Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Raven?

Who nominated The Raven for today's featured article? I was hoping to put it up for either January 19 (Poe's birthday) or January 29 (the anniversary of its publication). What an odd choice, December 6!!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No one nominated it; Raul654 scheduled it. thedemonhog talk • edits 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What a waste! (I say that with the utmost respect for Raul, of course) I would have loved to have it celebrate a significant Poe/Raven related day! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Suggestions_for_TFA above. Sarsaparilla (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Readding

I learned how to count since last time and readded it. Sorry, Raul...--Legionarius (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage date updating

It doesn't appear that anyone is keeping up with adding the mainpage date to the article talk page {{articlehistory}} templates as Raul assigns articles to mainpage. I did the penultimate batch, but not the last batch. It's done by adding

|maindate=Month day, year

as the last line in articlehistory. The template automatically adjust the wording to reflect when the article will be, is, or has been on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Epbr123 (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll try to do it in future, if no-one beats me to it. Epbr123 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

February?

Is it too soon to request one for February? Happyme22 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. Requests are only allowed for dates within the next month. Epbr123 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly alright - thank you! Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Must resist urge to use the blink tag. Blink tag is evil... blink tag is evil... Raul654 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Sarsaparilla (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth having a mid-term ballparky type holding area? eg. for flowering plants (or fungi) in their fruiting season? I thought it may be good to get lion sometime in leo-time (Augustish....) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, as a means of dealing with both the time horizon and the "number of slots" issue. If the net result of the current system is that the only way to get a "hearing" is to busy-wait by wikistalking the FAD for a time when a nomination is 'allowed' to be listed, some sort of preliminary "clerking" would seem to be strongly indicated. Alai (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Five requests?

"There may be no more than five requests on this page at any time." OK, someone talk me through this one slowly. Isn't the month-long planning horizon a sufficient constraint in and of itself? What's the need (or desire) to limit it further? Alai (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the archives. We've had this discussion many times already and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What we need is a FAQ page for stuff like this. Buc (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

... or alternatively, a different response, as opposed to repetition of the same one. Alai (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not subscribe to the theory that asking the same question over-and-over again until you get the response you want is a behavior that should be rewarded. The alternatives, in this case, are (a) to go back to the way this page used to be (no limit on requests - 200+ outstanding requests that I ignore because of unwieldy size) or (b) delete this page. Which do you prefer? Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The decussion in "This page is never empty!" sums it up best I think. Buc (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Before long, there will be 1,000 FAs that haven't been on the mainpage. At some point, editors are going to have to accept the inevitable: gaining FA status is not a guarantee the article will be on the mainpage. There are too many factors involved in scheduling the mainpage to expect Raul to sort through hundreds of requests. Expanding the list from five to say, ten, won't solve the problem: all FAs will not get to the mainpage whether this list is 5 or 20. Someone once (I can't recall who) started a page about how the community could give mainpage feedback to Raul. I added to it, but it became unwieldy and Raul removed it. I don't even remember the name of that page, but perhaps a mechanism that allows the community to present five choices a month to Raul would help. The problem with this page is that it's a matter of who gets here first, and the community doesn't remove less "valid" (however you measure that) requests to allow for new requests. A lot of the requests amount to ILIKEIT, and don't account for other mainpage scheduling issues. If this page can't be resolved in a way that presents five requests a month to Raul, I think its usefulness is limited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I went back in archives and found the old semi-proposal (never finished). The idea was to provide a mechanism that Raul didn't even have to mess with, where the community could sort out which five requests were worthy of presentation to Raul, recognizing that Raul was under no obligation to use them. I still like the idea of finding a way to sort out which five requests can be presented to Raul; the problem with this page now is that it's whoever gets here first, but the problem with the proposal is that it created another top-heavy "process". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about speeding up the removal of requests that are unlikely to get support? We could decide on 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? Epbr123 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The "have to be waiting at least two months" is problematic: Brown Dog affair was a 100-year anniversay. Absolutes should be discouraged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion which may satisfy both sides of the equation: Why don't we create a featured article calendar using the format "Wikipedia:suggested TFAs" and transclude the twelve monthes of year onto the page. On each month page we list our as-yet-to-be-on-the-main-page articles on a day that is signifigant to them. As the year advances we can list the articles on the calender here on the five page request page for final approval for TFA. In this manner we can create a system that allows people to put there articles up in advance while retaining the five page cap that Raul has here. By creating a calender and allowing people to place FA-class articles in the month pages under the day which is important to the article we as a community can get a better idea of the articles which should be on the main page on certain dates. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

too many hurricanese featured on main page

Not again! Not another hurricane! Are hurricanes the only subject in which wikipedia produces quality articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.68.231 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LRR - proposed Long Range Requests page

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests has been set up to see if this concept will catch on. Hopefully this will spur new ideas on how to submit and process requests and a workable system can be devised that balances everyone's concerns in a fair way. For discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Long range requests. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture that was but is no longer free

It looks like Image:MatthewFox.png will be featured on the main page soon. When it was uploaded to Wikipedia, it was free, but the owner has since changed the license. Should a different picture be used? I have contacted someone via e-mail who is willing to change the license on their image for Wikipedia to use. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "was free"? If the image was released to commons by the owner, he can not withdraw it from there. At least, I understand copyright law in this way. Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Creative Commons, it is still free. Wikipedia obtained the picture under a CC license, the originator of the image later changed the license. However, according to CC, our copy of the image is still covered by the license under which we obtained it. Here is the cc explanation. Pastordavid (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Who decides?

I know Raul is the FA director and decides which to put up on the main page because of the process here, but what about when the five slots are taken (such as now)? Who moves them away so new ones can be nominated? I've been waiting for months to secure the February 6 slot for Ronald Reagan but cannot seem to even nominate it because all the slots are filled. There hasn't even been any activity on the page in a day! Happyme22 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When Raul schedules the days, they are removed from the nomination page. Watch this page, and when January 12 is scheduled (whether it is the nominee or not), the current nominee for Jan 12 will soon be removed from the nomination page, freeing up a slot. Pastordavid (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can also try posting your request on the new long range requests page. This is a new idea, and we are still seeing how it will work. Pastordavid (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick response. I've nominated it there with the full TFA box, incase anyone is interested :) Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Long range requests

I hope that the long range requests page has just as much weight in deciding which is which on what day as this page? Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all up to the featured article director. In the past, he has been skeptical about having a request page with more than 5 requests at a time. 212.71.160.50 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My idea for revamping this page: a point system

I've put some thought into reforming this page. A number of people have complained vehemently about the first-come-first-serve basis that this page operates on. I had a bit of serendipity tonight for how to change it. I'd like to see what everyone thinks of it, and then try it experimentally to get a feel for how it works.

Here's how the page will work -- the rule that you can't nominate for an already-chosen day, the no-more-than-30-days-in-the-future limit, and the 5 nomination limit, all stay in place. This keeps me happy. However, each nominator must calculate the point value for his nomination. If your point value is greater than a request already on this page, you can replace it with yours.

The point are based on the criteria Marskell came up with (which are now at the top of the page). My goal was to lay out objective measures of these. The values are arbitrary, designed by me to represent what I think the proper weights should be:

Older featured articles:

• Promoted more than a year ago: 1 points
• Promoted 2 or more years ago: 2 points

Anniversaries (not counting births or deaths):

• Single year anniversary: 1/2 point
• Decadial anniversary: 5 points
• Centennial anniversary: 10 points

Topical importance

• Very notable topic: 1 point
• Core topic: 2 points

Systemic bias

• Subject underrepresented on in Wikipedia or on main page: 1 point

What does everyone think? Raul654 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Love it. 10 points for trying. Maybe -1 point if nominator has had 2 or more articles on main page. +1 if none at all? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sort of confused, because I don't see how this would help someone still nominate an article. The point of the points would be seen after it was nominated, and if that is so, then there will always be a tight race for people to nominate the article, and then for it to be reviewed to see what points it gets. I hope you understand what I mean. xihix(talk) 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The points are calculated by the nominator. If you want to nominate something and the article (and date) you want to nominate have a higher point value than a nomination already on this page, you can replace it. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I think the best thing would be to trial it and see how everything goes and if there are complaints, possibly back to the drawing board...? I would still like a way for articles with no real significant dates to be requested, but at least this is progress and a step forward towards finding a model that will work. I'll help whichever way I can Raul because, as you know, I want this feature of wikipedia to work since I use it so often nowadays. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was initially confused as well, but after the clarification I like the idea. I still would like to know if the long range requests page has equal weight in deciding the TFA as this one does, as I am hell bent on getting Ronald Reagan's on February 6. Happyme22 (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I have:

• Lion= 1 point (notable(?))
• Common Raven= 1 point (notable(?))

my others are probably zero as they have no anniversaries etc. and we've had lots of biology. Actually do you mean with systemic bias all articles, FA or FA been on main page? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This still doesn't solve my issue with no-date FAs. For example, take one of Cas' mushroom articles; they have no date and no real reason to be associated with one. How does he go about requesting it? Certainly all his articles would be replaced due to points difference because his articles aren't notable, do not have date links etc etc. He would have to wait 2 years before his points were enough to be able to stay on the request's board for more than a week (Or if by some miracle they're randomly picked for the main page). I'd suggest having a seperate request page for immediate requests, long range requests and FA's without dates. Spawn Man (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, I support this, but it will need some hammering out.

• There should also be points for how many people have pending. Suggest:
  • Three FAs or less, none on TFA: 1 point.
  • Four FAs or more, none on TFA: 2 points.
  • Four FAs or more, with previous TFA(s): 1 point if more than half have not been on TFA.
• "Very notable topic" by itself will lead to argument. Suggested rule of thumb: show that the article subject is also on Britannica or Encarta. (or Billy Joel's song)
• While Spawn Man's concern is understandable, because a single year anniversary is only 1/2 point here I don't think it major: if it's a strong nominee in other respects it can get through. And note Raul has deprecated birthdays. I support this—that Example Celebrity was born on a given day has always been trivial to me.

