell 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much. I asked the user if she would be willing to release it under a free license, noting that she would probably be cropped out of it. She asked if it was possible to be attributed, and so I explained how attribution is usually done at Wikipedia and that it was required by the license, so she released it freely. A lot of the free images I've uploaded have been done that way, though some were already free. ShadowHalo 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Main Page request}} adaptation?

I see the requests section has recently been divided into chronologically-ordered date-specific requests and non date-specific requests. While the latter have no problem because their title heading is exactly the same as the article's title, the former are modified with the addition of the date between brackets. In this case, the template {{Main Page request}} cannot link to the article's request sub-section because the title isn't the same. So, I think the template coding has to be adapted, no? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer that that template not be used. Raul654 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? 195.99.247.27 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, it adds more cruft to the top of article talk pages, which is something I have been trying very hard to remove. For another, I WILL NOT be maintaining that tag, so unless someone else is going to be removing it in an organized fashion, it's going to end up on lots of article that are not FAs, or that have already run on the main page, 'etc. Raul654 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like this new layout. I suggests that articles with date requests are somehow superior. Buc 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I just counted and of the 31 articles with a date, only six (The Simpsons, Minnesota, Calvin Coolidge, Maximus the Confessor, Sasha (DJ), and Countdown (game show)) actually mention the date in the proposed lede for display on the main page. I did not bother to read all the articles to see if the date is mentioned in them, but for just over 80% the date requested is not something obvious to someone just reading the main page lede. To me this is another reason to get rid of the date in the request header itself - article name only should be fine. Ruhrfisch 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since main page FAs aren't advertised as anniversary articles in the first place, I don't see the harm in suggesting a date that isn't mentioned in either the intro or the article. Somehow I doubt this puts undue pressure on Raul. Everyone respects his choices anyway.
Peter Isotalo 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I also rather don't like this template. I just removed it from Triceratops, which is already scheduled. Also, it's obviously copied from the FAC template and uses some code that is only needed to address a problem with some FAC submissions. TFA got along for a few years without this, so I'm wondering why it is needed now? Gimmetrow 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't like it either; another unnecessary template cluttering talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I discovered {{Main Page request}}'s existence, I created {{Mainpage date requested}} to compliment {{Mainpage date to come}} and {{Mainpage date}}. It works perfect for dated requests (ie. See Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins). But I don't know how to integrate undated requests into it. Thoughts?
* I should also note that the date has to be in a cetain format in the header (ie. The Smashing Pumpkins (July 7)) -- Reaper X 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the below discussion, I've deleted both of these templates. They are more talk page clutter, and they contribute to the ongoing problem of excessive or pointless date requesting. Raul654 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah. That was what brought me to this page in the first place! Mystery solved. Now I can settle down for a nice long read... Carcharoth 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Help...?

When I try to split the suggested intro for medieval cuisine into two paragraphs the way I want it, it refused to behave. It just sticking together into one big paragraph. What's the Hell is going on...?

Peter Isotalo 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem with my intro for Aaron Sorkin, that is on the page one tab over. It seems to work for some intros to articles, but not others.-BillDeanCarter 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Try putting the closing </div> tags on a new line, separated from the text body.
Worked like a dandy. Thanks.
Peter Isotalo 08:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridge Route?

Can Ridge Route be put on the main page (obviously through the proper process on this page), or is it exempt because it has already been there? It was demoted at the end of February and promoted a month later. --NE2 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already been on the main page, so I do not think it should go there again. Raul654 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Old FAs

I am curious about whether any articles have been designated as not suitable for Main page exposure. I went through 2003 FA Promotions and 2004 FA Promotions and added strike through tags to all WP:FFAs. Below are the remaining TFA eligible FAs with {{ArticleHistory}} tags showing 2003 and 2004 promotion dates. If they are suitable, is there any reason why none of these have been on the main page?

List moved to Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/amendment_proposal due to length.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what methodology you used, but you missed quite a few FFAs. Since your work is incomplete, it would be better IMO if you'd revert the strikes in archive. Further, several of the list above are currently at FAR, Lesch-Nyhan thankfully has not requested mainpage because it's dismally undercited, etc. I plan to FAR Quantum computer ASAP; it's a wreck. And so on ...SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A few of these lack a main page picture (William N. Page, Presuppositional apologitecs), but for the most part, no, I don't have any reason not to feature this on the main page. "If they are suitable, is there any reason why none of these have been on the main page" - Stochastic effects. I make no effort to select older FAs for the main page, so the pool from which they are chosen will inevitably have a few that have been there longer than most. Raul654 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The algorythm I used was to look at 2003 FA Promotions and 2004 FA Promotions and check the discussion pages of each article without a main page date. Where did I go wrong? I.E., when you say I missed quite a few FFAs, could you be more specific. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What you did wrong is you're only striking in archives FFAs that meet your mainpage definition; you're not striking all FFAs, and a lot of the articles you *didn't* strike in archives are no longer Featured articles. Hence, 2003 FA Promotions, 2004 FA Promotions and Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2005 are now incorrect listings of FAs and FFAs; archives are now inacccurate. Also, I wish you would unstrike those and revert your work, because I track FFA's all over the place, and I don't intend to keep up with the strikes in archives. It muddies the water and creates yet another maintenance chore, which if not kept up to date, can confuse future editors. You have left the archives incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the more I think about it, if you don't revert your changes to archives (and unless no one disagrees), I will revert them. We don't need to track FFAs in yet another place, this will create additional future work, and confuse future editors. Archives track promotions; demotions are listed at FFA. Further, do you plan to stay on top of every re-promoted FFA? Because that is a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't notice the intent of the pages was for FFAs to be struck through. This is stated in the introduction to the pages I am going through. How will it confuse editors to strike through articles as the intro says? Does it confuse you? I am merely following the instructions in the intro. It is fairly easy to remove the <s> tags. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, it's easy to remove them. I would like to remove them because you are the only one who has added them, so the archives are now inaccurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, pages like Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2005 are not really archives. They were created for and used by WP:WBFAN, and I've left a note at User:Rick Block. Gimmetrow 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Gimmetrow; then I'll leave it to Rick. If he's the only one who uses it, hopefully it won't be a problem as long as he knows the strikethroughs are not complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
They are not complete in the sense that I only checked FAs that have not been made TFAs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me that you don't want the strikethroughs. I concede many people may have looked at the page and not added strikethroughs. If you want to undo what I have done go ahead. I don't understand why. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your other question on my talk page: none of Emsworth's articles are cited; Filiocht is no longer active and I doubt that his friends want to fight the vandalism his articles will get on the mainpage (ask them); Presuppositional apologetics is currently at FAR and Quantum computer will be soon; Action potential and Lesch are undercited and need to be FAR'd; Angmering is actively working on citing his articles and I'm sure he wouldn't want it on the main page now (ask him); Mav knows his articles need to be cited and is working on them; and so on. In other words, the list above has problems. With a large enough pool of FAs to choose from for the main page, I don't understand why you're doing this work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone suggested a list of old FAs some time ago (er, sometime in 2005 - see here) to appear on the main page - the most obvious ones from the old list still remaining are Order of the Thistle and Quatermass and the Pit, I think - but, as SandyGeorgia says, many of the older ones are not entirely up to "modern" standards (some are just plain bad; other just need a bit of spit and polish). The most obvious "fault" for the older ones is the dearth of inline citations, although we have been arguing for years about how serious a "fault" that is for relatively uncontentious articles like John Bull (locomotive) or Matthew Brettingham or Reginald Maudling. But, for exampe, Parliament Acts had a recent User:Yomangani-fication, so should be fine. I am sure User:Filiocht's friends would be quite touched to see one of his fine articles on the Main Page. There are plenty of vandal-hunters out there. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the notes column if any of you have particular explanations about any individual article. I expect to get through Aug 2005 today and complete 2005 on Wed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, can you possibly move that lengthy list above to a subpage somewhere if you plan to keep growing it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will move it to the TFA/R proposal page since it is related to that topic. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Better, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

At the time I created the by-year lists (Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003, etc.) there were very few FFAs that had nomination histories. There are significantly more now (at least dozens). I haven't updated these lists to indicate FFAs in any organized sort of way (and haven't updated mainpage appearance dates in quite a long time). As far as I know, the main use for these lists is as input to WP:WBFAN, which doesn't use the strikethrough as an indication of FFA vs. FA status (the script that creates the WBFAN list reads WP:FFA and considers any articles it finds there as FFA). So, my impression is the strikethroughs that Tony is adding is simply helping (although doing anything manually with the thousand or so FAs and the several hundred FFAs is a major pain). The by-year lists can be easily parsed, so it would not be difficult to write another script to read them and produce modified versions indicating FFAs (using strikethroughs or font color or anything anyone would like) based on WP:FFA. If anyone thinks this would be useful I'd be willing to do this (eventually).

Other than WP:FA and WP:FFA (and the by-year lists and WBFAN), is there anywhere else featured and former featured articles are tracked? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. By the way, is your script handling the re-promoted FFAs at the bottom of the FFA list, who have new authors (different usually than the original author)? You can check by looking if Yomangani is the author on Platypus, for example. If you're only using the by-year lists for generating WBFAN, I'm fine with whatever Tony does with it (although I still think the strikethroughs are going to confuse someone someday, since they won't be accurate and up to date, and that will probably end up in my lap :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The script does handle repromotions (WBFAN should have two stars, one for the original nom and one for the renom - Worldtraveller has two for Hubble Space Telescope for this reason, which confuses some folks). In the repromotion case, both stars are blue (not rust), because articles are considered featured unless they're in FFA (but not in the repromotion list at the bottom). Note that this means neither nomination should be in a strikethrough font (i.e. strikethrough means this article is currently a former featured, rather than sometime after this promotion it became a former featured). If I write a script to update the strikethroughs, I could run it once a month (or so) so the strikethroughs would be kept up to date. BTW - if there's anything repetitive you do that might be automatable (not just "bot"-able) we should talk. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In the repromotion case, both stars are blue (not rust), because articles are considered featured unless they're in FFA (but not in the repromotion list at the bottom). IMO, it's a mistake to show a demoted FA (FFA) as an FA in the by nominator lists. Often, FAs are demoted and re-promoted by another author; the original author no longer has an FA in that case. Can this be fixed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(sorry, originally missed this comment) FFAs don't show up as FA in the by nominator lists (unless they've been repromoted). In the demote and repromote case, the original nominator did (at one point) successfully nominate the article. It's not a huge deal to me, but it seems kind of rude to want to forget that this happened because the article degraded or standards changed enough such that the article was demoted. If you really feel strongly about this, I'd suggest moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm becoming more confused by this conversation by the moment; it's morphing faster than I can keep up with :-)) I thought it was only a matter of whether the star was blue or rust, so I'm not following your comment above at all. We're not forgetting any of the FFAs, just showing them as rust rather than blue, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WBFAN

It is probably worth noting that WP:WBFAN allocates FAs to the person who successfully nominated an article at FAC, not the person who wrote it (for example, I did not "write" Simon Byrne, Buckingham Palace, 1755 Lisbon earthquake, League of Nations, Tony Blair, or John Vanbrugh). In any case, there many FAs don't have one single "primary" author. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, ALoan. I don't think I've authored a single article I've nominated, although I've worked on all the ones I've nominated. I have a feeling this phenomenon has become common as there are more group collaborations than there were even last year at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added cross-checking to the script that generates the WBFAN list. Current anomalies are listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/anomalies. I suspect most of the last set (nomination history but neither FA or FFA) are articles that have been moved to new names since they were nominated (I'll investigate these - in all likelihood each one is also listed as either an FA or FFA without a nomination history). To fix these, I'll make the article name in the by-year nomination lists match the article name in FA or FFA. If anyone wants to help with this, feel free. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like case insensitivity would narrow that list. -Ravedave 03:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It would, but article names are actually case sensitive. In any event, I have a script that cross checks a by-year list against WP:FA and WP:FFA. I've run the 2003 list against this and fixed all the anomalies except Pumping lemma and Provinces of Thailand (see User talk:Raul654#An FA curiosity). Doing this I've updated Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003 to indicate all the FFAs in strikethrough font. I'll do 2004-2007 in the next few days. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I am glad you have a script. I was going to do it manually over the next week or so. Will your script handle the repromoted FARs? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the script handles repromoted FARs. What it does is create a new copy of one of the by-year lists by looking for each article in either WP:FA or WP:FFA. If the article is in WP:FFA the script puts it in strkethrough font. If the article is in neither FA or FFA, the script highlights the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
For example, this edit marking 48 articles as FFAs replaces the 2005 list with the output of the script. Everything in this list that's in WP:FFA is now marked in strikethrough font, and if it's not marked in strikethrough font it's in WP:FA. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The by-year lists have now been fully updated with regard to FA vs. FFA status (all FFAs in these lists are in strikethrough font). The anomalies listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/anomalies have been pruned accordingly. If anyone is interested in chasing down where the FAs and FFAs in the anomalies list came from, that'd be great (I do not intend to do this). I may attempt to write a script to update the mainpage date for the articles in the by-year lists. The last time I thought about this it didn't look overly easy (suggestions welcome). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As of today, they're out of date. Again, my concern is that these lists will confuse someone down the road unless someone intends to keep up with the daily changes, removing any demotions, and unstriking any re-promoted FFAs. There's more margin for error and confusion when we have lists in multiple places. We already have FA, FFA and each of their corresponding kept, removed, promoted, and archived archives, so this is now a seventh summary of FA promotions and demotions to be kept up with. What I can do is to fix your entire anomolies list (I now know where to find all the pieces), but I don't understand it. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Representative peer and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Order of the Garter SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The only way to make them current on a daily basis would be to run a bot that updates them, well, daily (or turn them into "special:" pages, which seems absurd to me). As far as I know, there are only three ways they can be out of date:
  1. A new FA is promoted (this means the current year's by-year list is mssing an entry). I update them roughly monthly. If the current month is missing I think it's pretty obvious what the issue is.
  2. A current FA is demoted (so some historic entry should be in strikethrough font but isn't). Monthly updates means this "problem" persists for at most a month, and on average 15 days (or so).
  3. A current FFA is repromoted (so some historic entry in strikethrough font shouldn't be, and the renomination is missing). Again, monthly updates means the problem persists for an average of about 15 days.
Per the exchange on my talk page, the very recently promoted ones show up as anomalies because several days elapsed between updating the by-year lists and running the script that generates WBFAN (which now produces an anomalies list). Backing up a bit, the only reason I created the by-year lists is to have parsable input to be able to generate WBFAN. If keeping track of FA vs. FFA in these lists is too onerous I'm fine with not doing it. Backing up more, I think all of this argues for more automation in the promotion and demotion processes. I really think we ought to consider writing a bot for Mark to run when he promotes an article (that could be extended to do pretty much whatever anyone wants) and another bot for whoever it is who decides to demote an article to run when an article is demoted. Doing any manual updates in response to either of these actions is kind of dumb since computers are really good bookkeepers. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be GimmeBot, and the work Gimmetrow has done to create ArticleHistory templates :-) It works on the FAC and FAR archives as FACs are promoted/archived and FARs are kept/demoted. That's why I'm worried about this extra list. I have an idea that should work for both of us; how about if you just put a big note at the top of these lists created only for WBFAN, explaining exactly what they are and that they aren't maintained regularly, and redirecting people to the actual FA and FFA pages and archives ? That will assuage my concern about confusion over these lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I take mild umbrage at your suggestion these aren't maintained regularly. Monthly is certainly regularly - it is more often than the site's search index used to be updated (for example). The lists already link to the actual FA archives. And you do mean WP:LINK and not WP:REDIRECT (right?). Last I heard, Mark doesn't run GimmeBot, so there's a delay between promotion/demotion and what it does (which is actually significant, since a FAC doesn't look closed until after GimmeBot runs, which means comments can be entered at FACs after the article has been promoted [I've actually done this]). How about if I talk to Gimmetrow about adding some more code to GimmeBot (and Mark again, about him running it), and if Gimmetrow won't or can't extend its functionality then we can add whatever disclaimer you'd like. Of course, it's a wiki, so you can add whatever disclaimer you'd like anytime you'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I figured out a reasonable way to do this, and have updated the by year lists to include main page appearance dates. I can (trivially) generate lists like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/2004/List by date for 2005-2007 if anyone's interested. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Great work. I was wondering about human error. I noticed many FAs had wrong promotion dates in their {{ArticleHistory}} templates or omitted main page dates from the yearly lists. Does either of these types of errors cause you problems. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
When the articlehistory template was introduced (before most of it was handled by a bot), there was confusion about which date to use. Some of the tags, therefore, may use the data the article was nominated, instead of the date the nom was closed. Raul654 06:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The yearly lists are current with respect to mainpage appearance dates (as of a couple of days ago). These lists are not updated daily, but can be updated much more frequently (since I now have a tool to do the updates). Like my suggestion above regarding promoting/demoting FAs, I've suggested elsewhere that daily updates could be done by a site-wide daily bot with a list of tasks that could be extended. Updating the mainpage appearance dates in the by-year lists could be added to the daily bot's task list, but we don't currently have such a thing (or, rather, we have many such things that are done independently by a variety of folks running separate bots and if any of these folks stop running their bots the tasks the bots do stop being done until somebody notices and adds the "no longer done thing" to their bot's tasklist). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We have a bot that maintains FAC and FAR archives, updates talk page templates, and closes FACs and FARs. You have created a separate list that is doing functions beyond promoting and demoting featured articles. That's why I'm concerned about the potential for confusion from creating a separate, "extra-official" archive, apart from the FAC and FAR archives which are handled by GimmeBot/Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Does "we" mean Gimmetrow or do you also run GimmeBot or do you mean en.wikipedia? As far as I know, the only things that are actually official are WP:FA and WP:FFA. "You" (corresponding to whatever "we" you meant) have unofficially added talk page templates to the mix, and in the process have convinced Mark to trust GimmeBot to do the FAC archive updates (which, as I note above, has introduced a window between promotion and FAC closure, which I'm concerned about). The by-year lists and WBFAN are exactly equivalent to, and are exactly as "official" as, the talk page notes and the {{featured article}} template (i.e. not). If "we" are going to claim GimmeBot is official, then its source needs to be posted (which would provide a way to extend its functionality) and it should be running on a host supported and maintained by WMF (what happens if Gimmetrow "quits"?). This probably sounds like I'm arguing, which is not the intent. I think automation is a good thing. However, you (or Gimmetrow) don't WP:OWN talk page updates any more than I do. Similarly, I don't own the by-year lists or WBFAN any more than you do. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(below)

