Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Updating the instructions

I have suggested that we update the instructions to improve the visibility of those parts of the instructions that are likely to be unexpected to newcomers, and thus need more emphasis, visually speaking. Right now the instructions are create what they call the 'a wall of text' effect.

Since I am the most recent newbie to have my ass chewed off, it seems like I should do something to help the next guy from making the same mistakes. Here's my attempt, not changing the words but just the styling. (You'll see I'm clearly I'm no designer, but you get the idea). Unlike virtually every other process in Wikimedia, (1) "the final decision rests with a single user", (2) "community endorsement does not guarantee appearance", and (3) WP:BOLD nominations need pre-approval. As I reflect on my own experiences, the three "differences" are what led me to have such an overwhelming negative experience despite a multiyear history of good faith article editing and the best of intentions.

I realize I may not be the right messenger for this and now may not be the right time for anyone to hear this-- but perhaps someone will be digging through the archives for ways to improve the project and find this useful. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fair point, I don't see the same shortcoming on a quick glance. When judging GAs the process rests with a single user reviewer, DYK is largely a serial single-user process (single user judges the hook, another single user selects a few at random from successfully reviewed hooks and puts them together in the queue). FAC used to be run by a single user who became inactive and for redundancy's sake has three users acting rather autonomously on their own singular discretion to discern concensus, administrators make single-user decisions every minute with AfD, blocks, CSD-tagged articles. No offence, but why do I suspect your gripe with the process is a mask for another gripe? When its comes to bold and italic text, less is more, and we're advised from gratuitous or superfluous typographic emphasis. JUST LIKE PEOPLE TEND TO IGNORE WHAT IS SAID IF SOMEONE WRITES IN ALL CAPS FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME OR TOO OFTEN IN A BLOCK OF TEXT (AND RIGHTFULLY SO). :)--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Joseph W. Tkach surprise TFAR

I have nominated Joseph W. Tkach at WP:TFA a couple of times in the past on behalf of WP:CHICAGO and been told it was not up to snuff during the nomination. I was a bit surprised to see it has been scheduled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing it nominated here - can you find any diffs of previous discussions? Bencherlite^Talk 16:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, hunting around myself I found

• this discussion from Sept 2009 (in which I commented on the image - so much for my memory!) - Raul chose something else, but there were no opposes on quality grounds;
• this discussion from March 2010, with a couple of opposes on quality grounds (TTT withdrew the nomination)

What do people think - is Joseph W. Tkach good enough to run (as a preliminary view at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006 by someone thought) or not? (NB the FA nominator has been inactive since October 2010.) Bencherlite^Talk 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Improving TFAR - any thoughts?

I wondered whether we should have a bit of brain-storming session as to whether we can improve TFA and TFAR and if so how. So far in 2014 the figures are staying the same as they did for 2013 - I'm having to choose 55% of articles because the community only nominates articles for 45% of the slots. The page was very active recently for a certain nomination, of course, but that didn't lead to people thinking "and while I'm here, I'll nominate X for TFA". Things that I have tried so far include increasing the date range for WP:TFARP to 1 year (from 3 months) and leaving messages regularly for editors with newly promoted TFAs, informing/reminding them about TFAR. The former has had little effect so far; the latter sometimes gets people to nominate but not often. At present, for instance, we have three nominations on the requests page when there are fourteen slots available.

Is the problem with TFAR? Or is the problem with TFA? There are I know certain brave people who are happy to have their articles on the main page and who will even nominate them. There are others who would rather run a mile (or make me run a mile, preferably) than have to go through the TFA experience. What are the issues? Is there anything that can be done?

Pinging various people who have had an article promoted to FA in 2013/14 or who have been commenting here recently (I have removed the long list of pingees) - at 300+ people, that might set the ball rolling! Bencherlite^Talk 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I bailed out when someone said the article had too many references. No, I'm not going to actively make an article worse to pass the gamut of FAC - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

David, I suspect that's a minority viewpoint that would have been ignored by the coordinators. Bencherlite, I wasn't pinged (this is just on my watchlist). I believe that pinging requires a signature after the linked username? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, after that they decided not to consider it further, so yeah, it appears the requested shrubberies can get that obviously stupid and damaging - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

David, if someone at FAC said "too many references" it must have been a newbie, or someone who didn't know what they were doing. We don't get in those discussions at TFAR thankfully, maybe only a mention of something like that if some of the online sources make dead links in the references on an older article, but by TFAR most of the heavy lifting has already been done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Quadell is not a newbie. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/OpenOffice.org/archive2 I initially said "okay", then thought "no, I'm not deliberately hobbling the article for a request that stupid" - David Gerard (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

David Gerard: Clicking through, I don't see anyone suggesting anyone remove any refs, and I see you agreeing with Quadell's suggestion to bundle (which isn't even remotely like removing refs). If you disagreed, you don't appear to have voiced that you did. Bundling's common—I do it in nearly all the articles I work on—so forgive me if I take offense at the suggestion that my own contributions are "stupid and damaging". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As others have written, part of the problem is selection is limited to actual FAs. On that end, I have not been back to FA in years due to some over zealousness by some editors (if I recall one editor opposed because there were newspapers used as sources or some stupid thing like that). Plus, while we strive for perfection, the goal is supposed to be a professional level of writing, and the pros do make mistakes all the time in a variety of areas, so a typo or two should not be a death blow. Lastly on that topic, at to echo a bit of another's note, there was also something similar regarding too many citations - as in some think if an entire paragraph is sourced to one footnote, we should only cite it once. I disagree, as this is not a static piece, so 1) only the author would know that who wrote the paragraph, and 2) this sort of assumes the paragraph will never be edited. Again, not an academic piece to be printed out, so we should not adapted the same rules as we would for a term paper.

In regards to TFAR, perhaps an automated message sent to the editors encouraging them to nominate would be nice, but I believe I am not the only one who was basically unaware of this nomination process. I'm in the top 100 of edits and still did not know, so perhaps also some sort of message to the editors of ones passed years ago to encourage they nominate them and to update them might be beneficial. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Aboutmovies - I understand your concern. In the same vein as "a typo or two should not be a death blow" and overzealous reviewers...I hate when someone finds 10-15 errors that are all 1-2 bytes, commas, quotation marks, en-dashes, etc., that they could have fixed themselves with a quick edit but spend 1,200 kb bitching about it in their review.... "second sentence, fourth paragraph, in the history section, you're missing a comma, might want to add that" or "footnote 42, missing a period" is a waste of fucking time at FAC. When I review one, I try to look through and be willing to do minor shit like that, I swore I wouldn't be the kind of FAC reviewer that nitpicked over little shit I could do myself if I had 30-45 minutes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Colonel Henry

I don't think the problem is with TFAR directly since TFAR is rather straight-forward and you've done a great job in the last year running it, but the problem stems with some problems with the FA process in general, just a few observations:

• Several users and readers have complained about FAs being on obscure topics--mushrooms, Australian WWII pilots, etc. I don't see this being a problem with the FA process but more one that the more well-known topics tend to result in tedious edit-wars and other bullshit that scare good contributors away. I like my peace and quiet, so it's unlikely I'm going to bring something controversial to FA anytime soon, and doubtless many other content contributors would agree with me.
• A lot of editors think once they get an article past FAC to promotion, they're done with that particular article. Perhaps if we trawled a list of promoted FAs after two weeks and contacted the editors, we'd get some of the FA nominators interested in TFA if they haven't heard of it, and might retain a few users at TFA.
• I have heard from several editors who work on articles with the aim of bringing them to FA that the process has gotten too slow, and they have a backlog of article's they'd like to bring to FAC. Right now my nomination backlog is about 6-8 months, I heard another user saying "hey, if I work on this article now, I probably won't get around to nominating it until 2019, since I have about 60 that are or have been ready for FAC in the pipeline." Some of those editors are a little disincentivised and not as enthusiastic.
• In the last year, I have seen a lot less intensity on reviewing FAs at FAC. If I nominate one, I try to review at least two others within a week of nominating it. Right now, I've had an article at FAC now for a month (Finn M. W. Caspersen, if anyone would like to stop by) and only had one of the FAC regulars has happened to stop by for a quick source spotcheck.
• I recently had an interest in getting involved at FAR after a conversation several weeks ago, but on second thought with creating articles, participating at FAC occasionally, TFAR regularly, running two small businesses, consulting work, teaching, graduate school, dating a really nice girl who likes having me around, a dozen hobbies and other things...I don't have much time for other WP projects. I wouldn't be surprised content editors, people focused at GAN, ANI, or AFC etc. have much discretionary spare time either.
• Solutions:
  • Have you reached out to the various recruitment projects, editor retention, mentoring projects to say "hey, if you'd like to participate at TFAR, we'd be willing to show you the ropes?"
  • Maybe get the signpost editors to write something up about the project.
  • Maybe each of the TFAR regulars can recruit one editor they know and work with to join in, or find a newbie and say "hey, you might like this..."

Hopefully some of those ideas work or spur some discussion that gets at the root of the problem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest putting a field in the FAC template called "specialdate=" (or similar). Then upon nomination, authors could nominate a date when TFAR would be most appropriate. They wouldn't later have to remember to do this. Some template wizardry could then prepare a nice category for you or other TFAR helpers to pick from each day. --99of9 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I think you are doing a fantastic job. The fact that topics are limited is pretty much why I rarely stop by TFA with some of my own FACs. I mean, there were 106 films produced in the Dutch East Indies. We have FAs on five of them. Overrepresentation much? Having them pop up one after another would certainly draw fire. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco, I enjoy coming across one of your Indonesian articles--especially the FAs--in fact I came across one today. Serendipity.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, but sadly WT:MP is less amenable. I love birds, and bird pictures, but if I schedule them 5 days apart I get the kind of comments one would expect from 4chan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• You should have seen the comments I had on "why the hell is this an FA?" when my article on Samuel Merrill Woodbridge was TFA. Wikipedia's intellectual 4chan is AN/I (and on some days, ArbCom). :) --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have much to add beyond my own experience with TFA/R. For what it's worth, I think 99of9's idea to put a "specialdate=" field in the article history template is a great way to increase participation, especially if it generated its own reminder code as the date draws near. As for my own TFA history, I primarily only nominate if there's an anniversary coming up; the rules as stated seem a bit intimidating for off-the-cuff nominations not linked to a particular cool date thing. It would feel like wasted effort to nominate something if it's only worth 0 or 1 point on the scale and have it be replaced immediately right? At least, that's what has stopped me in the past from nominating more often. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Might be helpful to post notices about this discussion at a few central notice location places. Just a thought, no worries, either way. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick comments from Curly Turkey

I won't guess about others, but I've only nominated my own articles when I've known there was to be an anniversary. I'm not particularly motivated otherwise to see my articles on the main page (I know they wouldn't generally draw much of a crowd—I mean, more-or-less obsoletely narrative genres and long out-of-print comics that were obscure even when they were in print are hardly click magnets). Not that I'm avoiding TFAR. There are a couple of articles with wider potential appeal that I plan to take to FAC, and I was thinking of bringing them to TFAR after passing.

Probably not the most helpful comment when the problem is motivating people to come to TFAR—but then, is it really a problem? If you were to be the one to select, say, even 90% of the TFAs, would that actually be an issue to be concerned about? If it is, acouple of ideas could be:

• Add a "nominate this article for TFA" to the talk pages of FAs that haven't been TFAs (perhaps as part of the Article History template?)
• Add a "Nominate an FA for TFA" link below the current TFA on the mainpage
• Add a similar link to the top of the archive pages
• Regularly advertising TFAR on the "Featured content" page of The Signpost.
• Regularly spamming the discussion pages of various WikiProjects (say, having a bot leave a message quarterly/bimonthly?)

————Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've only had 1 article promoted to FA (so far), and it was almost immediately scheduled for TFA before I could even consider TFAR - Evad37 [talk] 00:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) I tend to be similar. I'll nominate an article for TFAR if there is an anniversary coming up, but otherwise I'll leave my articles lie. But perhaps the "nominate a TFA" link/template idea can be considered further. Perhaps instead of just a nominate link, use a template where the editor can suggest ideal dates for a potential appearance. i.e.: for Jarome Iginla, he's a July 1 birthday. So if that was contained in a template, a bot could then trawl that and create a list for Bencherlite or other delegates to map out potentially ideal dates to run. Resolute 00:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think there is a lack of clarity with etiquette - I worry if I nominate too many of mine it looks like I am self-aggrandizing, yet I get the impression that there is a reluctance to nominate someone else's at times too. The process itself is ok. I might load some more on the emergency list - Bencherlite feel free to take them at any time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Where's the emergency list again? — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here. buffbills7701 02:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have parked a couple of articles there - I guess if a few of us who have a few articles to choose from can just leave some there - doesn't really matter how many are there. Might make it a bit easier if they are used up regularly (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick solicited comment from Dennis Brown

I've only run the gauntlet at TFAR once and really @Eric Corbett: did the most of the paperwork for me, so I can't claim to be the most familiar. However, I didn't find it nor FA itself to be unreasonable at all. The people manning the place were, well, people. There are always opinions and suggestions but I'm not prone to overreact, even when I disagree. Honestly, the most stressful thing I see with TFAR are the people who haunt the front page and try to change the format or style of an article after it hits the front page. Not facts, just style. People that aren't willing to do the hard part, sourcing and building, and instead just want to argue about template and infoboxes. Pointy stuff. Lock the article style while it is on the front page, allow editing typos, or facts only, and the process would be pretty reasonable and more people might be interested in taking articles that far. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis, I can echo your calls to lock it. I understand the urge to fix typos, but I'd be glad trade that to avoid the style fascists...I was blocked for 24 hours during a TFA of mine because I ended up getting in a pissing match with someone who hated that I spelled out "eleven" rather than use "11". --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

One small suggestion from Elie plus

thank you for pinging me although I only contributed two TFAs in more than 7 years of being here. It happened that I never even considered nominating those two articles to TFA simply because I was not aware _or motivated enough_ of the nomination process until Bencherlite pointed the way (thank you, you are doing an awesome job). I'm not sure if such a mechanism is already in place but wouldn't it be helpful to have a pre-prepared monthly calendar of anniversaries and key dates with hundreds of articles to chose from? I know it would be a titanesque job sifting through FAs and highlighting article key dates (should they exist) but I think that such an undertaking will pay off in the long run. All the other suggestions are excellent. Have a nice day/night you all. -Elias Z 05:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from 0x0077BE

I have only recently started watching TFAR and have not prepared any nominations yet, nor been a significant contributor to a Featured Article. My perspective is that I didn't even know this page existed until @Cirt: nominated Fuck (film), not sure how I got to that discussion, but I think it was through WP:Freedom of speech or WP:Linguistics. From my perspective, I think if this page was advertised to Wikiprojects a bit more, more people would learn about the nomination/request process - if this doesn't exist already, maybe if TFA had a template that you could post on the relevant wikiprojects like {{tfa-notify-wikiproject |article=Article title |date=date |requested=yes/no |archive_url=link_to_archived_discussion}} that says, "The article such and such, which is covered by your Wikiproject, will be featured on such and such a date. This article was nominated at WP:TFAR; you, too, can nominate content to be featured on the front page by following [[link_to_instructions|these instructions]]". You could also make an equivalent template that says, "An article covered by your wikiproject has been nominated...", but the problem there is that if you post it only on the relevant WikiProjects, it's going to tend to be biased, which might not be ideal canvassing practice; notification with a plug after the fact removes that concern.