Those are my first thoughts. Marskell (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea, but I don't like that birthdays are ignored, and I don't think the number of FAs someone has should be considered. Epbr123 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not, on last? If you've never had one, it should certainly be relevant: one of the great, widely mentioned draws of the FA process is that you get the opportunity for the joys (and pain) of a mainpage day. And for the people who get up five, ten, fifteen, it's also true that continued TFAs can be a motivator. Marskell (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you've changed my mind. It should really be the article that's judged, not the nominator, but I suppose it's ok if it encourages more FAs. Epbr123 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And regarding birthdays, why is the birth of a town or sporting event a significant date, but not the birth of a person? Epbr123 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, by the way the points are right now, the article I wanted to nominate, Dookie, wouldn't have any points to nominate it for... :( xihix(talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How many pionts for birthdays and "it was no this day that" things? Buc (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Xihix, that is my point exactly. I don't fancy waiting a year or two for my article with no significant dates (Now that birthdays aren't counted!) to finally get enough points to be able to even be considered, and even then it may be removed if someone else has a more notable topic. As Marskell said, TFA is indeed a huge motivator for me personally. Before the request page change earlier to only 5 requests etc, I was able to freely put my article up and ask for whatever date Raul felt was good and actually see results. Now I have to wait a year so the article's only date comes around again, sit day and night behind the computer just waiting for one of the 5 requests to come off and hopefully my internet connection won't crap out as I try and put my request on before someone else does. And now add the fact that it won't matter as others may still be able to remove your request for their own, it adds up to a very stressful and time consuming proccess. I'd rather take a full FAC any day and it really discourages me from creating new FA's if half the people on here are never going to see them. I'm sorry, but on second thought, although it's definite progress, this points system may not be the best route to take after all... Why don't we get a bot to just get all the important dates from each newly featured article and list it on a page which Raul can review and pick for the next upcoming date relevant? All those without dates can then be nominated by hand in the process being used now. At least that way, articles with important anniversaries or dates will be featured more.... I dunno, the whole system sucks. *Big sigh* Spawn Man (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul, could you explain why you have weighted the anniversaries more heavily than anything else? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. Is it really fair that a centennial annerversary be granted five times as many points as an article about a core topic? Why should the time that an FA has been waiting in queue be worth as much as high-importance or underrepresented topics? I feel it should be the other way around. Award notable topics 5 and core topics 10 and let the community-related factors settle for tie-breaker points. Giving the big points to centennials and time spent in FA queues seems like it would mostly just reward obscure one-man-shows, not collective efforts on major topics.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main point of this page was to get articles which had a date connection featured on a certain date (although the system was slightly abused by users nominating articles with very flimsy date connections). It was only an afterthought that the page could also be used to alert Raul of good FAs that had been overlooked for TFA. Articles on core topics will probably end up on the main page anyway eventually, but there's no real need to get them featured on a certain date or to get them featured as soon as possible. Epbr123 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article decadial and centennial anniversaries are not common - in fact, they're fairly rare. When they do occur, I think they should end up on the main page -- which is why I have weighted them as such. A core topic gets two points for whenever it is nominated. Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Centennials are no rarer than 101st anniversaries. It's just that people arbitrarily like them. If this page is only for date-related requests, that is fine, but, if so, could we have a second page for non-date-related requests? If that is not the cards - if we are to have only one page for wikipedia editors to nominate articles for the main page - I'm not quite sure why anniversaries should receive so much weight. Awadewit | talk 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What if someone wanted an article on the football World Cup to featured on the opening day of the World Cup? How would that fit in with the points system? Epbr123 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Hmm. Okay. I don't really spend my Wikipedia time sitting on waiting for pages to change, so for all intents and purposes, is putting my FA in Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page and just waiting for it to come around the best thing to do? —Rob (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems potentially workable. Presumably if a specific day is requested it has some connection. Would suggest avoiding half points, and it would be good to spell out "very notable" - does that mean traditional encyclopedic topics, or something else? Gimmetrow 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am undecided on the point system, but I am glad Raul has reworked the relevant date criteria to restrict to rare anniversaries, thereby giving other FAs that don't have a specific important date a chance to be featured. It seems they get pushed to the wayside in lieu of trivial birthdates and sports series openings, etc. And if the decision is ultimately up to the Director to determine relevance, then I don't see voting as necessary and seems a complete waste of space and time. Same thing if there is a multiple request for the same date, let nominators place it, and let Raul decide. Period. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The points system heavily biases towards people and events. I've been the major contributor to five FAs, none have been on main page, and since they are all birds (non-notable, no anniversaries) they probably never would be under the proposed system. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone noticed your lament, Jim. :-)

Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like this idea either. Who decides if something is notable? How do you determine whether someone "wrote" x-amount of FAs, or whether they were just part of a collaboration? FA isn't the one-editor job it used to be anymore. Wrad (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How to prevent TFA for a period of time

Since we can only list suggestions for the next 30 days, how does one prevent an article from being placed on the Main Page for the months before that? For example, I came here wanting to secure August 1, 2008 for Oxygen (it was discovered by Priestley on that day in 1774) but I can't seem to do that. This is the type of article that I know will most certainly be randomly selected to be on the Main Page well before that. --mav (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Could we have two articles on the main page that day? Joseph Priestley hasn't been on the main page yet. :) There is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests, but I don't know if Raul takes it seriously. Awadewit | talk 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh - I'd rather have Priestley featured on his birthday in March b/c there really isn't another good date for oxygen other than its discovery date by him. I didn't know that that other page existed b/c it is not linked from the side box. Oh, and I see that Raul is ignoring it; Golden plates was requested on that page to be TFA for the date that they were supposedly found but I see he instead scheduled it for tomorrow. Rather daft if you ask me. But my question (directed at Raul and anybody who is interested) is now; why is that page being ignored? IF we are going to try to make a relation to TFAs and a day of the year, then why do we only have a month window to do so? Shouldn't this page directly be used to help decide, as a community with Raul making the final decision, what the best days an article should be TFA? --mav (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are the eternal questions we ask here. There is a new system being proposed one section above this. Awadewit | talk 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Two a day

Hi. Just another proposal. I would happily part with some text in favor of two TFA's a day. Maybe that would help fix the backlog? -Susanlesch (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To actually get rid of the backlog would require more than just double TFAs in the long run. At least if we expect that the number of promotions keep increasing while the number of demotions stay roughly the same. If we really would want to attempt to try to award all FAs, or at least all FA authors, mainpage time it would seem more realistic to introduce a secondary FA box similar to DYK.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What about making greater use of the portals' selected articles? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On Diversity

Raul:

One of the main motivators for people to write spend the time and energy is to see their work featured on the main page. In computer science and engineering, we have a concept called Resource starvation - it occurs when a program is perpetually denied a necessary resource. The selection for main page FAs should be done in such a way as to avoid starvation. That is, nobody should feel perpetually denied the chance to have their work on the main page. It's one thing that it might take a while for their work to appear on the main page; it's a very different thing to know their work will never go there. This is why I am extremely reluctant to say I won't feature such-and-such an article or class of articles on the main page. It is a sure-fire way to de-motivate people from writing about that subject.

Much of Wikipedia's content, and all of the day to day functions are overseen by a small core of the most dedicated contributors. These users are the most valuable resource Wikipedia has.

The experience of nominating Chrono Trigger has turned me off considerably to the process. I edit articles and bring them up to standard because I enjoy the possibility of sharing and promoting something I like with the rest of the world. However, it now seems that even under the current, swift request system (which is better than the old one), I will probably never get my five waiting articles on the main page because of opposition based on diversity. In reference to that, here are three questions:

1. Given the above quotes from Raul and the nature of core editor contribution to Wikipedia, is it worth it to retread common-subject Featured Articles in the interest of diversity while holding back more obscure topics, effectively delaying or deferring the chief benefit of writing a Featured Article to editors of those topics?

2. Is it such a bad thing that Wikipedia might have somewhat proportionally more pop-culture featured articles on the main page than something like Encyclopedia Britannica? Everyone who objected to Torchic was directed to help with more basic articles, just as everyone who complains about an absence of news is directed to participate in ITN, or as those who complain about errors are told they have the power to fix them. It is an educational experience and an honest recognition of systemic bias with the encouragement to remedy it, perhaps bringing in new editors while satisfying the ones who painstakingly work on more narrow articles of interest.

3. What is the practical impact in the long run? In addition to the TFA, the main page features links to articles of all topics in DYK, ITN, etc. A concern over lost encyclopedic credibility over featuring video game articles to newcomers is mitigated by these numerous other represented subjects. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how actively encouraging systemic bias would lead to anything other than a strengthening that systemic bias. What it all boils down to is special treatment of a particular sub-topic of entertainent and/or popular culture. Why do video games deserve 1/30th (or any random ratio) of mainpage attention in comparision to the myriad of other topics out there?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a strong argument for systemic bias here. I agree with Peter that allowing pop culture articles articles to appear on the main page more frequently "boils down to special treatment". I would like to emphasize that my position has never been that such articles are not important or do not deserve to be on the main page. I just do not think that they should be granted more time on the main page than any other category of knowledge. I rest this argument on equal access to knowledge and basic fairness, but there are many other arguments to support it. If you would like me to enumerate them, please ask. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you so sure that the articles you help gain FA will never appear on the MP? Buc (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger: waiting 1.5 years. Chrono Cross: waiting 1.5 years. Frank Klepacki: waited 1 year. Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon: waiting 1 year, 2 months. Final Fantasy IV: waiting 1 year, 3 months. Let's not even bring up Radical Dreamers, which is abandonware and will be even more susceptible to prejudice. At this rate, I will be a very old man by the time my articles all make the rounds. The issue here is about editors. I predominantly write video game articles, and as experience has numbingly proven, that means the main page benefit of writing FAs which Raul highlights the importance of is almost totally deferred in my case. I thought surely, I could start getting them on if I used the new nomination system, but I had no idea the diversity police would descend to impose arbitrary topic limits. My incentive to meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia is now approaching zero. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All that really maters is where Raul stands on this issue (You many want to contact him directly to find this out). If he agree with you he will most likly ignore all the ojections and compile with your request. Buc (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think FA writing is going to have to become a thing to aim for in and of itself, rather than with a view to being on the main page. We have an increasing number of FAs, but still just 365 days in the year.

Several people have suggested some other incentives e.g. linking on the main page to some recent successful FACs, or to the names of their writers, or having a Featured Article Editor featured in some way. Or we could have a page highlighting a few relevant FAs every day, depending on anniversaries and so on -- today's Featured Articles page -- which could be linked from the main page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In Zeality's specific case, I'm sympathetic and have long argued here that we need to consider how many people have waiting alongside the other factors. (When I voted I noticed you did have one TFA with Frank Klepacki.) You can't expect that all of those five are going to go up, however. I think we might do one of the Chrono titles and let the other go. Similarly, Final Fantasy has appeared on the main page three times. The other thing is that FA production is increasing, by about a 30% a year. It should come in around 2.5 per day this year. Raul has vetoed two TFAs per day, so people with multiple FAs are going to have to accept that not all of them will be a TFA, particularly if they are from a single subject area. Could DYK handle two slots for FAs? That might help.

On the larger issue, I think we need to reasonably accomodate the pop culture, while prioritizing other areas because they are comparatively underrepresented. The four of 28 FA categories that absorb pop cult—Media, Music, Sport and recreation, and Video games—account for 500, or 26%, of our FAs. To put that in perspective, religion, philosophy, and math account for 60 or 3%. There's no way we should give pop cult the same relative weight on the main page that it has on the FA list. Marskell (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is growing very clear that there needs to be a policy regarding main page featured articles, and it should state that "all featured articles that have not previously appeared on the main page are allowed to be shown except those that (put the policy on x-rated articles here in some specific accepted wording), and then something about how spacing is important but shouldn't keep articles off the main page. 02:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)

It's perfectly obvious that all FAs can't be TFAs and if anyone winds up writing FAs on over-represented topics they are going to have to accept the fact that it's harder to get one's work on the main page. Either we start thinking about how to feature more than one FA per day, or we stick to the discussion about how certain topics should be represented on the talkpage. Writing unrealistic policies that only entrench misconceptions about the inalienable right to have every FA featured solves nothing.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree that any policy change is needed; Raul is doing just fine at a difficult task that involves balancing many factors. The good news is that we have more FAs than can go on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has written somewhere between 15 and 20 FAs, all about eighteenth-century figures and texts, it would be absurd for me to expect them all to appear on the main page within a year or two. I think that some of the requesters on this page need to take a longer view and think of the process both in terms of the editor and of the reader. TFA is not primarily for editors - it is primarily for readers. We are offering our readers a sample of wikipedia - we should try to offer them a variety of articles. We should also try to offer them knowledge on topics they might be unfamiliar with. Sometimes this means popular culture and sometimes geology and sometimes literature and sometimes history, etc. (we have several different audiences and we can't speak to them equally with each TFA). While TFA can be a reward for editors, that should not be its primary function. Wikipedia still does claim to be an encyclopedia and its most important consideration should always be its readers. Awadewit | talk 15:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are lists rarely chosen as Today's Featured Article?