<deindent> Rick, whatever ya'll (you=those who speak "bot", "script" and the like — I don't) do with bots and such isn't the issue I'm trying to address. My point is that we (we=Wikipedia editors) now have another file to keep track of — a potential source of confusion — and I (at least) don't intend to keep up with the strikes for demotions and unstrikes for re-promotions on yet another archive file, when that info is already tracked at FA, FFA, and their archives not to mention User Feature Historian. The discussion started because Tony began striking articles, but the job wasn't complete. I'm sorry if my point seems to have been extended beyond what I'm trying to say. GimmeBot was intended to make Raul's, Marskell's, Joelr31's and FAC/FAR nominators' work easier; it has. I'm sure, as always, that Gimmetrow will be willing to do anything he can to simplify processes. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here? If Rick wants to process the FAC/FAR archives for use with WBFAN, I don't see a problem. I also don't see a problem with this so-called "window", since discussions were never marked as closed or with a result before. If it's really a problem, it's easy enough to stop marking them and go back to how it was. Gimmetrow 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually ... I'm not really sure anymore :-) I started out only saying I didn't want to keep track of the same data in more than one place, but I'm not too clear on what the discussion is about anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FACs nominated here

I reverted the addition of an FAC (not yet an FA), on the assumption it creates more work for Raul654 to have to sort out articles that aren't FA yet.[1] My removal was reverted. I believe we'll have a very confusing situation if we allow a precedent that FACs are nominated for today's featured article. There are often 70 or 80 FACs; it will be a chore to sort out if we have them all nominated for today's featured article before promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't nominate an article that couldn't be an FA by the time I requested, and I would remove my nomination if (somehow) the article failed FAC. There's no criteria either way; and since the Request page started out as a Talk page, I'm assuming that any discussion/suggestions are allowed. Raul has the final say; just because I've stuck it here doesn't mean my suggestion has any authority. As for the precedent (at least, my past noms), I can only find this for now. The histories on these request pages are scattered everywhere. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:20Z
    • Yes, Raul has the last word, but we have to remember that if you can do it, so can the other 70 to 80 FACs, and that could become unmanageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a discussion page. You have no authority in removing other people's comments from discussion pages. You also have no basis for your removal of an FAC that can definitely be an FA by the time of the requested date. What criteria are you citing in removing my suggestion from a discussion page? I've cited precedence (both the fact that this page used to be at a Talk page, meaning you don't just go around deleting other people's suggestions) and the fact that it has been accepted in the past. So, are you denying precedence, or citing other unnamed criteria? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:23Z
        • Generally, non FA's are always immediate removed by Raul and/or others. *This* is a talk page, the FA nom page isn't, and frivolous requests for non-FAs have been removed from there many times. (that's also a better precedence, rather than a non-FA nom that gone unnoticed). Thanks. --Ragib 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Brian, three editors have questioned your addition, and Raul has been consulted. You've reverted twice. Do you really want to edit war over something that will be resolved shortly? The intent of WP:3RR is to prevent *any* edit warring; not to excuse three reverts without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • First, it takes two to edit war. Second, 3 > 1 is not a valid argument. What is your criteria for removal? Ganging up on one user to support a baseless removal, rather than actually discussing the matter may solve the problem for now, but it'll happen again. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:33Z
          • And you've now reverted three good faith edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Those reverts were in response to your deletions of my good faith suggestion on a discussion page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:34Z
            • I don't think it's likely to happen again, unless Raul wants it to happen; I've never seen it happen before, and your interpretation of the page seems somewhat unique. It's not a talk page. The idea is that Raul shouldn't have to sort through 80 FACs to schedule the main page. What is the urgency, anyway? Raul will weigh in soon enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm fine with Raul's response, but I figured that since it would be featured by the time Raul even noticed my entry, I don't see wha the problem is. The page started out as a talk page, and the precedent was set then. Why should everything change just because someone decided to move it to its own page for clarity? No policies, guidelines, or criteria have been decided. It's still a discussion page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:44Z
                • I think the problem is clear; if you can do it, so can 80 other FACs, and that creates an unmanageable task for Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Since when does Raul even have to get involved? I nominated it, and it will be featured before Raul has to think about it; if somehow it's not featured, I'll remove the request. As for your "80 other FACs", there's no evidence that's the case. I've done this in the past successfully, and there still aren't "80 other FACs" on the request page, so clearly your slippery slope argument isn't accurate. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:53Z
  • As I was the one that noted the article's status, I apologize for any resulting confusion. By the way, Harry Potter, also requested, is also not an FA, and not even an FAC. I'd remove it myself, but if it should be discussed first, here goes. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd note that it's not even in FAC, and not likely to be featured by the requested date. That's a different situation from Atheism though. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 17:54Z

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, Brian, please list only featured articles on this page. The chances that I'll make a mistake and put a non-featured article on the main page will go up dramatically if people start adding non-featured articles here. Raul654 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It'll be featured (or removed from the requests page if not featured) before you even notice it; that's my point. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:19Z

Let's clear up the wording at the top of the page then; I inserted the word "featured" once, and Brian reverted it. Someone should tighten up the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see the reason to make a restriction when it's not necessary. My FAC will either be an FA or removed from the requests before Raul could select it for the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:28Z
    • The need is so that others won't make the same mistake you made, leading to the potential for mistakes, as mentioned by Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I made a mistake? Where? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:41Z
        • No, Raul might. Raul does not necessarily use the suggested dates. If he sees an article listed, and doesn't realize it's not FA, he might mistakenly schedule it for main page next week. Gimmetrow 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • When has he done this in the past? Has he really selected an article over a month out of sequence, skipping all the non-date requests in favor of using a future date request early? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:45Z
            • Many times. And, he sorts through the articles often as he's trying to plan (not just on the day he announces scheduled dates); filling the page up with non-FAs just gives him more to sort through and makes his job harder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
              • First, I'm not filling the page up with non-FAs. I've only nominated one. Second, can you be more specific than "many times"? You're actually saying he's selected an article dated for a month in the future, and skipped over every non-dated request that was in line before that, for no stated reason? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:53Z
            • Yes, that's more or less what I'm stating. Gimmetrow 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Can you link me to some evidence of this? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:04Z
            • Is that necessary? Can't you trust us on this one? (Digging up diffs would be a bit tedious as this page gets tons of edits.) Gimmetrow 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I've provided links (which took me a while to dig up). Why can't you do the same? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:34Z

I have been watching this page for several months (I have an FA article nominated on it). There are usually several articles a month that are not FA but are nominated (or less frequently that have allready been on the Main Page and are thus ineleigible to appear again). They are all removed pretty quickly. The rule is simple - only FA articles that have not already been on the Main Page can be nominated. FAC is not FA (don't count your chickens before they hatch). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Were these past examples FAC's that could have been an FA well before the date requested? Where is this "rule" you speak of, and how did a discussion page come to have such rules (granted, it's a discussion page that was moved from the Talk namespace, but it was only moved so that WT:TFA could be used for other purposes). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 19:03Z
    • Seredipity raises its lovely head - here's a diff of just such a revert [2] from a few minutes ago. They are usually just people who nominate an article without bothering to check if it is FA (or if it is FA, if it has apready appeared on the Main Page). It is called today's Featured article, so it has to be featured to get on the page of requests. I don't know of any rule, besides the obvious (FA only) and the fact that the decision about what is featured and what is on the Main Page rests with Raul (who does a difficult job very well). As for article requests here, History of Michigan State University has been on this page since March of 2006. It is not like the butcher's, where you get in line and appear on the Main Page in the order you entered the line / took a number. Hope this clears things up for you, Ruhrfisch 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • As I said, Harry Potter isn't even FAC, so it's not related. Also, I was asking for precedence, not a reversion done by someone after seeing the discussion here. You've been watching this page for the past several months; what "several articles a month" are you referring to? Can you name them? The rest of your argument is based merely on the title of the page and your interpretation of it, not on any policy/guidelines/criteria. I can easily counter that by saying that by June 7th, it will be a Featured Article, and on that day, it will be today's featured article. The only rule I'm aware of is that the article on the main page under "TFA" has to be a Featured Article. There is no such rule for a discussion page; especially for an article that will be featured by the time of the requested date. As for History of Michigan State University, I'm not sure what part of my reply requested that you supply a non-date nom that's been sitting on the request page for a long time.... I requested that you supply a dated nom that wasn't featured on it's requested date, but instead skipped other non-dated noms to be featured sooner; this was the gist of SandyGeorgia's statement... but still no evidence. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:22Z
        • Well, IMHO, you still can't say it will be FA June 7th—what you can do is make a very reasonable assumption that it will be, since it has apparently garnered more than enough support for promotion, but I still think your statement is jumping the gun a bit. If there is no "rule" stating that only already promoted FAs may be nominated for TFA, then fine; but "practically an FA due to overwhelming support" is still not the same as "promoted to FA on day X, let's put it on the Main Page". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • It will be featured by June 7th. If it's not, I will remove the suggestion from this page (obviously). But it will be featured before then, as all my previous FAC's have been by their requested dates. I never said it's "practically an FA due to overwhelming support". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:51Z
        • How can you counter by saying on June 7th it will be today's featured article, when the final decision is made by Raul? How can you ignore Harry Potter by giving the reason, it is not even an FAC, when your nom is not even an FA? Is it impossible for Harry Potter or for even a one-line stub to become today's featured article after listing in the requests page? Why are they not allowed? A stub or a GA or an FAC - all these belong to same category, that is, non-FA. The logic for making TFA request is consistent and must always be consistent, and it is only for FAs and certainly not for non-FAs, irrespective of whether that article is FAC or likely to be promoted or a one-line stub. Thanks, - KNM Talk 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note 4 reverts by User:Brian0918. Breaking 3RR is not a good practice. I've placed a 3RR note on his talk page. Thanks. --Ragib 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I only count 3. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:11Z
  1. [3]
  2. [4]
  3. [5]
  4. [6]

Here you go. Thanks. --Ragib 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You seem to misunderstand 3RR. It only applies to reverting the same content over and over again. Tangential discussions/reversions have never been counted toward the total. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:16Z
    • No, you are wrong. Every reversion is counted toward the total. Reverts need not be over the same content. Each and every undo-ing of other editor's edits, is counted as a revert. So, you have clearly violated WP:3RR in this case. - KNM Talk 22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You should revisit WP:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F and read it. I assume as an admin, you had to learn the policies. By no means is your edit warring justifiable. Thanks. --Ragib 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit any page they want and slightly modify policy; that doesn't make it historically true (policy, after all, is based on history, not on what a given page says at a given time). 3RR has never been considered a tally per page, only per block of text. Otherwise half the editors of Atheism should be blocked because of how we constructively revert eachothers edits while suggesting new edits. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:20Z
You DID revert, not "slightly-modify", in the middle of the edit war. To re-interpret 3RR, visit the appropriate talk page. Thanks. --Ragib 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to re-interpret anything. 3RR has never meant what someone has (temporarily) modified the page to say it means. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:27Z
Since you disagree about this, I suggest you raise this point at the 3RR report I filed about this. Thank you. --Ragib 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
So you're not happy with the dispute being settled by Raul's decision (which I'll of course agree to, since nobody but him has the final say)? You would also prefer I be blocked for my ignorance of every slight wording change to WP:3RR? This could've been settled by simply discussing the matter. Nobody needed to revert my suggestion, but they did, again, and again, and again, and again. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:42Z
Please raise the issue at the ANB/3RR, and at other places where WP:3RR policy discussions take place. Thank you. --Ragib 22:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You needlessly escalated a closed matter. But, Raul654 understands that it's a closed matter, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:52Z

Post-Raul's decision

All right, it looks like Raul has had his final say, and I'll stand by that. I didn't appreciate being gang banged though. Edit warring, whether by one individual, or by 4, serves nothing. When Atheism is finally Featured, I may decide to nominate it for December 25th instead, which of course is the 7th anniversary of the death of W.V. Quine, the great philosopher who forwarded several atheistic philosophies, and the 365th birthday of Isaac Newton. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:27Z

Could this page just be a list?

Given that Raul generally rewrites the intros, and often doesn't follow the suggested dates, the submission template for this page is largely shrubbery. Can that be done away with?

Which leads to a more radical suggestion. I suspect Raul doesn't make significant use of any info on this page that isn't found in the Table of Contents, namely the list of articles and *suggestions* for dates. Could this page be simplified to just that - a list of feautured articles that the authors or maintainers consider ready for the main page? See also this and this. Gimmetrow 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • When has Raul not followed the suggestions for dates? Often? Can you link some diffs? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 20:32Z
Fine, I looked for edits by Raul to the page, and found a couple shrubberies for you:
  • April 2 Raul selected Germany for April 7, had been requested for June 6-8.
  • Feb 11, Raul selected Oriel College for February 24, had been requested for April 24.
  • Feb 11, Raul selected Shadow of the Colossus for February 22, had been requested for October 18.
Satisfied? Gimmetrow 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:56Z

Historically, I do try to use the suggestions, but it's getting to the point where there are way, way, way too many of them. In fact, I'm generally not happy with how this page is set up. I've been liking it less and less since the (IMO) very bad decision to split it into two halves - one for date-specific requests and one for general ones. Raul654 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool idea, but something else bothers me. Why are people writing support for an article they nominated? I go down the line of articles and see things along the line of "support because I nominated it" and "support for this date." This would be fine, but I didn't find any real opposes. Why bother supporting then? To show how many people worked on a particular article? To state the implied? I'm slightly confused. Maybe a list would be better.--Clyde (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
i propose to (a) go back to the pre-split version of the page, as this page is supposed to help raul654 and not hinder him, and (b) remove all "votes" from all requests as per "this is not a vote" at the top of the page to discourage people from doing it and make the page a bit more navigable. 82.2.135.14 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this page is basically for Raul I'd say we chance it to whatever he wants. Buc 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead a turn it into a list. And while I'm at it remove all vote comments. Buc 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the thumb-sized images? Where do we specify those? It's nice that the list seems shorter, but we still need a place to specify those images, and perhaps see how the whole thing looks like with the images.--Endroit 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Such a major change should first be discussed in detail and I certainly can't see any consensus here that the page should be turned into a list. -- EnemyOfTheState
I also wonder how useful the condensed introduction is / was. It seems to me that Raul or whoever now has to generate the intro for each article from the lead section (whereas before there was at least an intro in place to start from). If the suggested intros are not here, is there someplace else they could be available for interested parties? Each article's talk page perhaps? Ruhrfisch 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I tried changing it but it seems 82.2.136.124 want to keep it the way it is. So how about we have a vote on it? Buc 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Opposed — I'm sorry to say this, Bole2/Buc, but you have totally ignored the other editors in this discussion. First of all, I asked you above, "What about the thumb-sized images?" Anyways, therefore I'm "opposed" to your ideas at this point.--Endroit 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reslize you were addressing me specifically. User talk pages are better for things like that. Buc 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for TFA

Hi everyone. I've been editing for only a few months (I think my first edit was November or December 2006) and still think of myself as a New Wikipedian. I began editing with one goal in mind - to get a particular article to FA status - a goal that was achieved in February. I guess I've become a Wiki-addict though because now I do find myself working on other articles.:-) In the meantime, I did nominate my first endeavor for TFA and have been waiting patiently (and hoping). The recent discussions on this page and the discussion on the FA page are interesting as I try to increase my understanding of how it all works. In the 2 months since I nominated my article for TFA, I've seen nominations that have come later selected...and I've been wondering if Raul has some kind of criteria or formula (city, country, biography, movie, etc.) for TFA selections. I guess what I'm really asking for is reassurance that my article has as good a chance as the next TFA nomination. I mean, if my nomination is sitting in the queue a year from now, can I pretty much assumne it will never be selected? Is there a maximum amount of months a nomination can sit in the queue? Thanks in advance for any light that can be shed on this for me. Kmzundel 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Certain subjects take longer to get to the main page than others. We have relatively few math articles, so those tend to go up on the main page relatively quickly after promotion. Music, media, and war (being that we have quite a lot of them) tend to take longer. See User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#Some_articles_get_there_faster_than_others Raul654 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Raul. Your thoughts have provided more understanding and reassurance. Kmzundel 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/tampering?

I dind't support this article but I notced when I commented on Bill Russell there were 4-5 supports which have since been removed and only my oppose remains. See before:[7] and look at it now. My vote is the ony one there now, something fishy is going on here. Aaron Bowen 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

as per the top of the page, THIS PAGE IS NOT A VOTE. so dont vote please. Anything along the lines of "support, great article" or "oppose, rubbish article" will be deleted. constructive comments/discussion are ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.123.52 (talk • contribs)

This must be the person who deleted all the comments. Aaron Bowen 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorder chronollogically

What was the purpose of doing that? You place something at the top, you're going to reasonably expect it will remain there for a while for people to see. Marskell 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought that's how it was supposed to be done, to make it easier for Raul to see which dates are requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 14:03Z

as raul654 stated above, "I've been liking it less and less since the (IMO) very bad decision to split it into two halves - one for date-specific requests and one for general ones". now that the split has been removed, i'm not sure if it still makes sense to "reorder chronologically".

If we've done the date re-ordering regularly, no problem. If we haven't done this regularly, we should wait for more comments and Raul's input. My reason for reverting was pretty pedestrian: I had just nominated one, and I wanted it to hang around at the top of the page for a while to see if it would get comments. I posted, and 24 hrs later it had been shuffled to number 51. No fun :(. Like any meta process, I think it's fair if things get moved down/shuffled off organically. Raul can easily keep track of dates looking at the TOC. And I don't dispute that re-combining the date request makes sense. Marskell 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer that requests here are left in the order in which they are made. Not only is it less work for all involved, but it makes it easier for me to give priority to the older ones. Raul654 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Date requests seem a bit redundant

A few months ago I noticed Eurovision Song Contest was a FA that had not yet appeared on the main page. So I thought it would be a good idea to request it appear there on the day of the 2007 contest. Hence I placed an appropriate date request on here. It was on there on for about 6 months, so assuming he checks this page regularly he must have seen it. However initially Raul selected a different article for the requested date. I first I thought he simply different want to put it on there since it would after all have been two music article in a week. How after dropping him a note on his talk page Raul immediately compiled with my request. Which begs the question, was there really any point to placing a date request on this page?