I'll also say that I considered nominating an article a few days ago and I started going through the process before I realized that the article had been featured some years ago and I had missed that part of the FAC template in the talk page. All in all it seems like a simple enough process, but the things I found a bit frustrating about the process:

1. I didn't see any obvious way to see a list of all the previous and future TFAs without going through the monthly archives with blurbs. This meant that in order to check if similar content had been featured within 6 months, I had to open at least 6 pages, and since it's the beginning of the year, I also had to navigate to the previous year's archives page. If a page with a running list of the names of 6-9 months' worth of TFAs doesn't exist, it'd be nice to have, if such a list exists, maybe a link should be featured near the part of the point calculation instructions that talks about time-between-similar articles.

I agree with this comment. I nominated a film article twice, to be told "we just did a film article", and then soon afterwards another film article was accepted. It is not so easy to know when to nominate something. BollyJeff | talk 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

1. It would be really nice if there were some simple templates for nomination notifications, maybe one for the talk page of the article and one for significant contributors. I always find it hard to word these messages when I do it myself, and I feel like I'm re-inventing the wheel. Would probably encourage more people to notify the contributors if they could just use something like {{tfar-notify-nom |date=optional_date |reason=optional_reason |type=user_or_talk}} or something.

I think it's just those two. Overall seems like an easy enough process, though. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• 0x0077BE: I don't think "canvassing" is an issue at all—canvassing is selectively notifying editors or groups of editors with the intention of stacking the deck—violating the neutrality—of a discussion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I mean it's probably fine either way, but the members of the wikiproject associated with the article aren't like 100% neutral on the discussion (they're probably more likely to favor their project's content than another project's content), so if you're concerned about stacking the deck in that way, a post-decision advertisement would tend to alleviate that problem, to the extent that it's even a problem. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just popping my head back round the door to say that there are some really interesting thoughts coming out already in this discussion, which is great. I'll hold off responding for now because (it's past my bedtime and) I'd like to see where the discussion goes - I'm adding an RFC tag and will add this to {{Cent}} to see whether that gets more views/contributions. Bencherlite^Talk 00:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's a suggestion above to let people state a desired FA date (even if this is a long distance ahead) and embed it in the template for future reference, which seems a very sensible idea - especially if it's a couple of years ahead, there's a good chance the author may drift away between now and then. As well as this, would it be worth asking/encouraging FA authors who're interested in TFA in the future to draft up a blurb and so forth, and leave it on the talkpage alongside the reminder template? This would lessen the burden on BL putting them together. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Very good ideas. BollyJeff | talk 21:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's been 16 days since anyone has commented here so I guess the conversation has ebbed. I haven't been involved with FAs (which I find quite intimidating) but wanted to read other editors' critique of the promotion system. It seems like there are some very good suggestions here that are pretty simple, involving notifications, creating a list, sending reminders, an article in the Signpost, etc. that don't require an overhaul of the system and would be fairly easy to implement. What do the editors who work in this area of WP think about the ideas proposed thus far? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: - I recommend getting familiar - try reviewing something you're interested in - just go in with an open mind, thinking, "how could this article be better." and take it from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: - Thanks for the advice. I do lots of gnomish edits, just haven't taken on writing an article or making a significant content contribution (more than a paragraph or two).

You know, when you participate in AfD, MfD and CfD deletion discussions, you're more aware of how quickly and easily content is deleted from Wikipedia...it sets a high bar in your mind of what is expected for an article to even last 48 hours and pass the New Page Patrol inspection. Funny thing is, because I work in a lot of different areas, I see a lot of pretty poorly written articles that do exist and I can only guess that the bar for quality is higher now that it used to be.

Also, when I was an IP editor and made what I thought were great additions only to have them immediately reverted...well, when you're new, it kind of breaks your spirit. I now understand how this is all part of the Wikipedia process but it still stops me from making large content contributions. One click on "Undo" and you can be right back where you started. I think this is why a lot of editors only contribute sporadically or occasionally. Longevity on Wikipedia really requires one to develop a very thick skin and not be too attached to one's work....or pick some obscure subject area to edit in where you are unlikely to be constantly challenged. </tangent>Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the reversion bit is why I try to take as much of my work to GA or FA as possible - they act as Stable Versions that later versions can be compared with and a consensus determined as to the best bits. Regarding reviewing, it's about going in with a positive mind and idea of offering helpful comments. Folks will gratefully accept review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz:, @Casliber: - if you're looking for articles to review, I have two currently at FAC that I would value your experience and keen insight on, and likewise if I can ever review an article for you I'll be glad to.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a great invitation, ColonelHenry but I think I'd like to look over some already reviewed articles first so I can see the article and the reviewers' comments so I can see what Wikipedia standards are. Are those available at FAC? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: Here are the 'marking criteria' (as it were) - scroll down to some of the older nominations, which will have a few reviews already to get an idea. @ColonelHenry:, will try and get round to doing some more reviewing others soon - just in the process of tidying up a couple of things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz:, if you look at any current FA and go to the talk page for that FA at the top of the talk page there's a template that will lead you the archived FA candidate nomination and review. It usually says that this article has "been identified as" meeting the FA criteria, etc. In perusing he criteria that Cas Liber linked (also at WP:WIAFA = WIAFA meaning what is a featured articel), and looking through some archived FAC discussions, you can get a pretty good idea of how it goes. Also, take a look at some current FACs and see what other editors are looking for/critiquing/asking/etc. in their reviews. The learning curve is rather easy, and I'm sure if you have any questions Cas, me, and a few of the other TFA regulars would be glad to guide you down the right path. @Casliber: - I look forward to it, one of them probably has about two weeks left before it gets to the bottom of the list, the other about another month or so, so not an urgent rush. Many thanks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

First let me congratulate and thank you for the great job you've been doing! I'm far less active at all FA-related pages than I used to be, although that is changing a bit just recently, & I'm doing more FAC reviewing. Declining levels of editor involvement is a problem everywhere, & if only 45% of articles are nominated by the community that mainly strikes me as a problem in that it must increase your workload. The only real thought I have is that it might increase involvement if longer term lists, by type of subject, were produced for the stuff you find yourself as "fillers". Do you have lists of bird species, mushrooms, writers and other favourites that regularly fill in? The relevant projects could be asked to suggest lists of up to say 20 un-run FAs to work through (normally with no date preference), and these might attract useful comments. Does something like that sound workable? More work or less than now? Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Some replies from Bencherlite

Some great ideas here - some quick thoughts for now:

• I like the idea of a single page listing recent TFAs. A list of TFAs since September 1, 2013, is now at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs. I hope it helps. If you can think of other ways of organising the data, please have a go.
• I like the idea of a Signpost article - who should write it? Me or a TFAR regular?
• The {{article history}} ideas will require some thought and outside agreement - the template is pretty big/complicated already, but there may be scope for adding a "nominate this article" link for FAs yet to appear on the main page.

More replies later, I hope. Bencherlite^Talk 14:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Points?

I just added Derek Jeter to the list for an upcoming request. He is retiring at the end of the 2014 season, and I'd like his article to run on the final day of his professional career (either September 28, if the Yankees don't reach the playoffs, or possibly later if the Yankees do reach the postseason). There's a column for "points" and I have no idea what they mean or how they're calculated. If they are something serious that actually impacts selections, there should be a primer. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair point to make that there's no link on the WP:TFARP page to the instructions (including points calculations) set out on the WP:TFAR page. I'll fix that. You've helpfully identified the features, though (date relevance, 2-year FA, first TFA) to give him 4 points now. Jeter also has 19 articles on other Wikipedias - does anyone fancy writing a short article about him between now and the end of September to get him to the magic "20 articles" level, for two more points as "widely covered"? Bencherlite^Talk 19:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Half-remembered Esperanto to the rescue! I struggled mightily to remember enough Esperanto to write a one-sentence stub about him. But it's already more well-referenced than their article on Barack Obama, so I guess we're ahead of the game on that one. Little known "fact": according to all the online dictionaries I could find, Esperanto has no word for "shortstop" (probably not true, but that was one of the many frustrating things about writing an article in an artificial language you sorta knew 8 years ago). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I identified features as I saw them identified from the other requests. If only you had remembered your Esperanto before I tried to get my bonus points at WP:CUP! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

April Fools - any suggestions?

Time is running out... For ease of reference, I've added links to the previous 1st April TFAs at WP:Today's featured article oddities. Bencherlite^Talk 09:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• You've got one from me now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've asked Wehwalt if he would like to suggest Disco Demolition Night - he had the idea last year, but the FAC didn't close in time. I think a choice between two (or more) articles would be better than a yes/no choice for one article. Bencherlite^Talk 10:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but if it doesn't run, I'll probably put it up for July 12, the 35th anniversary. No biggie.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from Dweller:

1. Pixies were first created in a garage in 1986. They were often seen in bars and were known to be "either sweaty or laid back and cool", Pixies did not officially exist after 1993, due to arguments, although one Pixie did become a magician. Despite their death in 1997, Pixies revived in 2004, first re-emerging in Brixton, London. Despite originating in America, Pixies are much more popular in Europe, although they have struck Pixie gold in the USA. The leader of the Pixies is called Black Francis and they are often heard singing about extraterrestrials, surrealism, incest, and biblical violence.
2. Both Fools and Horses were created in 1981. Predominantly found in south London, Fools and Horses are obsessed with schemes to get rich, mostly unsuccessful. Appropriately, the Fools and Horses are often found inside a horse's head, one has camel hair, several have Trotters and copies of their Robin are made by Corgi. [NB this article will need some work to get it ready)
3. The Kaiser was born in 1911, yet was involved in much of the naval warfare of World War One. Aged just five years, in the Battle of Jutland of 1916, the Kaiser was actually hit, but suffered no lasting damage. At the end of the war, in 1918, the Kaiser was interned and, as the result of a mistake, was sunk to the bottom of the sea by none other than a German Rear Admiral, Ludwig von Reuter. The Kaiser remained on the sea bed at Scapa Flow, off the coast of Scotland for around ten years, before being brought back to the surface, at which the body was broken into small parts.

I've kept them all short and rough (eg "Despite... Despite" in one of them), as there's no point wasting time on stuff that won't be used. If the community likes one of them, it can be worked up properly. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions copied to main page so that we don't get too fragmented a discussion. I suggested comments on individual items are made there to keep everything together. Bencherlite^Talk 11:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am working on an article about Baby farming, but I doubt I'll be able to get it through FAC in time for 1 April. It'll definitely be a complete article by then, though. Parrot of Doom 08:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Next year, for sure. Now to avoid having Fat Bastard's rendition of "Baby Back Ribs" in my head for the rest of the day. Oh, too late. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Disco Demolition Night, as mentioned elsewhere, seems entirely suitable, though has no lede image, and appears to be the most April Fool's Day appropriate. Certainly more interesting and amusing than any of the three Dweller suggestions. (no offence Dweller). ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quehanna Wild Area is an FA and has been in the running for April Fool's TFA before - see here and other years after. A possible blurb is something like:

Quehanna Wild Area in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania was established in 1955 as a habitat for the rare nuclear jet engine. Quehanna was also home to endangered radioactive species like Cobalt-60 and Strontium-90, and was the only wild area in the state with it own nuclear reactor and hot cells. The 48,000-acre (19,000 ha) wild area is Pennsylvania's largest; its great size allows visitors to track migrating tornados. The land was acquired by the state in the early 20th century as a preserve for tree stumps and ashes. Wapiti became locally extinct in the 19th century and were successfully reintroduced by the commonwealth in the 1920s; in 2003 a robot population was established (pictured).