I'm curious as to why Featured Lists typically not chosen as Today's Featured Article? I haven't seen one in recent months and was wondering about this. Gary King (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, they are never chosen as TFAs as far as I know. The TFA space is for articles. There were various proposals for including a separate lists section on the main page as lists of the day, see the various proposals: proposal, proposal 1, proposal 2, proposal 3, proposal 4, proposal 5, oh and an already running but complicated WP:LOTD. Woody (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Have I missed the window for nominating Surfer Rosa for TFA? I was thinking of nominating the article to appear on the front page on March 20 (marking the 20th anniversary of its release), but it seems like I've missed my chance. As I've never nominated an article here before (nor had one appear on the front page), I'd appreciate some clarification. CloudNine (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can still nominate—any date within a month. But there's five on the page now, so you'll have to wait. It hasn't been cleared out in a while. Marskell (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But surely I'll have to constantly watch the page in the hope that a date is removed? I don't think I'll be able to, which means it won't appear on that date. Isn't the present system biased towards FA writers who have enough time to watch this page? CloudNine (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the system is biased towards those who have time to hit refresh. This has been mentioned before. This new system was implemented after the "requests" got out of hand (over 100 or something) under the previous system. It is far from perfect and there have been several suggestions for reforming it. See Raul's point system above. Awadewit | talk 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Raul's merit-based point system. In my opinion, the anniversaries parameter should be dropped, but his proposal is much better than the current one. I support going for a test trial. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with earlier dates?

If the queue is filled for five dates later in the month (for example, 25 March, 26 March, 27 March, 28 March, and 29 March) and one would like to make a request for an earlier date (19 March for example), then how does one make a request for that date? Unless someone voluntarily removes a request. wouldn't the queue stay frozen until the 25th? --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed my chance as someone took a free slot requesting 24 March!!! What can be done about the problem I described above? As the next request is 11 March, no one can make a proposal for the coming week, from today to the 10th.

My suggestion: there are two parameters: five slots, thirty days. To avoid or to reduce the problem above, bring the two parameters closer together. For example, five slots are available for the next five days instead of the next thirty. Or maybe five slots for the next ten days? At least with the latter, it would reduce the probability of slots getting blocked by requests at later dates. Comments anyone??? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You could add a comment to the 24 March slot, explaining that you had hoped X would fill that slot (and the important part: why), allowing editors to decide which they'd prefer. PeterSymonds | talk 21:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am looking to make a request, but at this point I am not so desperate yet to ask other editors to delay their request. I am just trying to suggest a solution to the "slot-blocking" problem. My proposal does not solve the "first-come-first-served" problem though. This is just a small fix until we figure out a better system. So my proposal is to change to the following sentence on the WP:TFA/R page:

• Requests must be for dates within the next five days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests on this page at any time.

Thoughts? --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that the page is starting to limit itself to "requests for random anniversary TFAs" instead of being a general request page. All this preoccupation with date coincidences obscures the fact that for the most part it's a weak argument for featuring just about any article. For example, the current request for sea otter could just as well go on any random date.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ignore this proposal. Instead, I made one possible implementation of Raul's proposal below. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason to put a TFA on an anniversary date is that anniveraries are when the public is more likely to already have a heightened awareness of something because of off-wiki coverage, and is therefore more likely to read the article. So when I was finishing up Sea otter I asked myself when the public would be most likely to have a heightened interest already. The answers that came to me are Sea Otter Awareness Week, which is usually in the fall, March 24 2009 which is the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez spill and which will probably be covered quite heavily in the media, and March 24 (any year) which always gets at least a "Today in History" mention in the usual news places. I don't want to sound like I'm pushing super-hard for Sea otter when there are a great many equally deserving articles, but FWIW that was my reasoning. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether certain articles are more or less appropriate for certain dates isn't really what I was concerned about. What I'm addressing is that dates appear to constitute the deciding factor above all others for requests on this page.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I agree. If we were churning out FA's at the same rate we could put them on the main page, more emphasis on dates would make sense. However, as we have more FA's than TFA slots, a broader approach is needed to ensure that the strongest overall candidates get slots at all. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Implementing Raul's proposal

I made a sandbox implementation of Raul's proposal. Please take a look. I have no idea what would be the definition of a "Very notable topic", so I gave every nomination one point. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The "very notable" description might very well result in plenty of bickering if we don't define it properly. One way of solving it might be to go by the importance ratings of the higher level WikiProjects. By that definition Chrono Trigger and Melodifestivalen (both mid-level in their highest-level projects) would not be awarded a point while Chelsea F.C. would. I'm less sure about the Duchess of Argyll and sea otter, but I'm leaning that neither of them could be considered "very notable".

Personally, I think we should be awarding far more points for notability than any of the other categories combined.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If Core topics are defined by WP:CORE (2 points), then perhaps notable topics can be defined by Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000 (1 point)? If that definition is used, then all articles currently nominated will get no points for notability. I also like Casliber's idea of adding an incentive factor to writing an FA. I would suggest 1 point if the nominator had never had an article on the main page. But before we go around changing the criteria, it would be good if Raul and others would weigh in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this proposal take into account of topic diversity? A topic could have, say, 5 points, but a similar topic may have appeared more frequently that month. PeterSymonds | talk 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He accounted for this under "Systemic bias". A point would be given if the topic is underrepresented in Wikipedia. I guess the criteria could use the distribution of FA subject areas as shown in the recent dispatch. Another point would be given if the topic has not appeared very often on the main page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. My other concern is the invitation to other editors to replace requests with a "better" one, based on the points. It could be seen as a bit of a slap in the face to the nominator. Maybe there could be an allowance for a second nomination, but for the same date, so editor's can support/oppose the one they choose? PeterSymonds | talk 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Topical importance should be dropped unless better defined. And it makes no mention of how many people have pending. In general, it's still a workable idea though. Marskell (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Raul had topical importance as a criteria, we should probably keep it. Instead, how about keeping the WP:CORE topics as 2 points and dropping the "Very notable" category (at least until it can be better defined)? I think once we have a test run going, there will be further discussions about tweaking or adding parameters. I don't know about a criterion for number of FAs pending. I'd much rather see more new writers coming in (1 point for the first FA on the main page) than always rewarding the writers with the big numbers on WBFAN. I figure the best writers are willing to wait their turn using other criteria to jump in as they already had their "main page experience". On the editors replacing another one, it is tough, but if the replacing nominee can defend the points claim, the replaced nominee should accept. Adding a vote for competing nominations would complicate things. Also, people watching this page would, I hope, police bad faith nominations. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Awarding points for number of FAs pending favors obscure article topics and gives the impression that TFAs are editor awards rather than a service for readers. If anyone wants to make a plea about not having had an article on the mainpage, let them do so outside of any point system. Considering the attitudes prevailing in the Chrono Trigger nomination I'd prefer if it wasn't in the instructions either.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the proposal implementation a bit. I haven't dropped the "Very notable" category yet. We should also consider the definition of "underrepresented". I was thinking of the halfway point (i.e., underrepresented means # of FA's per category less than 50). --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like idea of using the number of FAs someone has written that haven't appeared on the main page, either - that would tilt any request I made ridiculously in my favor, for example (I have 15 FAs that haven't been on the main page or something like that). I agree completely with Peter that main page status for an article should be determined not by the editor's qualifications, but by the article's qualifications. I would also like to add that I am still disturbed by the heavy weight being given anniversaries - it means that articles which have no strong date connection will essentially always lose out to those that do. Many kinds of articles don't have possible date connections. That doesn't mean that editors shouldn't have the opportunity of nominating them to appear on the main page. Awadewit | talk 17:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also love to drop the anniversary criterion as well, but since Raul had argued in favour of this, we should try to tweak it. I propose dropping the single anniversary weight. That leaves the decadial and centennial ones which Raul mentioned would occur rarely. Then reduce the weights to 2 and 4 points respectively. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I updated the draft dropping "Very notable" and reducing the anniversary effect. The numbers have been updated. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realised another justification for dropping the single anniversary weighting. We already have the "On this day..." column on the main page. Of course, that might be a reason to drop decadial and centennial anniversaries as well... :-/ Does anyone disagree with the proposal as it stands? --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you mean this proposal, I disagree with giving more points to an article featured two or more years ago, as I can't see what difference that makes to the article itself, which people seem to agree is what matters. Also, a couple of questions: what does "Subject underrepresented on main page" mean exactly and who decides whether something has been underrepresented, and what is a "core topic," and who has defined it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's designed for the editors. The benefit of writing a featured article is castrated for most people if you can't get it on the main page. This is not my selfish point of view, either; check the many user-written guides for it. Most highlight it as the final stop on a Wikipedian's journey. If the passed time means it's fallen prey to vandals, then it simply won't make the cut, so nothing to worry about. In addition, it means the article's principal proponent has to still be around and active to request it; if odds are that this person is gone, it won't clutter up the request system anyway. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

People seemed to agree above that what mattered was the article, not how many FAs an editor has already had on the main page, for example. Similarly, how long ago an article was promoted has no effect on the article itself, so I see no reason to prioritize articles promoted two or more years ago. All should compete equally, depending on quality, interest, relevance, important dates coming up, and so on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why a centennial would only have four points, when that would surely be a key factor? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We've already been through the fact that there are way too many FAs compared to TFA slots, and that fact alone disqualifies your claim, Zeality. I've never seen anyone define TFA in this manner either. The only bonus features of Wikipedia which are really meant entirely for editors are barnstars and similar awards. The rest is about writing articles for readers, not ourselves.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to consider some weight from the project(s) importance rating for nominations? This is similar to the Core idea, but say a topic is High or Mid in at least one project it falls under, then while not a Core topic, it maybe gets a point here. This would put, for example, Chrono Trigger over the recent "ESRB Re-rating" article. (Mid vs Low within WP:VG). --MASEM 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't work for very specific projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Rights in Sri Lanka and the likes. Even within really high-level projects like those on history, biology or linguistics a mid-level article doesn't need to be all that notable. Core topics are probably the only ones that would not lead to complicated disagreement, especially since projects (and their members) also have a tendency to exaggerate the importance and notability of their own work.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that we want TFA to feature Core articles the most frequently, but at times should "random walk" outside that to show articles that are FA, but not in Core, to help demonstrate the depth of WP (partially guided by the fact that we'll likely run out of Core FAs before we run out of non-Core FAs). A core article should be weighted more, for sure, but I think even with bias that a project might give to certain articles, but allowing these "once in a while" does no harm to the goal of TFA. --MASEM 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this definitely what WP:TFA/R is going to look like in the future? –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not definite, but I would like to experiment with it and see what happens. Raul654 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The original proposal was from Raul (see the thread above). His goal was to modify the “first-come-first-served” basis of declaring a nomination (see also another thread). He translated the current preference statement (see current page) into weighting factors. As it is he who will decide on the type of request system he would like to implement, the suggested implementation attempts to strictly follow his proposal with only minor changes based on our input. It is still Raul who decides whether he takes the implementation, takes his own implementation, or continues with the current system as is. In my opinion, the current system is terrible because it can block slots for days or weeks with no possibility of inserting a nomination and it doesn’t take into account any of the preference criteria. Raul’s proposal solves this to a great extent. If I had to vote, I would support either Raul's original proposal or the tweaked one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to complain because people are always complaining about WP:TFA/R, but the reason I like the current system is because it gives me a shot of getting my articles (TV-related) onto the main page. I propose that nominations remain on WP:TFA/R for at least three or five days before being replaced by something with greater points. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should also include a recommendation to only nominate one article at a time. Since there are so few opportunities to nominate an article for the main page, I think that editors should not nominate more than one article at a time. Awadewit | talk 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea on one nomination at a time. I assume no one will disagree with that so I will put that in right away. Concerning a waiting period for replacing a nomination, that would block the requests page for a few days and it doesn’t really serve a useful purpose. The current system, which you said you prefer, is only advantageous for Wikiholics (or to lottery players) and does not help to implement the preference criteria. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for trying it. Awadewit | talk 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the notability criteria because I think it's important to have some kind of graduated scale from ordinary articles (0 points) to core topics (2 points). The rule of thumb I'm using for the moment is - is it something that a 5th grader would have heard of. (In the case of the requests page mockup that RelHistBuff set up, I would give 1 point to sea otter and 0 to the rest) Admitetely, this is subjective, and an objective system would work better. But until then, if we do go forward with this, we'll have to live with my subjectivity. Raul654 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean some sort of global fifth grader rather than a US fifth grader, an Australian fifth grader, a UK fifth grader, etc.? That way we can try to avoid nationalism. :) Awadewit | talk 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(What's a UK fifth-grader? :) Semi-seriously: what age would that be? The term means nothing in the UK, in the same way that sixth-former would mean nothing to you guys. 4u1e (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