So here’s my idea, remove all date requests from this page and instead inform people that if they have a specific date in mind to drop Raul a note on his talk page when it comes close to that time. Buc 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Update My piont has been prooved by the latest selections. Three articles where requested for the 16th, one for the 15th and one for the 19th. Not one of them has been selected. Buc 07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discontinuing the use of this page

In the last 8 days, I've gotten 9 seperate threads on my talk page asking why didn't I schedule X article for Y date. It's getting to the point where every time I schedule main page articles, I get a bunch of requests on my talk page asking if I could change my decision about a certain date, and reschedule, etc. It's DRIVING ME CRAZY, and I've reached my tipping point. The cause of these problems is clearly this page. Unless someone presents a really compelling case for keeping it, I'm going to be shutting down this page very soon. Raul654 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggested above making the page a simple list. My issue is that even if an article passes FAC, the editors may still wish to add/edit some aspects before it hits the main page. One of the more notable examples is The KLF, where the editors took another three months after FAC to get it ready. I think it's useful to have a list of those articles that the article editors feel is ready. The list could be headed by a strong disclaimer that any suggested dates are just suggestions, and if they don't happen don't complain.
Since you generally take the lead section of the article rather than whatever suggested text is here, that should go. The suggested image should be simply linked, possibly just inline. A bulleted list of articles with inline linked image and a suggested date, no voting, no comments, and entirely advisory. Would that work? Gimmetrow 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
as 99.9% of featured articles are "articles that the article editors feel is ready", it would be more economical and efficient to just use this page to BLACKLIST those articles that are NOT ready. 86.27.115.144 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Some editors may be overly enthusiastic, but "99.9%" is extreme. Articles certainly do pass FAC with deficiencies that the editors still plan to address. Gimmetrow 17:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
99.9%, 99%, 90%, the point is the same: this page becomes far easier to manage when it only lists blacklisted articles instead of whitelisted articles. 86.27.115.144 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Raul, how about sharing the duties with other people? If you don't think you can handle the job (and I certainly think it is inappropriate to give the whole job to one person in the first place), might I suggest you allow the community to rethink the idea of having one person control the TFA process. This page is a wonderful way to allow input of other people as to which article goes onto the main page, and shutting it down would only make your job more autocratic. People leaving messages on your talk page is not the problem of this page, it's a logistical error in the fact that one person is controlling the day-to-day scheduling of a humongous duty. └Jared┘┌t┐  17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to myself, I don't see any problems with users going ahead and scheduling things themselves (i.e. directly placing the content for a specific day right into that day's template). If they see that there is an article that they would like to put in on a certain date, they do it, or ask an admin to do it for them. People, like Raul, who frequent the pages would be able to do a last look at the Templates for that week to ensure that there is a good image and everything is the way it should be. Other than that, I don't see why there is a need for one person to do this job by himself. └Jared┘┌t┐  17:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Request denied. The problem isn't having one person do it - the problem is having multiple mutually contradictory requests, having to schedule and resechedule the same dates over and over again, 'etc. In short, the problem is that there are too many articles chasing too few main page spots. "Let's let everyone fight it out over them" is guaranteed to make the problem worse, not better. Raul654 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The anon's suggestion, making this page into a blacklist, is thought provoking. I don't particularly like it (the number of cases of an article not ready to go on the main page is *very* rare and I like to keep it that way. Having a formal list would only encourage it), but it's the kind of outside-the-box thinking I'm looking for. Raul654 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there is sufficient notice on the talk page of an article of the date it will be featured on the main page, any objections to that can then be addressed on your talk page, i.e. if an article is not felt to be ready, which, like you said, would be rare. So I don't see a problem with discontinuing this request process. Cricket02 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If this page is discontinued, wouldn't it cause more people to pester Raul654 at his talk page? He'll still get people asking for specific dates, plus he'll get people complaining that their articles aren't ready. Epbr123 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was just going to say. By disallowing people the correct place to discuss the possibilities of a TFA, they will be more likely to ask on your talkpage Raul. This certainly wouldn't solve anything, unless what you are hoping to do by doing this is to gain more power in the TFA field. └Jared┘┌t┐  18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to doing away with this. I've said before it was a complete waste of my time filling in the template. However, this page ought to have some use to Raul - why did you create this page initially? Was it to keep the date requests off your talk page? Perhaps the date requests could be merged into the FAC process along with a strong disclaimer that they may very well not be honored. What do you think would be helpful, Raul? If nothing is going to help you, then this process is pointless. Quite frequently, I find FAs that are passable but not ideal. Personally, if I were one of the article authors I wouldn't want such an article on the main page, but it appears I'm in the minority on this. Gimmetrow 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Some years ago, I created Wikipedia:Today's featured article, and people started using its talk page to make requests. I initially created this page simply so they'd stop using that talk page.
The problem, as I see it, is that requesting a date has become too common. It's almost a de-facto next-step in the FA process. When people don't get their request, they complain - to the point of me getting more than one message per day about it. I don't mind taking requests, provided there aren't an overwhelming number of them. Raul654 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
A find/replace shows 886 of a current 1393 have been on the mainpage. If we stopped promoting right now, we could run two per day for 250 days. Perhaps a main FA in the form we have now and a small box for a minor FA. I know some people get twisted about this, but the video games etc. could go to the small box.
Throwing open the dates to anybody is a very bad idea. Marskell 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is that? As long as the pages are protected, only admins could edit the pages. All the user who wants a page for that day would have to do is put the suggestion on the talk page, and an admin will do it. What makes this job so difficult or so confusing that one person has to do it himself? If that one person then admits that he is overwhelmed by all the requests, then obviously all those people who are requesting or asking questions are not getting answers back, and I feel the system and those who use it now are at a loss because of a lack of response. Seriously, I don't know how to say this in any other way but the blatant "Raul should not be the sole TFA/FA coordinator." └Jared┘┌t┐  19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll respond to that. The issue is that the date requests are not the only factor in scheduling. In addition, we want a mix of topics and geographic connections, so we don't have three articles in a row on English soccer teams. That means the sequence of articles, and what has been on the main page in the week or so before and after, play a rather large factor. Apparently, editors need to be made more aware of the relatively small role that their own date preferences play in the process. Gimmetrow 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
They don't respond because the reasons are blatantly obvious. Throwing open the doors to everyone means there is no central quality control, that we could easily end up with 10 US related articles in a row, or a half-dozen biographies, or sports articles. The write ups would not be consistent from day to day, the "last 3 FAs" would probably be incorrect since people would not be filling them in in order. And that doesn't even mention the edit warring that would occur. So, are those enough obvious consequences of your bad idea? Raul654 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That settled, is two worth thinking about? Marskell 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Other processes (like the collaboration of the week) which have bifurcated their work have found the end result to be disasterous. For this reason, I am against having multiple featured articles for any given day. Raul654 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd had that thought. At the same time, part of why people shoot for an FA is because they know they can get their work read by hundreds and at least glanced at by tens of thousands. So I dunno. If the number that have not been mainpaged continues to pile up the notes on your talk page are only going to get worse. Marskell 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think preventing people altogether from requesting dates would not be a good thing. So if this page is to close, I think a replacement system would need to be arranged first. Epbr123 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, from what I see, there are two purposes for this page. The first one is the requests themselves, and the second one is to double-check the blurbs. So, perhaps splitting this page into two would work? The first page would be a calendar-like page (similar in format to the calendars used by the Birthday Committee), where one can list FAs for consideration (with the caveat that they may be disregarded at will). The second purpose could be addressed by this page.
That said, there are a bunch of "don't forget me"-type of requests. Those could be dealt with as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I like that suggestions, as it mixes the ideas of both mine and the current one. Users can freely put into place the FAs that they want, in clear view of the other ones for that month/year, and then they can discuss previous decisions on another page, with the final decision left up to a group of people (note: group) who will then ensure that everything for the next, say, week is up to snuff and ready to go onto the main page. I think this is a fair compromise. └Jared┘┌t┐  20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
(In reply to Jared's already rejected idea) No, for the same reasons already noted above. Raul654 20:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
(In reply to Titoxd) I'm not sure I like the idea of creating another request page when the purpose of this thread was to shut down the one already have that isn't working right. Raul654 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to think of ways to fix this page, as removing it would mean that your orange bar of death would never turn off. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Raul; I don't understand how this page could be making your job more difficult. It suggests articles, dates, and Main Page summaries. It would seem the only thing you have to do is copy the summary (presuming it's reasonable) to the appropriate template, protect it, and move on. You obviously cannot fulfill every request, particularly when two (or three) requests are made for the same date, but the reason people complain is that it sometimes looks like you're not even taking the time to look at the date requests (i.e. for May 16, when you didn't choose any of the three articles requested for that date). If you're not going to look at the date requests, then yes, this page ought to be abolished; they just give people false hopes. If you don't have the time to take care of the featured articles, share the responsibility. But alas, you have refused to do that on multiple occasions. And thus, I cannot have any sympathy for you, pending a compelling explanation. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, there was a time not too long ago that people were content to have their promoted, and with the understanding that it would eventually be on the main page. There was no need to make a seperate request. I want to go back to that way of doing things. Raul654 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that what's best for wikipedia though? Epbr123 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A Thought: I just want to point out that under the guidance of (a few) people, Template talk:Did you know runs quite well, with people dropping in their ideas, it getting shunted to the main page. While FAs would only be one to a page, I'm sure this would still be less painful if we restructure TFA to such a modicum. David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And to respond to myself, since I know Raul's gonna say no, honestly, if you want to shut it down, why don't you just let an admin or 'crat who wants to keep this alive do what he wants? If you're getting annoyed with it all, I'm sure there would be others willing to take your place. David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
DYK has a massive throughput - 15 to 20 (or more) articles are picked per day, with three of four updates every 24 hours. The workload needs to be spread. Similarly, ITN is updated on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps SA and the featured picture are the nearest analogues, although SA also has multiple entries. How do they work?
TFA picks one article per day - clearly that is rather an important choice. I suspect it would be chaos if anyone could do it (and it was tending to be chaos before Raul654 started to do it). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support shutting this page down. Buc 21:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Oh dear - the idea of the requests page was to avoid Raul654 having to deal with the stream of messages on his talk page requesting him to consider an article for the main page. Now that stream seems to have been replaced by another stream asking him why he has not picked an article for the date requested. (I rather suspect, incidentally, that simply deleting this page would revive the original problem, so some sort of replacement will be necessary if it goes. The requests used to be made at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article until it was moved to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article and then Raul654 created the current requests subpage last May.)

Perhaps we need to decentralise this, and put articles with an expressed date preference elsewhere? People could list here articles with no date preference, but, say, a subpage could be created for each date, where the articles requested for that date could be added - that is, aset of draft TFAs running in parallel to the live ones? So, for example, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2007 would contain the actual Main Page blurb, but suggestions could be made at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2007/requests. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Raul may be figuring this wrong—his talk page will likely be flooded if this page ceases to be. "Believe it or not, there was a time not too long ago that people were content to have their promoted, and with the understanding that it would eventually be on the main page." But people have no assurance it will be on the main page anymore because we're producing more than one per day; note the FA stats are deceptive because it's promotions less FARC. We actually promote more than forty a month (and then we had that weird spike in February).
Perhaps we need to frame it this way: how can we assure people that their successful FAC will get some exposure somewhere on the main page even if not as the TFA? Marskell 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I admit that I am operating off the premise that most of the people requesting on this page won't go to my talk page to request one if this page was eliminated. I further admit the possibility that this presumption is in error, but I think on the whole, I'm right - that the requests here are simply a being done in a de-facto manner. Raul654 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The best option so far (besides eliminating this page outright) is one I suggested a while back - to eliminate the date request part. People would be strictly prohibited from requesting a particular date. That way, people can request articles, but the whole premise of "I didn't get my date" becomes a moot point. So far, I beyond eliminating this page netirely, this is the option I like best. Raul654 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've observed the problem, and think it's the result of an out-of-control notion that certain articles must be featured on certain days. I also don't think the process should be decentralized, as that would result in more problems. I suggest the page should eliminate the date requests, and it should be simply spelled out, very clearly, that articles go on the main page when they go, period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Surely that is essentially the same as shutting the page down? If the assumption is that every FA appears on the main page at some point, why list it as a request if you can't request a date? The only point of having the page would then be to request that an FA not be listed, requests that it would appear would be few and far between (although if we're invoking ownership you can stick any of mine in that category as I'm indifferent to them appearing on the main page again, most will have been there in DYK in a former life). What about just highlighting it as a point of etiquette on this page not to complain to Raul654 if he doesn't select your article for a requested date, or not to expect an answer if you do? Yomanganitalk 00:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Two things: some articles don't feel ready for the mainpage, and wait to request until they are; and some articles never request main page. The request page allows Raul to select those that have put themselves forward as ready. We just need to lose the date request option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone suggested about a year ago that the whole process of main page requests be rethought based on the assumption that pretty much all FA authors want their articles to be placed on the main page. With that in mind, having a requests page at all is redundant. Instead, the proposal went, the requests page should be reserved for people to request that an FA not be put on the main page. This could be for the reasons given by the anon above (the article is not felt ready yet), or it could be for folks to note when they'll be out of town and won't be able to monitor the article for vandalism and nonhelpful changes. Why not adopt this approach now? — Brian (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(To the comment above the one above.) But don't you think there should be some sort of theme to it all? I mean, wouldn't it make sense to have The Star-Spangled Banner appear on July 4 or Victory over Japan Day appear on August 14? I mean, certainly it's not always going to be themed, and not always will a themed article get its day, but shouldn't the premise of being able to request article be that they should appear on a certain day that somehow signifies that article? If Raul is complaining that he's getting too much spam on his page, then it's a problem with the system and that needs to be fixed by getting others involved in the process. A central page where users can leave requests and their opinions is key for both ends of the request process, so that no one person is singled out for any problems that may arise. I think we're trying too hard to make a cursory fix to a major underlying problem. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should have a featured article for a date based on a themed occasion, but that's up to Raul. The problem is when users "demand" a specific date from Raul, and are ignorant to the fact that their FA article is one of thousands. I've also seen many users request dates only because its their birthday, which I believe is highly inappropriate. I think "requesting dates" should be banned, although "suggesting" a day on a specific theme can be made with the nomination, however it cannot be binding to Raul's decision in any form. Raul has stated his procedures in selecting FAs to the main page, especially avoiding repeating themes in consecutive days. Requests or suggestions should help, not hamper this procedures. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Raul is being too limited in his options for fixing this "problem" (again, not sure what this problem is). Eliminating date requests is a good idea if they are largely ignored (and that seems to be the case, given the volume of complaints Raul has recently been getting). However, I would caution against making changes (such as doing away with this page altogether) simply for the sake of stifling objections to the process. If the job of FA director really were making Raul "very tired", I'd expect him to be more open to letting the many willing people help alleviate the pressure. As an aside to Jared, to ask a person in power "Do you at all at any point feel that you are being given too much power?" is rather... uh... odd; of course Raul was not going to say "no". If you were to ask me though... -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with having 'themed' TFAs, I think User:SandyGeorgia has hit the nail on the head. People seem to think it's necessary to nominate any article for a specific date. The rationales for having a particular article on a certain date are usually reasonable, if not a little tenuous, but in many cases it just doesn't seem obvious or necessary to make that suggestion. On the other hand, bear in mind also that some articles are pushed to featured status with an eye to getting on the main page on a particular date - I know that happened with Cricket World Cup, which was TFA on the day the tournament started.
I don't believe that removing this page altogether will help Raul out - if anything, I would expect the requests just to pop up again elsewhere. This page also makes the whole TFA process look a lot less like a one-man job (which judging by some of the comments, some people are unhappy with). Instead, reform is necessary. The bottom line is that requesting dates adds another variable into the already complex task of balancing the sequence of TFAs. It seems to me therefore that the best way to cut this out is to outlaw asking for dates on this page, and make it clear that taking it to Raul's talk page is also unacceptable. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I support the before idea, but if dates are kept, I think many people don't realize that there is another year their article could be picked for, or they could change the date they want. Since Raul seems to be sick of people being angry that their article isn't picked on the day they wanted, maybe we could add to the black obnoxious header something like "Please don't complain to Raul. You get what you get." or "Please don't put a date unless it is absolutely necessary."--Clyde (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So if a person cannot request dates, then this page is pretty much moot because eventually almost all articles will become TFA'd anyway. Not being able to talk to Raul about it as well ensures that there is absolutely 0 input from the community. Thus, this would make the process more of a one-person job, which would be fine, but we're talking about an important part of day-to-day Wikipedia activities. I think a rethinking of this whole process is in order, and I'm glad we're hashing this out here now. └Jared┘┌t┐  00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jared here. I understand the need for variety in topics, etc, etc, but the volume of complaints (and Raul's increasing frustration) appear to stem from the decreasing fulfillment of the date requests even for dates when only one item is requested. Perhaps a better solution would be to accept more of the date requests, thereby giving the community more say in when articles make it onto the Main Page (and thereby decreasing the number of complaints on your talk page). -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer Jared, I don't think this page is useless without requesting dates, since I believe not all FA articles will reach the main page in their current status. Some articles may still need work in updating current information or fixing dead references, among other issues. This page should be a "whitelist" as was mentioned before, where users can suggest FA articles that have recently been reviewed and approved, whether formally or informally, by one user or by collaborations, as ready to be TFA'd. Otherwise, Raul's talk page would be inundated with requests, or he would have to comb through the featured content pages, review the article, make corrections where appropriate, etc. etc. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the current requests, only two or three have clashing dates. Epbr123 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Right. And for some reason, the final straw for Raul was my question on his talk page asking why he didn't choose any of three items requested for May 16. -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember that 'requested date' is not the only factor in choosing TFA. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that; I was expecting Raul to reply with an explanation, not this. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another factor

Just to add another factor, the TFA-request template is a recent development (January?) which probably has the effect of advertising the TFA/R page, and encouraging people to request specific dates. Would sending that to TfD help? Gimmetrow 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That thing is just more talk page clutter !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

I think Raul does a thankless job well (thanks Raul). Part of what seems to be happening lately is that people see the date request option and try to find any possible connection to an upcoming date to get their article on the Main Page sooner rather than later. On March 31 (see above) I looked at requests and only 6 of 31 requests for specific dates actually mentioned the dates in the article lead paragraphs shown in their request. What if users could only request a date if that date were already mentioned in the lead paragraphs shown? This would eliminate most trivial date requests, while still allowing the appropriate ones (like Eurovison recently).

As long as you are changing the list, what if the requests page were revamped and a more detailed header were at the top that explained the process in detail. What if it said almost all featured articles will eventually be on the Main Page, and explains the rationale of spacing them out (geographic and topic diversity). There could be a link to the list of FAs that have not yet been on the Main Page and an explanation that about half the Main Page selections will come from these requests and the rest come from this list (this seems to be what happens, adjust the ratios if they are wrong). The explanation of a date request being in the lead paragraphs could be in the header, as well as a reminder that even a date request is no guarantee of being on the Main Page on that or any date.