The blurb can be tweaked and the robot image is free. It would need some cleanup before April 1. If nothing else, something to keep in mind for the future. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Bencherlite: - Ruhrfisch has pointed us where we may strike gold. Can we rush this in somehow?--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colonel. Full disclosure, I wrote the article with Auntieruth55 and we hoped it might become an April Fools TFA. There is other material in there that is hard to believe, like wildlife digging up poorly buried toxic waste, that might be worth putting in the blurb. I would not include any of the human tragedies in the blurb (deaths of workers dismantling a tank, prison boot camp). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I would give this one a full vote of support if it were nominated... Imzadi 1979 → 04:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I have nominated it and expanded the blurb slightly. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
        • The blurb is terribly funny; one thing about it and the article, however, is that Jet_engine#Nuclear-powered_ramjet doesn't point at any section, though there is a Ramjet#Nuclear-powered_ramjets. Chris857 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Has the idea of points for "diversity" / under-representation had its day?

Bonus points are awarded for nominations in under-represented categories (those where the FA category has fewer than 50 articles). The list of qualifying categories, together with the qualfying articles in each i.e. those yet to appear at TFA, is this:

• Awards, decorations and vexillology - none
• Chemistry and mineralogy - none
• Computing - none
• Education - C. R. M. F. Cruttwell and History of Texas A&M University
• Engineering and technology - none
• Food and drink - none
• Geology and geophysics - none
• Language and linguistics - none
• Mathematics - none
• Philosophy and psychology - none

It strikes me that this is the most misunderstood of the points rules and also increasingly irrelevant e.g. (and what prompted this) yesterday Montanabw wondered whether she could get a diversity point for a horse on the grounds that horse racing is under-represented; in the recent past, points have been misclaimed for Brabham BT19 on the grounds that Formula 1 is under-represented and Deepika Padukone on the grounds that Hindi film biographies are under-represented. I'm struggling to think of the last time that this rule genuinely applied - perhaps Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860 and Everything Tastes Better with Bacon last August. Is this rule now too much fuss and complication for just two potential TFAs? After all, any new FA in any of these categories is bound to get points for "no recent similar articles" plus the moral high ground of being a rare topic. An alternative would be rewriting the rule to benefit diversity in a different way/sense, although my recollection of past discussions is that there's no easy way to write this into a rule and in the past it's just been left to the common sense of nominators/commentators/schedulers to achieve as diverse a spread of main page articles over time as the limitations of the FA pool allow. What do people think? Bencherlite^Talk 09:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it was never a good idea in the first place. Anyone can narrowly define any topic as being "under-represented". Eric Corbett 12:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree - maybe let people just discuss and make common-sense decisions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a better definition of "under-represented" paired with a new definition for "over-represented" -- I mean, how many hurricane articles have been TFA? Gadzillions; not to say that the editors doing such good work are not deserving, but I for one feel like TFA seems to have a cyclone cloud image every other day! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that tired complaint again. It's just not true. WP:TFAREC shows us the TFAs at a glance since Sept 2013 - in the last 7 months, 7 weather articles. Slightly fewer, in fact, than the proportion of unused weather FAs to all unused FAs would require (see User:Bencherlite/TFA_notepad#Going_just_by_the_numbers... In the first quarter of 2014, for instance, TFA has exceeded its nominal quota for art/architecture, TV/films, and physics/astronomy, but gone under-quota for animals, music, weather, warfare, video games and sport - although, as I point out on my notepad, the "quota" is by no means the only factor I consider when scheduling). Bencherlite^Talk 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Under quota for video games? Coulda knocked me over with a feather! LOL! Of course 7 in 7 is not underrepresented by the "no articles in past three months" criteria, so I suppose it all depends on what set of stats one wants to use. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I know two of the articles I'm planning to bring to FAC in the next few months will be in two of those categories--one them in one of the categories ("education") briefly represented. So diversity can be useful.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Useful to who? You? Eric Corbett 13:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• (1) to whom (2) I have a FAC right now that would meet the geology category...so I'd get some use out of it. And to some of the interesting FACs I saw recently might be able to benefit from it (one of the string theory articles...might benefit from maths)...the problem is that most of the articles that would benefit from diversity don't need a specific date, so the point system doesn't matter as much there. If I can find a specific date for Geology Hall, the diversity points would work to its benefit over say some pop-star or edge out an Aussie military figure. But I'm not concerned about anniversaries so it's not priority. But sadly we've gotten to the point where most of the categories are well-represented, so as we go along, diversity will be eventually become functionally obsolete.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Please don't try to correct my grammar Colonel, as you're clearly not up to the job. Eric Corbett 17:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Another point here is that both geology and mineralogy are claimed to be "none" - but does that mean EVER, or just recently? I ask because Yogo sapphire was a TFA and arguably a gem article could fall under either geology or mineralogy, loosely defined. Likewise computing - don't video games count? -- do we have trouble even keeping these categories properly assessed? Montanabw^(talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I have listed "those [articles] yet to appear at TFA" in each category i.e. where the word "none" appears it means that all the articles in that category at WP:FA have appeared as TFA. Is that clear? There are 39 FAs about chemistry/mineralogy (including Yogo sapphire) and 22 FAs about geology/geophysics. All 61 have appeared on the main page. Video games and computing are different categories at WP:FA - there are only 17 computing FAs. If people want to propose a different way of organizing FA topics, that's a discussion for WT:FA, not here. There is no problem in keeping these categories properly assessed as far as I'm concerned. It just seems increasingly pointless (no pun intended) to take these categories into account at WP:TFAR particularly when the "diversity" point is claimed incorrectly on many more occasions than it is claimed correctly. Bencherlite^Talk 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Got it, I was fuzzy on that... Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One more idea: Just as extra points are given for TFARs that have languished for years, and the three month standard is good to prevent OVER-representation, perhaps there could also be an additional point for the most seriously "underrepresented" areas that could be used to prompt article improvement drives -- Don't know about stuff as narrow as Hindi film biographies, but perhaps "articles related to Indian subcontinent, loosely defined" - maybe some some sort of reassessed and possibly changed-every-six-months thing ('cause my estimate is that's how long it usually takes to get an article from crap to FA, though that's an average and there are plenty of exceptions), but based on actual stats. Montanabw^(talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How would you objectively define the most seriously underrepresented areas? Bencherlite^Talk 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, if any article pops up from an unusual or uncommon area...we're all gonna know pretty quickly as most of us have a flavour of what's coming through here. It's not as if we need some points to tell us that.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. And 2005 Qeshm earthquake, Parity of zero and Throffer (three that spring to mind) would have got "diversity" points if nominated, but I just grabbed them before they could be nominated! Nor can I think of any article carrying diversity points that didn't get chosen for its preferred date. Bencherlite^Talk 20:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a damn good question, though. Maybe the only real solution is to expand the "no similar article in three months" = 1 point to add something like "no similar article in 6 months/1 year" = 2 points maybe. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "no similar articles in the last 6 months" is already worth 2 points. Do you mean adding something like "no similar articles in the last 12 months = 3 points" and removing the "diversity" point? Bencherlite^Talk 20:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Might be the only real solution... just brainstorming at this point. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Has the idea of points had its day

Bencherlite, you want more community nominations? Remove the most obvious barrier to entry, the points system. It was put in because there was chaos in 2006. Well, a lot of water's flowed under the bridge since then. Do it on a trial basis. Any dates attracting multiple nominations get discussed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There's something in that. One might only ask for points when there is a clash over a date, & not bother the rest of the time, though still asking for checks on recent similar articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There would be merits to the points being a "back of the house" operation, post them for public access under the guise of "this is our tie-breaker, if needed" but don't use them unless it becomes necessary--like determining the winner of a college football conference in the event of a three-way or four-way tie--a rule that when it rarely happens would be the deciding factor when needed, but not used or thought about on a day-to-day basis. We've only had two matters recently that required larger community participation--the Fuck discussion and April 1st. Everything else is largely straight-cut.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussions you mention far more useful than the calculation of points, which I think was not fully done in the April 1 example. I did not see anyone base their argument on points. So if there's another pair of articles wanting the same date, well, talk it out, !vote, and all that good stuff, and don't worry about the points.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I do agree. I was quite amazed at how fruitful the discussions were--the diverse opinions, some rather well-reasoned arguments (even the ones I disagreed with), etc. It is worthwhile and while I'm a little hesitant to fully embrace the consensus process (sometimes it has horrible results), the last two discussions created some quality results on determining the "general will".--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea; points, mechanically applied, may sometimes produce absurd results. A tie-breaking mechanism for times when there is no clear consensus is helpful, but beyond that, not so much. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to wholly agree that the point system is a somewhat... pointless :D It's a hoop to hop through that isn't needed at a time when greater participation at TFA is sought. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• ooh...he who would pun would pick a pocket. :) --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You may want to look at a former discussion, Do we need points any more?. Quoting myself: "I think the point math can be replaced by discussions among reasonable people who want to improve the quality of articles and are interested in showing a variety of topics on the Main page." - I took the liberty to insert a sub-header, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that it's the idea of diversity that's had its day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How so? There's still a genuine attempt to diversify the selection of TFA. At this point though, far more articles are selected by Bencherlite than by nomination. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think diversity is good, but I don't think we need to resort to points to do it - discussion is fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps: Add two more NSD spots

Even though most of the TFA nominations have been specific date nominations, I have often wondered how many potential TFA nominators have left after seeing all four NSD spots filled up and never think twice about coming back. Perhaps if we increased the NSD spots to 6, we could attract at least two more nominations? --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support this notion; I remember the first time I ever came to TFA, saw that, and figured it was hopeless. Back in the Raul days, I figured that TFA was sort of a random gift from the (demi-)gods. I figured the only way to get in a request was to live at TFAR and pounce in a two-second window of opportunity. I agree that limited slots definitely discourage newbies. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How often have all four been filled up recently though? If often, then I'd be happy with two more slots too. If not then maybe this is overkill....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know; that said, maybe the solution is both - add two slots AND experiment with the new method noted below. Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

With nomination templates, we can are not restricted to slots. Active ones can be transcluded, others can be prepared without showing, after promotion they won't show again and can be archived, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What do people think of these ideas?

1. For a temporary trial, we don't use points, but the factors underlying the points (e.g. diversity, date relevance) should still be explained by nominators and taken into account by commentators and in scheduling.
2. We change the instructions to reflect this to something like my draft at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions2
3. We switch to a system of nomination subpages, as used at FAC/DYK etc. This helps because (a) we can use a template such as {{TFAR nom}}, which sets out the key points for nominators to address and (b) we have a ready-made archive system. Bencherlite^Talk 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• I really like the idea of a template--it makes the entire process more user-friendly. I know when I first started, I had to copy another TFA blurb to use as the model for my own--even though I was knowledgeable about html the div tags and parameters, etc., were a little intimidating--so I could see what a first-timer would think when faced with a similar introduction to the process. The use of nomination subpages and template could also get TFA/R discussions plugged into the article-alert bulletin templates that some/most WikiProjects use.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Excellent move. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Speaking as a newbie, I approve the above ideas wholeheartedly; the existing process somehow manages to come across as oddly simple and far too complicated all at once. :) I also would like to suggest that the draft instructions be placed in the context of a sort of mission statement for the project--what it's ultimately trying to accomplish--as per the GA/FA nomination pages. Is the idea to attract simply articles the nominators think would be interesting, or specifically more erudite ones? Shoebox2 talk 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, so far so good. Gerda Arendt, ColonelHenry, Espresso Addict, Shoebox2 (and others - perhaps Casliber, Cirt, Harizotoh9 and / or Wehwalt who all have used the nominations page recently?) – would you be willing to try a test nomination following the draft instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions2? (pick any article you want of any quality and write any blurb you want, it's just for fun!) I'd like to see how the instructions and / or the template(s) can be improved. Bencherlite^Talk 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would be glad to, I'll put in my upcoming TFA blurb tonight (which should be through FAC soon).--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. I especially like the archive system, which is something we've lacked. And yes, I think everyone's grown up enough to dispense with points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look soon and see what could be fun to nominate using this process. — Cirt (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've test-nominated Churche's Mansion (not an FA) here; do you want me to transclude it as well? Obvious comment so far is that following the instructions slavishly seems to result in a duplicated "(Full article...)". It's hard to understand how to include the image; it would be better if possible to automate this. It's not clear whether to wiki code the main editor (probably another thing that could be automated). Also, if I hadn't previously used similar systems, I wouldn't be sure how to transclude it. In the absence of the points system and assuming this streamlining of the process does bring in complete TFA virgins, I think there might need to be a stronger exhortation to diversity; the current instructions merely request one to look for similar articles, rather than attempting to ensure there will be a sufficient interval. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Bit stretched right at the moment but looks like a significant improvement and alot more user-friendly. I will grab an article that I've promoted at FAC and isn't lying around in some nom-queue somewhere and give it a whirl soon - might not be for several hours though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Espresso Addict, thanks. I've fixed the instructions that tell you to add {{TFAFULL}} and expanded the suggested points to address here - any better? Do you want to transclude it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/sandbox and then people can play around with things there? Bencherlite^Talk 04:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I played with one, here. It's functional, but the more you can do to eliminate the need to insert inside brackets and so forth, the better, for the sake of the inadept. It's a great improvement over the old way. I'd love something in the page that told you how long the blurb was before you transclude, I tend to judge by eye by comparison with the existing blurbs on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There we go - have done one --> Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Boletus luridus. I like it. Prompts you to find relevant stuff on similar articles - a plus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, the image is in the wrong place....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've transcluded Churche's Mansion to the sandbox. The instructions for that seem fine. Will have another go with the revised instructions later (busy now!). Wehwalt, is the counting really so difficult? I just cut & paste into Word. I think developing a live counting tool might be hard (I don't know of a model); DYK check is easy to use but requires one to load it upfront, which makes it problematic for attracting newbies. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tried again here. The duplicate TFAFULL is gone (though you could probably drop all mention of it), but there's now an unwanted line break before it; also the image is now in the wrong place. The diversity statement is probably strong enough now, though there might be a use for a general ethos page which discusses the factors considered in the points system without mentioning points. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not terribly hard. I'm just saying what bells and whistles I'd like to see if practical. Perfect world scenario. Feedback, not complaints. It's excellent, saves a lot of work.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am busy, but tried one. I would like to see the picture in the final position, and enter the desired date as a separate parameter, but am quite pleased with the approach, - more later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just tried commenting on Gerda's transcluded nomination; it was easy to use but returning to the sandbox page the comment didn't show until I purged the page, which might confuse newbies. This isn't a problem I recall with commenting at DYKs (tho' there might be some change in my computer set-up; I haven't edited there for a while) -- I wonder if there's some way of autopurging? Particularly as it isn't clear how to purge unless you've loaded the UTC-clock-cum-reload-page gizmo or similar. A quick fix might be a 'click this link if your comment isn't showing' purge link at the top of the suggestions page. Commenting on Bencherlite's four-leaf clover, for some reason the blurb wasn't visible; this seems only to affect this nomination. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! What do y'all think of commenting Supports, Opposes and discussion as on RfA, with automatic numbering? It would be useful at least for larger discussions such as Fuck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem on slow-appearing comments on pages with subpages transcluded has affected e.g. FAC recently, so this isn't a problem specific to this set-up AFAIK. A purge link somewhere may be useful though, I'll look into that. I'll also look into the error I've introduced with the TFAimage in the wrong place, although my time over the next few days is very limited by a busy workload and lots of travel. Similarly I'll see whether I can add extra parameters to fill for the TFAIMAGE anyway, although I've tried to steer a balance between having so many parameters that it becomes confusing for users and too few to be useful for commentators and me. I like the idea of a character-count tool but unless even the DYKcheck tool doesn't do what we want here. Finally, I don't like the idea of numbering, whether manual or automatic. This is a discussion, not a vote. Discussions such as Fuck are exceptional. Bencherlite^Talk 19:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea of automatic numbering was only meant to improve/replace the current hard-to-maintain summary chart, but I would be happy to do without, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've nominated Franklin Peale in a nonspecific slot using the template. It was mildly counterintuitive, wanting to tweak the blurb, the "edit" link did not work for that purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Peale scheduled, - that process went smoothly. - What would you think of a redirect to the request with the desired date, such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/8 June 2014 for this, then people could easily see if there's a date conflict. Just an idea, I am still busy, with passion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We already have a "pending" template for that purpose. Getting people to create redirects in case they check the date but not the pending template seems over-complicated to me (bear in mind that you'd need to create "/8 June 2014" and "/June 8, 2014" for such checks to work, which is already twice the effort!) Bencherlite^Talk 09:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Going live