(Note: My comment was supposed to point out that problem. Sorry for not making that clearer.) Awadewit | talk 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposal in general. But I think it misses one important class of articles: Ones that are highly relevant to the date but aren't necessarily a decadial or centennial anniversary. For example, let's say I get Easter Bunny up to featured status, and I want it to appear on the main page on Easter Sunday. Under the proposed point scheme, I would get, at best, one point for being a "very notable topic", and even that would be debatable. But then, shouldn't it be a shoe-in that something like Easter or Easter Bunny would be featured on the main page if such articles were in the wings for Easter Sunday? (I don't mean to focus solely on Easter, either; what about Santa Claus on Christmas, or Earth on Earth Day, should such articles be available?) — Dulcem (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 is dedicated to anniversaries. There is nothing to do about that. There are other issues with some of your examples as well - religious issues, for example. Why privilege Christian holidays? Eek. :) I'm not sure what to do about that. Awadewit | talk 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Christmas is arguably no longer a Christian holiday, but I take your point and tried to address it by including Earth Day. :) If someone gets, say, Chinese New Year or Diwali to featured status, I would wholeheartedly support them to appear on the main page on those respective dates. Perhaps this category is too narrow to worry about putting into the criteria, but I would find it extremely irking if I nominated one of these only to have it replaced with some video game that happens to be celebrating its 10-year release-date anniversary. — Dulcem (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a footnote that tries to define the subjective criteria. It relies on the concept of a child trying to use Wiki for school. That eliminates items of high interest to children that are not notable (video games for example). It remains subjective, but less prone to arguments. Comments on this? Concerning the special days, it would be somewhat difficult to define this without opening a can of worms. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Grr. I don't know why people keep dropping the importance of articles pending by nominator. Sea Otter in the mock-up, for example, clearly deserves a point for the enormous amount of work that the first-time nominator put into it. But that doesn't count, by these standards, even though it's half the reason I'd vote for it... No, someone with fifteen or fifty, wouldn't be ridiculously over-represented. As suggested, give a point if you've never had a TFA and give a point if you have half of your nominations pending. In no way is that drastic.

The definition of importance, meanwhile, is going to be devilish, no matter what we decide here... Marskell (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Erk. "A "very notable topic" is considered to be subject matter that would be of interest to a ten-year old using Wikipedia for a school project." I totally appreciate Rel's attempts to move this forward, but this criterion begs the question rather than answering it. Marskell (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Marskel, do you think the issue of notability or importance should be dropped altogether, because it is so difficult to define? Awadewit | talk 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did propose an idea in this thread (originally Casliber's idea) to give a point for a first time TFA for an editor. No one commented on it at the time, but I could put that in the mockup. I am still tracking the current requests page so one can see how the current nominations stack up in the proposed system. I know the footnote is subjective, but unless we can come up with a better objective definition, well, what shall we say? Raul did mention that we need to promote the vague concept of "notability". --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the first time TFA, is there an easy way to check if it really is the nominator's first time TFA? --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I check using WP:WBFAN for first time nominators.

If the nominator has one FA, then, yes, WBFAN will help. But some have more than one (one person mentioned here on this talk page that he had four FAs before having one selected as a TFA). I guess the only way is to check every one of the nominator's FAs. :-/ --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding importance, I think we need a criterion that can't be disputed or none at all. Checking whether Britannica and/or Encarta has a corresponding entry was one suggestion (although this may lead to "they don't, but they should" arguments). Marskell (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We have to have a criterion (whether a vague or well-defined) because Raul has mandated that points for "very notable topic" should exist. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could use the amount of page views to estimate notability, using Article traffic statistics. Epbr123 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that suggestion; maybe there could be a link to that tool on the nominations page. The higher the traffic, (in general) the higher the notability (excluding exceptions like traffic produced at DYK, FAC etc). PeterSymonds | talk 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Page traffic seems to make sense but, as has been pointed out in previous discussions, sex and video games always top any list of pages hit. Can't remember where the link is, but someone on Wikimedia collates the traffic data, per month—sex and Pokemon, followed by countries, were the biggest groups, last I saw. Marskell (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. True, especially with the high volume of video game FAs. I guess the tool could be used as a last resort by someone unfamiliar with a certain person or topic, but for undoubtedly famous topics (eg. though non-featured, Churchill, Dickens, London, New York etc), there should be no problem. PeterSymonds | talk 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From the same website for the article statistics, the top hits of Wikipedia are shown. There are interesting articles near the top, but mixed with the pop, US politics, sex, TV, I cannot see it being very useful. I like what Raul was trying to do. We should try to make Wiki more relevant and valuable for the general public. Did anyone read this week's The Economist article on Wikipedia? --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I only read The Economist in airports. Do you have a link :)?

I don't think your link is the exact one I was thinking of (I guess there's a lot of competing bots?) but it's similar and hits the same points. Immediate US pop cult, some sex, some video games... But really, it isn't useful for a site that calls itself an encyclopedia. It shows the (English language) "Id" for the month, and that's it.

Can we come up with a more universal description of importance? Should we even try? I'm very uncertain. Marskell (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought this had already been agreed on. If it's a core topic, it'll be indicated by the "Core" importance in the talk templates. If it's "very notable", it'll be something that a 10-year old would know of. Or am I wrong? PeterSymonds | talk 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The 10-year-old bit is still bothersome. A 10-year-old would likely know about Naruto but not Charles Dickens. Perhaps it should be amended to "Something a 12-year-old might be assigned to write a school report on". — Dulcem (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to summarise the evolution of our discussion on the "Importance" category, Raul originally proposed "Very notable" is 1 point, "Core topic" is 2 points. As we were unsure on how to define "Very notable", I dropped it in the mockup. However, Raul has insisted that we keep it and gave a rule of thumb (the fifth grader). That prompted me to put in the footnote showing the relevance to school work for a ten year old. So, Marskell, we have to try. Either improve the definition or live with its subjectivity (as Raul said). --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current proposal is the best we've come up with yet. Although, it's far from perfect; for example, I hadn't heard of a sea otter when I was 10. I'd also like to note that there's a difference between importance and notability. Epbr123 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I raised it to 12-year old in the footnote. It is subjective and obviously relies on the good faith of nominators. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just a thought, and I expect it to be ignored, but is it really necessary to give points for notability? Can't Raul see for himself which notable articles haven't been featured yet, just by looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page? Shouldn't this request page just be for things Raul can't easily spot, like date connections and time since promotion? Epbr123 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone for repeating myself over and over. The point-values are not to show Raul which articles are worthy to be on the main page or not. The point-values are to be used to change the current system of "first-come-first-served". The current system is biased toward Wikiholics and the rare nominator of a worthy article has no chance to "trump" an existing low-value nomination. Also the current system blocks slots possibly for days or weeks. The proposal solves both problems. But Raul will always choose whatever article through his own process. The proposal only makes the requests page "merit-oriented". --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi RHB, I had a few questions for you above which you must have missed:

1. What does "Subject underrepresented on main page" mean exactly, and who decides whether something has been underrepresented?
2. What is a "core topic," and who has defined it?
3. Finally, why does a centennial have so few points when it would be an almost decisive factor?

Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I eliminated the "Subject underrepresented on main page"; there is still one point for "a subject underrepresented in Wikipedia", which is defined as one of the FA categories with 50 or fewer articles (see Image:FA stats by type (February 2008) barchart.gif). Obviously, the 50 number is arbitrary, and will have to be increased with time.
2. Core topic is one of the articles identified Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics, which as of right now is 150 articles. In the future, I would imagine this could be increased.
3. I originally envisioned centianial as 10 points. That Relhisbuff put it at 4; I've increased it back to 6 (which would clearly make it dominant). Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Raul, that's very helpful and it makes sense. I think I would still prefer centennial to be higher, because it must be quite rare for us to get genuine centennials. Also, I'm wondering whether there's anything that couldn't be covered by the core topics. I wonder what "personal life" is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am against the centennial being rated this high. We should encourage people to write articles in underrepresented areas (one of Raul's stated goals with TFA). We cannot really encourage editors to write articles for a centennial. However, Raul has determined that anniversaries are going to receive priority - yet I do not see why they have to receive quite so much priority. For example, I think that the reason Raul changed the centennial to 6 points is because he didn't want an article that had been waiting for over two years, that was a core topic, AND was underrepresented on Wikipedia (5 points) to outscore a centennial. Frankly, I don't have a problem with this outcome. If I am the only one, though, I'll bow to peer pressure in this case. :) Awadewit | talk 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also not keen about seeing centennials (or any anniversaries for that matter) being considered such a priority. Many articles do not have anniversaries associated with them and in any case, except for the nominator, the readers do not notice these supposedly "relevant" dates. However, as I see the new merit-based system as a vast improvement over the current lottery, let's go with the 6 points for centennials and start testing how this system works. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I updated the mockup paralleling the latest nominations. Does anyone else want to see the merit-based system implemented? There seems to be some out there who favours this (well, at least two anyway). Otherwise, I guess this proposal dies from indifference and we stay with the Wikiholics system. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most people prefer the merit-based system, but we just need to gain consensus on its finer details. Epbr123 (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and try this system for a few weeks and see how it works out. Raul654 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have awarded points to each of the five nominations (although not in the way RelHistBuff had them in his sandbox so someone might feel like editing my changes). I awarded a point each for Celine Dion, Kansas Turnpike, 1999 Sydney hailstorm and Virginia Tech massacre for being "subject matter that would be of interest to a twelve-year old using Wikipedia for a school project." Also, "decadial" is not a word. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do elementary school children actually do projects on freeway systems? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In theory, but I have never heard of it so I have deducted the point. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the current nominees would be part of an elementary school project. Epbr123 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When I was twelve, I did a project on Louis XIV, but someone in my class did a project on Chad Kroeger of Nickelback, which is why I think that Dion falls into that category. I suspect that someone might decide to do a project on the hailstorm or the massacre, but that is up for debate. Can we just remove the notable topic criterion? –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We should keep this for the test run. In the mockup I did not give any of the five the "Notable topic" point. The idea was to define something that was basic, elementary, fundamental, similiar to the Core topics. I changed the footnote slightly to better reflect this. I agree with Epbr123; none of the five are really "notable". --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deducted notability points from the current nominations. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Turnpike is in the Transport FA category that has 48 articles (less than 50). So why didn't it get one point for being part of an underrepresented category? 1999 Sydney hailstorm is in the Geology, geophysics and meteorology FA category that has 75 articles (more than 50) So why did it get one point for being part of an underrepresented category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halgin (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Geology, geophysics and meterology are quite separate discplines. How we sort FAs should not be used to judge how broad a certain article category is. If we did that video games would be considered to be equal in importance to huge, and quite separate, academic discplines like physics and astronomy. As far as I know they are sorted under the same FA category for practical reasons.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is sour grapes, but I don't really like the concept of replacing nominations (partially because my nomination that I've been waiting for several months to nominate has got replaced). I think the real problem is the limit of five articles. As soon as one goes down, everyone races to get their featured article onto the requests page. Increasing the limit to ten would be better than a points system where a clearly suitable nomination that falls outside the system gets replaced by a less suitable nomination that has been an FA for a year. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I too am very concerned by the ability to replace peoples nominations, and I think it will lead to a great deal of controversy and fighting as people haggle over the still vague criteria and attack each others point totals. This needs to be closely monitored and the criteria clarified as this is given a trail run. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the ability to replace peoples nominations may be inviting people to knock other editors FA's - not very constructive. How about more points for rarity value? For example, I want to nominate an article that is the first FA in its half a field and is in a greatly unrepresented field. Also '12 year old' is a bit limiting. How about school or college project. Finally, the '5 only' limit makes life a bit difficult for that minority of us working in non-USA time. Fainites ^barley 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. While I am clearly conflicted as the proposer for Virginia Tech massacre, I find the interesting to a 12 year-old test as somewhat arbitrary. I think a more suitable requirement would be for a high school senior or college freshman-level term paper (i.e. topics that are interesting but un-specialized). Ronnotel (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording doesn't describe what is considering to be "interesting" to a 12 year-old, but rather a topic that a 12-year old might be assigned to write something about for a school project. The difference between the two is as immense as the difference between Shaka Zulu and Snorlax.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look back into this thread, the requirement came from a "rule-of-thumb" of Raul's. The idea of "notable" is something that is expanded beyond "Core". His rule is based on the basic knowledge of a "fifth-grader". These are topics that are more specific, but still basic or fundamental. He gave the example of Sea otter. If one defines it as "college-level", then something like Ekorus ekakeran could be included; it becomes far too unwieldy and debatable. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Here's the rub - provided it's a slow news day, Virginia Tech massacre will likely be the lead story of the day in many markets, particularly the U.S. Yet, it (arguably) fails the test, not for lack of notability, but because the subject matter is inappropriate for a 12 year-old. The problem with using 5th graders as the target audience is that many notable topics may be passed over based on this sensibility. Perhaps we should include topics that might appear on the front page of main stream media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) Ronnotel (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My experimental request for BBC television drama has raised another issue. The points system doesn't work if the requests still don't recieve support from other users. This request was rejected due to it not having a date connection; therefore I think more points probably need to be awarded for single year anniversaries. Most requests without date connections will end up being rejected and will therefore have wasted one of the five slots. Epbr123 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't schedule it because I couldn't figure out how to write it up. That it so say, I couldn't think of a non-clumsy way to rewrite the first sentence so as to use the title. Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It probably isn't so much of a problem then, although requests without date connections do seem to be unpopular among a lot of users. Epbr123 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Although your experiment was interesting, it wasn't the best candidate for testing this system. It was meant for high-value articles with a date request that would replace a low-value nomination. Of course, it is possible, like what you did, to slot in an article without a date request. I see nothing wrong with that either. Someone here had mentioned he had several FAs on birds, none of which were TFAs, and he could never assign a particular date. However, he should be able to nominate a high-value article here. The relevancy of a date is only one aspect of a nomination. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record - for cases like Epbr123's, where the requested article doesn't use the title in the first sentence, a suggested write up that does would be immensely helpful (and one of the few cases where I would actually look at it). Raul654 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaaarrgghh. Missed the gaps again. Fainites ^barley 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an article that has a point-value higher than the lowest valued nomination, then you can replace it now. That's the whole point of the new system. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well its the first ever pure psychology FA, and there are only 12 FA's in philosphy/psychology. But that only gets it one point. Also it seems a bit of a mean thing to do to remove someone elses precious baby. Fainites ^barley 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second... If Raul is implying that he doesn't even look at suggested write ups, then why are we posting them on the request page at all?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So that people get an idea of what it will look like. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Measuring consensus

I think one problem with the current system is that there is no standard way to remove pages for which consensus is not obtained. The request is only removed once the requested date has passed or Raul schedules a different page. I'd like to propose the following: To be certified, a TFA request must receive a net of four support votes (support votes less opposes, comments not counted) within 48 hours of being posted. If the page fails to achieve this level of consensus, it may be replaced by another TFA request. Ronnotel (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

48 hours seems a bit too quick. "Doomsday" has one support vote and no opposes because sometimes people do not feel like voting or do not visit this page every day. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for TFA (points system)

I think you need to add a part of that system which benifits articles which haven't been TFA's before. Otherwise they will all be recycled with minor ones missing out.  The Windler talk  09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Special anniversaries

I think the point system should have a distinction for anniversaries that are "special" to a topic, and not a multiple of 10. For example, if Pi were a featured article, its 314th anniversary would be "special." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Manzanar nomination deleted

Being new to nominating FA's for the main page, why was my nomination for Manzanar removed? If it was because it did not match the format used by other nominations, it would be nice if the instructions were a bit more clear on how to do it. I'm going to try again, guessing at what I'm supposed to do. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh...five requests on the page at one time. I missed that. Sorry. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

no problem - sorry for reverting - looks like a good article. Ronnotel (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault. Don't worry about it. If you are so inclined, please support it when I can get it back up there... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice to you. Keep an eye on MP dates that have been requested here, being filled (In this case April 5 and April 7) and put your request in as soon as they have been as the slots don't stay open for long. Buc (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the talk page and saw the complaints about the five-request rule... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Really interesting article by the way. Fainites ^barley 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it make people more likely to read the directions if they were to blink obnoxiously? Raul654 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the answer to that question, but I'm not sharing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul: LOL. Actually, what I was referring to was the formatting. There's nothing that says to put a green box around an edited lead from the article you're nominating, at least, not that I could find (and I actually looked for that). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to do that. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Sure looks like you do, since all the nominations on the page have that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thedemonhog is referring to the fact that I do not use the suggested write ups* - I write them all myself from the article leads.

* Except when I am in a hurry or having trouble doing it myself) Raul654 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to wait for a slot to open if the number of points for the Manzanar article is higher than a nomination with the lowest number of points. So for example, you could replace a nomination with 0 points. However, since the request date is fairly late, it might be better to wait a bit and fit in during the odd chance that a slot is free. If you cannot get a slot as you get closer to the date, just replace a 0 point nomination. That's the purpose of the new system. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez...just a little less than two hours away from the computer and I miss a chance to re-nominate...sheesh. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bette Davis

April 5th, 100th birthday, raised on Raul's talk page. I believe that gives her 6 points and she should replace the article currently listed for the 5th, but I don't know how that's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

She would also get 1 point for being promoted more than a year ago and I would add 1 point for a notable topic. Technically birth dates are not recognised for anniversaries. This was to keep from spurious use of anniversaries. Perhaps we should drop the birth/death date restriction since we now recognise only decennary/centennial anniversaries. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Doomsday nomination. I've got two dates in mind now: July 8 (airdate) or the airdate of Ep. 12 (which will contain Daleks) (around June 24). Sceptre ^(talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blurbs on this request page

Can we stop the practice of people drafting their own blurbs on the request page when adding noms - since Raul654 (talk · contribs) has said that he usually writes up his own anyways? Cirt (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Except when I am in a hurry or having trouble doing it myself) Raul654 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)" (from just above) -- bring in Raul's mind readers ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point. So does that mean we should continue writing draft blurbs, or just that we don't need to, but could go either way, for new noms? Cirt (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whenever a nominator does not include a blurb box (usually Buc), someone (usually me) adds one later. It is no problem and gives commenters something to look it (and boosts my count) so I have no problem with the current system. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The ones that give me trouble are pretty easy to tell - they're the ones that do not use the title in the first sentence of the introduction. No mind reader is necessary. Also, it is nice to have a set of blurbs written for those times when I am scheduling in a hurry. Raul654 (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Promoted over 3 years ago

There are 26 FA promoted over 3 years ago. Should there be 3 points for for such articles?. They are: ASCII (Under review), Action potential (Removal candidate), Privilege of Peerage, Order of the Thistle, Quatermass and the Pit, Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Something, Edward VI of England, George I of Great Britain, Representative peer, William III of England (Removal candidates), William IV of the United Kingdom (Under review), Augusta, Lady Gregory, William N. Page, John Bull (locomotive), Btrieve (Removal candidate), Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, Matthew Brettingham, Battle of Warsaw (1920), Death Valley National Park, History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883, Nafaanra language, Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway, George Brown, Baron George-Brown, Franklin B. Gowen, and Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava. A few are on the under review or removal candidates lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halgin (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What Gives????

Twice now, I have made a featured article request, only to have it ignored and replaced, without even going to a vote! Is this wikipedia standard practice??? The first time, I was told my contribution was "unconstructive", but it was not explained why. This time? No explanation at all. mike40033 (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not speak for the other incident, but in this case the removal was due to the article you requested having already been on the mainpage. An article already displayed is disqualified from reappearing on the mainpage, according to present consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How can we find out what has already appeared? mike40033 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can go to the article's talk page or check it against the list of featured articles and featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of the page say If there are already five articles and if the article that you would like to nominate has a point-value higher than the nomination with the lowest point-value, you may replace it. So that might have been what happened to your first one. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bolded year old FA

Just a note to say that I've bolded the FA that are a year old on the Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page page to help with the new pionts system. Buc (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R archiving need

Thinking about this page and the way nominations are listed this page needs an archive system that has a record of what gets the date they request, rejected and removed. This will at least provide a way of seeing whether this process works fairly or is it favoring any group of articles. Gnangarra 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

which one get deleted

If there are two or more article with the same lowest point-value which one get deleted? One option is the one with the least supports. Another is the one the later date. (Halgin (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)).

why 5?

If there are already five articles and if the article that you would like to nominate has a point-value higher than the nomination with the lowest point-value, you may replace it.