Next the request list itself could be changed. If the suggested lead paragraphs help, keep them. If not, just a list of articles is OK. I do know some suggested lead paragraphs have been improved from comments based on the requests. Seeing the photos is also helpful. I think the chronological list is useful if for no other reason that it makes requesters realize you can wait a long time to get your request on the main page (History of Michigan State University, anyone?). Bottom line, since the decision rests with Raul, keep the parts of the list that help him (and if possible the process). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best that we not require that the requested date be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Even Eurovision Song Contest does not mention May 12 in the intro. And May 13's featured article was clearly meant to coincide with Mother's Day, although the date was not mentioned in the intro. People at this point in time are free to add date requests, but it's still not very overwhelming (except perhaps to Raul); few dates have multiple requests and those items that don't have a date attached are (presumably) assumed to mean "use this whenever you get the chance, whenever there exists no viable date-requested item". -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, May 13th's TFA (Baby Gender Mentor) was never requested here that I can see. I had missed Eurovision not mentioning the date, thanks. Perhaps the date requested could be metioned in the lead paragraphs or could tie in to a major, well-publicized event (like Eurovision or some major sporting events, but not "my birthday"). I do note that Minnesota (May 11) did mention the date in the lead. Ruhrfisch 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there need to be classifications of some sorts for TFA. There are "please, please, please, feature this tomorrow" requests that will likely be ignored, and there's the "Hey, I got this featured a year ago... mind putting it on the Main Page sometime?" requests that may or may not be useful. (I don't know if Raul finds them useful, so that's why I have the "may or may not" there.) Raul has mentioned resource starvation in reference to TFA previously, so there needs to be a place (ideally not Raul's talk page) where requests should be centralized... but at the same time, there need to be priority classifications to go along that page as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My point was more the current page does not do a very good job of informing requesters of the ins and outs of the process, so the more information at the top (I think) the better (in terms of letting people know that just because they ask for their birthday doesn't mean they will get it, etc.). Until fairly recently, it did not even say the articles had to be FA (not FAC, see the discussion above, which was only solved by Raul putting that info at the top of the page in bold print). Ruhrfisch 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul is right; reviewing his talk page shows that this date request thingie is spinning out of control. We should either eliminate it entirely, or put some strong wording at the top of the page to discourage specific dates. The idea that an article should be featured on some anniversary date is strange to me anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of control? In what way? What is so wrong about asking why date requests are ignored in lieu of articles with no date request attached? Sure, he's got a frequently asked questions page, but I (and I'm sure others) are seriously turned off by what appears to be Raul's "don't bother me" attitude. The idea that responding to a few talk page comments a week is tiring (but not to the point where one is willing to enlist help) is incomprehensible. -- tariqabjotu 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I just went and counted. Out of the 18 articles I've scheduled for this month, 13 of them (72%) were there by direct request (some were date-specific, some were not). The others (Scottish Parliament Building, Rhodes Blood libel, mars, Cell nucleus, 35 mm film) I put there to add variety. That is the purpose of the job, after all. So your implication - that I'm ignoring the requests - is transparently false and I'll thank you to stop repeating it. Raul654 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So your implication - that I'm ignoring the requests - is transparently false and I'll thank you to stop repeating it. No, it's not transparently false; in fact, it's transparently true. The reason you are getting so many comments on your talk page is that you ignore date requests. You suggested that I meant that you ignore date requests for no reason whatsoever, whereas I really meant you merely ignore date requests for some reason. That for some reason is what many of the people on your talk page want to find out. In fact, many of the comments on your talk page are not requests to change the queue at all (as has been implied many times here), but merely simple questions as to your rationale for choosing one article over the date-requested other ([8], [9], [10], [11], etc.) The people asking about TFA on your talk page have, for the most part, been polite. But instead of getting a similarly cordial explanation or response in return, many have been merely dismissed and directed to this post and ensuing discussion, which says we're "DRIVING [YOU] CRAZY". Seriously, Raul, it's insulting. And I am especially insulted, because I apparently am the one who drove you over the brink. Could you imagine if I responded to a manageable nine threads in eight days like that? -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason you are getting so many comments on your talk page is that you ignore date requests. - False. The reason I am getting so many requests is, and Sandy has already stated, that people have started to believe that they are entitled to a particular date. The reason they have begun to think this is because of the existence of this page.
You suggested that I meant that you ignore date requests for no reason whatsoever, whereas I really meant you merely ignore date requests for some reason. - No, actually I said you are wrong for saying I ignore date requests, which by your own admission, is what you were doing. And again, your claims are obviously false. (1) If I schedule requested article X, and then someone else shows up and asks why I picked X instead of requested article Y, that doesn't mean I've ignored Y - it means I've chosen a different request. Looking at my talk page, this applies to the following threads: Gilberto Silva, Indian historical articles, Japan, for "Today's featured article", threads. There is a HUGE backlog of dateless requests, after all. I'm not going to give absolute priority to dated ones, or everyone will simply start requested dates, and which will only magnify the problem. (2) And if someone goes there to ask if I'm going to schedule article Z for some future yet-unselected date, that doesn't mean I've ignored the request. (threads: Mother's Day (May 13) Main page, Eurovision Song, Ellis Paul, Ohio Wesleyan). (3) If someone goes there to complain that an article has been sitting in the queue a long time (Everton F.C. thread), that doesn't mean I've ignored the request - some of them *have* to sit in the queue a long time. That's the nature of a quueue. Nor has there ever been a guarentee that requests will be serviced in order. While I do make an effort to service them in order, that is not a guarantee. In short, you are saying I'm ignoring broad categories of requests when it is plainly obvious that this is not the case. Raul654 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the dictionary definition of ignore does not match my intended usage of ignore. I attempted to clarify what I meant in my previous statement, but judging by your second response above, I see that was not successful. How about pass over date requests? Does that work? Geez; quit drilling me into the ground over semantics. -- tariqabjotu 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In short, you are saying I'm ignoring broad categories of requests... No, I never said that. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In what way? There are many other factors at play in choosing the main page article; these requests are turning into entitled assumptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong is that these date requests are generally of low value to the encyclopedia, and distract from the main issue of keeping the main page content fresh and diverse. For instance, three star wars movies are currently requested for mid-May dates. But we last featured a star wars movie in February; these requests are in contradiction of our desire to keep the main page fresh and diverse. And they are of very little value, since the date being commemorated (e.g., the release date of SW: Attack of the Clones) is not one that anybody is aware of or cares about. Following themes sometimes makes sense, like an American independence figure on July 4th, but it rarely adds anything to our product. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I see here, there is a problem in that Raul agrees that he is "driven crazy" by the fact that innocent users are contacting him in order to just clarify a request, and yet he habitually asserts that he is fine doing the duty himself, and that in order to fix the problem, we just block out the voice of the community even more. This seems to blatently contradict WP:CON, whereby everyone should try as hard as possible to collaborate to get things done. The way I see it, we as a community strive to push out the best quality articles, but the process by which they are featured to the millions of people who visit this page is not a process at all, but a choice by one person who admits that he does not strive to do what everyone wants 100% of the time. There is some sort of accountability issue here, because it seems like there are people who try so hard to make an article the best possible, and all it gets at TFA is a slap in the face and a reference to the fact that Raul gets too many requests.

I fully agree with Tariqabjotu's comments above, and would hope that others, too, see that one person controlling the TFA process is against policy, demeaning to the community, inhibits the overall quality of the "process," and just plain makes no sense. I would urge Raul to give up his duty as the sole TFA scheduler in lieu of a more broad and all-encompassing system. I understand that he has done a lot for the project, and I commend his efforts, but both he and I know that he is not able to give his undivided attention to all requests, comments, questions, and issues revolving around the TFA "process." └Jared┘┌t┐  21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A new proposal

Nothing invested in this; feel free to rip it up, but hopefully this idea will kill all the following birds with one stone.

Problems/issues:

  1. The average number of new featured articles promoted during November – April was 60 per month. Thus, we are promoting twice as many articles as we can feature on the main page. (This does not account for delistings at WP:FAR; many of them have already been on the main page anyway.)
  2. A higher rate of promotion is desirable; anything we can do to encourage promotions is A Good Thing.
  3. Featured articles are not proportional by topic; some WikiProjects and areas are relatively stronger or weaker than others, resulting in under or over-representation of some topic areas. Yet, Raul can't feature exclusively hurricanes, battles, and rugby players on the main page — variety is a goal.
  4. Main page date requests are making it hard to schedule the main page, considering all the other factors that must be considered.

It might be helpful to have a mechanism to feature more than one article on the main page, while encouraging more featured articles, solving the date request dilemma, and allowing for variety in Today's featured article.

My idea is that we run two sections:

  • Today's featured article would continue as it was in the past, subject to Raul attempting to schedule it for variety across topics, without the possibility of date requests. Articles which sign up for that queue do not request a specific date, and they take what they get.
  • We run a separate Featured event section, which allows a second vehicle for getting more articles on the main page, will hopefully encourage more promotions, and will address the date issue. This is different than the Anniversary section, in that it would include only featured content. It would be subject to the following:
  1. An article only goes in one queue. If you're in the Featured event cue, you're not also in the queue for Today's featured article. If you don't get your date, then you move to the Today's featured article queue, or choose another date, but no listing in both queues.
  2. If there aren't enough featured events allowing for a new article each day, some events can run longer than a day (for example, World Cup Soccer, things like that, which are not one-day events). This section need not change daily, as the daily featured article will already be providing the main page variety.
  3. If the system works, after a few months, featured lists or topics could also be considered for the Featured Event section.
  4. Talk page consensus can be used to remove, as always, inappropriate or pointy nominations (this issue came to light when its main editor suggested that he planned to request Christmas Day for atheism; we shouldn't be making political, religious or other statements via main page selection dates).
  5. If Raul has too many or too few in either section, he's free to ignore requests and use what he needs, to promote main page diversity.

I suspect if we carved out this kind of space for two featured articles, and made it clear that 1) ToFA requests do NOT include dates, and 2) it's still up to Raul - you get what you get - we could solve many problems at once. This might lessen the issues coming up on Raul's talk page, and free his time up to be able to schedule two articles per day (or less, as some featured events might run longer than a day), while providing additional motivation for writing featured content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in this idea, but would feel better if I could see a mockup of the Main Page that incorporated this suggestion. You probably also want to spell out what are and are not valid date associations (even as guidelines) to avoid the "it's my birthday" argument. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to put more work into the preliminary idea, unless Raul thinks it's feasible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but it's based on the premise that we can get more real estate on the main page. I don't think this is likely for two reasons - the main page is already pretty full, and getting people to accept a new section (which would, at least on its face, seem to conflict with selected anniversaries) is unlikely. Raul654 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be worth considering if we split our current "real estate" into two, by shortening our main page summaries? Just an idea — I still have nothing vested in it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead of splitting the real estate, why not split the time? In other words, why not have Featured articles be up for 12 hours instead of 24? Obviously the name would have to be changed from "Today's featured article" (or would it?). 8 hours or so works for DYK, but I wouldn't want less than 12 hours and more than 12 would be awkward. I don't know how much more work it would be though for Raul, and I agree he does a good job and do not want to make things harder for him. Ruhrfisch 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that would fly; someone would get short shift (night time hours), and less than 24 hours isn't enough time for the kind of changes that an article goes through on the main page. We'd be scrambling every 12 hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a very good attempt by Sandy to fix the problem, but I'll have to agree with the users above. There's obviously a lack of space, and this still wouldn't solve the problem about the date requests (which, without a doubt should stay, or atleast another system in which the people choose their own articles for the day). Splitting into two pieces would defeat the purpose of having a "featured article" because we would then have just a slew of info, not focusing on one thing. In short, good idea, but I'm not sure if it will work. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you could choose a time for changeover that would leave both slots with approximately equal audience. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the problem is so much that the articles wouldn't get equal exposure but rather that readers would not get equal access. I know that if one twelve-hour period coincided with 1:00am to 1:00pm (local time), I would not get much of a chance to see it, due to a combination of sleep and school. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, that problem is not one faced by experienced readers and editors, who know to look in archives, set up their own main page, etc. The Main Page is (or should be) for the casual reader and people who visit Wikipedia once a day to browse. As long as they see something, it doesn't matter what they miss. Carcharoth 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Make it clear they can't all be TFAed

The fact is that if we don't do some version of two per day we have to accept that close to 50% of promotions are never going to make it to the main page. The stats speak for themselves: net FAC increase is 35 to 40, while FAR consistently removes 15 to 20; that's a gross of about 55 per month, and thus 25 surplus. (Not sure if Sandy worked out more specific numbers.)

Perhaps one simple answer is just to announce at the top of the page Given space constraints, not all Featured Articles will appear on the main page and people have to lump it if there's doesn't make it. But then comments above indicate that this might discourage people from making FAs in the first place. Marskell 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

People get too hung up on Main Page exposure anyway. I'll repeat what I said above: "The Main Page is (or should be) for the casual reader and people who visit Wikipedia once a day to browse. As long as they see something, it doesn't matter what they miss." Those who want to look around for the entire list of featured content, or find featured content in a particular area, are catered for by archives and portals. What we need to do is accept the status quo (not all featured articles will make it onto the Main Page) and replace one carrot with another, ie. Make clear to those celebrating the featured article they helped write that all featured articles will eventually appear here (where ever here is), plus on CD and offline releases of Wikipedia, but that only some featured articles will appear on the Main Page. of course, the next question is "how do you chose which ones appear on the Main Page?" As long as Raul can satisfy people with his answer to that question, and the community backs him up, things will be fine.
A more radical alternative is to boot one of the current sections off the Main Page, either onto a subsidiary portal (or merge it with one of the other existing sections), and have two full-sized featured article sections on the Main Page. A full-scale Main Page redesign, however, would be a nightmare. Carcharoth 13:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking this through

If Raul thinks the current system's not working, then we need to take that extremely seriously. Here are my thoughts on five different systems:

  1. Clearly, any system which revolves around a request mechanism will lead to "why this not that" type messages cropping up on Raul's talk page. I think therefore that we cannot perpetuate a request-based system.
  2. Vote (or !vote) based systems are inappropriate because (to cite just one reason) we would see the most "popular" topics over-represented, which is not what today's featured article is about.
  3. A purely automated system will not work because (to cite just one reason) we could end up with (say) four articles in a row about medical science.

For those reasons, I think that there are only two possible systems that will work

a) Utter autocracy - Raul decides and that's that. No canvassing or solicitation for articles.
b) A TFA cabal, headed by Raul to help spread the load/expertise (and that way one or more member may be happy to be a conduit for requests)

As an aside, whichever road we go down, I have a simple suggestion. A "commented out" note at the very top of each FA article with a few suggested appropriate dates.