Thanks for your comments and feedback. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Franklin Peale seemed to work well. I've tweaked the nomination template to handle an optional {{TFAIMAGE}} properly and it seems to work now. The general view seems to be that a system of not using points and also using subpages is worth a try so we'll give it a go and see what happens... If you encounter any further problems or have any suggestions for further improvements, or any views on how discussions without points are going, speak up! Bencherlite^Talk 09:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)`

Easter holiday

Just to let you know that I'm busy now preparing to go on holiday on Friday for 10 days (Denmark, since you ask) and I have no plans to edit Wikipedia while I'm away. I've stocked up with TFAs until early May to give us a bit of leeway on my return. I doubt there will be any problems in my absence (there never normally are) but no doubt you will work out what to do between you all if something crops up. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Best wishes, Bencherlite, have a good journey.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quadruple headers?

Apropos the double feature of Triangulum and Triangulum Australe, has anyone pondered of an upper limit to the number of closely related topics that could be on the mainpage in one go? For example, I've worked on ship articles (udema, turuma, hemmema and pojama) that are very closely related. These aren't actual FAs (yet), but would a quadruple feature like this be possible?

Peter ^Isotalo 00:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Possible, yes. A good idea? Not necessarily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Crisco. I could understand if it were three FAs on the Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria, but I don't think it would be good to combine your selections as one TFA when they get to the FA level.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it was really more of a general question about practical upper limits. But I'm a bit surprised that you're skeptical about the specific example given. Why would a combination like that be a worse idea than Columbus' ships or two opposite constellations? Peter ^Isotalo 01:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• They are specific types of ships, which (once the article is fleshed out a bit more) likely have considerably branching construction methods and histories, rather than three individual ships which are famous for doing essentially the same thing. Curly Turkey tried nominating five articles together (all about the animated films by Winsor McCay) a couple months ago, and (much to his displeasure) consensus was against it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• How about South American dreadnought race, Minas Geraes-class battleship, Rivadavia-class battleship, and Almirante Latorre-class battleship? Honestly, if it's a featured topic, I think we should be able to feature it in TFA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's a bit more doable, I think, but I'd still question the need. (Also, not all FTs can be in TFA together. FTs with lists, for instance, or FTs with 20 or 30 articles would definitely not count). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Point taken re 20 or 30 articles, but I don't think TFA needs to be a walled garden that excludes all lists (in a scenario like this ... we have a section for TFLs running alone). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sensing some inconsistencies in argumentation here. The constellation double-header makes as much sense as the "archipelago frigates" I mentioned, Ed17's ship classes or the McCay films. Those are all exampls of "closed" groups of articles, defined by historical commonalities or other factors. If I took a critical view, I could argue that the Triangulums are far less relevant as joint TFAs since they're merely the product of coincidence in terms of appearance. Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue I see is readability. TFA has one paragraph, more or less. To do a blurb for five or six items would be a wall of blue. I can see how a small featured topic might work, and I guess my suggestion to Peter is to see how something like that might be formatted and present it here as a specific idea. As they say, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. I'd personally look at it on a case by case basis. It is something that will be clicked on my main page readers?Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I recall, the argument (or one of them) against the McCay animation TFA was not about readability, but that after all the backbreaking work I'd put into those articles, each one should get its chance to shine in the sun. Another argument was that the second (third, fourth, etc) listed articles in a megaTFA tend to get far fewer clickthroughs than the first. The unspoken truth, though, as we all know, is an unwillingness to allow poppies to reach their natural heights—too much awesome for this poppy means too little awesome for the pinkos who've never had their own five-article TFA. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm a bit sceptical of The ed17's proposal only because I'd have to see how it would work in the blurb before jumping in support of that combination, although on the face of it (only glancing through the articles), it looks like it could be workable but it's more logical than the one you proposed, Peter Isotalo. Yours are four classes of ships...o.k. So they're ships. ...And? There's no established significance for grouping them for a joint feature. Unlike Ed's which places them in the context of an arms race, unlike Curly Turkey's previous failed proposal which highlights the work of one man, and unlike Triangulum which highlights two seemingly boring constellations (um, yeah, "triangles"...now that's a mythological figure) that are surprisingly unique in their self-effacing way. Your proposal doesn't have any "meat on the bone" except to say "hey, they're ships". Sorry, but that's what we have categories for.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you sure about that? After a little more reading, I think I could write up a blurb that puts all four of Peter's articles in the proper context of Swedish history. The articles are pretty clearly linked. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's pretty easy to make a case for my four articles, but that's beside the point. This wasn't anything like an actual proposal since the articles aren't even GAs. I was just testing the waters and raising a few questions. Peter ^Isotalo 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is moot at this point, but it is an interesting question. Make your case by offering a hypothetical blurb and give us something to think about...since you haven't offered much beyond the question.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • They're linked, just in that same way that plums, peaches and almonds are all drupes and I'd likely disagree with as a joint TFA...but there's no arms race like yours, and I don't see a single relevant battle for context, or an arms race, or geopolitical/historical context where each of the four ship classes together play prominent parts. FYI, I regretfully opposed Curly Turkey's proposed multi-TFA because I thought each article in the proposed group-feature deserved their own day in the spotlight and wouldn't benefit from the joint appearance. While I admired Curly Turkey's clever and creative idea. At present, I don't see any benefit to grouping Peter's four articles. If you (or Peter) can write a decent blurb proposal with that proper context when the time comes, I will consider it and weigh it objectively, but as Peter has presented it, it's not inspiring. "hey, they're ships" sounds rather blasé without any such context.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson article

I've heard from a few places that those in charge of TFA have said that the Jenna Jameson article will never be featured on the main page. Is this true? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As the article is currently undergoing a featured article review, this may be moot. Raul654, when he was Featured Articles Director, did say that he would not pick the article as TFA. However, he is not in charge anymore and times have changed. If the article survives FAR, and if the article is nominated here at TFAR, then I would ensure that the nomination is publicised widely (Village Pump, Talk:Main Page, WT:FAC and WP:AN at least, probably also WP:CENT) as we did for a certain four-letter film nomination earlier this year, and then see what the wider community thought. Bencherlite^Talk 09:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• If we are able to put that article on the main page, can we please have a tastefully-suggestive nude shot for the TFA image that pushes the envelope a bit rather than something tame and PG-rated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A good question for her birthday 2015, more than a year from now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that following the "Fuck" Bencherlite alluded to, there's no good reason at all to suggest that Ms Jameson shouldn't be featured (assuming her article does indeed survive FAR). Once again, we'll need to bubble-wrap all the children in the world, but then again they could always visit Pornhub or Youporn instead of reading an excellent high-quality article about an actress in an industry which goes back decades. Raul was ... useful... but no longer making such decisions, thankfully. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Raul did put up Cannibal Holocaust. Still refusing Jameson after that was just plain odd.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Add to that The Human Centipede (First Sequence) at TFA in October 2011.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I had almost forgotten about that. Compared to that, I'd say mainstream porn would be pretty palatable.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I know what you mean. I wish I could have never known that existed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good thing its sequel is not an FA... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sequels are never as good as the original Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why end discussion?

I had the idea to have an article by Wadewitz featured, another user had the same idea a little sooner, therefore I thought it was polite to not block a space by an article that would probably not appear until in three months. I don't understand why it should not be discussed in the meantime. It is a nomination, just not for the immediate future. I think it's one of the advantages of the template that discussions can happen without inclusion on the request page, well before an actual nomination. Wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could have asked me first about this... Yes, "wrong", if you want to use that word. Discussion of nominations takes place at TFAR/its transcluded subpages, not at subpages that are not transcluded at TFAR - otherwise how are people (and how am I?) to find these discussions, know which ones are active, which are inactive, etc? Just bring it back for discussion in due course - there's no problem in doing that, is there? Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's start in the end: I have no problem to "bring it back". Let me understand: How could I have asked you? When the 4 slots filled and I thought it was polite to make room you were on vacation. I don't see why the discussions couldn't go on even while it's not transcluded. They might result in improvements to the article before a new nomination, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You could have asked me first why I closed the discussion instead of bringing your complaint to this talk page, that's what I meant. A venue for discussing improvements to articles between TFAR nominations? That's what article talk page are for - much better than an unseen TFAR subpage (especially since TFAR isn't primarily a vehicle for discussions about article improvement). Similarly, discussions about improving articles between FAC nominations don't take place at an untranscluded FAC nomination page. Bencherlite^Talk 22:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you understand a question, that for my understanding is of interest to other nominators also, as a complaint, but will drop the issue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry

For those of you who haven't spotted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Checkuser block of ColonelHenry and socks, he has been blocked and community banned for reasons better explained there. He had an open TFA nomination, which I have closed because his work needs to be checked - see the AN discussion and User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup. I don't think it would appropriate to select as TFA any article into which he has had a significant input until it's been given the all-clear there. This is a unfortunate turn of affairs because he was an active FA writer and an active participant at TFAR. Bencherlite^Talk 21:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Change to instructions

It would help if the nomination instructions told nominators to include the title of the article in their edit summary when they list it. Since the process has moved to subpages, there are no edits to the main TFA/R page for comments; all comment edits take place on the subpages. An editor with the page on his or her watchlist would have to actively scan the page periodically to see what's nominated because the watchlist entries won't say what articles are attracting commentary. I can't be the only person who pretty much only comments when a specific article catches my attention for some reason. Imzadi 1979 → 01:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Or just wikilink the whole nomination subpage (or wikilink the article title) in the edit summary when posting a new nomination. That would make it easier for other watches and hangers-on. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tweak further if you can improve my wording. Bencherlite^Talk 16:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No specific date

I recently nominated an article that was too close to a similar one, - it was was closed for the reason. I suggest, that we might have a "pending list" of articles for no specific date, prepared and ready for comments, even without a formal nomination, ready to be picked when they fit. Here are mine:

• Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)
• History of a Six Weeks' Tour (was closed when I withdrew the nomination)

Feel free to add, or say it's not a good idea ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just nominate them as and when you think appropriate? The non-specific date slots are empty, and are hardly being used at the moment. I don't particularly see the point of creating yet another location for people to use, which will merely fragment discussion and cause confusion. Also, having a bank of blurbs ready to use has its own problems - articles get demoted (your list at WP:QAI/TFA had not one but two FFAs, which I've removed for you), the leads of articles change (so older blurbs have to be rewritten), article quality can vary (so someone who supports version X might not be happy with later changes), etc. Bencherlite^Talk 08:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I nominated in the slot, only to find out that someone else had nominated a similar one almost the same time, now the nomination is closed and I don't know when you would think would be a good time to nominate it again. - By using templates, the discussions are "fragmented", and I see that as a chance. I don't think we need a specific number of slots for no specific date, and could keep it simpler, but as you like. - Btw, the WP:QAI list is marked at the top as historic only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you've now nominated "Today" in the usual non-specific date place (thank you!), but without mentioning when the most recent article was (from WP:TFAREC). There is precious little point in my having created that page and laboriously keeping it up to date if it's just ignored by experienced TFAR people like you - I created it to help people find more easily when the most recent article was, so as to help discussion. If you have a better idea, let me know. Feel free to renominate "Six Weeks' Tour" when you think that enough time has elapsed since the last similar article for it not to be too boring for main page readers, and we can see what people think. Oh, and btw, the QAI list was (and is) marked as for history and transition purposes, which is why I removed two FFAs from your planning for 2015 nominations, in case you accidentally nominated them in template-form next year as part of your transition to the new system. Bencherlite^Talk 15:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the labour put in the recents, - I didn't know what would be considered similar, song or album, gave both now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

More data at WP:TFAREC - how long do articles wait before becoming TFA?