What purpose does this rule serve? I am new to this page, but this rule seems to risk placing process ahead of substance. --M@rēino 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I really hate this rule as well. I think the limit should be on dates (i.e. Don't nominate more than two weeks/a month ahead of time or whatever) and not on five nominations. It limits this page to the point that it is hardly useful at all. Out of all the pages on the main page, the vast majority don't come through here because that rule is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Wrad (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I support withdrawal of this rule as a matter of urgency. I am trying to get coeliac disease nominated for May (coeliac disease awareness month), which will not work if there are continuously going to be five requests for other articles! JFW | T@lk 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

TFA nomination

What happened to WP:AGF the last time a plant was TFA was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 27, 2007 thats just over 1 Year ago. Yeah ok plants arent sexy topics like politics, wars, people but they are still significant and this is an encyclopedia. Gnangarra 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the directions for how to award a point for diversity. The FA category must have less than 50 FA's to be under-represented. This article's category is Biology and Medicine, which has > 150 FA's so under the rules we are all playing by it's only a one-point nomination. Ronnotel (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's about 10 plants in that grouping, so the subject area is under represented. Gnangarra 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be true if the FA category was labeled Plants. Unfortunately, it's labeled Biology & Medicine. Please stop trying to jump the queue. Ronnotel (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just drop a note on Raul's talk page about it. Wrad (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Or not ... how about trying to solve it without troubling Raul? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How else is anybody going to get their article on the main page with the 5-only rule? It's what I did. I wouldn't recommend whining and complaining to him. Just say that you wrote it and what you want and why. He respects that. Wrad (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Wrad; I misunderstood. I thought you were saying to drop a note to his talk page about this little flare-up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. It probably needed to be clarified anyway. Wrad (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

An artefact of the way this process was designed and how the categories were set up at WP:FA at the time the graphs were run; Biology and medicine is the biggest category, but if by chance we had separated animals, plants and medicine, the "under-represented" in biology would look different (for example, medicine is under-represented, even though it's part of biology). Since I don't want to see edit-warring on this move over to WP:FA to redefine the categories (BEANS !!), please use common sense here. Plants are under-represented. Medicine is under-represented. Media, music, video games, hurricanes and warfare are not. The way the categories were defined for this process is purely an artefact of how the FA page looked at the time the graph was generated. I spend a lot of time thinking about if/when/how categories in the FA page need to be separated, and it's not ready yet IMO, but ... Biology is a big grouping, and it isn't ready to be split; use common sense, not literal interpretations of rules. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps the diversity criteria should be rewritten as it currently seems pretty cut-and-dried. Ronnotel (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to say "I told you so", since I didn't :-) ... but since I do spend a lot of time thinking about if/when/how the FA page will eventually need to be divided, and I can think of several ways to split what is currently our largest category (bio and med), I saw this problem coming a long time ago in the way this was set up. I suggest you reverse the way it's defined here. Instead of saying which categories are under-represented, switch it to excluding points for those that are clearly over-represented. Define them. Within Bio, we have a lot of animals, we don't have a lot of plants. Within Geology, we have a lot of hurricanes ... and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This process favours articles that have dates of significance these are Media, music, video games, hurricanes, warfare and politics. May 1 has many festivals associated with it, they all would have a greater basis for request on that day. This discussion shows that this process has a flaw in that unless an article can make a case for date it will probably never get a run on the main page, especially in system that restricts the number to 5 those making the decisions need to be aware of the flaw. It would be interesting to find out what categories of articles are getting from this to the date they request and how many from each. Gnangarra 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Never thought of that... Wrad (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree; this process affects five articles per month. Raul has 25 other days that don't have to be chosen by date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This process favors articles from the subjects Media, music, video games, hurricanes, warfare and politics as it ensures that they get 30 options per cycles or 30 chances out of 1992 article, where as articles that cant make a date relevance have only 25 options per cycle or 25 chances out of 1992 articles. Gnangarra 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest as a compromise just work with the editor of the Birmingham article, who doesn't seem to be mind being moved a few days since all surrounding dates are relevant, and work out a date that works for both of you. Do this outside of this particular process and bring it up with Raul when you both think you have a solution. Wrad (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit :-) And much better than troubling Raul over literal interpretations of rules. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed one that had only recently been promoted and the anniversary date wasnt a significant figure. Gnangarra 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought the issue wasn't over the date, but over the slot? Gnangarra removed the nom for Vasa (ship) to follow the "no more than five articles listed at a time" rule, but isn't that in itself problematic since that article had one, if not two, points? PLUS, there's now a tree article scheduled for April 15th. Ach, my head. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

that was done 20 minutes after I pointed out that there had been none since Feb 27, 2007[1] It'd nice to for Raul to make a comment here.Gnangarra 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My head, too. How would you like to be in Raul's shoes ? Anyway, I don't weigh in here often, but I've been watching for the day when this issue about Biology would come up. I've had my say and will go back to watching the headache from a distance :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(indent) To be frank, the rules are fairly clear and it is only persons who either make mistakes, who did not read the instructions, or who make bad faith moves that cause problems. Vasa (ship) should not have been removed either. The plant article should wait until it can replace a 0-point nomination or find a free slot. How hard is it to understand that??? --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored Vasa (ship). It's a one-point nomination that was replaced by another one-point nomination. Halgin (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is its point according to the criteria that keeps getting pointed to, its a 47th anniversary no point that its listed in Military history again no point, If Vasa has 1 point then Banksia epica has 2. From what I learning about this process its a waste putting effort into writing about encyclopedic biological subjects when the community is only interested in being a social and tourist guide. Gnangarra 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a waste of effort and Wikipedia should change its slogan to "the free social and tourist guide that anyone can edit". On a more serious note, we are not discriminating against biology; you just need to wait your turn. When a slot clears up, you can enter your nomination (or maybe someone else will be kind enough if they fear that you will not get here in time) and I am sure that the community will be happy to support. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with Vasa (ship) being defined entirely as a military history topic when it's clearly a lot more complicated than your average biography of a general or account of some ancient battle. When it was supposed to be classified as an FA it got bounced around from "Transport" to "History" and was finally dumped under "Warfare". While there's no denying that we're talking about a warship, the research surrounding covers some very important aspects of (marine) archaeology, ship building and other aspects of everyday life of the civilian population.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vasa did not get a point for under-represented. It qualify for 1 point as a notable topic. It has 9533 times in March of 2008 according to the hit counter. It also has an incease during school days. The Birmingham campaign justifies the 1 point for notable topic with an incease during school days and 5588 views in March of 2008 from the hit counter.

WP:BEANS on the WP:FA page. I just had to revert an undiscussed change at WP:FA that separated flora and fauna from biology and medicine (how do you separate flora and fauna from biology and where do you draw the line: that sort of change at FA needs long discussion). I was always concerned that this point business would destabilize the FA page, which really should be stable. The categories are somewhat arbitrary and so are these points; please consider redesigning this in a way that takes a point away from those that are clearly over-represented rather than giving points to those that are only under-represented depending on where the category lines were drawn in one graph at one point in time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So, ah, I'm completely befuzzled by this process. Someone give me a shoutout if I need to do something here. I'm trying to keep up with my poor request, on the page, off the page, on again, off again. It's so confused, and it just wants to be loved. --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Give points for WP:VITAL articles as well as Core articles. I think they are both very important to wikipedia and deserve consideration. Wrad (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Core should be three points, vital should be two points, and the overused "notable" category should be one point (or something to this effect). -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable shouldn't get any as all articles need to be notable to start with. Agree that articles identified as vital subjects should be recognised in this. Gnangarra 02:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that notable is defined differently here. Wrad (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example: Romeo and Juliet = notable, 1 pt. William Shakespeare = Vital Article, 2 pts., Literature = Core topic, 3 pts. Sweet, simple, logical. Gives emphasis to important subjects. It's what we need. Wrad (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a sensible idea to me. — Dulcem (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are no opposes then I will add Vital articles in and increase points given for core articles in 48 hours. Wrad (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it. Please respond here if there are any concerns. Wrad (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Points system and replacing

I think we can agree that the current system of replacing nominations is very controversial - there have been too many edit wars about the removal of Vasa and Birmingham campaign (both 1 point articles) for other articles. There are two options, really:

1. Up the limit by a few so it isn't so much of a race
2. Keep the limit of five nul-points nominations, but allow nominations above five iff they have a score above the lowest score on the page.

Many people aren't following the replacing rule because they find it too rude too. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 11:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why not limit the period an articles nomination is open based on the amount of supports for it remain on the page, possibly;

time frame	votes needed
24 hrs	5
3 days	7
5	9
7	13
14	17

If it doesnt have the numbers then it can be replaced with another nomination. looking at the current page Satyajit Ray, Vasa, are in this position with Virginia Tech massacre 1 vote short for remaining on the page after today. ATM the other articles Isreal and Manzanar have the numbers to remain until 10th and 14th, I would expect Isreal to gain 1 more required before then. Raul can still accept at any time this just keeps the nominations fresh. Gnangarra 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

+17 votes seems like an absurdly high number - I doubt there would be many requests that pass that threshold. I prefer my suggestion above of net +4 supports (supports less opposes). I originally suggested 48 hours but that was felt to be too little time, perhaps 96 hours to collect the !votes would be appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Virgina Tech had 16 when i posted the number needing only 1 more to stay on the page until the date requested has been passed. The vote are whats need at the end of the period, if there isnt another request then they stay anyway this is just a way of taking the heat out of replacing noms. Gnangarra 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point system isn't working very well (for several reasons). Raul654 (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Raul654 (talk · contribs), unfortunately the point system seems to be the cause of conflict and edit-warring of late. Perhaps for now we should go back to the previous, simpler version, pending hashing something else out. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know about the actual numbers used on that table, but I like the sentimnent. if you look at WP:AFD or other "it's not a vote, but..." mechanisms on Wikipedia, there is a method for shutting down votes early when there is a consensus yes or no. On this page, there's too much needless uncertainty. Here are my 2 recommendations:
  • If a consensus is obvious, we should close the vote and replace it with a small box at the top of the page, saying something to the effect of: "XXXXXXX has been approved to run on the front page on 2008-MM-DD. Please see (link to history) for the full discussion."
  • Time limits. No super-short notice nominations (less than 48 hours before time to post), or distant-future nominations (more than 60 days before time to post). This lets the maintainers of the main page plan in advance.

--M@rēino 14:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On Monday, the merit-based system will have been going for three weeks, and even Raul agrees that it's not worked brilliantly. We need to however, think about reducing the bottleneck/racing to post here. One obvious way is to up the limit a bit, but I like Mareino's suggestion about removing noms 10-30 days in the future but with a clear consensus (like Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). So, should we:

1. Keep the points system until we get another system to trial, or:
2. Remove the points system on Monday and have a look at alternative systems? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep the point system (maybe adjust it a little, we'll get it working right) and try this idea of cycling things through. VT Massacre is in. There's no sense in it keeping other important articles out because of this silly 5 rule. Wrad (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the TFA schedule doesn't tend to be planned for more than a few days in advance? Israel seems like one of those rare candidates that could be scheduled several weeks to make room for more nominees.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Or at the very least, Virginia Tech massacre. Either way, I think the culprit ultimately is the five-nomination rule. Last May, the system changed, largely because Raul was tired of receiving comments on his page asking why certain date requests were not fulfilled. Frankly, I never found, and still don't find, Raul's complaints reasonable, especially given that he has one of the most lucrative positions on Wikipedia. The five-nomination limit may make the life of Raul easier, but, although everyone seems to think making Raul's life easier should be top priority, it seems to serve no other purpose. It does not have anything to do with what this page should really be about -- which (small number of) date requests are really worthy. The limit of the next thirty days (or some other time period) seems acceptable, given the fact that requests too far in advance just creates clutter and serves, again, no purpose. What I think should be done, however, is that we should have a minimum point requirement for nominations. For example, any nomination with at least two points and for within the next thirty days can appear on this page, regardless of the number of current nominations. Perhaps we could also have a secondary set of one-point nominations that do have a limit and are rotated out based on level of support (i.e. those with the lowest level of support are switched out; cue WP:VOTE). Ultimately, though, I think we need to be more selective. It's obvious everyone has the idea that some date requests are more valid than others. We just need to get that on paper, and root out the requests that are vague and unimportant, and don't have to be fulfilled. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible suggestion on the points system

I'm thinking that there's got to be some two-tiered system here that incorporates the point system effectively without the edit warring. The first phase would use the point system: during the 5-6th weeks before a date, a user may nominate an FA on a separate page from this one. To prevent any spamming of the system, only one request from a user may be made every 2 weeks; if a new request is made while another from that user is on this list it should be removed; furthermore, an article that fails to be selected at this point cannot be renominated for 1-2 months (to prevent perennial TFA requests for an article just by cycling it) While on this secondary list, the article is only scored (ideally objectively, but if there's subjective criteria, maybe two or three give their own score interpretation and take an average); no comments on the topic are made. Note that there should be some "negative" points here: a topic already featured in the last 30 days, over-represented topic, etc, in addition to the positive points for anniversaries, core topics, etc. When the date is then exactly 4 weeks (30 days, whatever is easiest to track), the top scoring request is moved to this page for general open comments on appropriate as is currently done without the count system; however, if the top scoring article has a negative/zero total score, then no article is moved over. Scoring is adjusted per the "no duplicate of a topic every 30 days". Ties are broken by some metric (age of article since FA, most likely, favoring older articles).