Final comment: I'm happy for Raul to select whatever route he likes and he has my absolute support... and thanks. He does a great job, for which he cops an unreasonable amount of flak. --Dweller 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I, too, think that Raul has done a tremendous job thus far because it is a tough job. But that is just the point; we are churning out so many FAs that the job is becoming too stressful for one person. Or even a handful of people anyway. This process needs to be more open, in that the only thing the 15-25 person cabal group would do is ensure that that date has an article that is not like any previous one. Other than that, the community should decide which articles go in which day, and any disputes that arise would be settled by a cabal member. It should be as simple as that. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a classic problem of scale -- a system that worked well when an organization (Wikipedia) was at a certain size, will not work as well when the organization is much larger. Unfortunately, the transition point (that we're going through now), when not properly planned for, can be a very painful process. My recommendation is to think about how the system should work when it's an order of magnitude larger, and then we can transition towards that goal. The task is obviously going to be more than one person can handle. I have the utmost respect for Raul's efforts here -- he stepped up to the plate and took on a volunteer job in the past, and he did it so well that it became a system that many people used. It's time to move to the next level now -- I recommend a group/committee decisionmaking process in the interim, with discussion moved off of Raul's talkpage to some other location, and with Raul maintaining veto power over the committee decisions. Would that work? --Elonka 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I liked that above, until the end when you said Raul would still have veto power. This is anti-Wiki. There should be no one user that is more important than any others. Sure, he should be revered higher, but certainly should not gain any privledges over any other committee members. I think, yes we should be moving from a single-person job, but we should be moving toward total community involvement. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, thanks, but no. The problem is not one of scaling, except in that one (unnecessary) negative outgrowth of it (the requests for certian articles on particular dates) is causing problems. As others above have said, eliminating the date requests would go a long way towards fixing the problem. Raul654 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments like this one above are precisely why I think the job needs to be spread around. Raul has done a good job, but the curt objections in response to reasonable suggestions to let others chip in are a sign of too much power. I don't have an especially serious issue with one person doing the job, but I wish that person would be nicer about it. -- tariqabjotu 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are conviently neglecting to mention that, when asked to explain those comments, I gave the reason in great detail, after which, everyone was satifised with the reasoning and dropped the issue. Raul654 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that the system, in its current state, is likely to suffer scale problems that make it impossible for one person to manage it. After all it is one article per day and will be so indefinitely. The current problem isn't one of scale, its one of a particular trend (requests for specific dates that are "meaningful" to an article) increasing to a level at which it disrupts the actual functioning of this process. I don't see that a committee structure would in any way fix this problem. (There is an impending process of scale, which Sandy points out above -- we are reaching a point where we have far more FAs available than mainpage slots. Thinking ahead about how to manage this problem would be useful, but I don't see that a committee structure would help the problem.) Christopher Parham (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly prefer it not to be a committee, but I think it is the next step in a logical progression toward a full community choice. If the community writes the articles, it is only fair for the whole community to promote them to the main page. One user who most of what he does is TFA/FA stuff should not be in charge of knowing what the community does and doesn't want. I would be moderately happy with a mid-sized group, though. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think people believe Raul's not doing a good job, then propose to eliminate the position. I think you would find the suggestion rejected thoroughly. The constant harping on the "unfairness" of the issue, however, is quickly growing wearisome. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The advantage of the current system is that articles such as the Eurovision Song Contest and the 2007 Cricket World Cup can be featured on their relevant days. The disadvantage is that Raul receives complaints a few times a week, which he can either ignore or reply to with a quick explaination. Epbr123 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Add Knights Templar to the list. This year, October 13, 2007 will be the 700-year anniversary of the famous events on Friday, October 13, 1307 with the Templar arrest. Shooting for that date really was a motivating factor for the team of editors that worked on that article. It's also something that's being used for word-of-mouth to other non-wiki friends, like, "Hey, check out the Wikipedia mainpage on October 13th, you'll see something I worked on!" If the article were to be featured on some other day than October 13th, it would be a major downer for the editors that worked on it. So I'd still like to see some mechanism that allows for date requests, rather than just a powerless sense of, "Well, it's in the queue. It might pop out in February, or December, you really have no idea." I agree that not every FA should necessarily get to pick a specific date, but some definitely do -- perhaps there should be more of a community review process, to help decide which articles do "have a case" for a date request? --Elonka 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with (to use your example) the Templar article running on the 700th anniversary. I have a problem with people creating dates for *every* article (most of which are really reaching) and then dropping notes on my talk page when I schedule the article for a date other than the one requested (as happened with Flag of Portugal) or when I pick something else for the date they requested. If anyone can devise a system that threads the needle, so to speak - allows requests but only in the few cases where they are highly relavant - I'm all ears. Raul654 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Create a buffer between yourself and the requests. Delegate initial decisions on accepting date requests to a community process, then made the final (few) decisions yourself. Delegate. Delegate. Delegate. :-) Carcharoth 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing I see common through the requests are for the articles main page presentation to coincide with commercial dates, things like release of next album, movie and sports events. While this may garnish some additional hit for wikipedia. What it does do is give the appearance of a commercial association these also attract more reaction when it doesnt occur. Maybe the process should draw up limitations on what acceptable date request things like the Knights Templar request would still occur do we really need to have a Simpson FA on the main page the day the movie is released, that said if Matt was to make a substancial donation to the foundation then if there is a suitable article.... Gnangarra 03:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
My suggestions 1) Add a clear concise explanation of the Main Page TFA selection process to the top of the page. Include the number of FAs that have not been on the Main Page yet, and update it every few months so people get some idea that it may be a long wait. Explain the goal of diversity / variety in articles selected, and note that (almost) all FAs are eligible to be on the Main Page once and that several each month will not come from the requests page (link to the list of featured articles that have not been on the Main Page). Use summary style and refer them to Raul's essay for more details. Also include what is already there about only FAs being requested, that it is not a vote, and that the final decision rests solely with Raul. 2) Have a brief "How to make a request" section with rules mentioned in the next sections laid out here. 3) Make the page a list of article titles (since Raul has said he rewrites the Main Page leads anyway). 4) Allow one or two suggested image(s) for the Main Page to be nominated (as wikilink(s)). Comment on image choice is OK. 5) Allow one (or two?) date(s) to be suggested. Make firm rules about dates - as I suggested above, the date should either be in the article lead when it was featured OR it should coincide with a major event of international appeal (Eurovision etc.). If you want to exclude movie premieres and album releases as valid dates, do so explicitly. 5) Allow one request per user (once their requested article is on the Main Page, they can request another). 6) If possible, allow one request per closely related topic (one Pokemon character, one Star Wars film, one version of a video game, one obscure creek in Pennsylvania ;-) ). 7) Any other rules for the good of the order - perhaps something about only 10% (or wahtever number it is) of date requests actually make it on the requested date. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
All sensible suggestions. In addition, make clear that suggested submissions/changes to the Main Page lead text and image should be done once the article enters the Main Page queue for the current month (that queue tends to be only a few days long). That focuses people's attention on the forthcoming appearance, and leaves Raul with only a few lead texts to discuss changes to (I think he tends to accept most sensible suggestions regarding wording of the lead text and image). There should also be somewhere for people to deposit Main Page lead texts if they want to write them - I suggest the talk page of the article, or a suitable subpage, and a link is added from this page (which would now be a list) to the suggested lead text subpage/section. Carcharoth 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some more thoughts

I just finished reading through the entire talk page... I have three points to make:

  • (1) Raul could (and maybe should) consider getting more people to help him out with stuff that needs doing. Unofficial clerks, or talking and co-ordinating more with people that do other stuff at the moment, or whatever. That might help. As the number of FAs jostling for position in the queue gets larger, there will be more people asking questions.
  • (2) There is too much emphasis placed on Main Page exposure of Featured Articles. Rather then try and get all featured articles appearing on the Main Page at some point, and trying to devise systems to have two articles appearing per day, why not just accept the inevitable: not all featured articles will appear on the Main Page. Instead, promote another page and try and drive traffic towards that (via some prominent link on the Main Page). A good example of this is the Wikipedia:Featured content page, which is a featured content portal in all but name. In some ways this does a similar job to the Main Page (which is essentially a portal as well), in that it increases exposure of featured content, and has the rather nice 'random content' feature. So why not promote this page more and direct some of the TFA queue over there or to where ever? Articles that appeared "over there" (and this request process could shift seamlessly to debating a queue for that page) would still be eligible to appear on the front page, and Raul simply goes back to choosing the TFA from the entire list of available FAs that haven't appeared yet (that list could be maintained by Raul, a bot, or the community, but the final choice would be Raul's). Effectively, I am arguing here for a "secondary portal" to handle overflow from the Main Page, but for now I think integrating excess FAs into the already-existing WP:FC would be the best option. Currently its 'featured article' section only includes articles that have previously appeared on the Main Page (I think, I'm not entirely clear how the setup at Template:FCpages works), but I suspect it could be tweaked to include all FAs, and not just previous TFAs.
  • (3) FA motivation. Some people mention that appearing on the Main Page is a motivation for writing featured articles. This is true, but the featured article process should be its own goal, quite separate from the Main Page. I've seen FAs degenerate as the primary editor loses interest, either as it takes a long time for the article to receive Main Page exposure, or indeed after the article has been featured on the Main Page. Also, the thing about FAs not being featured again after appearing in TFA can be a problem, as there is less motivation for editors to bring older FAs (that appeared on the Main Page before current standards rose so high) back up to FA status, and even to bring articles back after FARC. This problem could be addressed if people bringing articles back up to featured status knew that the article would still be re-featured in some way (such as on WP:FC), even if not on the Main Page.

Do these points help solve some of the problems? Carcharoth 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP:FC page currently selects randomly from a list of previous 'article of the day' sub-pages based on the date (with dates for articles which have been 'demoted' removed from the list). Thus, presently featured articles that have never appeared on the main page are not displayed. Featured pictures work the same way. However, featured lists, sounds, portals, and topics are never shown on the Main Page but have sections on the featured content page. Of those the lists, which are essentially just a specific kind of 'featured article', are most relevant. Those are displayed by transcluding the actual list article with inclusion tags inserted to define the scope of material to be displayed. When I came up with that methodology I had some worries that people would frequently remove / misplace the tags and cause display problems, but to date (after several months with scores of lists marked up) it hasn't happened once that I know of. The same process could be applied to featured articles which have not appeared on the Main page yet and the logic updated to pick randomly between those and the dated ones. Alternatively, people could set up blurbs like those used currently on sub-pages in a particular location and the system could include those in the random picklist. Short answer - it can be done. If people are willing to set up the proper formatting for each page then we could have ALL of the featured articles included in the random selection list for Wikipedia:Featured content. --CBD 11:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's brilliant, thanks! I think this would be a good way to go to reduce pressure on TFA and increase exposure of featured content. With the caveat that what is really needed is a non-random, sequential display, of featured content that for whatever reason has not appeared on the Main Page, or is facing a long wait to appear on the Main Page. Nothing to stop featured articles waiting in the Main Page queue, but a non-random, "latest featured content" portal might be a way to take pressure off the Main Page TFA and increase featured content exposure. In a way, it would be like the Signpost's weekly feature on featured content, but formattted to appear like the Main Page does. Do Raul, CBD and others think this is feasible, and would it help with the problems that were discussed extensively above? Carcharoth 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposing TFA content

I would have thought that a major advantage of this page is that it allows editors to post correctly formatted (proposed) main page content. I went to quite a lot of effort in composing my proposed TFA content; on two occasions I even went to the trouble of providing more tightly cropped images. Surely this makes things easier for Raul, and improves the quality of the main page content. If this page is discarded, we will need to figure out a new mechanism by which we provide proposed TFA content. Hesperian 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My input

Yes I'm the guy who requested Everton F.C.. It was frustrating watching several football articles go up before Everton even though Everton was requested first. City of Manchester Stadium, Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and Gilberto Silva come to mind. I know Raul has a tough job but I was very puzzled by the whole situation.

My intention was never to pester Raul but to find an answer. I'd also support the 2 articles a day idea. SenorKristobbal 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Promote existing pages to increase exposure of featured content

In case anyone has missed it, please see the discussion a few threads up, where I am proposing to expand existing coverage of featured content to take the pressure off TFA and do something with the mass of featured articles languishing in the TFA queue. The two places I have come up with so far are Wikipedia:Featured content, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Features and admins (an example of the current Signpost's coverage of featured content). If these can be promoted enough, people contributing FAs may come to accept being featured there as enough 'acknowledgement' of their contributions. There may also be other possibilities, such as creating entirely new pages to expose featured content to more readers, or changing existing pages. For examples, a "picture and lead text" box similar to that used on the Main Page could go at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles, and all featured articles could appear there daily (or maybe twice daily) in a rigid queue such as the order in which they were promoted (this is the method used currently for featured pictures on the Main Page).

This has now become a wider issue of making sure our readers are exposed to our featured content by more routes than just the Main Page. Sure, most readers will still just go to the Main Page, but experienced readers and editors will still benefit from increased packaging and presentation of our featured articles at different pages across Wikipedia. Obviously it is possible to overdo this, but as a rule of thumb I would say that any featured content should be mentioned and/or appear in at least three of four different places. Any less and we are not promoting our featured content enough. It is particularly unacceptable to have featured articles languishing in a queue, putting pressure on the Featured Article Director, when we could, and should in my opinon, use the available material to produce other pages advertising the best of Wikipedia's content. Carcharoth 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That Featured content only randomly generates pages that have already been TFAed should be changed regardless of what we do with this page. It's a double blow: not only do you have to wait for the main page, but the only other place it will gain exposure depends on that decision...
But you know what? I never go to the Featured content page. I can count on one hand the number of times I've looked at it in 2+ years. Perhaps I'm in a minority on this score, but I'm not sure that that page or other tangential pages we might create is what's going to drive FA material exposure. The main page is it. Marskell 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree (about main page only and nil else) but may be wrong - are there other pages which get high traffic? portals? I don't do FAs to get them on the main page but like it if they do.
Maybe a Featured List (or or Portal - which'd promote a wikiproject) once a month on the main page may be fun. I'd cycle through the pages every 18 hours rather than 24 - 3/4 of a day would mean most get a looking over and they cycle through a bit quicker. It'd still feel like a day to the next one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
Sure, the Main Page will always be the main place readers and editors visit, but it wouldn't hurt to use the other areas to increase featured material exposure. We could then direct the bulk of the community discussions over to one of those venues, and leave Raul free to sort the Main Page queue here in whatever way he sees fit. Carcharoth 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but where? That's what I want to know via some form of traffic monitoring.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm tacking on to the end here, since the sections have grown and my comments pertain to most of the sections above. This conversation seems to be heading off in various tangents, and not looking at the initial problem. The problem has been the entitled assumptions about main page exposure: I don't get it. Not all FAs will appear on the main page. Period. Are people really writing FAs for that purpose? Weird — I would really think a number one rank on Google would do the trick, but maybe I'm different — I never wanted main page exposure. I wanted recognition as one of Wiki's best, and I don't mind the google ranking either. Anyway, I just don't believe increasing main page exposure is the problem we need to be addressing here (yet); we need to find a way to sort out and present to Raul "legitimate" (however we end up defining that) date requests, avoiding the commercial, "my birthday" and entitlement requests. There are requests that are more "legitimate" than others; we need a mechanism to allow community consensus to sort those out and present them to Raul, and we need to recognize the "fan support" component of "voting" — in other words, we need guidelines. If we can separately find ways to increase exposure of FAs, that would be nice, too, but the current problem is this date request business. Until we solve something, there are no date requests, because it spun out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that increasing exposure of featured content on the Main Page is not beneficial per se, but ensuring increased exposure of our featured content across a wide range of pages would be. Those pages are the best of Wikipedia's content. Sure, most people will arrive at them via a Google search, but those browsing Wikipedia should be gently guided towards pages showcasing these articles that are the best of Wikipedia's content. Having several ways to find and browse that content can only be beneficial. As for Raul's problem with date requests, as I said above, I think a community process could be the way to go there. The community will see through silly date requests from people desperate to get onto the Main Page, and if Raul places a quota to keep his options flexible, then the community process can pass over a shortlist. All questions and complaints can then be directed at the community process talk page. The big thing will be re-educating some of the FA contributors who turn up saying "but appearing on the Main Page was the thing that motivated me". Maybe we need something to show them that tells them that millions of people have read the article anyway, even though it hasn't been on the Main Page... The Google Rank thing might be a good rebuttal. Carcharoth 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As several people (unfortunately) already know, I'm terrible at policy/guideline discussions and don't enjoy them — I'm just concerned that we need to stay focused on the task at hand, and kickstart something to put guidelines and "legitimate" date requests in place. How/where do we start a new community project to help Raul with this? We need a mechanism for feeding "legitimate" date requests to this page for Raul's consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Just be bold and start a new page. When it looks like it is working, mark this one as historical and direct people to the new page. Carcharoth 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the second most-visited Wikipedia page

I'm assuming Main page is the most-visited Wikipedia page, but maybe sex is visited more often (probably is, actually). Still, looking at sensible pages, does anyone know whether there is any portal-type page that is a clear second in popularity to the Main Page? Carcharoth 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Found some stats: see here. Depressing reading. Main Page takes 13%, the rest have 0.3% or less. Looks like Main Page is the place to be. Carcharoth 16:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but ... that big number at the top is *the* main page, not the main page featured article. We probably all come through the main page when we sign in? If you look at the actual numbers for each daily featured article, I'll still take my Google rank over Wiki's main page, in terms of reaching a broad audience :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Good point. I click on a "Wikipedia" button on my toolbar whenever I want to (a) go to Wikipedia for whatever reason; and (b) Start a Wikipedia search. Lazy, I know, but I must click on the Main Page about 100 times a day. I certainly contribute to the inflation of that figure. :-( Carcharoth 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I may have missed it, but I couldn't find a January main page featured article in that top 100 listing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, of course, very few individual article pages are going to be high (unless they're core topics to begin with) because any given TFA is still going to be one of a few billion page loads. But collectively the TFAs pull in massive numbers of people. The top of google is very nice, and is probably broadly more important than a given day on the main page—but only the main page gets you hundreds of page reads in short period. There's nothing to compare it to in this regard. Marskell 19:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • And I must say, I'm not depressed. Someone created List of big-bust models and performers precisely so it would be one of our hundred most hit articles. Let's keep the sum total of knowledge rolling. Marskell 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The developers did a survey about a year or two ago. The most popular item on the en main page is the search bar, where 45% of the click-through goes. The next most popular item is the featured article, pulls around 17% of the click-through. Raul654 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Ah. Thanks. So roughly speaking, rounding up and down at will, 20% of 15% comes out at about 3%. So the TFA is very popular, but then we knew that from the amount of 'edits' the articles get while featured on the Main Page. BTW, do you have any opinon on the other suggestions I've made on the page? Um, picking one at random, how about this one? Carcharoth 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Noting to do with the Today's Featured Article section, but I find it surprising that Deaths in 2007, Deaths in 2006 and 2006 rank so highly in those lists. It seems a lot of people visit those pages. They are the closest things to "portal" or "news" pages in that list, so it might mean something to someone (I don't have a clue what it means, except that maybe Wikipedia turned into an obituary site when my back was turned!). Carcharoth 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Date removal?

I question why the dates were removed "secretly" from the page, with no edit summary or no prior discussion to do so. There were active objections to doing so, so I would urge that they be put back up until a sensible solution has been decided upon. Raul, you cannot dictate everything that goes on here, and there certainly is some good discussion that I wish you would sensibly read and consider. └Jared┘┌t┐  18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "secretly"; the problem has been well discussed on this page, and the date requests weren't working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus to remove them. Epbr123 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there was, but isn't it rather a moot point, since they were only getting in Raul's way as he attempted to schedule the main page? Rather than complaining about the status quo, why don't we put our heads together and come up with some date request guidelines? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Replacement date request guidelines should have been decided before removing the current ones. Epbr123 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think a new process was in order before the old one was deconstructed. Who knows if Raul will even be the sole director after we have decided what to do here. We certainly cannot base all of our claims on this one possibility. So, like the user below said, could someone please put the dates back, as there was no consensus. └Jared┘┌t┐  19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will continue to be the FA director. No, we will not be restoring the dates. You are wrong on both counts - contrary to your claims, it has been previously discussed and and there was consensus to remove them, as it is abundantly clear that they are not working; (2) There was nothing secret about the removal - (cur) (last) 20:56, 15 May 2007 Raul654 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Temporary protection to prevent edit conflicts while I scrub date requests [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) I don't know how much plainer it can get than that. Raul654 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally do not believe there was consensus, and I'm sure others agree. I would hope that you get rid of your rude tone and work out a solution to this. You do not seem to want to help out at all at fixing this, and thus it is just making me hate even more the fact that one person controls this process. I don't understand how you think that you will always be the FA director, because I think you are sadly mistaken. The community gave you the job, and I believe that if consensus show they don't like it, they can take it away. I would kindly ask that you place the dates back into the article due to lack of consensus. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You've spent 3 or 4 days harassing me and then you complain that I'm being "rude"? Unbelievable... Raul654 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is unbelievable. Raul is the director, period. And he most certainly CAN dictate everything that goes on here. He's done a fine job of it for years from what I can tell, and any other "community" method for the main page would be absurd. He was, however, considerate enough to come to the talk page and ask for suggestions to his problem and you have contributed nothing but controversy, a perfect example of what a "community effort" for FAs would be like. He deserves a heck of a lot more respect than you're giving him and your disruptions, quite frankly, are exhausting. Get over it. Cricket02 03:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
So you think he can over abuse his power to get things done around here? He was ratified by the community, which means that ultimately, we can give him the boot if we wish. I certainly would never do such a thing, because frankly, he's been here so long that he knows what's going on better than most others. I would however suggest that others join him. I'm not denying either that he's done a fine job, and certainly will do all he can in the future, but I think the current situation inhibits him from doing everything he should be doing. Thus, while he is the director, I think he has some strong say, but this say is way too overpowering (the fact that he can delete templates and date requests at his will with active objections would get him desysopped anywhere else) and something must be done about this dictatorship role before a solution to the overall system is reached. I would appreciate if you would work with me to find a common ground, from which we may be able to strike a solution, but it doesn't seem like there is anyone willing to admit there is a problem, so that is why I have been pushing my thoughts so strongly here. If I have offended any of you or been rude at anytime, I am doing it because I feel strongly for this and hope that a solution will come soon. └Jared┘┌t┐  11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This page is a tool for Raul... he is under no obligation to use it. It is there to help him identify FAs to go on the main page. If date requests hinder him, then I support the move to get rid of them. Heck, I think a large part of the reason people use them is to jump to the front of the line. There are very few dates that I think are truly meaningful that jump out as must haves---and those can be highlighted via a note or message to Raul. It should also be noted that the addition of a section for date request is a new one---it was an experiment that failed.Balloonman 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of date requests from the process, but simply deleting all existing date requests is going too far. Please just add a bold note at the top of the page stating "AS OF 16 MAY, NO MORE DATE REQUESTS PLEASE", and let raul work his way through the remaining existing date requests. Please restore the dates. 82.2.59.101 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Raul's reason for removing the date requests was to stop people complaining on his talk page. That reason alone would be a pretty poor excuse to remove a useful process as I'm sure the complaints aren't that difficult to cope with. I think its just that he doesn't have time to incorporate date requests into the main page selection process. Its probably time he started delegating. As Wikipedia gets larger, he'll get more work to do as FA director and I'm sure he won't be willing to do this job alone for the rest of his life. Epbr123 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the big deal? The dates were only removed from the headers, they are all still in the comments sections for each request (diff [12]). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the last few threads? Epbr123 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Look at the oldest version of the "Today's featured article/requests" page here (it was moved here from another page). The comments have reasons given for the request and some date requests. Now look at the current version, which still has comments with reasons given for the request and some date requests - what's the difference?