I've spent some time today adding more information to the list of recent TFAs - in particular, the promotion date and the wait between promotion and TFA. It may interest you to hear that, in the nine months between the beginning of September 2013 and the end of May 2014:

• The average length of time between promotion and TFA in these 9 months is 2 years 210 days.
• The longest wait for TFA was 7 years 108 days, for Joseph W. Tkach. It was one of four articles, all chosen by me in fact, that waited over 7 years before TFA day.
• The longest wait for TFA where the article was nominated at TFAR was 6 years 360 days, for Bill Russell
• The quickest appearances in this period were after 6 days (Waveguide filter, TFAR, when I was "restocking" the TFAs after the Christmas holidays and so there was a shorter wait than normal for the next open slots) and 9 days (A Song for Simeon, where the queue was reshuffled to fit in a new FA that was date-relevant)
• 35% of TFAs had been waiting for less than 12 months since promotion, and 13% of TFAs had been waiting for no more 50 days since promotion.
• TFAR supplied 46% of TFAs and I chose the remaining 54%.

No doubt other people will be able to find other points of interest in the figures. Incidentally, for a list of the oldest FAs yet to appear at TFA, with notes in some cases of how they need to improve before they can be considered, see User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page. Bencherlite^Talk 00:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Participation

The long-term average contribution of TFAR is about 45%, but more worringly, in May 2014 TFAR only supplied 7 out of 31 TFAs (22.5%). I have been regularly congratulating authors of new FAs with reminders about the TFAR process and I have edited the bot message that alerts writers to the fact that their article has been TFA'd to mention the new TFAR process as well. The process is now simpler than ever - no complicated points to worry about, and although there's a template to complete it's no harder than (and is basically the same as) the DYK nomination process which is well-established. Despite all this, TFAR nominations have dropped alarmingly. Can anybody explain why participation at TFAR, in terms of nominations, is down so much? Bencherlite^Talk 23:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some people just don't have any articles they want to nominate at this time? Many see a TFA appearance as a "burden" because of the increased vandalism that can, and often does, result from the increased visibility of the article. Other editors may have articles they've stewarded that have clear anniversary dates that have yet to come to pass. Imzadi 1979 → 00:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm just trying to not to swamp the main page with Indonesian movies. I've done some novels, sure, but 3 July (Indonesia's National Literature Day) is still almost two months away. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'm just trying not to swamp the nominations with too many similar ones (not always successfully, see above) and have several suggestions open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Blurb prep is about the same as for a DYK, but still may daunt some people who would like to just to a nom and hope by magic a blurb is done up, at least if they weren't a lead editor for the FAC itself. Also probable that people don't want to nominate something they didn't work on; I certainly have only nominated something I was lead for. In my own view, I think that past experience of seeing some noms by friends of mine get trashed was a little discouraging; the current spat over Jefferson Davis is the kind of thing that turns off first timers, I also remember the shitstorm over the Stephen Hawking article. I'm pretty much sticking to articles that pop up when I'm over here for something else anyway or something nominated that I've had eyes on in some fashion, like cutthroat trout. Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Maya Angelou and linking to featured topics

A suggestion has been made at WT:TFA that the blurb links to a featured topic if the TFA is part of one. By bizarre coincidence, I used a Maya Angelou blurb as an example on the day before she died... I'm planning to reshuffle the scheduled queue to include a Maya Angelou TFA (probably her last autobiography) in the next few days, so there's a chance to include a featured topic link in the blurb. If you have views, please comment there, not here. Bencherlite^Talk 08:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics

Since Tbhotch stopped editing in mid-March 2014, the TFA stats page has not been updated for TFA page views in March, April or May. Does anyone feel like taking this task on, working from the list of 2014 TFAs at WP:TFAREC? Bencherlite^Talk 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles about women as TFA

Sorry this is not whoever wrote the rest of this last thing here... i am fluffykerfuffle i cant even figure out how to post on this page dagnabit!! Please forgive me if i am not doing this right but i really cannot understand the directions on how to do things such as ask for help on this page where i was directed in the instructions i was following on how to nominate an article for the front page... you may message me if you can help in any way... i guess its called 'talk' ...the article i was trying to nominate is Woman and here is the url for what i have done... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/WOMAN#WOMAN thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffykerfuffle (talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Header added, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/WOMAN closed (because "Women" is not a featured article), replied on your talk page about the general issue of (lack of) women as TFAs. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 17:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

TFA for 28th July - 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War

(moved from WP:TFAR) Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure but have there been any thoughts of putting a specific article on the 100 year anniversary of the official start of World War I? Nergaal (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Good question. We are short of general WWI articles we can use for this - plenty of articles about people or ships that fought in the war, for instance, but the only two that jump out at me are the Southern Rhodesia article, below, or "Goodbyeee". Cliftonian, any thoughts about using the SR article on 28th July instead? Anyone else got ideas? Bencherlite^Talk 10:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've no problem with using it on that date (in fact would be rather honoured) if nothing more general can be found. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say "Goodbyeee" would probably be better for 100 years since the end of the war, wouldn't it? Or Armistice Day? And shouldn't a non-Commonwealth article really be used for 28 July, as the Empire didn't go to war until a week later? —Cliftonian (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

From a quick glance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial these could work:

• Horses in World War I
• Dreadnought
• Webley Revolver
• perhaps British Empire
• and maaaaaaaybe Southern Rhodesia in World War I

Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I, but my strongest suggestion is Western Front (World War I) (although 3 August seems a better date for this one). Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of this, would it be possible to have a theme for the 28 July—5 Aug period since that seems to be the real ramping up of the war? Nergaal (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've made a list of WWI FAs which haven't been on the MP at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#TFA_for_28th_July_-_100th_anniversary_of_the_start_of_the_First_World_War. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Rhodesia is the most general of those. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that so few people joined the discussion. My personal suggestion is to have either the horses/ship/pistol article on the 28th, have Western Front on Aug 3 (even though it was featured, this is such a rare occasion for the anniversary of such a massive event in history that I don't think it would be much different than Obama) and Rhodesia on 5th (I feel it would be a bit underwhelming to feature such a minor player in the war for the actual start). Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Problem is that all of the suggestions you made above have already been on the main page. I can see Western Front having an exception made for it, but not giving a second posting to 10 articles in 2 months (or whatever) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Nergaal that Rhodesia really should go on 5 August rather than 28 July. We really should try to run the most general article we can on the official 100th anniversary, and I think featuring Western Front again may be a good solution. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've gone for SMS Goeben, following an endorsed suggestion at the MILHIST talk page. The 100th anniverary has been an obvious date for years - the relevant MILHIST taskforce started work in 2009 and unfortunately no general-scope article is available for the day that hasn't already been TFA. I don't want to recycle Western Front since that would set a precedent that if we haven't got a best-choice article to mark an anniversary we can just reuse an old TFA. I don't think that fits in with the "exceptional circumstances" approach used in the past, it reduces the incentive to get fresh articles up to FA standard to mark events, and given the competition from increasing numbers of new FAs (not to mention the comments/complaints I've seen in my 18 months in this role from some FA writers that their x-month-old or x-year-old article has never been TFA and why do they have to wait so long, etc, plus similar expressions of surprise from others that we still have FAs unused on the main page from 2004, 2005, 2006...) reusing TFAs when we don't have to is unfair on unused FAs. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot is down

The bot that:
(a) updates the {{Article history}} on the TFAs' talk pages to add |maindate=;
(b) adds notifications of forthcoming TFA appearances to user talk pages;
(c) marks WP:FA to show which featured articles have been TFAs; and
(d) keeps WP:FANMP up to date
is currently inactive. I am adding |maindate= to TFAs and have done a little bit of marking-up at WP:FA, but I do not have the time at present to do any more. Fortunately the TFA protection bot is still active and this means that editors should get two entries on their watchlist for articles of interest, plus notification systems through Wikiprojects using the Article Alerts bot system. It's not ideal I know and so any help with e.g. notifications, or keeping WP:TFAREC up to date, would be appreciated. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 23:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Summer holiday

I go away tomorrow (to Mainz, Germany) and won't be editing for over a fortnight. I'm doing my best to stock up on scheduled TFAs before I go. In the unlikely event of any emergencies, the keys to the secret cabinet are here and I'm sure common sense can be applied as required. Bencherlite^Talk 08:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Date connections and no date connections

Although date connections aren't the be-all and end-all of scheduling, they are quite useful to know about (particularly when significant anniversaries are approaching). Some of you may be aware of Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/Date connection (or WP:FADC for short), which started life as an attempt by GeeJo (to whom I remain very grateful) to find and record possibly suitable dates for FAs that had yet to run as TFAs. I am pleased to say that all remaining unused FAs have been checked, Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/No date connection (or WP:FANDC for short) has been created and so all unused FAs should either appear at WP:FADC or at WP:FANDC. If you see something at DC that should be at NDC, or vice versa, then do please improve them. Similarly if you can find further date connections for existing articles, please add them. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 19:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Halloween:

Is it too early to think about which articles to run on Halloween?

My idea was to run Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom. It's both historical, fits the theme and is very interesting.

Does anyone have any other ideas for pages that could run?

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere in the past (possibly in previous similar discussions) Witchfinder Generall has been mentioned - it's an old FA but its principal author, Hal Raglan, is still active. The Resurrectionists article was taken through FAC by Parrot of Doom. There's also Supernatural (season 1), and 4 episodes from the series, taken through FAC by Ophois. These three editors may have views (for or against) so I'm pinging them. Nothing else immediately springs to mind - but we could, y'know, not mark Halloween for a change... Bencherlite^Talk 01:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Witchfinder General - either one, really. Why wouldn't we want to mark it? (Too Eurocentric?) Tezero (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love it if one of the Supernatural articles is on the main page. Thanks for the mention. Ωphois 04:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, one of those would be fine also, especially if there are several Supernatural FAs and none has made it on. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One oppose vote I feel is frivolous

I'm worried about my nomination Sonic: After the Sequel failing because it has an oppose vote. Normally this might be justified, but the opposition has nothing to do with the article's fitness for the main page in general or in the near future; the user feels a couple of the sources are unreliable (Kotaku and Red Bull Games). Both of these passed in the article's in-depth source review, though, which was part of its recent (August) promotion to FA, and both are recognized by WikiProject Video games as reliable sources. From the wording of the opposition and their userpage, it sounds like the user is disgruntled more with Wikipedia's tolerance of lower-notability video game/anime/manga articles in general and is taking it out on this TFA nom. Can anyone take a look and give input? Thanks. Tezero (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Without looking: an oppose vote is not equal to failing. The times of simple math are over. Relax, if possible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

6 November - a special request

As a contribution towards Wikipedia's coverage of the First World War in this centenary year, I've written an article covering Carl Hans Lody, a German naval reserve officer who became the first German spy to be shot in Britain during the war (and the first person executed in the Tower of London for 167 years). I've been able to make use of archive material and contemporary news reports to document the story of Carl Hans Lody in, I think, probably greater detail than anyone has managed before in print. The centenary of his death is coming up on 6 November 2014; I'm hoping to request that it should be the featured article of the day. Given the short timeframe, I've taken the unusual step of bringing this article directly to Featured Article Candidates (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1). I've aimed to write it from the outset as an FA-quality article, drawing my experience as the author of numerous Featured and Good Articles. 6 November is currently clear of requests; can I please ask if it could be kept clear so that the Lody article can run that day once the FAC review is completed, hopefully by mid-October given the usual timeframe for FACs? Prioryman (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll make the same offer I have in the past - if there are no other date-specific nominations for that day, then I'll schedule something anyway for 6th Nov from the non-specific nominations or of my own choice, to keep the normal processes flowing (e.g. the template that says what dates are open for nominations at TFAR can't cope with gaps in the sequence) but I'll "bump" it if you get Lody through FAC in time. If there is another nomination for 6th November then we'll just have to see what happens. I've added the FAC discussion and the article to my watchlist. Good luck! Bencherlite^Talk 16:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New bot

Just in case you haven't seen the conversation at WT:FAC, there is a new bot helping out with FA/TFA-related tasks - Hawkeye7's MilHistBot. The bot will be handling the formal steps once an FAC nomination is promoted or archived, including updating the {{article history}}, and is also going to be keeping the list of FAs yet to appear on the main page up to date. I hope in due course to be able to persuade Hawkeye to add notifications to users of forthcoming TFAs, and adding TFA dates to the article history, but one step at a time... Bencherlite^Talk 16:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Beware da robots!!! Just kiddin folks. :P — Cirt (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

• Tourette syndrome

The article is one of the oldest (as far as I can tell) FA that has not been put onto the main page. Nominated in 2006. I'm going to guess the reasoning is that it'd be such an obvious target of vandalism. I do believe that all articles should be featured at some point on the main page. So I think this should be nominated and ran. I think all that would need to be done is to have a set number of people, at least 5-10 to specifically try to watch the article on the day it's ran. Depending on my schedule for the day, I could watch the article for a few hours or perhaps most of the day. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd do it if you pinged me on whatever date you chose, as long as it isn't October 3 through 6 (I'll be in NYC without much computer time). Hell, 9 of my 18 credit hours this semester are in classes where we're on computers the whole time. Tezero (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