This may create more than 5 articles at a time in the upcoming month queue for TFA, the second phase, however, the scoring has already been applied: the discussion should be strictly on the merits of the article for TFA considering that it already has been scored. Should the article be quickly failed within the first week, the next highest scoring article is replaced, but this is the only allowable replacement, otherwise, that day goes unfulfilled with a requested TFA.

It would be more complex, though each day in the preliminary would be its own page, transcluded to the preliminary phase working page, to help simplify that as well as for tracking purposes. --MASEM 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropping the points system

The point system has not worked out as anticipated - people are gaming the "underrepresented" criteria (defining their own categories rather than using the extant ones, and defining them in ways such that they always get the point), the notability criteria is too fuzzy, the "core topic criteria" isn't prolific enough, and (as someone noted above) a reluctance to replace someone else's nomination with your own. Not to mention the fact that I'm still getting requests by email and on my talk page - whose termination was the explicit purpose in creating this page.

I'm going to be scheduling some new main page FAs in the next day or two. At that point, I think I'm going to discontinue the point system on this page. We'll go back to the old first-come-first-serve system. Raul654 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can we at least stipulate that once you have a nomination on the page, you should not add any more? One of the main problems with the "first-come-first-serve system" is that it favors people with lots of time on their hands. It has resulted in some users having multiple nominations on the page at one time. This particular problem could be reduced by stipulating that an editor can have only one nomination at a time on the page. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to keep trying to develop the system until we've pounded out something that we like. I think it will get better, we just need to fix it bit by bit like we would any wiki-article. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how dropping the points system is a good thing. If people are misusing the rules, correct them. The underrepresented criteria is clearly defined and, to be honest, I think the notability criterion (the one-point one) can be dropped as it means very little. The reluctance to replace nominations is the fault of only the nominator. The people whose nominations get replaced are just going to have to get over it; we can't please anyone and there's a good reason such nominations are replaced. However, simply reverting to the first-come, first-served system means we could theoretically (and quite easily) have five trivial nominations up while very good nominations are waiting in the wings, simply because the potential nominator is simply not fast enough. I don't see why speed should trump merit. We need some sort of merit-based system, whether it be through points or !votes. Also, I'm unsure how getting rid of the points system will result in you receiving fewer comments (even though, as I said earlier, I don't consider this a priority at all); it seems changing the system will lead to more "my request is urgent" and "my request is more important" complaints. I'll reiterate that I think the best idea is to have a minimum point requirement for nominations, with points based on concrete, discernible indicators, and to remove the five-nomination limit. -- tariqabjotu 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep the points system because as it has been mentioned above, it helps to bring more "important" articles to the main page, rather than articles such as the ESRB one recently (which I saw a lot of complaints about, but none from me, personally). GaryKing (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple five-day fix

I think we've established above that most people don't want to give up on the point system just yet. I can understand Raul's frustration, but I really think we've got something that is worth developing and improving upon.

In that direction, I think the biggest thing getting on people's nerves is five article rule. I see several negative and no positive comments on this page regarding it. Here is a simple fix:

• Replace 5 article rule with two week rule. That is, two weeks from the last consecutive TFA already scheduled.

• Once an article gets enough supports, have somebody move it to the official schedule in a timely manner (This should keep things cycling through so that new nominations can come in)

This is simple and worth trying. The only catch I see in it is that someone would have to move things to the official schedule every once in a while. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Point dispute fix

The problem with point disputes seems quite fixable. Replacing the five-day rule would go a long way in helping, as people wouldn't have to replace other people's noms in such a stringent manner. The other problem is that points are self assigned, and articles immediately replaced if the nominator thinks they have more points. The solution is simple:

• Allow multiple noms for one date.

Do it like this:

January 1

Ireland

Points:

Comments:

Movie X

Points:

Comments:

Then just let the points and the consensus speak for itself. Someone in charge of determining consensus can remove the article from the date, or reviewers can suggest alternate dates. This way no one is removing noms based on their own biased view of how many points their own is worth. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this option is more viable, as everyone will have a chance to nominate their article. Noble Story (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone will not have a chance so long as there is a limit on number of requests (not complaining; just pointing out an inaccuracy—unless I am misunderstanding this proposal and the number of requests is unlimited). –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that is a misunderstanding. It would be less limited because it is intended to be combined with the proposal in the section preceding this one. Wrad (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for another piont

Relevant to current events. For example the Simpson's episode the day the movie came out and The England rugby team the day they played in the world cup final. Buc (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. We could make it just one point, one less than the two for a solid anniversary. That way on earth day we could do things like Earth and on St. Pat's we could do Ireland and whatnot. Wrad (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely support that.However, the question would be what is a really relevant date. People will come up with all sorts of "relevant" dates. Noble Story (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only just decided to explore the TFA nomination process, and actually find it strange that current events have no bearing in the selection. Today's article is Anabolic steroids, which has an obvious relation to both the Beijing Olympics, due in 100 days, and the scandal with the Greek weightlifting team. (By the way, when was this one nominated? I cannot find it in the history; perhaps it was a personal choice by Raul?) Waltham, The Duke of 12:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul chose it. Also, if it really isn't relevant, then a consensus of the community will see it very quickly and will remove the point, especially if we use some of the proposed systems in the previous sections. Wrad (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add this parameter. If anyone opposes, please respond here. Wrad (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Strike the five-article rule

I think that the five-article rule makes no sense. Many excellent articles will not be featured on the Main Page if they have slightly fewer points than needed. For example, suppose somebody wanted to nominate an article for May 15 for a centennial anniversary, giving it 6 points, and suppose the lowest existing point-value is 1, for May 14. Then the May 14 article will be replaced and forgotten. But the articles don't conflict with each other! Why give Raul654 extra work when there's just an article sitting there waiting to appear? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See the proposals a few sections above and let me know what you think. Wrad (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that time-based voting systems still involve too much bureaucracy. Unlike the former WP:COTW, which has only one article a week, TFA articles are changed daily, and so are more flexible. If there are no conflicting dates, then we shouldn't try to limit or remove nominations that receive ample support. If two nominations happen to be on the same date, then see which proposal has more support. (Perhaps we may need to resort to counting votes in close cases.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like making it unlimited could really get out of hand! Wrad (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How about opening it to 30, since articles cannot be scheduled more than 30 days in advance, with a max of one per date? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with 30. Of course we can't have more than one per date when the date comes, but on this page we need to be able to decide which one is better for the date! Wrad (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support making it more open. No more rules favoring people who just happen in at the right time. Noble Story (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's start small with two weeks and see how it goes. 30 days may be a bit much for us to handle. Once an article is locked in we can move on. Things should move pretty fluidly. Wrad (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've made some changes given the above discussions. I imagine more changes will come, but two things are clear:

1. Most editors don't like the five article rule
2. Most editors don't like the way nominations are removed when no one is taking that specific date.

This fixes both by allowing more than five nominations. It allows noms for two weeks beyond the most recent one. It also allows two nominations for the same date to be juxtaposed and for a consensus to determine which is best. Raul still has final say and can overrule as he wishes. Wrad (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it exceedingly ironic, that , after so much debate about changing the rule, there are still only five nominations, even after the rule change. Perhaps people haven't realized that the rules have changed? And on a side note, isn't the points system obsolete, as any article can be nominated, regardless of points? Noble Story (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think people are scared. If you get burned enough times, you eventually don't want to touch the stove even when it's off. Hopefully we'll ease into it after awhile, though. Wrad (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Points can be helpful still if two article are in contention for the same date. Wrad (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there's an assumption that the 5-article limit is still in effect. Would it help to actually list all the dates for the 2 week period as placeholders? That way, one could tell at a glance which dates: (1) are open; (2) have nom(s) under discussion; (3) have TFAs selected by Raul. JGHowes ^talk - 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore. Raul doesn't like the setup for some reason :( . Wrad (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this change (it was buried in an avalanche of subsequent edits and not easy to find). I cannot be more clear about this - I want a hard limit on how many nominations go on this page. (Admittedly, 5 is arbitrary, but it's a reasonable number for me to deal with and giving people a fair number of open slots) As such, I've restored the rule, and put the limit back up to 30 days. Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it really bluntly, nearly everybody else seems to hate the rule. It seems to me that by making it more open you would be saving yourself a headache. Let the community decide what goes on the front page and the community gets blamed for bad decisions, not you. Why do you want this hard limit? Nobody else does. It most certainly is not a fair number of open slots from what I've seen. This could really be an effective way to decide what goes on the main page, if we just let it. Wrad (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a perennial suggestion, which I'm not particularly in the mood to rehash. I already did that in 2004, 2005, 2006, and as recently as a few weeks ago. Suffice it to say, we're not going to vote on the FAs that go on the main page.

As for everyone hating the limit, I'm aware they do. To be equally blunt, that's because they are too shortsighted to see what will happen with no limits. We once had a suggestion page once with no limits, and it was a disaster. It had upwards of 250 requests, nobody maintained it, and it was so large and unwieldy I tried never to look at it. In fact, now that I think about it, I'd be equally happy to go back to that old situation -- no limits on requests, and I get to ignore all of them. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course you realized that the recent change didn't make it unlimited, I hope... I don't see how this horror story is relevant. We don't want unlimited... Wrad (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It allowed any number of requests for any date within the next two weeks. That is unlimited by defintion. Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Within the next two weeks..." (???). So let's limit the number per day to two. Problem solved! Let's not be so jaded about this, please. Wrad (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, you want to increase the limit from 5 to 28. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Raul how often are people going to put two suggestions up? Especially when one has a billion points on it and a bunch of support votes? Wrad (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

how often are people going to put two suggestions up -- Prior experience on this page has shown that this page will fill up to the limit every time - no exceptions. Sorry if you didn't realize that, but that's just the way it is. Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely been happening lately. I mean, we've had five noms for about a week under this new unlimited format. Man. Things really were out of control until you came along. First you complain about unlimited and now you complain about 28 noms. Raul, the fact is, five noms for 30 days is about the worst way this page can be organized. Just trash this page. You already seem convinced that it was doomed from the start and are unwilling to make the changes that will really make it work and be useful. Just do it your own dang way like you want to, okay? Wrad (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I support Raul's change; there are many factors that go into scheduling the mainpage, and the requests page has to reflect all of the considerations Raul has to account for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor, poor Raul. Oh well. I guess I'll just stop trying to help and move on. You can deal with your problems on your own, like you always have. Wrad (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, what Raul is pointing out is exactly what happened before, and it became unworkable. There has to be a limit, or the system becomes unusable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Has he tried EXACTLY what we're proposing before? I'm getting really sick of these "we've done it before" arguments. Anytime anyone thinks of an idea Raul's there with that one. Wrad (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I personally think if we don't want to do this, we shouldn't have this page. The five-article rule is just going to cause more problems. I think Raul is doing fine picking TFAs and I haven't seen him do one I didn't like yet. I really don't care what's on the front page. I'm sorry I've been a bit bitey. Raul's doing fine with TFA's. I was just trying to help out and am defensive about things sometimes. Wrad (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Would also add that under the unlimited format Raul would be forced to the put up request everyday and would never have the chance to put his own chooses up. Buc (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an unlimited format. Raul taking requests is an unlimited format by definition since there is no limit to the number of requests he can be sent. Also, why should one person get to decide? Your arguments are not making any sense. Wrad (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul should alway get the final say. Buc (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He would get the final say in this system. This is absolutely insane. Wrad (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

• I do not believe that it is productive to make comparisons between a chaotic, unmaintainable page of "upwards 250 requests" and a controlled page of 28 nominations at most. This is a very specific and well-defined proposal and a decision should be made on its merits.
• Even though the maximum projected capacity of the page is 28 nominations, it would not be reached easily because the nominations would have to be distributed between fourteen days. I take it that most Featured Articles do not need to be featured on the Main Page on a specific day, therefore there is enough flexibility as to their scheduling (co-operation and understanding between the editors is important here); there certainly is not a need to fill both slots on a given day, unless it is important for two articles.
• There have been concerns, from what I notice, about the point system, mostly by the Director himself. The new system would only make use of the points in cases of two nominations for a day; it would be useful there, but not be used elsewhere. An acceptable compromise, perhaps, between those unwilling to trust the point system for the entire process and those supportive of its benefits in determining the value of nominations.
• The authority of Raul would not be undermined in the least under the new system: for dates in which he would desire to exhibit a specific article, he would do so regardless of the discussions on the page (as now—the disclaimer is in place); for the rest, he would be aided by not having to make decisions. Wikipedia has been successfully built on its community; I see no reason why we should not trust editors to run this process smoothly.
• If there are still qualms about applying the proposal, I suggest a trial run with ten days instead of fourteen; this way the effects thereof could be evaluated in an even more controlled page than the one suggested, with a maximum of twenty nominations instead of the controversial five, but still a maximum not easily reached.