Raul does an excellent job scheduling TFAs and serving as FA director. If he wants to take the dates out of the headers (or get rid of this page altogether), fine. My guess is over 90% of FAs have no compelling reason for being featured on a particular date. We need a new way to make date requests that avoids the current signal-to-noise ratio (the few valid date requests are being drowned out by lots of trivial requests). Having a date in the header (or requesting a date because it is the requestor's birthday) is not working, so what's the uproar for removing them? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And what about the 10% of FAs that do have a compelling reason for being featured on a particular date? Epbr123 21:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem to be solved. There are no scaling issues - unless we dramatically change the main page, there's still only one article per day, and will be in perpetuity. The issue is that with nearly half new featured articles likely to never appear on the main page, featured article writers may not see their work hit the main page, and if it does, it may not be able to make the main page on a specific date for various reasons. Clearly, date requests will be considered (such as the Knights Templar example mentioned above), but nearly all of the requests that were there were frankly pathetic (people requesting the date that a video game was released in the U.S., or the 53rd anniversary of a frankly non-notable death). The process is useless. In cases where the dates do mean something important, a simple "Hey, Raul, can you feature Knights Templar for the 700th anniversary of the arrests of many of its members?" will suffice. And, to be frank, it seems like for many of the users here, it's that they don't trust one person with the job, and are looking for any excuse to "delegate it to the community". Ral315 » 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all FA authors are aware that its possible to request dates from Raul654 directly. If it wasn't for the previous date request process, articles like the Knights Templar, 2007 Cricket World Cup and Eurovision Song Contest would not be featured on their relevant dates. Epbr123 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Where they're extraordinarily relevant, they would have made it. And in the current process, the useless requests far outweigh the good requests. Ral315 » 04:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. It's not certain that those articles would have made it. Should the GA nomination process be removed because the fails outway the passes? Epbr123 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If 5 or less out of every 100 articles nommed at GA passed, I'd argue yes. Ral315 » 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Date suggestion guidelines

  • I think what is really needed is a (separate?) process to allow valid date suggestions to be made, whilst strongly discouraging tenuous ones. There seems to be a clear consensus in this discussion as to what is a sensible date suggestion and what is not. This might sound a bit CREEPy, but perhaps the community could come up with some short guidelines? Some parts of the guidlines at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries would be a good start. It should also be made clear that it is normally not neccessary to suggest a date for your article and that listed articles are merely suggestions and might well be ignored. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree; I have ideas bouncing around in my head, but I don't write well, I don't know how to really put together a Wiki guideline page, and I hate guideline/policy discussions. I sorta know what we need, but don't know how to put it together. I wish someone would help with the "process" part of it. IMO, we need short guidelines, and then a process whereby editors propose date requests, and if there are several objects within a specified time frame, the proposed date request is killed. We can't do the opposite (put forward proposals with multiple supports) because of the problem of fan support. We need a screening whereby only important date requests are advanced to Raul for consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. And really, just go ahead and write something. Others will change it, and eventually we will end up with something suitable. It's that initial step that is the hardest! :-) Carcharoth 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec)I too am unfamiliar with the appropriate processes. However, I have created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/dates as a place to hash out some potential guidelines. They could form the basis of a separate page for date suggestions, or simply added to the top of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Either way, I thought it better to put them on a separate page whilst the work is done. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul's idea

I've blanked that page. (1) I'm adamantly against have (yet another) FA-related page. We have too many of those already. (2) I've added a section to this page for requests. It has unique rules around it that I think might resolve some of the old problems. Raul654 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For my next move, I'm considering zapping the rest of the requests (as numerous people noted above, we can safely assume that virtually all FA creators want their work to go on the main page ASAP) and *maybe* adding a blacklist section (to be used only temporarily, and under rare conditions) Raul654 15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be the best idea. That proposal above was created by people who see it incumbent to have a date request page or some sort of way to request when an FA is on the main page. (Which evidently brings me to the point that you, again, overstepped your power by blanking the whole page because you felt like it, but that's another problem that still has to be worked out.) That page signifies all those people who believe that requests are important. I would suggest that you don't remove the requests as an option, and in fact bolster requests, because naturally it would only help your job; all you would have to do is ensure the requests don't cause two subjects to be featured in the same week. While, yes, all people will eventually want their page on the main page, would you rather trench through each article to see when it would be best to feature it, or would you rather others to suggest the best date for you? The latter certainly makes the most sense. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What if?

It has been suggested above that two featured articles could be shown on the Main Page at a time to deal with the larger number of FAs. I also note that Today's Featured Article is about 6 items tall on the In the News layout. What if the current Main Page layout were kept, but a second featured article was shown, and about 3 items were added to In the News and about 3 items were added to On this Day? Then there would be three items in the left column (two TFAs and DYK) and two items in the right column (ITN and OTD). The TFAs could alternate as to top and bottom (12 hours each). Otherwise the layout would be the same. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above the last time this was proposed, I think this would be a disaster for the same reasons that happened when the COTW tried this. Raul654 20:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok Raul, but what? We have to at least make clear to people that "be patient" is only going to be true half the time. If we are absolutely never going to do two, than we have to tell people that some articles are absolutely never going to be on the main page—but that's something you've indicated you don't like, with your comment on resource starvation (an apt choice to illustrate the point, I thought). So? What? Marskell 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if we promote 60 articles per month in perpetuity, for some given month, all of them will eventually reach the main page. It's just that with each passing month, the average wait grows longer. Raul654 21:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Raul. (Note: savor that statement! Haha.) I don't think that having two featured article would have the same effect as just one. A TFA is supposed to be something special, not something just to please the person/people who wrote it. While it would be nice to do some catchup by featuring double, I don't think it will work as well. The idea of increasing the number of ITNs was intreguing, though. Eventually, as Raul said, every article will have its day. Maybe there is a better solution to featuring articles, however.
Just to throw this out there because I just thought of it, maybe a randomized featured article, making sure to exclude blacklisted ones. Everytime the page loads, a random article would show. I don't know if this will work, but it just popped into my head, so I figured I'd suggest it. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Raul, you've completely lost me. There's 30.5 days in an average month. As noted above, there's five hundred articles that haven't made the main page. That list will only grow. Marskell 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume (1) that we promote 60 new FAs each month, (2) we feature one FA on the main page each day, and (3) we continue doing this forever. The 60 articles we promote this month will all eventually go on the main page; the 60 we promote next month will all go on the main page eventually. The queue of waiting articles gets longer and longer with each passing month, but every article inside the queue gets to the main page eventually. Raul654 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been a long time since I threw away my Finite textbook, but: (1) if we promote 60 new FAs each month, (2) we feature one FA on the main page each day, and (3) we continue doing this forever, then (4) the articles not featured on the main page will increase by 30 per month indefinitely and the overall non-TFA total will eventually be a constant ~50%. Unless by "forever" you mean "don't worry about it," I still have no idea what you mean. Eventually we'll all just be turned back into hydrogen, of course. But in the meantime the 50% of editors that have an FA that will never make the main page are going to continue to bother you on your talk. Marskell 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Even longer since I threw away mine; I'm supposed to know this stuff well, but I don't anymore. I think the message is that people shouldn't be hoping for the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with cleanly admitting that. What makes no sense is to say that "all will make it, eventually", when clearly that is no longer true. Marskell 22:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Raul will have to become more selective about which articles make it to the main page. Within a couple of years, there'll be about a hundred Simpsons episodes FAs. Articles like that will have to be sacrificed. Epbr123 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If there were no backlog, and if promotions were 60/month and were featured in the order of promotion at 30/month, then all articles promoted in month 1 would be featured in months 1 and 2. Likewise articles promoted in month 10 would eventually be featured in months 19 and 20. However, the queue is getting longer, and at some point articles would need to have a touchup (or FAR) to be in shape for main page. Also topics are spaced out. Given the spacing of topics, some article are already going to have to wait years. If one war a month made it to the main page, it would probably take three years to go through the current set (not counting additional promotions). Gimmetrow 22:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also confused by Raul's mathematics here. Some articles will have to wait a very long time, so maybe Raul is thinking that some articles will be bumped off by FAR in that time? Or maybe he is discounting articles on similar topics (eg. 100 Simpsons FAs). I'd like to return to my point that regardless of how long some articles have to wait, there is no reason why articles currently being promoted, or waiting in the Main Page queue, shouldn't be featured in another place on Wikipedia. I'd like to ask Raul directly, as he hasn't responded to these points yet, whether it is OK to set up another page to encourage people to visit as a showcase of Wikipedia featured articles (similar to Wikipedia:Featured content, but static rather than random). In other words, another "feed" using featured articles, with Main Page being only one (but the most visited one) of several "feeds" using featured content. Given Raul's comments about double-featuring being bad, I can see why some people might think these "secondary Main Pages" are double-featuring by the back door, but I think that this would have far less impact on the Main Page than double-featuring on the Main Page would, purely because the main traffic would always go to Main Page (though those in the know might enjoy more featured content being served up to them on a selection of pages, rather than having to go searching for it). Carcharoth 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How about putting a link to the current queue at the top of the page? --Dweller 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use images

I'm really happy that Excel Saga is to be shown on the main page shortly, but has there been a policy change to prohibit fair-use images on the main page? I like the new image of Watanabe, but it's not exactly representative of Excel Saga. --Monocrat 15:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Only free use images can appear on the main page. Buc 17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Why? Morphh (talk) 1:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fairuse should only be used in articles where they are appropriate. Also, it makes more sense to use a free image where one is available. Sometimes exceptions are made when no free use image is available. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more info. Buc 08:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also confused by this. Gnomebot changed the fair use pictures on TFA page as they were not in article space. Should we change them to a link to the image? Will they be acceptable on the main page? How come use on this page is not acceptable since the summary generally acts the same way the article does and should fall under the same fair use rational? Anyway... some guidance here... are we not to use fair use images when submitting for TFA? This whole fair use nit pick crap is driving me nuts. Morphh (talk) 15:13, 06 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrested Development

I just added Arrested Development to the requests and it has now been removed.. What's up? --Willball1987 01:23, 9 June 2007 (GMT)

Date request removal

The guidelines say this: "Members of the community may comment on pending dates requests; those without significant support will be removed." What counts as significant support? Who does the removing? This is an issue especially because only five requests are allowed at any one time, so it makes sense to quickly clear out requests that aren't going to make the cut. MLilburne 09:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed date request rule change.

If the date requested is less than a week away the "no more than 5" rule does not apply. Buc 10:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No - this basically clears the way for an unlimited number of requests for everyone of the next five days. Raul654 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok how how about if the is a limit to no more than one or two requests for any date. Buc 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can say: "if a TFA within the next 5 days has not been filled, the 'no more than 5 rule' can be suspended." This seems more reasonable, non? Especially if you (Raul) would like to ensure that last minute requests are not brought to your attention on your talk page, right? └Jared┘┌t┐  17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The less bureaucracy, the better. I'm not even sure I understand that rule completely. Ral315 » 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically, he's saying that if the queue is less than 5 days into the future, people can file as many requests as they want. Once again, I don't care for this proposal. Raul654 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As "Today's featured article"s are chosen about three days in advance, it won't leave much time for requests less than five days away to be supported or objected. Epbr123 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution. If you have five requests up, and you notice an article that you feel should be featured on the main page within the next few days (ie. before any of the current 5 requests you have up are accepted or rejected), then either withdraw one of your other requests, or ask someone else to make the suggestion. But having as many as 5 requests open feels a bit like overkill, anyway. Carcharoth 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose that any one user can have only one live request at any given time. Since the number is limited, it would only be fair to other users who would like to make a request. Cricket02 05:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Date based FA on Abdul Kalam

  • July 25 - Abdul Kalam as his term as president will end on July 25,2007. He is the current President of India, a notable scientist and engineer, he is often referred to as the Missile Man of India for his work and is considered a leading progressive, mentor, innovator and visionary in India. --Phoe6 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Abdul Kalam article is not a featured article yet. It has to gain the FA status before it can be listed in TFA requests. Thanks. - KNM Talk 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very broad request

Is the following request too broad to up in the date request section?

August (any day) - Chelsea F.C., Everton F.C., Gillingham F.C., History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966), Ipswich Town F.C., Margate F.C. or York City F.C., This is when the new english fooball season will begin. Buc 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Consecutive days with the same topic

Would it be possible to have two or more days in a row for the same topic. For example, what if we had Lost-related articles on February 6 (fourth season premiere) and 7? Or is there some unwritten rule that there should be five or ten days in between? --thedemonhog talk • edits 05:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, there's no hard-and-fast rule about it, but Raul prefers to have TFAs jump from topic to topic and location to location - and while I reserve the right to disagree with him at other times (I'm yet to give much input here, but that may change), I support him on that one. Keep it varied, particularly on something like Lost - plenty of people don't care one dot about it, so while one TFA is fine, two consecutive or close ones would be overstepping it, IMO. Is there even any Featured Lost-related content? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and there are featured Lost articles and a list. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Recently, they became acceptable in article's leads without any warnings, because it is expected that people who are on that page know what they are getting into. Are spoilers acceptable on the main page? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the featured articles have dead links in them. Yesterday's featured article, Houston, had at least 8 references that were dead. I've written a tool which can check for dead links in an article. —Dispenser 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Missed the window for a date request?

The article Fun Home just passed FA, and I had hoped to ask for it to be TFA on September 10 (the author's birthday). September 10 is still open, but there are already five date requests in the queue, including one for September 10 (although it seems that the nominators really want September 9 for that article). Have I just missed the chance of getting Fun Home up on that date, or is there a way I can request it despite the "no more than five requests" rule? (It's my first FA, so I'm still learning the ropes here.) Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to bug him unduly, especially given #Discontinuing the use of this page above. But if you think he wouldn't mind being asked, I will... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like mentioning it here did the trick! Thanks, Raul. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Content of the FA blurb

I know there is a lot of discussion here about scheduling of FAs. This lead to Raul removing a lot of requests from the attached project page. I am interested in the outcome of date-request reform, but this post is about a slightly different question.

I would like to see a place where editors can work on suggested language for the FA blurb. An example is the recently featured 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. I think the lead works great for the article but that some small changes can make a better blurb. Also, I think that the first image in the article is great in the article, but that the second image is better for the blurb. I have put my suggested text here.

My request is that we create a place for interested editors to discuss proposed wording of the these blurbs, and not just a day or two ahead of time, but whenever they want to work on it. Johntex\talk 01:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Still a vote?

Should we still be adding Support and Oppose? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Date request abuses?

Three of the current five requests are for non-specific dates, which have no reason or justification for the date requested that is relevant to the subject of the article (The Office, Barnard's Star, Ronald Reagan). Since there is a limit of five article requests, this means other, more relevant date requests are blocked. Just as an article that was not featured (or a sixth article) would be removed if nominated, why not have some sort of rule that date requests have to provide a justification that is relevant to the content of the article itself, or they will be removed.