List of FA that have not ran by age:

There should be a list of FA that have not ran by the date they were nominated. Then there should be a concerted effort to review the oldest articles that have not run yet. Either send them to FAR, or have them run. Reasons:

• Standards for FA status have changed significantly in the years
• Articles may have degraded over time and thus need review
• Small chance of articles simply being forgotten about and possibly run the risk of never running

I think the oldest articles that have not run are from 2006. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a whole lot of current FAs promoted in 2005 or earlier in general. (Off the top of my head, I can only think of Heavy metal music and Swedish language, both of which have run.) The selection process is, I believe, random apart from requests. Tezero (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Some helpful links about going through older and unreviewed FAs that haven't yet been on the Main Page

1. User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page
2. Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles (WP:URFA)
3. Cleanup listing
4. Wikipedia:Featured article review
5. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
6. Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing

Hope that's helpful,

— Cirt (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that the most useful list of the oldest FAs yet to be TFA is User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page. And as for a concerted effort to review them, well, Dweller and Casliber are doing what they can but more hands are always welcome. I pick TFAs from there when I can, and if they get a red flag there then I don't. I remember taking one from that list to FAR (I may have taken others, I can't recall) but there are probably others that could do with it - but then FAR is not as active as FAC (or, dare I say, TFAR!) And as for the selection process being "random apart from requests", well... it's random in the sense that I don't follow a set pattern, but it's very far from being "random". And there are in fact three FAs from 2004 and 2005 yet to run. The oldest, Quatermass and the Pit, is getting a going-over from Eric Corbett and John and I'm hoping that in due course I'll be able to run it without it having to go through FAR. Bencherlite^Talk 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Another helpful link, thanks! Added to top of list, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done a few more reviews. I'll try to revisit the page and add a few more, periodically, but help is welcome. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite, there are loads of hurricane articles on that page that I just can't face reviewing. Could you find a specialist? --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Bencherlite^Talk 11:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for November 12

Hi, I'm looking for a bit of help writing a blurb for the article Jo Stafford, the 97th anniversary of whose birth it will be on November 12. The article was promoted on August 24, 2013, and has two major contributers, myself and We hope. There's quite a lot of important info in the lede, so I'm having difficulty deciding what to include and what to leave out. We had a music-related article featured on September 21 (Gustav Holst), and Katy Perry is currently under request for October 25 but both are from different music genres. Would really appreciate some help with this. Thanks in advance. This is Paul (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will try, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My two cents worth. :) The amount of records she sold when still performing is important. There are many compilation albums currently on the market which are selling at present, so people born after Jo Stafford retired to raise her family are discovering her as a vocalist. It's also important, I think, re: Jo being the first woman to top the UK charts with "You Belong to Me". Think it's also important to do some mentioning of Jonathan and Darlene Edwards because the style was just so different from her previous performing one; there are probably people who have laughed at Darlene Edwards who may not have any idea she's really Jo Stafford. We hope (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, a service of QAI, feel free to play with the blurb ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's really great, thanks. This is Paul (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sonic: After the Sequel

I don't mean to be pushy or impatient, but is there a reason this hasn't been scheduled (or otherwise thrown out) yet? Two nonspecific nominations that were proposed after it already have. Tezero (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason is I don't schedule video games close together. It'll get there. Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'd forgotten about Drakengard. Thanks! Tezero (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

11 November 2015 and WP:TFARP

The luxury of choice, eh? Two major international stories, both with round-number anniversaries, going head-to-head next year. Wehwalt might not know of this, Cliftonian might – there's a marvellous long-running British radio comedy called I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. One of the regularly played rounds involves the two teams taking it in turns to tell a story to get towards the punchline they have been given. Every time the hooter sounds, the other team takes over and changes direction towards their punchline, and so on. (It's funnier than it sounds from that description, honestly!) Another round involves the players saying one word at a time to tell a story, the aim being never to complete a sentence. Perhaps we should combine the two and on 11th November 2015 have one combined blurb that tells the story of the Australian constitutional crisis and also the story of UDI - but every time there's a full stop, the blurb changes topic. Anyway, all that is over a year away and goodness knows what TFA will look like then, but perhaps some creative thinking or technical wizardry will help find a solution other than the usual TFA fudge of "one on the day, the other a day early or a day late"... Who knows? Bencherlite^Talk 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll step aside if wanted. Or suggest running one on the 10th and the other on the 11th as time zones dictate. I'm more pleased that my article "Sunrise at Pocatello: Dr. Minnie Howard, Ezra Meeker, and the Birth of the Oregon Trail Half Dollar" was published today in the November issue of The Numismatist as the cover story (copies on email request). Say what Jimbo will about the joys of amateurism (or am I getting him mixed up with Avery Brundage?), it's nice to get paid (not much, but it's the principle of the thing). Once I integrate the info in the article, I'll make Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar available for TFA on some random date (possibly Meeker's birthday at the end of December).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to the article, Wehwalt! If the Crisis runs 10 Nov, it's for a long time 11 in Australia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see where this is going. Holland Park? —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you cross the diagonal? Bencherlite^Talk 08:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Not sure this is allowed but taking into account air humidity Neasden. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I'll try (because it's wild) King's Cross, although I might have left myself open there... Bencherlite^Talk 11:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mornington Crescent (applause). Anyway on a serious note I did think perhaps we could have both articles together, one blurb then the other, but my concern is that this could lead people to think the two incidents were related. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that they should run together, and running an article focused on the man who killed off the White Australia policy alongside one on the birth of Rhodesia would be an odd look which might lead to offence in Australia. Wehwalt's suggestion seems sensible to me; the dismissal article could run on 10 November, which will give it good page-time in Australia on the 11th, and the Rhodesia article could run on the 11th. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A very good point regarding the political side of the thing. I hadn't made the connection and I think Nick is right. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam

Some of you may have seen in your newspapers etc (or from the "Recent deaths" section of "In the news" on our Main Page) that Gough Whitlam, a former prime minister of Australia, has died at the age of 98. He would have turned 100 in July 2016. He was dismissed from office on 11 November 1975, in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. As it happens, both Whitlam and the 1975 crisis article are Featured Articles. Whitlam was TFA in March 2004, about a month after the TFA scheme started; the article was demoted in 2006 but brought back to FA status in 2010. Wehwalt is the principal author of both FAs, and he would like to mark Whitlam's demise in some way at TFA if possible. The dates of the private funeral and public memorial service (according to the BBC) are not yet known. Our options would appear to be:

1. Run Gough Whitlam on the day of funeral or memorial service
2. Run 1975 Australian constitutional crisis on the day of the funeral or memorial service
3. Run one of these on 11 November, the anniversary of the crisis
4. Run one of these at some other time.

My initial thoughts, FWIW: I'm reluctant to run either on 11th November as we already have a strongly supported nomination (for Goodbyeee) that day; the date of the public memorial service might be more appropriate than the date of the private funeral, not least because we probably don't need to link to Whitlam in the TFA and Recent Deaths sections at the same time ; the 1975 article hasn't been TFA but might this be unduly negative to run in memoriam?; the Whitlam article has been TFA before, and we don't repeat TFAs (except when we do) though if we're going to re-run a TFA, the death of a 98-year-old leading politician whose article was at TFA over 10 years ago is perhaps not going to open the floodgates; if we are going to re-run a TFA, then a relevant date is perhaps better than a random date.

But what do other people think? I'm interested in hearing your views. Bencherlite^Talk 08:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to (re-)run the person on the day of the public memorial service if possible, and the crisis 11 November 2015, 40 years anniversary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Gerda. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tks for asking, Bench. Re. 11 November, I supported Goodbyeee for TFA on that date and see no reason to change it. Re. another go at TFA, I don't support that in general and don't think we need make an exception here. We should be able to run the dismissal article in OTD on 11 November and that'll link to the Whitlam article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was about to concur with Gerda and Crisco, but Ian's addition gives me pause. I take the point but on balance I'd still go for running the Whitlam article as TFA on the day of the public service, unless the date chosen for it clashes with a date already reserved here for an article with a copper-bottomed claim to the slot. Tim riley talk 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat biased in that I'm a fan of Gough Whitlam, but I think that as a general principle FAs that are demoted after being TFA and are subsequently re-promoted should get a second bite at the cherry after a lengthy period between appearances. 10 years is probably too long to be a rule (5 years minimum in these unusual cases, perhaps?), but I think that it's appropriate. My strong preference is for it to be run on the day of Whitlam's memorial service unless, as Tim notes, there's an article with an even stronger claim scheduled to run that day. I don't agree with bumping Goodbyeee for the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis article - Goodbyeee has a stronger claim to this given the link with the centennial of World War I, and it's not the best option to memorialise Whitlam in the context of how his prime ministership ended. It would also be better to save this article for the 40th anniversary of the dismissal next year. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) Was just going to add that as far as running the dismissal article as TFA, anytime the community considers appropriate is fine by me (apart from 11 November this year, preferably!) since it hasn't run before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• (conflicted) I don't think you should interfere with the 11 November date; marking the end of the First World War with the poignant "Goodbyeee...." article is a master stroke. The object of running a Whitlam TFA now would be to honour Whitlam, and you don't do that by parading the article that records his dismissal, either on the anniversary of his humiliation or otherwise. I don't object in principle to treating re-promoted articles as new for TFA purposes – in this case it is very different from the version that ran in 2004, a date beyond the memory of all but the most venerable of Wikipedians. So I'd support running the Whitlam biography on the memorial service date. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Brian. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian as well Secret ^account 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Nick (always a dread phrase...) and Brian - re-running seems fine to me when it's been over ten years and re-promoted since. A general ten-year-and-good-reason rule might be worth considering, since cases like this are going to start cropping up more often, and we've just passed the point when there are articles which had been on TFA ten years before... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• A really tough choice. I would have jumped at putting 1975 Australian constitutional crisis on November 11 but "Goodbyeee...." has a very strong claim. I agree we should do something on the memorial day. Think on the balance of things I'd go with re-running Gough article on the day and keep 1975 Australian constitutional crisis for next year. The date was such a key thing that we really need it on that day. 2004 is ancient history and the article I suspect looks very different to how it did then. Funnily enough, I was musing on requesting vampire be re-run sometime, which is also over ten years aged since it graced the main page (and very different). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're worried about setting a precedent, I think most of us would agree that an article demoted from FA and re-promoted by the work of a different editor is an excellent place to draw the line. (I suppose this means that I support the re-running of Whitlam) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I believe I've said that several times before. They're not the same article, more often than not, even if they're on the same subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• A little off-topic, but I think it's worth mentioning nevertheless: if we keep the 1975 crisis article for the anniversary next year, as Casliber suggests above, we face a hard choice between it and Rhodesia's UDI (1965) for 11 November 2015. Both articles would have strong claims. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Aah well, year after then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

With differences in time zones, run one on the 11th and the other on the 10th or 12th--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it okay to rerun this and not Grace Sherwood? It never had a full run, was seriously reworked and had massive rerun support, but was trumped by one person, Bencher. 199.112.128.15 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I understood that rerunning Grace Sherwood would set a precedent that we don't want, so this potential rerun doesn't make much sense to me. However, to clarify; I have no problem with rerunning articles for good reason, time lapse , anniversaries, and articles that don't have a full run , so I would support rerunning this article. What we have to consider is consistency. ( I worked on the Grace Sherwood article).(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC))

Hello Littleolive oil and whoever the person behind the IP address is. Some points in reply. Firstly, I haven't said that Whitlam will be re-run, and not everyone above agrees that it should. Secondly, some of those supporting re-running Whitlam are doing so on the basis of principles which, even if adopted generally, would not apply (and would not have applied) to Sherwood - a 5 or 10-year re-run eligibility (Sherwood ran in October 2010, 3 years before it was re-nominated) or reworked by new editors (the same editor was a, or the, nominator at the two Sherwood FACs). Thirdly, the motivation for re-running Whitlam would be to mark his memorial service, an event external to Wikipedia. Similarly the only two other articles to appear on two separate occasions did so for reasons external to Wikipedia: Transit of Venus re-ran to mark the last Transit of Venus this century; Obama re-ran on the day of the 2008 U.S. presidential election. In contrast, the motive for re-running Sherwood was not external to Wikipedia. Fourthly, I suppose, Whitlam is a much more important historical figure than Sherwood (and I'm in fact surprised that Whitlam is not a "vital article"). I certainly wouldn't look upon Whitlam re-running (if it does) as a green light to re-run TFAs about any recently deceased person, or as a loosening of practice for TFAs generally. If it's adherence to precedent that's wanted, then based on previous decisions, Whitlam is easier to justify re-running than Sherwood is or was.

Since the Sherwood discussion last year, no-one has tried to initiate a community debate to ascertain wider views on whether the "no repeats" rule should be relaxed more than it has been in the past. There have been a couple of suggestions to re-run articles (e.g. for the anniversary of the start of the First World War) which I have refused. (In fact, I have yet to re-run a TFA in my nearly two years in post.) Whitlam is the first one I have invited wider comments upon because the possibility of marking his death (given his position in Australian history) in circumstances when his previous TFA appearance was (in Wikipedia terms) in the Jurassic era is the closest thing I have seen so far to a justifiable and rare exception to the "no repeats" rule, and I wanted some input from others on what they thought.