All in all, I find that the proposed system would be efficient, less controversial, a certain improvement over the current one, and satisfying to both parties (the Director and the nominees). I should be much distressed to see it summarily dismissed, when so many objections have been voiced against the current system. Wikipedia is all about constant improvement, and the same spirit should be echoed here.

I look forward to constructive feedback. Waltham, The Duke of 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, I support your idea and have a hard time imagining how allowing any number of articles to be proposed, for dates within the next x days, would be unmanagable. You're right, most people don't like the current system, and as Awadewit once pointed out, it favors those who have time to refresh their watchlists all day. Finally, giving users the right to remove others' nominations (when their nomination (according to them) has more points) is rather "bite-y" and hardly in keeping with the usual approach to discussion on Wikipedia.[Not done any more, I see.] Oh well. –Outriggr § 01:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is Raul, even if you are absolutely positive it won't work, can you at least humor us? If it is a failure, all you have to do is ignore it and put what you want on the front page. Wrad (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can search these talk archives and see this has come up before. The bottom line is Raul does it the way he wants to and that's it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul can speak for himself, I believe, and I should like him to read through my analysis and answer to that. The proposal put forth by Wrad has many virtues which should be evaluated separately, and the fact that most people object to the current system is enough motivation, at least in my opinion, to try a little harder to change this regrettable situation. We ask for the Director to give us the opportunity to rid him of a chronic headache, and perhaps even to rest him a little—a system is only efficient if it does not take for granted a constant investment of resources by any given individual, because at the absence of that individual for however short a time period it will unavoidably break down. Raul would only intervene when he would judge that his intervention would be required, and the power to do so would continue to rest with him exclusively. He could still override the process at any stage, but if he would prefer not to, he would at least have that luxury. What is the problem with that? Waltham, The Duke of 10:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this would probably create more work for Raul. In addition to the work it currently takes him to ensure there is topic diversity on the main page, he would also have the headache of trying to please 14+ nominators each fortnight. Most nominations would probably need to be rejected to maintain topic diversity, and he'll end up getting constant complaints. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that any different from what he's doing now? He already has to deal with requests all the time. The way I see it, if he picks something from this page and people don't like it, they can't blame him, because it was a community decision. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If the community is going to be making decisions people don't like, it would be best to leave the job to Raul. Epbr123 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Who says they are? We don't know if they will or not, but we sure do know that a lot of people don't like the ones Raul's picked! Wrad (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If the decision was totally left up to the community, there would not be topic balance. What in your proposal prevents three video game articles being on the main page each week? Epbr123 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that you haven't really taken part in discussions on this page. People who !vote here take that into account. It would NOT be a problem. Wrad (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though this may sound like a good idea, it's been tried before and not worked. What's the piont doing it again? Buc (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We haven't done this before. Whatever we did before was nothing like this. If you believe otherwise, prove it by providing a link to whatever was exactly like this and didn't work. I wish I could do whatever I wanted on something this important. Wouldn't that be nice? What if Raul gets hit by a car today, then what? Wrad (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'm supporting everything Wrad is saying. And I still find it just a bit funny that Raul has yet to respond to the comments made here. Noble Story (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break I

This page has never been truly functional, and we urgently need to explore ways of improving it if we are to solve the chronic problems plaguing the TFA nomination process. This I have been able to corroborate from a detailed study of the page's history and the discussion archives.

Here is an overview of this process's history:

In early 2007, there was a free, open system in place with an average of over 100 nominations on the page; most of these received few or no comments, or not at all, and the page was chaotic and unmanageable. (example diff) Its later split into two parts, one for specific-date requests and one for general requests, changed little: although the first part received more comments, the rest of the nominations languished for weeks or even months, unnoticed. (example diff) When the page was re-united, date requests continued to be made. (example diff) A long and sometimes heated discussion started on the fate of the page in mid-May, initially leading to the banning of date requests. A section was eventually set up on the page for date requests, governed by special rules. (example diff) In mid-September, the Director removed the entire section of the general requests, deeming it entirely unmanageable, leaving the current system of five requests for each given time, which should be within the next 30 days. (example diff) In March 2008, the Director proposal for a point system was implemented; it has since been further developed. (example diff) Additional problems came up in April, regarding the classification of articles and the criteria of representation. Soon afterwards, various editors turned against the point system, including the Director. New suggestions then started arriving... And here we are now.

A workable system for this page must balance the need for:

1. a short, usable page which Raul could easily manage;
2. flexibility in nominations to ensure that all valid date requests would be served;
3. maintaining topic diversity on the Main Page; and
4. an efficient system to decide on coveted dates.

Here follows a detailed description of how the proposed system would operate, as introduced by Wrad and elaborated on by me—a system which manages to address all the above needs:

• The page has sub-headings for the 14 days following the current day. In each sub-heading, up to two nominations are allowed, limiting the absolute maximum number of nominations for the page to 28.*(see addition below this message)
• No distinction in the layout of the page is made for date-specific and date-irrelevant requests. However, there is a different method of handling the two types of nominations:
  • A date-specific nomination is left in the slot for that day and, with the comments of the reviewers and the help of the point system, it is determined whether the date request is valid. If it is, the nomination is scheduled for that day; if there is already a date-irrelevant nomination for that day, that will usually be moved.
  • If, however, both nominations require the specific day, and no compromise can be reached for an alternative date for one of them, a point competition between the two takes place. (Thus, the point system is only used for date-specific nominations, and not for all of them.)
  • For date-irrelevant requests, the most important factor is the variety of topics, which is considered by the group of regulars; in the Wiki spirit, informal agreements between nominators—perhaps brokered by the regulars—can result in slot-exchanging or in the postponing of a nomination. For general requests, it is unacceptable to occupy both slots in a day; competitions only occur between date-specific nominations, and thus the total number of nominations stays far below the maximum. If a second date-irrelevant nomination is entered into a day, it is summarily (re)moved.
• The Director's place in the entire system does not change in the least; he retains the full power to override any "decision" by the community on the scheduling of a TFA. All participants in the process are aware of that and partake with the risk that their "successful" nomination might be overturned at any moment and for any reason.

As you can plainly see, there are significant differences from the previously tried models. The new system is a combination of an open system (with flexibility in the handling of the slots) and a closed one (with limited slots and a point system for date requests). Nothing like that has ever been tried. Isn't this enough for the honourable colleagues to at least consider discussing it? Waltham, The Duke of 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC), updated at 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition–clarification Although it has not been very clear so far, either in my mind or in the proposal, I have decided that the best way to go is for the page to host nominations not for the following 14 free days, but for the next fourteen calendar days. In other words, there will be 14 headings and every day one will go from the top and another will appear at the bottom. Days for which articles have been scheduled will have a Locked or Scheduled label, accompanied by the title of the article and perhaps other information (see bullet #3). This will produce several additional benefits:

• Further manageability – Although the nominal maximum remains eight-and-score, the actual maximum number of nominations drops to twenty, or less (four locked days in a fortnight is a realistic, if not conservative, estimate). The actual number is now estimated to range between ten and fifteen nominations at any given time.
• Better organisation – It is easier for editors to make their arrangements if they know that a slot will be freed exactly fourteen days in advance (which I consider enough time for a decision to be made; I mention this because this clause makes it hard to schedule an article more than 14 days prior, although Raul can certainly by-pass that at will).
• Smoother proceedings – The Director can take up slots, if he wishes to make specific selections for these days, as previously; the difference is that editors will be promptly informed if he overrides a decision or simply takes care of a vacant slot, as that will be written under that day's heading, and no questions need be asked (although, of course, it doesn't ensure that they won't).
• Better informativeness – Editors can see in a glance which slots have closed, and which articles are scheduled for them, without having to go to the relevant month's TFA page.

I haven't added this to the proposal proper, as I don't know how editors will feel about it (it changes the page's character just a bit), but it makes for a shorter and more organised page, which I believe is more to Raul's taste, and is more informative to, and easily used by, the editors. Waltham, The Duke of 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From where I sit on this, the problem is that everyone agrees the current system sucks, but no one seems to know exactly why it sucks. Moreover, the editers and Raul654 have vague notions of what they do and don't want this page to be, and thus far the community's attempt to act on these vague notions is creating results that no one seems to like. In short, we all seem to agree that we need a change, but we are not even sure what the underlying problem is in the first place. From where I sit, the three biggest issues with regards to people and this page are as follows:

• We have several articles that could be featured on revelvent dates within the next two to four weeks, be not enough slots to accomadte all of them, which creates frustration among editers in the waiting line. If we could limit requests in such a way as to permit multiple requests for the same days then we might allieviate the problem at the expense of returning the request page to 100+ articles as was the case in early 07.
• We lack any kind of long range request system for those of us trying to get articles up on dates outside of 30-days. Admittedly, this should not be as large an issue as it is, but I think the perception that there is unclaimed terrirotry out there that editers are being forcibly kept off of is creating a kind of roit mentality, and people are getting increasingly "physical" in thier pushing and shove to find some niche they can claim for "their" article;
• We have no system in place to protect articles already on the TFA request page from removal by second and third parties. I think that when most people place an article here they want a degree of security in knowing that the article they suggest will not be removed by someone eight second after they add the article here in the first place. That kind of thing is tantamount to being cut off while driving; it angers people and foster unnessicary ill will among the contributers.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would suggest creating a category for proposed TFAs for date specfic requests, and changing the system so that editers nominate their articles on the article talk page using a modified {{todo}} template to explain in 500 words or less why the article should go up on the given date. From here Raul could evaluate multiple requests for the same date, decide on the one best suited to the date, and use it as the TFA, but thats just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 May 2008

I've long been complaining about the process in which Featured Articles are nominated for the main page. The original process, although admittedly it had its faults, was much better until one month when the backlog was too great, Raul (Instead of enlisting more help) changed the process completely and screwed up whatever shred was working. There are still issues which have not been resolved despite my continued requests; the current process is extremely flawed and almost no one likes it. Articles which have no dates or important topics are shoved to the back and having done a few of these myself, it really does not make one want to to use this process. Raul stop being so stubborn and make changes based on community opinion not unilateral bias. If you can't handle the workload, give it to someone else. Cheers 203.97.171.7 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Today Featured Article

Should it state that Today's Featured Article should not be repeated? (Halgin (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, that would be helpful. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As with everything that goes without saying, I think we should write it. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)