The header already says "The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary), or the article is relevant to a major event or well-known holiday occurring on that date." but I do not see how any of these three nominations meet either of these criteria. I also note that there will be many articles with no obvious date to request, a fact addressed in the Barnard's Star nomination. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn The Office. I had hoped that I would be able to request September 27 (third season premiere date), but that spot had already been filled by Smallville's pilot. I requested "late September or early October," but then all the September spots were scheduled, so I changed it to "early October." Now there isn't really a good reason to have it in early October, so I have cleared the space for a more relevant article. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually have the office on my unofficial list (the ones I have not yet scheduled). Raul654 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree fully, we all want to see our articles on the main page, but the request page should only be for dates relevant to an article, like anniversaries and such. As well, any chance you would be willing to up the request limit to 10? -- Scorpion0422 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Date request abuse? A little melodramatic. And the page is not titled Date requests but Today's featured article requests. If people can't request articles that have no particular date, then we're introducing systemic bias. Any article should be allowed for request. Further, the date request appears to be exacerbating the over-reliance on pop cult. Marskell 07:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that this page is for date requests that are relevant to the article, not just for a specific date. I quote from the header: "The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary), or the article is relevant to a major event or well-known holiday occurring on that date." I have nothing against Barnard's Star (your article request) and think it would be fine on the Main Page, but I do not think your date request meets the criteria of the date request page. Requesting "after October 8" because of a business trip has nothing to do with Barnard's Star. There used to be a section for just regular Main Page requests, but that was eliminated (see above discussions). I also wish it still existed, but it is gone. Hope this clarifies my opposition, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it clarifies the wikilawyering involved. I have four pending and none has a strong date linkage. Your argument would bar requests for a large chunk of our FAs. That makes no sense. Marskell 10:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to make a request if there's no good reason for it being featured on a particular day. If the only reason is that you want it on the main page as soon as possible, the same will apply to every other FA in the queue. Why should your article be able to jump the queue just because you ask for it to? Only about a quarter of main page articles are decided by these date requests, so there's no need to worry about your FAs never featuring. Epbr123 10:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, there used to be a way to request that articles appear on the Main Page that was date independent, but it was removed this summer (thereby blitzing my request that had been in the queue since September 23, 2006). While it is "my argument", I did not make the rule, nor did I remove the previous "request for any reason" page section. Raul654 (who did both these things) has said that all but a handful of FAs will get on the Main Page eventually and most of those FAs appearing there since the non-date request page was blitzed have not been selected via date requests. I also think the date of discovery of Barnard's Star would be just as valid and relevant for a request as the date of a premiere of a movie or debut of a tv show or video game. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Epbr, there's no queue-jumping involved with an article that's been waiting a year. Raul agreed here that, in general, listing how long you've been waiting, how many you have pending, and whether the subject is of general interest is a good idea. If people don't lawyer but consider the request in sum, there's no problem. Marskell 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't Raul see for himself which articles have been waiting the longest and which are of general interest? Aren't these the criteria he already considers when choosing from the non-date-request articles? I'm not sure why the number of FAs an editor has pending should be a factor; the decision should be based on the article, not the editors. Epbr123 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If you add "featured in November 2006" it obviously helps Raul. And looking at the editor is courtesy. Marskell 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Adding "featured in November 2006" doesn't help Raul identify the many articles featured before November 2006, which are more deserving of a main page feature. Epbr123 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a truly bizarre argument. Because you can't help him completely, don't help him at all. Marskell 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it means being "featured in November 2006" isn't a good reason for an article to be chosen as a main page article, as there are many articles which have been waiting longer. I agree it would be good if there was a system where older FAs could be brought to the attention of Raul, however, there was such a system until a few weeks ago when he removed the non-date specific articles from the request page. Epbr123 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a reason by itself. It's one point to consider. Marskell 18:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Along with other points such as how many FAs the editor has pending, and whether the subject is of general interest? All three of those points together still wouldn't be a good enough reason to make a request. The only valid reasons I can see for fast-tracking articles onto the main page are if they are relevent to a particular date or if they are one of the longest waiting FAs. Epbr123 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh God Epbr, if you just want to yell "last word," feel free. They are points to consider, that's all. I'd also suggest you revert yourself until it's established that anyone can make a determination. Marskell 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind people presenting points to be considered, I'm just pointing out why some people will be opposed to those points. It's long been established that anyone may remove unsupported nominations if it's preventing other nominations being made; other's do it frequently. Epbr123 19:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But only having the five requests is just weeks old. We should wait for Raul to decide how things move off. Or whatever. Perhaps we should just rename it "Celebrity birthday requests". Marskell 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The date request system has been around for a few months. You're entitled to oppose the birthday requests if you disagree with them. Epbr123 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But only having the five requests is just weeks old. Last word! Marskell 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, now's our chance to find out how Raul feels, by whether or not he reverts me or tells me off. Epbr123 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Last word! Just for fun. Marskell 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it courtesy to look at the editor? Epbr123 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
He he he. Marskell 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Instead of letting Raul decide everything unilaterally, how about consensus starts to rule around here. I understand Raul is the FA director, but the amount of anti-wikiness in this section of the project is making me wary of ever participating in this process again, FAC director doesn't mean, "gets to decide everything at FA." IvoShandor 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I came to make a request for October 7, but all 5 spots are taken and the earliest request of the 5 is October 15.... two weeks away. M3tal H3ad 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No. Raul654 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests

I assume you can no longer request an article appear on the main page unless you have a specific date request? I had a request up, for anytime, and now I see it is missing. Does this mean the article I worked on cannot appear? If that's the case I have now lost all motivation to work on featuring an article. Any clarification would help. IvoShandor 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While there are probably about eight days within the next thirty that will be filled by requests on this page, the other ~twenty-two are chosen by the featured article director from the list of featured articles that have not yet appeared on the main page. It will take some time, but the article that you worked on will eventually become today's featured article. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with doing it this way is that most of the Guadalcanal-related featured articles that I had completed up to now I hadn't intended to be featured on the main page. My goal was to finish the main article and have that on the main page and then everyone would see all of the featured sub-articles of the campaign through the main article. Cla68 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, just reading above, it appears that it isn't the case that every article will make a main page appearance, or at least that seems to be the implication. I wonder, without a request does that decrease its chances? Maybe main page articles should be chosen by a consensus of experienced editors as opposed to just one person, that is if every article isn't going to appear on the main page. The fact that I am not too keen on the idea of directors on Wikipedia aside, I think that if every article no longer has a chance at the main page it would only be fair to let consensus rule. IvoShandor 10:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image question

What happens if a featured (TV show) article doesn't have a free image, but one of its subarticles has at least one? E.g. Carnivàle has no free images, but it seems like I'll get a flickr user to contribute one of his images[14] to WP soon that would work very well for a main page appearance of the article (the image basically is the central and therefore notable ferris wheel of the show, but I'd rather add it to the more plot-ty subarticles instead). The old "application" way has been removed now, and a date request seems out of place for an old cancelled TV show, so I can't make it clear what image should go with the article as a TFA. I also fear that these reasons may result in the non-free-image-less article to be ignored for a long time or to be featured without an image. Is a note on the article's talk page enough? Any other comments? (And I'd rather not replace the show's title screen image in the infobox with the ferris wheel photo, or add the photo to main article somewhere where it doesn't really fit, just because the article might be a TFA someday.) – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

Is there some sort of proper Template so use when requesting an article on this page? The Clawed One 03:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not: (1) there is no need for one, and (2) if we created it, then someone would have to maintain it. (3) If memory serves, we did have one, and it was deleted because of 1 and 2. Raul654 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so if I were to request an article, how do I get the sample and picture stuff like the current requests have? The Clawed One 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You can copy the ones that are already here. But as I have said before, I don't actually look at the suggested write up - I write them all from scratch from the article's lead. Raul654 03:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dual nomination limit

This dual limit of no noms past 30 days in the future and no more than 5 at a time is not right. I can understand limiting to 30 days only as otherwise the page would again become unduly cluttered. But only 5 noms in a 30-day window?--that's just not right. What if there are 6 really good and really appropriate FAs suited for a 30 day window? A user can't make a simple request for the near term, especially if there is no other request for that day? Can you spell W-R-O-N-G?Rlevse 16:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already replied to this comment on my talk page. But to answer the question you posed here - What if there are 6 really good and really appropriate FAs suited for a 30 day window? - then that sixth person has to wait for one to be fulfilled before making it. The not-so-subtle point you are missing, however, is that there are many users out there who have written featured articles and want to see them on the main page. A no-limit requests page is an invitation to all of them to file a request -- even users who normally wouldn't put in a specific request feel the need to put one in because otherwise their work will never show up. Raul654 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The not-so-subtle pointS you are missing is: a) What if the date they want passes before a slot opens up? and b) I didn't say no limits, I said I can see a 30day out limit. Rlevse 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rlevse, I have a request for the 31st of October, but because the page is full of 5 requests, I am unable to place mine in. I'm sure there are plenty of others who also have this problem. Having no limits would be a bad thing, I can agree to that, but I think allowing just 5 is a disappointment to some of the editors who have been waiting a year or more for their article to be featured. DarthGriz98 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with 30-day limit is more appropriate, the other limit of only-5-requests-at-a-time is too restrictive. The best way solution, IMO, would be allowing a maximum of 10 requests at a time, for the next 30 days. This would ensure, a rotation of an article atleast once in three days, on an average. - KNM Talk 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah the same problem would occur. All the slots would fill up straight away and users would demand the max be increaced again, then they would all fill up and so on. Buc 06:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but the problem is that right now the limit is so low that people can't, for example, make requests for next week when all five slots are filled by requests towards the end of the 30-day limit. 5 slots is simply TOO LOW. And what is wrong with each slots being filled anyway, assuming people have a reasonable chance to make a request? Sometime ago Raul wrote a piece about what it's like to be FA director and his frustration at it grows every day. While I understand it's largely a thankless job, shutting people out and ignoring them is not the answer. One solution is to get rid of the main page FA--it's nothing but a massive vandal target anyway that wastes the time of vandal fighters while touting a vandalized article as "wiki's best", so newcomers see a constantly vandalized article as TFA.Rlevse 12:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
One solution is to get rid of the main page FA - Absolutely not. Raul654 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
every thing is an option. you also conveniently avoided the issues, but that's nothing new. Rlevse 03:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no, it's not an option. Getting rid of the daily featured article is patently unacceptable - a non-starter. As far as the other issues, Buc said it best - increasing the limit is a non-solution, because any increase simply means those extra slots will fill back up. An actual solution would be for a system that rewards merit rather than first-come-first-serve (Marskell has already devised the necessary criteria). Raul654 04:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Where is Marksell's proposal? So what if the extra 5 slots fill up? At least people would be getting more of a chance. Getting rid of the TFA is of course an option. For something that's supposed to be so open and consensus driven, the TFA/FA/MainPage area is something that is most un-wiki.Rlevse 15:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say he had a proposal - I said he had criteria for comparing requests. His criteria are here. The idea is that we use a system that gives priority to something other than the first person to file a request. Raul654 18:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as getting rid of the daily featured article - it's a highly popular (the 2nd most popular thing on the main page after the search box), generally well liked feature. It has a demonstrable effect of stimulating better article writing. Getting rid of it due to issues with this page is an option that exists in your mind alone. On the other hand, I'm more than willing to end the requests problem by deleting this page and entertaining no more requests. It won't make anyone happy, but I'm *quite* certain that will solve the problem. Raul654 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I think we should get rid of it, it's your summary dismissal that's it's even an option that I'm not appreciative of. Getting rid of the request page is a option too, but it would indeed cause even more problems. This horse is about dead now, but I still disagree about the current request process.Rlevse 20:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) With all due respect to Raul, how are we to make such requests? I would like to make a request for November 5 and so have been watching this page since late-September, yet have never seen it with a blank space to add a request (and I check a few times a day).

Under the old system I had a request for a river FA from Sept. 23, 2006 until Sept. 13, 2007 (when general requests were discontnued). My request stated that Zambezi was the last TFA from WikiProject Rivers on Sept. 1, 2005 (and only the second Rivers TFA after Niagara Falls on Dec. 27, 2004 - it is no longer a FA). I updated my request to identify my second FA (also a WP:River article) and the fact that a fourth WP:River article by another editor made FA, and that I would be glad to see any of these three river articles as TFA. That sounds an awful lot like Marskell's system.

I have another river article in FAC now and was surprised to see 83 WP:FAC articles in the queue (just checked now). There are also 14 articles in Featured Article Review and 18 in FARC, or 115 articles that Raul has to watch and decide to promote or send to FARC or depromote, plus scheduling TFA every day. For comparison, there are only currently 101 articles in Peer Review. While Raul does a fine job, it seems that it may be growing too large for any one person to do. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How did this happen?

If the limit is 30days out and 5 at a time and the mention of this was first made in Sep, how did this get slotted in for Nov 9 already: [15]Rlevse 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that request was made many months ago, shortly after the article was promoted, and before this page (in its current incarnation) existed. Raul654 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for TFA

Since we contribute to a free encylcopedia, I assume we all agree that more information is a good thing. With that in mind, here is a three part suggestion for replacing the current TFA request page. These are all just ideas to get discussion started. I also do not expect Raul to do any of this work - he has enough to do as it is. I could help if this is decided on.

1) Have a single page for all possible date requests, with the page divided into thirteen parts: one for each month, plus one for movable dates (such as Pentecost, Passover, Eid, Thanksgiving, etc.). The months would be broken down by day, and the movable dates would be listed alphabetically. Each article could be listed for one and only one date (multiple requests would all be removed). The article would be listed as follows: linked name of article, inline link to suggested image (optional, if none then assume first image in article), and a one sentence (30 word limit?) rationale. As an example (borrowed a current date request example):

October 16

There would be no limit on the number of requests per date, but there would have to be some relevance to the article or holiday (and not "It's my birthday", etc.). Requests without a relevant connection to the date could be removed. There should also be some mechanism to prevent moving the date requested too often (i.e. if someone's article date were changed each month to the current month). There would be no voting or comments on the page, they could go on the talk page, although that would be primarily to comment on a date or dispute a page's date. Raul would be free to look at this page or not, but at least everyone who wanted would get in one date request per Featured Article. I think it would also make clear how many worthy requests are out there.

2) Have a single page listing all Featured Articles that have not yet appeared on the Main Page prominently linked (is there one already?). Organize it the same way that Wikipedia:Featured articles is organized, with the exact same twenty-eight categories . Call it "Today's Featured Article Queue". This way it is clear to everyone that their FA is in the line (as are hundreds of others). It might also be useful to have a page organized the same way that showed only FAs that had already been on the Main Page.

If you want to get fancy, this TFA Queue page could also list the total number of FAs in each category, the number and percent that had already been TFA and were in the queue, and the name and date of the most recent TFA from that category. For example for "Food and drink" (smallest category) it could say "11 articles in this category, 11 (100%) have appeared as Today's Fetaured Article, the most recent was Trade and use of saffron on September 29 2007, 0 (0%) have yet to appear on the Main Page". Once this was set up it should be fairly easy to maintain (maybe even by a bot?).

It would probably also be useful on the main FA page to prominently display a statement such as: "As of date, there are X FAs on the English Wikipedia. Of these, Y (Y%) have appeared on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article, and Z (Z%) are still in the queue to become TFA." with links to the pages proposed above for the already been TFA and still waiting pages.

3) Make this page into some sort of comment page. It could be for discussions of TFA in general, letting Raul know if a certain image was preferred for TFA, the whole "I only want the main Guadalcanal article as TFA, not the subarticles" discussion, etc. There has to be a place for people to vent.

I hope this is helpful. I think by allowing all date requests and showing people the whole queue, it will both cut down on the frustration people feel at not being able to make a date request and give them a better idea of the numbers involved in terms of time to wait on average and number of similar articles also waiting. Thanks again to Raul for doing a thankless task very well. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea of making the requests page for the next year, instead of the next month. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
"Have a single page listing all Featured Articles that have not yet appeared on the Main Page prominently linked." I have been thinking of this for some time. It should list how long an article has been waiting and (perhaps through the WBFAN bot) how many users have waiting. Marskell 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the main page Raul654 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Neat. Perhaps one of the bots could generate a supplemental date list? Marskell 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ruhrfisch's idea. It will improve this process and make it easier to sort out the most urgent/important requests by putting them all out there. The desire to feature articles on relevant anniversary/holiday dates can be balanced by the need to feature FAs that have been waiting a long time, etc. or that don't have any obvious anniversary dates by exercising restraint in how many TFA date requests are granted per month. Another possibility is tagging FA talk pages with requested TFA dates and/or putting those FA talk pages into categories, e.g. Category:Articles with TFA request dates in November. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long range TFA requests. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I'm Alexelliottwelch 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC) and I like to request Channel Four forn 2nd November 2007. Because it will be Channel 4's 25th Anniversarvy on this date. So, please forget Borat. Alexelliottwelch 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Channel Four does not appear to be a Featured article and thus does not yet qualify to be featured on the Main page. If you wish to change this status, please consult the Featured article criteria and if you believe the article meets these requirements then submit a request at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --Allen3 talk 12:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Significantly modified instructions

Because I've recently been getting a number of questions/complaints about this page, I've significantly rewritten the instructions here to include most of Marskell's suggested criteria. In particular, I've reworded it to make it clear that a date connection is not the only factor. Raul654 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh - it's still kinda confusing. Can someone give a Step 1), Step 2) etc etc list to me as to how I'd go about nominating an article which I don't care when it goes on the main page? Great scott, I miss the old request page. Why don't you bring that one back, but limit it to like 10-50 or something? I hate that there seems to be an onus that your nomination has to have a date above it... :( Bring back the old version! 05:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How long do requests remain here before being decided on?

I'd like to nominate the Webley Revolver article for "Today's Featured Article" on November 8th, as it will be the 120th anniversary of the Webley's introduction into service. There are currently no featured articles scheduled for November 8th, but it would seem I have to wait until one of the articles currently under consideration for a different day is voted on before I can make a request on this page. Some of the nominations have been there for almost 2 weeks now, so I'm wondering: How long do they typically remain there before being voted on, and is there a way I can request the Webley Revolver article appear on November 8th in spite of the "Five requests only on the page" limit? --Commander Zulu 07:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed additional request page

This would be a non-date requests for articles where there is not a suitable or notable enough date for them. Like this page it would be limited no more than 5 requests at a time.

That’s the basic idea.

More specifically I propose it have the following rules.

  • No request may remain on the page for more than 30 days
  • Any request with no support in the last 10 days can be removed
  • For a request to be valid the user must provide a good reason for making. What a reason is would be down to judgement, but for me it’s either: It has been a FA for a long time, the subject is very notable or there hasn’t been an article of it’s kind on the main page, for a while/ever.
  • Any request with an oppose: support ratio of at least 3:1 (minimum of 10 day) can be removed.

Buc 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the point of that is, because the page would get filled up immediately, and then remain full for a couple of weeks. And if Raul DID put any of those five pages up, a new request would immediately go up, most likely by someo ne who has the page on watch, so in the end it would simply reward whoever is quickest. I was thinking that perhaps there should be a list of pages where the contributors DON'T want it to make the main page for whatever reason (needs cleanup, waiting for an appropriate date, etc.). -- Scorpion0422 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that exsacly what's happening on this page. Buc 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I never said this page was perfect. I just said I think having two of them is unnecessary. -- Scorpion0422 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I support Buc's idea. It would create a fair balance between the two types of requests. Although, maybe both types of requests could be placed on the same page, but kept in separate sections. Epbr123 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, call me ignorant, but I'm pretty sure this has been tried. It used to be (recently) a free for all where everybody got to put up requests for any FA. And I think that's been done away with in favor of only doing date requesting. Unless I'm missing something... Okiefromokla•talk 02:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of me rewriting the instructions was to break down the distinction (between date specific requests and articles with no such specific dates). These proposed changes are thus unncessary. Raul654 03:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you allowed to make non-date requests on this page? Buc 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you at least increase the max number of requests to 10? -- Scorpion0422 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative (or perhaps in conjunction with earlier suggestions), perhaps articles could be removed once it is obvious that there are no objections (or an overwhelming majority in favour of them)? For example, there are no objections at all for the November 1 candidate Karnataka; so why not accept it as passed and remove the nomination, freeing up another slot for another article nomination? The same could be said of the November 9 nomination Montreal Screwjob; the only 2 "Oppose" votes are from people who object to having a "Pop Culture" article on the front page. I don't think large numbers of people are suddenly going to announce an objection to the article appearing on that day between now and then, and even if they do, the article has been up for discussion for weeks now; there's been plenty of time to lodge any objections since then. --Commander Zulu 08:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Are they acceptable on the main page? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this question in reference to? Raul654 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence before "(more…)" of this old request. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Eh? –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: remove Oklahoma

Per Commander Zulu's suggestion. Buc 11:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is never empty!