We still have over 3.5 years of supply of TFAs waiting a first chance at running, and in the last year there have been various comments / complaints about the length of time it already takes some FAs to run (even from authors of newly promoted FAs) or expressions of stunned surprise that FAs from 2007 and before have still to run as TFA. Each time an article re-runs, of course, it takes a slot for an article that has yet to run and increases the average waiting time. And every time an article re-runs, it will lead to calls for more articles to be re-run and the exceptional nature of re-runs starts to go, and more articles have to wait for longer and longer for a first appearance.

In short - if Whitlam re-runs, it doesn't mean that Sherwood should (or should have) re-run; Whitlam isn't barred from re-running just because Sherwood didn't re-run. Each case has to be considered on its merits. Bencherlite^Talk 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite- it is very kind of you to prove you are merely dictator Raul reincarnated--make "rules" but make whatever exception you desire to justify your own views; all the while totally ignoring massive community consensus.198.252.245.195 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

198.252.245.195, Whitlam running does mean that Sherwood can possibly re-run, in that it sets a precedent that re-running may be allowed based on a significant event like an influential public figure's death. It just doesn't mean Sherwood will re-run. Each case is considered individually. Tezero (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"considered individually" just proves my point, Bencher is free to do whatever he wants and totally ignore the consensus of the community, which is what he's done many times, which is exactly what Raul did. And people wonder why this place is so dysfunctional and why wiki editorship nosedives perpetually. 216.54.54.13 (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support re-running on the date of the funeral service. Would prefer Gough being remembered for his achievements, and not the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• The memorial service will be on 5 November at 11 AEST, which I believe is 0100 GMT. The TFA scheduled for 5 November is Bombing of Singapore (1944–45).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As it happens, I was the nominator of the Bombing of Singapore article. Bencherlite has discussed this conflict with me, and I'm supportive of Whitlam bumping the article in the bombing: User talk:Nick-D#Today's Featured Article: Notification Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm clearly going to make no-one happy with everything I do at TFA, as the IP's comments above make clear (strange that the user seems unwilling to log in to his account to criticise me, but there we go). However, we have here a situation where we have a very high-profile figure (namely a former head of government) dying at the age of 98 and the chance to use his article on the day of his memorial service in circumstances when there is no other suitable article to use (the 1975 crisis article would be unduly negative to run on that day) and when the article was TFA over 10 years ago, in the earliest days of TFA itself. Since then, it has been brought back up to modern FA standards by a different main author and is still in excellent condition. In reality, no-one would have complained if he had lived to be 100 and we had re-run it then to mark his 100th birthday. (In fact, I was rather hoping that he would make it to 100!) Instead of that, this is a suitable occasion on which to invoke the IAR exception to "only one appearance at TFA" rule and to re-run Whitlam's article. Had circumstances been different - including but not limited to points such as the article being TFA much more recently, or the person involved having a much lower public role, or there being no particular special event in play – the answer may well have been different. As will have become obvious from these remarks and my previous comments in this discussion, I do not intend this to be the opening of the floodgates for re-running TFAs, and in fact I detect no general appetite above for the rule against re-running TFAs to be abolished completely. If anyone wants to start a general discussion about formulating some principles for re-running TFAs, whether based purely on "time since TFA" or taking into account factors such as repromotion (or lack of it), special occasions, etc, please do. Bencherlite^Talk 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsuccessful nominations

Readers may be interested in Wikipedia:Unsuccessful nominations for Today's Featured Article, which is complete from creation of the subpage system (April 2014) onwards. I'm slowly going through the TFAR edit history and creating subpages for nominations (successful and unsuccessful) since my time in office started at the end of November 2012, and will add any unsuccessful nominations to this page as I find them. Bencherlite^Talk 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus or majority vote?

I'm not familiar with how Today's Featured Article is decided. Is Consensus required or is it simply a matter of majority rule? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the decision is always Bencherlite's, as the curator, but as with everything else on Wikipedia, he's assessing consensus, not counting votes, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. Bencherlite has proven multiple times he is totally willing to totally IGNORE consensus and do whatever he likes, just like Raul did. He's merely Dictator Raul II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.195.29 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, and maybe Bencherlite can clarify, but my understanding is that Bencherlite is not bound by the consensus at TFA/R and is in fact the sole arbiter / final decision of what goes to TFA. In my experience, he's always been fair and I've never seen him make a decision that is contrary to the local consensus about a given article. Presumably he is ultimately bound by consensus in that he governs by our consent and if he were consistently acting improperly he could likely be replaced if there were a consensus, though I imagine that given the hard work one has to put in to actually coordinate TFA and the frankly excellent job he's been doing, I imagine he'll retire from the position long before any consensus arises for his replacement. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the not-very-anonymous IP editor who once again has forgotten to log into his account before insulting me (how brave of you to keep these edits out of your account's contribution history!), but 0x0077BE deserves a reply. Looking at WP:TFAREC, which currently covers 1st May to 21st November 2014, there are 205 TFAs. Of these, 94 (about 46%) came through nominations at WP:TFAR (95, if you include Gough Whitlam, discussed above) and the remaining 111 (54%, or 110 without Whitlam) were ones that I chose myself without any nomination. This is line with the long-term trend over the last two years of about 45% of TFAs coming through TFAR and 55% being my choice. Now for the same period (1st May to 21st November 2014), Wikipedia:Unsuccessful nominations for Today's Featured Article shows seven nominations were unsuccessful. One of these was not even a featured article and another was nominated months too early for the date requested. Of the other five, the reasons for not running include unresolved article quality concerns brought up by commentators, lack of support for running in cases of excessive proximity to similar articles, or a principal author preferring to wait for a later date - none of them controversial conclusions, I think. So we have a TFAR success rate of 94/(5+94), i.e. 95%, which is not bad going IMHO - if we had more TFAR nominations, so that I had to select fewer articles off my own bat, then the success rate would be even higher, because I don't arbitrarily reject nominations. Of course, the IP is complaining about my refusal to schedule Grace Sherwood for an exceptional second appearance at TFA over a year ago, but that's another story and one that it is unnecessary to rehash here. Thank you, 0x0077BE, for your kind words. Bencherlite^Talk 13:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

HA "he's always been fair and I've never seen him make a decision that is contrary to the local consensus about a given article" Hardly. To use the example Bencher brought up, he COMPLETELY IGNORED consensus on Sherwood, and no he has not always been fair. But I do agree with both of you that wiki is a hopeless endeavor and is a total den of dysfunction in all regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.54.13 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator. Bencherlite^Talk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry to see this. But I understand too. Thanks so much, Bencherlite, for what you've done here and for putting in such a tremendous amount of time! Victoria (tk) 00:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:TFARP

I have tweaked the pending requests page to add an extra column, so that we know which articles have been added by a primary author and which haven't. I've done this because of some confusion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Geoffrey (archbishop of York), where Cirt thought that Ealdgyth had put the article onto the pending nominations list when she hadn't (it was an IP adding lots of articles). As the list is very long now, I've added "collapse" tags so that it doesn't overwhelm this talk page, where it's transcluded. Bencherlite^Talk 11:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I was not aware that particular article wasn't added by Ealdgyth. — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen Ealdgyth volunteer one of her articles for the main page... Bencherlite^Talk 11:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, understood, I was not aware of that, either. — Cirt (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to the new coordinators - and a new template for you/them

The discussion at WT:TFA has been closed as consensus that Brianboulton, Crisco 1492 and Dank should take over as coordinators. My thanks and best wishes to them. To contact all of them in one go, you can now just use {{@TFA}} which produces @TFA coordinators and pings all three of them through the notification system (in the same way that {{@FAC}} pings all the FAC coordinators). Many thanks, once again, to everyone who has helped at TFAR in the last two years. Bencherlite^Talk 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, you beat me to it -- {{@TFA}} was going to be my first suggestion once everything was wrapped up... ;-) Anyway, congratulations to the new coords one and all, and thanks again Bench for your sterling efforts over the past couple of years! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) And thank you, for all of your efforts to improve TFA (and amazing job at managing it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some 2014 stats

Looking at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014, I thought the following might be of interest:

• Longest gap between promotion to FA status and appearance as TFA: Hurricane John (1994) (8 years, 61 days)
• Shortest gap: Waveguide filter (6 days)
• TFAs nominated through TFAR: 173 (47%)
• TFAs chosen by me: 192 (53%)
• Mean gap: 2 years 162 days
  • Mean gap for TFAs nominated through TFAR: 1 year 291 days
  • Mean gap for TFAs chosen by me: 3 years 10 days
• Median gap: 1 year 190 days
  • Median gap for TFAs nominated through TFAR: 298 days
  • Median gap for TFAs chosen by me: 2 years 187 days

Which I think means that I tended to choose more older FAs than TFAR suggested (17 out of the oldest 25 TFAs were chosen by me, while 14 out of the newest 25 TFAs were nominated at TFAR, for instance) - sometimes this will have been because nominators came straight from FAC to TFAR (perhaps after I'd dropped them a note using {{FA congrats}}) before I got a chance to grab the article for myself!

No doubt those of you who like statistics and analysis can find other things of interest there or at User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad 2014, which has more of a look at the TFAs by topic compared to their proportional representation at WP:FANMP at the start of 2014. Bencherlite^Talk 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Successful and unsuccessful nominations - housekeeping / archives

As you may remember, the nominations subpage system started in April 2014. I have been working through the TFAR page history to create retrospective subpages for all other nominations during my time as TFA delegate/coordinator (i.e. from late November 2012). This is now complete.

• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful nominations for Today's Featured Article is a complete record of all failed nominations in the last couple of years. It may be useful for coordinators or others looking for inspiration for nominations
• Category:Wikipedia Today's featured article nominations is also therefore complete from late November 2012 onwards.

Hope this is useful. Bencherlite^Talk 08:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Majorly helpful, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA page views

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Merger of TFASTATS and TFAREC / 2014 TFA page views for details, including a summary chart comparing TFA page views in different topic areas. Bencherlite^Talk 09:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

New FAC and FAR Coordinators proposed

• Pls see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC and FAR Coordinator proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • For result, pls see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#New FAC and FAR coordinators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

2013 Today's featured article, nominated for deletion

2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

It appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2013.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Matter of fact notification

I placed a simple, matter of fact, notification, above -- about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Please discuss why it was removed?

— Cirt (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Because that AFD discussion has nothing to do with TFAR, TFA or TFAO, so I removed it from all three. I didn't remove it from FA, FAR or FAC, where the notification is relevant. Bencherlite^Talk 23:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why it's not relevant? Please explain how it's not relevant? — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What does that AFD have to do with the selection of Today's Featured Article? A post at WT:FA makes a lot of sense. A post here... not so much. Resolute 23:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Has something so recently appeared at Today's Featured Article previously been nominated for deletion? — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a flaw for WT:FA to deal with, sure. But listing anything that was once on the main page here because it was brought to AFD makes about as much sense as listing anything here that is up at FAR/FARC. But the post seems to have been allowed to stand the second time, so it's a moot point now. Resolute 00:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Tibbets

I wanted to nominate Paul Tibbets for 23 February 2015, which would have been his 100th birthday. But I've been busy and missed the deadline. can we IAR and nominate it anyway? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The scheduled article for 23 February is Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, and the date relevance is the prince's 170th birthday anniversary. So there is a strong basis for its selection. All I can suggest is that you approach User:Lecen, Afonso's principal editor, and User:Crisco 1492, who scheduled its TFA, to see if they are prepared to give way to your centenary article. I don't recommend that you merely nominate Tibbets and fight it out. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem in giving away the article. But, It wasn't me who nominated the article to TFA. You should check with the editor who did it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I saw that Tibbets's 100th was that date on the template here. But I decided that the nominated Afonso was a better fit, as we haven't run much on Brazil recently, whereas both pilots and the US has been much better represented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Tibbets could run on the day before the day, or the day after the day. — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Possible, but that would require rearranging several articles. One of them would have to be bumped back to March. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay, just a suggestion, — Cirt (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The article can wait until 2040. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, wow, that's a long time. Hopefully it'll get selected before then. — Cirt (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing withdrawn nominations

@TFA coordinators and others - just a reminder that if a nomination is withdrawn or rejected it needs to be closed and the details added to WP:TFANO. Two that need to be dealt with are Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jack Parsons (rocket engineer) and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/P. K. van der Byl, both withdrawn but not closed. Bencherlite^Talk 20:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me what the closure edits are, to effect the above? Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Subst:" and "no", instead of "subst:", "yes" and "date". When adding to TFANO, just follow the pattern: date of nomination, name of article, link to discussion, comment as to why not selected. Bencherlite^Talk 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All done now. Brianboulton (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How should the links to the full article/list at the end of the Today's Featured Article/List sections be formatted?

You may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of (Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Looking for another woman to show in March, I found Isabeau of Bavaria, found next that it is by Victoria, and next that if had been requested but not scheduled. How are things now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps try asking her? Bencherlite^Talk 22:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I first wanted to make sure that nothing was wrong on this end, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Victoria left yesterday. Can we revive this, to show a woman and to think of the author? I could also prepare a new nom, which name then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria said "yes please", I will do a new nomination, adding 2, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard III on 26 March 2015?