I was going to try and request 29 November for A Vindication of the Rights of Men, but I just give up. I noticed that the last time the page emptied, it filled immediately (within minutes). This time, other people have taken it upon themselves to remove the "expired" nominations and add their own. This is just pointless. I am not going to be lucky enough to be at my computer at just the right moment to nominate VRM. I will just patiently wait my turn in the queue, I think. I think that this page is going to end up favoring those who have the time to sit and refresh and refresh and refresh.... :) Awadewit | talk 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just scheduled Halo, removed it from this page, and reserved the slot for you. Go ahead and take it. Raul654 03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous statement. I too had a nom ready for November 18, but was never able to catch the page with fewer than 5 requests. The system clearly favors wikiholics. If this is the best WP:CONSENSUS we can come to, I'll just wait my turn, but I'm glad to know someone else agrees with me. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with both of you. Having only five at a time seems completely arbitrary (if the only eligible days are the next 30 days, why not have 30 nomination slots?), and it seems there are dozens of better ways to go about it. I asked Raul about it here, but I didn't get the impression that he has any interest in changing it. I understand that this system is better than the last one, but I really don't think its a very logical system in general. Dylan 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Having 30 nomination slots (or so) makes the job larger for Raul – remembering that it is his job to manually go through all of the nominations and schedule them. Imagine having to do that with 30 requests. As said above, one request is removed and another takes its spot, this would happen regardless of the number of nominations are allowed on the page. It would seem easier for Raul to deal with 5 nominations rather than 30 or more nominations... but then again I believe there should be some sort of compromise for both nominators and Raul. ~ Sebi 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to change from a first-come-first-serve system to a more merit-based one. The first step was defining criteria by which requests could be compared. Thanks primarily to Marskell, this is now done (located at the top of this page). So feel free to propose a new system that favors the merit of the request instead of the timing. The only criteria I'm imposing is that there be no more than 5 concurrent requests. Yes, 5 is arbitrary, but that's what I'm stipulating. Raul654 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What if you changed it so that somebody could request any day as long as it is within the next month? And make it so that one day can only have one request, that way the list won't go over 30. Because no matter what, it will always be first come first served with a limit of five. -- Scorpion0422 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
no matter what, it will always be first come first served with a limit of five - this is an argument from lack of imagination. I can think of several ways to make this page non-first-come-first-serve (for example, the newest requesters simply delete the old requests; not a particularly good system, but definitely not first come first serve). This page can certainly be made into a non-first-come-first-serve - it's just up to someone to suggest a system that people generally (and I specifically) find acceptable. Raul654 03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What if requests could only be made for the next two weeks instead of the next thirty days? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd support that. And what about imposing some kind of request limit - say a user only gets one request every 2 months or so, that way it would stop the same users with the page on watch from snagging spots over and over again. -- Scorpion0422 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
How about adding a section at the bottom of the page which lists currently requested articles that have reached a certain number of supports without any opposes? These requests can then be removed from the main section, allowing other requests to be made. Epbr123 11:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No, per my answer from last week, the last time this was suggested. Raul654 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. May I ask why? Epbr123 15:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Because when I say limit of 5, I really mean 5. (and not 5 plus however many are listed in that section) Raul654 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about imposing some criteria which if a request fails, it can be immediately removed, such as the article has to have been waiting for at least two months or there can't have been an article on the main page from the same category within the past month? I think the criteria is too vague at the moment, leading to every request being supported. Epbr123 15:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Raul, but this new system sucks. The old one was much more freeing (Although it kinda sucked too), but this new one is just insane! I'd prefer if everyone just listed which article they wanted, suggested a date if they want one and you go through and select which ones you want. I trust your judgement, so there's no need for voting - what does it add?? Also, the problem arises when you have articles like mine (Andre Kertesz) which have only two significant dates (Birth and death) but they aren't for many more months now! Even though there hasn't been a photographer on the main page in a long time (If ever), but still, it'll have to wait till July, and only if that slot isn't taken by someone who's gotten their request up faster. Can you please scrap this new layout. I can think of a few better systems that could work, but you don't seem to want to listen to the people who are complaining. It's very frustrating - you go through the whole process of fixing the article, then a stressful FAC and then you have this to go through! It should be a pleasant experience and a reward, not another hurdle to jump. I'm sure many others agree with me too. Please do something because it's putting me off making FAs! Spawn Man 00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Random thought: why not leave TFA choice entirely to Raul (so no requests), but have a page where editors can list 'their' FAs against truly significant dates for that article (Births, deaths, dates of battles, release dates etc). That would then be a resource for Raul to use in selecting TFAs. There would be no limit to how many articles could be listed against each date, but they could only be listed for genuine reasons and listing would be no guarantee of the article's appearance on that date. There's always next year, right? That is not the same as letting people request a certain date, it's just making sure the guy making the decision knows which articles have links to a given day. While I share the desire to see 'my' work on the front page, as the final stage in the article's active development, I think perhaps we will have to wean ourselves off this, given the number of FAs we have now. 4u1e (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I like it in theory, but I know exactly what's going to happen if we put it into practice. No matter how many times we say, in big flashing bold letters at the top of the page, that listing an article for a given date is no guarantee it will be picked -- I'm going to get requests on my talk page from someone saying that he really, really has a burning request that must go on the main page for such-and-such a date. It'll be only a handful at first, and then gradually it'll turn into a daily thing. And because I really don't want to be a dick about this sort of thing, I usually go along with such requests, but in fact that only encourages them. Raul654 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps since we all can't play nicely together, we should just not have a list, eh? :) I wonder how many users notice the date associations anyway. :( Awadewit | talk 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Or another idea, variant of this one: have some way where when an article is promoted, there's a space in the FA template or whatever (or maybe just a list of all dates somewhere else) to list a few significant dates for the content page that will categorize it. That way each FA is known by one of a few dates that Raul can select from, but it's not a "nomination" process per se (i.e. there's no active requesting it for a date) so people will be less likely to bother him about it. Dylan (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You could even make picking one or two dates part of the FA nomination process -- nominee suggests one or two. When Raul promotes the nominee, he lists it on his own personal calendar; then he can refer to it for TFA. No requests involved. Dylan (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we can all agree then that almost none of us really want requests. I think we can all agree that Raul is sometimes put in a tough spot with requests, especially when they are put on his talk page. I think we can all agree that after going through the process of a FAC, you don't want to go through yet another long process of requesting for the main page. I think we can all agree that most are not prepared to wait a year for their article to go on the main page (For those articles with only one or two specific dates), so there needs to be a stream lined system. And I think we can all definitely agree that the current system isn't working or at least is not to the liking of most people. Congrats! We agree on a lot of important issues, so let's look at what we don't agree on and find a solution for it. Should there even be date request (IE, Does anyone really recognise the connection between the date in the article and the date its on the main page)? Should there be some user involvement or should all judgement be placed onto Raul? Should there be some form of nomination or should there be a list? Should there be any list or form at all?? These issues need to be resolved. My personal view is that user involvement only complicates things and adds an extra layer of politics to the system. At the moment there is no real way to get an article on the main page without a specific date request bar the miracle of it being picked to go on there by random. There needs to be a way that people can get the days they want noticed without nominations or voting and a way for articles without any significant dates to be picked more quickly than currently planned. There needs to be minimal stress on Raul (After all, he's just a guy like you and I who I don't think appreciates having so much responsiblilty thrust on him). We all know what happens to editors who suddenly get a backlog; harrassing, harrassing and more harrassing! Although almost all ideas above are great, I don't see how any single one on its own could possibly work in the long run - there needs to be a meshing of the ideas and a sort of "super idea" that needs to spring forward in order for any progress to be made. I haven't seen it yet, but things need to change. Cheers, :) Spawn Man (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You know it is possible to make requests where the date doesn't have a relationship with the article being requested. Buc (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but then that's where the user and voting elements come in and ruin it because the request would have several opposes immediately due to the fact that 1) the date has no connection to the article and 2) there could possibly be a better more suited article which has a connecting date that could fit in that slot. The whole system could work if you removed the stupid voting proceedure; but putting everything on Raul's shoulders poses problems of a different kind again. There's pros and cons both ways... Spawn Man (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Buc: Part of my suggestion above was that, since the volume of requests is apparently unmanageable, we definitely abandon requests to have an article on the front page for any of the 'nice to...' reasons (we've worked really hard on it, it's a relevant date for the wikiproject etc etc). I think dates relevant to the content of the article are a different case, where there is added value for Wikipedia in having something which is truly relevant to the day in question.
Raul: I know you don't want to be a dick. Your problem at present seems to be that there is a de facto right to request an article on the front page for a given day, but you are finding the volume of requests unmanageable. One solution to that is to create a clear guideline that no such requests will be granted and just ignore any that come in. Which is harsh, and may make you seem like a dick, but I don't think would actually make you a dick. You may not find that distinction very comforting! :D The idea of the list of articles with links to relevant date was to provide an outlet for those who will, with some justification, say that there is value in having an article on X up on a particular day, without actually letting them believe that you have entered into an agreement to do so.
Everyone: Could I suggest that we need to achieve two things: 1) Create a system that Raul can manage. 2) Create a system that benefits the encyclopedia. Perhaps if we apply those two criteria to the ideas we're having, we might be able to find the right way to go? 4u1e (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, why does Raul have to do all of this work? Couldn't there be a Main Page Director or something like that? Raul is already swamped with FAC and ArbCom. Perhaps he would welcome some of the burden being lifted? Awadewit | talk 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say he is swamped? Has he said anything? I think that if he was swamped he would not be nominating himself for Arbcom again don't you? - Shudde talk 03:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Heck, if I were an admin I'd help! As I said above, it's just not morally right to make one person do all the work. What happens if he should decide to leave or gets hit by a bus? (Knock on wood!!) Then what? We need to develope a system which can be run easily and have any old admin pick up the slack where it's needed. Spawn Man (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, so requirement 1 becomes: Create a manageable system. Requirement 2 remains: create a system that benefits the encyclopedia. I think I saw Raul say somewhere above that he was reluctant to let go of the task, but I may have imagined it! 4u1e (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FA that have waited at least a year to be TFA

1995 Pacific hurricane season · 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) · 2003 Pacific hurricane season · 2004 Atlantic hurricane season · 2005 United States Grand Prix · 3D Monster Maze · Abyssinia, Henry · Ace Books · Acorn Computers · Action potential · Albertosaurus · Aldol reaction · All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) · Amchitka · Angelina Jolie · Ann Arbor, Michigan · Anthony Michael Hall · Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches · Architecture of Btrieve · Arctic Tern · Aspasia · Astrophysics Data System · Augusta, Lady Gregory · Austin Nichols · Axis naval activity in Australian waters · Baden-Powell House · Banksia integrifolia · Basiliscus · Battle of Alesia · Battle of Bicocca · Battle of Blenheim · Battle of Cannae · Battle of Ceresole · Battle of Dien Bien Phu · Battle of Midway · Battle of Moscow · Battle of Rennell Island · Battle of Savo Island · Battle of Schellenberg · Battle of the Eastern Solomons · Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands · Battle of the Tenaru · Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo · Battle of Warsaw (1920) · BBC television drama · Belarusian Republican Youth Union · Bengali language · Bette Davis · Bhumibol Adulyadej · Blade Runner · Boshin War · Boy Scouts of America membership controversies · British monarchy · Bruce Johnson · Btrieve · Carl G. Fisher · Caspian expeditions of the Rus · Caulfield Grammar School · Celine Dion · Chalukya dynasty · Charles Atangana · Chrono Cross · Chrono Trigger · Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway · Cochineal · Color Graphics Adapter · Convair B-36 · Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve · Crawford expedition · Cretan War · Cristero War · Daniel Boone · Darjeeling · Dawson Creek, British Columbia · Death Valley National Park · Diary of a Camper · Dietrich v The Queen · Doctor Who missing episodes · Don Dunstan · Dorset · Dr Pepper Ballpark · Dundee · Ecclesiastical heraldry · Edward III of England · Edward VI of England · Elagabalus · Elfin-woods Warbler · Empires: Dawn of the Modern World · Enta Da Stage · Enzyme kinetics · Eric Bana · Everton F.C. · F-4 Phantom II · Fauna of Puerto Rico · Fin Whale · Final Fantasy IV · Final Fantasy VIII · Final Fantasy X-2 · Firefly (TV series) · First Battle of the Stronghold · Fourth International · Frank Klepacki · Frank Macfarlane Burnet · Franklin B. Gowen · Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava · Fuck the Millennium · G. Ledyard Stebbins · Gangtok · George Brown, Baron George-Brown · George I of Great Britain · George Washington Dixon · German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I · Glacier National Park (US) · Glynn Lunney · Gremlins 2: The New Batch · Halloween III: Season of the Witch · Hasekura Tsunenaga · Himno Nacional Mexicano · History of Burnside · History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 · History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899 · History of Michigan State University · History of Solidarity · History of Tamil Nadu · History of Test cricket (to 1883) · History of the Australian Capital Territory · History of the Grand Canyon area · History of the Peerage · Hurricane Claudette (2003) · Hurricane Edith (1971) · Hurricane Esther (1961) · Hurricane Fabian · Hurricane Gloria · Hurricane Gustav (2002) · Hurricane Iniki · Hurricane Irene (1999) · Hurricane Irene (2005) · Hurricane John (1994) · Hurricane Nora (1997) · Ike Altgens · Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur · Indo-Greek Kingdom · Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) · Invasion · Italian War of 1521 · Jake Gyllenhaal · James Robert Baker · Joel Brand · John Bull (locomotive) · John Day (printer) · John Millington Synge · John W. Johnston · Joseph W. Tkach · Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) · Kazi Nazrul Islam · Kinetoscope · Kitsune · K-os · Krill · Ladakh · Latter Days · Lesch-Nyhan syndrome · Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 · Llywelyn the Great · Local Government Commission for England (1992) · Markup language · Matthew Brettingham · Mauna Loa · Megadeth · Megatokyo · Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater · Microsoft Data Access Components · Military career of Hugo Chávez · Modernist poetry in English · Moe Berg · Montréal-Mirabel International Airport · Music of Athens, Georgia · Music of Maryland · Music of Minnesota · Music of the Lesser Antilles · Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon · Nafaanra language · Natalie Clifford Barney · National emblem of Belarus · Naval Battle of Guadalcanal · Nellie Kim · New Carissa · New Radicals · Night (book) · Nightwish · Oakland Cemetery · Objectivist poets · Oceanic whitetip shark · Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee · Óengus I of the Picts · Olivier Messiaen · Operation Auca · Ormulum · P. K. van der Byl · Padmé Amidala · Palpatine · Phishing · Phonograph cylinder · Pixies · Plano Senior High School · Platypus · Point Park Civic Center · Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) · Presuppositional apologetics · Privilege of Peerage · Privy Council of the United Kingdom · Psittacosaurus · Quantum computer · Quatermass and the Pit · Ran (film) · Redwood National and State Parks · Reginald Maudling · Representative peer · Restoration literature · Rhys ap Gruffydd · Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works · Roy of the Rovers · Rus' Khaganate · Russian Ground Forces · Sassanid Empire · Satyajit Ray · Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II · Sei Whale · Serial Experiments Lain · Sheikh Mujibur Rahman · Shoshone National Forest · Sociocultural evolution · Something (song) · Speaker of the United States House of Representatives · Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones · Stephen Trigg · Summer of '42 · Surtsey · Sviatoslav I of Kiev · Sydney Newman · Syed Ahmed Khan · Ted Radcliffe · The Boondock Saints · The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) · The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker · The Office (US TV series) · The Philadelphia Inquirer · The Quatermass Experiment · The Simpsons · Theatre Royal, Drury Lane · Theramenes · Third Servile War · Thylacine · Tiridates I of Armenia · Toledo War · Tourette syndrome · Tropical Storm Allison · Tropical Storm Bill (2003) · Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) · Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) · Tropical Storm Henri (2003) · Ulm Campaign · United States Marine Corps · United States Senate · USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A · War of the Fifth Coalition · Warsaw Uprising (1794) · West Bengal · Weymouth · White Deer Hole Creek · William III of England · William IV of the United Kingdom · William N. Page · William Tecumseh Sherman · Witchfinder General (film)

I think these should be given priority. Buc (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above; it is very unlikely that an article which has not been requested or one with no significant dates will be selected to go on the main page. there will always be new featured articles with dates which will be selected first, and the articles mentioned above are stuck in limbo forever. An idea is - Why have any date requests at all??? Why not just nominate an article to go on the main page even if it doesn't have any significant dates or what not? That's solve the problem of dateless articles and older FAs not being put on the main page... Spawn Man (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I support Spawn Man's proposal to eliminate the date connection. I've been reading TFAs for two years, and first found out that they were meant to have a date connection when I came here to nominate one. People probably never notice the connection, and it just makes the process more difficult. Dylan (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Only about a quarter of TFAs are the result of date requests. The rest are chosen by Raul, who hopefully takes note of which articles have been waiting longest. Epbr123 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
True, but if an article is requested for a specific date, that article will almost certainly be favoured over one random one picked by Raul, which is unfair since many have been waiting for over 1 year! Why should date requests be dealt with first? It only complicates the process... Spawn Man (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
However, it should be noted that, with the current format of this request list, it is unlikely that many more than 5 articles per month will get on a specific date connection. A few more than 5 do, due to the sliding nature of the list, but no where near even half in any given month have a date connection. Over 50% are simply chosen by Raul from his own criteria. Yes, some very deserving FA's don't make it on the main page for a long time; however it should ALSO be noted that the oldest FA's are also the ones that have either a) degraded over time due to inattention or b) represent an article that was promoted under a different set of criteria. Thus, older articles may or may not be currently up to FA standards (indeed many are not), and thus age alone should not be the determining factor. Raul does a great job at this, I suggest we let him keep doing a great job. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be useful if somewhat old and worn FAs on highly prominent topics were given am encouraging heads up by Raul about being featured if they shaped up in, say, a month or so?
Peter Isotalo 10:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_1&oldid=1136056210"