Richard III of England is being reburied on this date, which is going to attract a lot of worldwide interest and media coverage. Exhumation of Richard III of England is in the very last stages of a FAC review (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1) and will certainly be a FA by then, as it's received a lot of support. Would it be possible to hold the 26 March slot for this article? Prioryman (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like Brian already scheduled it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Enzyme article

The enzyme article recently went though a review to bring it back up to modern wikipedia standards (here and here). Since it was first featured in 2006, almost every sentence has been changed. Is it eligible to be re-featured as a front page featured article? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has already run once, and generally we haven't run articles a second time unless there was a very good reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification - although articles are not generally run twice, they sometimes are? What reasons typically cause a re-run? Thanks, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A complete list of previous repeat appearances is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article oddities#The ones with featured articles that have appeared twice. Bencherlite^Talk 23:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I see how rare and world-event-specific an occurrence it is now. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I should have offered my congratulations on successfully navigating the rapids and whirlpools of FAR! Bencherlite^Talk 23:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

14 March

I've been working on getting SMS Dresden (1907) to FA by 14 March this year, for the centenary of the ship's sinking at the Battle of Más a Tierra - assuming the FAC passes in time, is there any chance the currently scheduled article could be bumped? As far as I can tell, it has no connection to the date. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. Date-related Milhist articles are already in place for 11 and 17 March. To have another on 14th would be 3 in 7 days – topic overkill, especially with three more Milhist articles scheduled or due to be scheduled for March. But as it's a centenary, I'm ready to take a chance and shuffle things about a bit – provided that Dresden passes its FAC in the next few days. Please buzz my talkpage when this happens. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has shifted with the FAC in a week - given that the centenary is 2 days away, it's highly unlikely to make it. Thanks though. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. However, it's clearly too late now, even if the article should be promoted. A pity. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be the end of the world if we ran it in a month or so, would it? A library in the Chicago suburb where I'm from must've had the same "Celebrating 130 Years!" banner proudly hoisted up for the last decade, and who would I be to tell 'em they're wrong? Alternately, you could wait for the 101st - I mean, I once rationalized a video game TFA through the eleventh anniversary of only one of its release dates, and it successfully ran. Tezero (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

April 1

Is it possible to get something actually funny for this year's April Fool's Day? For one, there's been an excellent, years-in-the-making opportunity with Quehanna Wild Area. Or if there's still a desire to avoid amusing descriptions (because apparently we have to be straight-faced at all times and avoid showing the creativity of our editor base), we could at least run something that's unusual. I mean, there's a whole page for this stuff. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes please. Even The Colonel thinks this one is not silly enough. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• We left the discussion open for close to a month, and nobody seemed interested in the alternative proposed (the Toledo War). The coordinators decided that, rather than springing a TFA on somebody with less than a day's notice when there was no further discussion happening, it was better to schedule. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We could've run the nom in the Signpost and gotten you a wealth of responses. Ack! All the other TFAs got more comments than the most important TFA of the year? ResMar 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Likely, but I'm loathe to advertise TFAR discussions; you know what they say about cooks and broth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm nominating Toledo War now to replace the bird. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And I added the funnier blurb written 2 years ago for the article. It may need some trimming, however, please don't trim based on raw wikicode character counts. That's not an accurate method for determining the length of a blurb on the Main Page. For one, any piped link will have the actual link counted when only the piped text counts, and for another reason, the brackets and pipe characters don't display either. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Someone said this on the relevant TFAR page, but repeating here: when I'm counting characters, I run a character counter on the page as displayed, not the edit window. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it's not going anywhere now. Where are the cabals? They have one job on Wikipedia and they're missing in action! ResMar 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For next year I think the Great Stink article might be fun to run. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27th - Wish you were Here:

The current article scheduled for April 27 is Wish You were Here by Pink Floyd. Since the album was originally released on September 12th 1975, wouldn't it make more sense to run it on Sept 12th for the 40th anniversary? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just struggling with this one ... I'll stop struggling until this is resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you need a quick fill in, HMS Princess Royal (1911) was launched on 29 April and could serve if y'all are willing to move Cretan War to the 27th. Might not want to have two military articles so close together, but I'll leave that up to y'all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. If this wasn't nominated and was just a random pick, then @Parrot of Doom: (the primary contributor towards getting this article featured) may have a thing to say regarding this. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-nominated TFAs are not just "random picks". They are chosen by the co-ordinators with care, in a way that maintains as far as possible a balance over the range of subject areas covered by the available featured articles. The wishes of primary contributors may be taken into account, but they don't have rights to prior consultation or powers of veto. Once an article is featured it is a potential TFA, liable to be chosen unless there are specific reasons not to. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Almost all Featured Articles have had significant time investments from people other than the FAC nominator(s). Many of those volunteers were working on the reasonable expectation that the article would be highlighted on the Main Page. Preventing vetoes of Main Page appearances seems like a matter of basic courtesy to all the people who make the process work, often selflessly. If someone has a different theory, then I think it's on them to talk with people about that theory ... before people have invested a lot of time under different expectations. As a practical matter, given how many people it would take to generate a different consensus, and given what I've seen of what editors, reviewers, gnomes, and various coordinators are expecting, my view is the same as Brian's. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking as the person who scheduled the article, if the main editors would rather wait until September 12th, I don't mind choosing a different album for the 29th (though I'm very much against not running the article at all). I did deliberately choose this as we haven't had an album in a while, it's a fairly well represented category at TFA, and this one had been waiting for quite a while (much longer than many other possible contenders). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

8 May

Any ideas how to mark the surrender of Germany, end of World War II in Europe 70 years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

At present we have two articles vying for the 7 May spot, of which Gary Cooper is likely be to transferred to 8th – see the discussion on the TFAR page. Nevertheless I have trawled through the 240-odd war-related featured articles that have not yet been TFA to see if anything suggests itself. Perhaps half of these are related in some manner to the Second WW, but none look particularly suitable to mark the surrender of Germany. Take a look for yourself, at User:Brianboulton/TFA notepad#Warfare. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I did before I asked, with the same result, but thought others - more familiar with the choices - might find something suitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a message at WT:MIL this morning, no reply yet. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'lll leave the scheduling for a few more days, but it will have to be a pretty good alternative to disturb the Lusitania/Cooper arrrangement, since the Cooper people have already agreed to shift their date once. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

TFA Bot protection is ineffective

Texas Revolution was protected by TFA Protector Bot on May 8, to expire May 26, only autoconfirmed can edit. Allegedly. We just had two edits by an IP that changed the casualty numbers in the infobox. Those are the only contributions that IP has ever made. How did it get past the protection? — Maile (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) To my knowledge, it's only protected against moves. The stricter protections are only taken in severe cases, because this is the free encyclopedia anybody can edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it was protected from editing by a different one, I guess. That one expired today. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pluto

Pluto has already appeared on the main page once, in 2007. But maybe an exception of the rule that articles must not have appeared before is possible for July 14? On this date, at 11:50 UTC the New Horizons space probe will flyby Pluto. It would seem fitting to celebrate this event by having Pluto appear as featured article of the day, even if technically this would break one TFA rule. Even if it will take another day at least for New Horizons to send the first data back to Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.94.127 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

June 15

Pretty, isn't it?

Could I ask that the coordinators hold off on scheduling this date, which would appear to be the logical date to run, assuming that fate and FAC do not interfere, Panama-Pacific commemorative coins, my next nomination there? It is the centennial of the first of (pictured) being struck, with much ballyhoo and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's been scheduled. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 13, 2015

potential main page pic

Should we use the picture from The Great Wave off Kanagawa?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that it's far too confusing to illustrate a blurb about one work of art with an image of another. Best to run with no image, I think. Bencherlite^Talk 12:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Support what you said, Bencherlite, - only the title is in common, but a completely different style, missing the girl entirely, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• And a third oppose to that. No, we should not be running pictures of completely different artworks. We wouldn't run a picture of Nicholas Cage in a blurb about Sean Connery, we wouldn't run a picture of a pixel because we've got an article on a video game... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Museum of Modern Art, Speech balloon (the third element) or Ben-Day dots images could be added to the article and serve as a main image.

• Other potential images could be Museum of Modern Art, Speech balloon or Ben-Day dots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Bencherlite, Gerda Arendt, and Crisco 1492, as well as others. Comments would be welcome on these three additional possibilities.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I did, implicitly. "We wouldn't run a picture of a pixel because we've got an article on a video game." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I did, implicitly, missing the girl entirely. Also, as a DYK person: we want to raise curiosity to read moar, - no picture does that best, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If we can't run the real thing for copyright reasons, or even a picture of the artist as I did as a fallback with your "Freedom from..." paintings, then that's unfortunate but it really would be beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel to run a picture of empty speech bubbles to illustrate a painting simply because it has a speech bubble. Before and during my time as coordinator (and, as far as I am aware, since), TFA has generally avoided adding images to blurbs purely for the sake of having an image. There has to be a decent connection with the subject matter. Some decent connections are easier to find than others, and in other cases, such as this one, suitable connections are absent. The picture of the museum is of little relevance to the artwork itself. It is also mainly of some trees, making its relevance less than obvious on first impression, and of poor quality (unless the photographer intended an additional level of meaning about modern art by including a reflection of his camera in the image). The dots are too removed from the topic for my liking. Thank you for trying, though. Bencherlite^Talk 09:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Technical tweaks for "TFAIMAGE" template

You no longer have to remember to remove the "File:" prefix from an image when using {{TFAIMAGE}}, thanks to the handy {{remove file prefix}} that it now uses. It will work with or without the prefix, just the same. Bencherlite^Talk 18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This change has been reverted by another editor, so please ignore this message. Bencherlite^Talk 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Double header for 7 September?

Hi all, just wanted to run a suggestion by the panel... Cliftonian's article on Rhodesian Battle of Britain ace Caesar Hull is an FA, and my FAC nomination of Australian Battle of Britain ace Paterson Clarence Hughes is in progress. The two men were killed in action the same day, 7 September 1940, and it occurred to us that -- assuming of course that Hughes gets promoted in time -- we might like to do something a bit out of the ordinary (though not unprecedented) for the main page and run a double TFA. As to the technical aspects, we were thinking of a combined blurb, perhaps mentioning up front that they were two aces killed on this day during the battle to make clear why they're appearing together, and then a little bit on each man, but of course open to suggestions. What does everyone think in principle? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of IAR, I say do it! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tks PM. Another reason I thought the stars might align for this is that there's no soldier in the queue between now and 7 September, although of course your Bill Denny article is nominated for 15 September and I don't want to spoil his chances -- then again Denny served far longer as a politician than as a soldier, so perhaps it'd just be a matter of using his infobox picture where he's in civilian clothes to avoid suggestions of 'too much war'... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I defer to Dank as to the feasibility of combining the two blurbs. I am not opposed to the idea, and we (last I checked) actually have a backlog of military articles to go through, so it's good to get through them a bit faster. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's blurbable. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• @TFA coordinators Tks, Chris. Just wondering now what the next step is if we have agreement in principle; can we reserve 7 September for this double-header, with a backup in case Hughes doesn't make it? I know we can wait until next year to be sure to get both but as this is the 75th anniversary it seems even more appropriate now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Brian is in charge of September, but there shouldn't be an issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• No problem as far as I'm concerned: I presume, Ian, that you've discussed this with Cliftonian? It would make sense for him to nominate Caesar Hull, to "reserve" the 7 September spot, and we can make the necessary adjustment when Hughes gets through, which I'm sure he will. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds fair, Brian, tks. Yes, we talked offline immediately before my first post here, and in fact I mentioned that I'd be happy to see Hull alone as TFA if Hughes didn't get up (we could always do Hughes next year if it comes to that). John, did you want to nominate Hull as a placeholder per Brian's suggestion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Caesar Hull. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• @TFA coordinators Hughes has now been promoted so could we tweak the blurb accordingly? I'm more than happy to work on it but don't want to impose, let me know either way... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, go ahead Ian, thanks for offering. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• When finished, please leave the blurb where I can pick it up to add to the existing 7 September stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Work on it in a sandbox and give you the link, you mean? No prob if so, would aim to complete in next couple of days (already worked up a dual image -- they needed a bit of cropping to make identical in size/shape). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• The link will be fine, when you're ready – preferably by Thursday 27th, as I am away for a few days after that. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately lost my draft from last night and may not have time to recreate for a day or so, but have to finish it before the 31st because that's when we depart on an extended trip overseas... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Dank and Brianboulton: Just while I work on the blurb, this is the dual image I've put together and uploaded to Commons -- it seemed best putting one above the other for compatibility with both PC and mobile devices. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dank, Brianboulton, and Cliftonian: Okay, here's a draft. It's a little over 1200 characters but hopefully the general layout and allocation to both men is reasonable. See what you think (I may not be able to check in for a day or two). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, I copied it over. Hope this didn't hold up your trip! - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran TFA

@TFA coordinators Enthiran is currently at 1 October for its TFA as the date signifies the 5th anniversary of the film's release. But, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is at TFA for 20 October and the date signifies the 20th anniversary of its release. In this case, are these two appearing close together? If so, please suggest the course of action that should be taken. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

At any cost, the recently promoted DDLJ will not miss being TFA on Oct 20 (its 20th anniversary). If Enthiran should be delayed (possibly for Rajini's birthday in 2016) then its fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but "at any cost" doesn't work around here; there are other factors to consider. I'm a bit concerned that, as well as these two Indian films, we have Kareena Kapoor nominated for 21 September, as well as a British film for 24 September. That's quite a concentration of media-related TFAs – four within 30 days. I'll go along with whatever Chris decides for October, but I think we can just about allow these, provided there's a bit of a hiatus in similar nominations during the next month or so. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, we'll need to run fewer cinema articles for a bit. We've already had an overabundance of them. Personally I'd avoid running Enthiran for now. For me, a fifth anniversary just doesn't cancel out the fact that we'd have three Indian cinema articles in two months if we ran the article. That's over-representation, considering how many other topics we have a backlog of. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess that would eliminate Shah Rukh Khan for his 50th birthday on 2 November, but I don't think that was going to happen anyway due to Warren G. Harding. If we had to choose, I think most people would pick Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge over both Enthiran and Kareena Kapoor, but I could be mistaken. BollyJeff | talk 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)