Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 22 November 2012

• WT:TFAR

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Proposed joint Obama/Romney TFA for November 6

I realize it's short notice, but Mitt Romney has just been promoted to FA, see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/archive2, and Barack Obama has been FA for a long time. Four years ago this time, there was a joint TFA that showed the Obama and John McCain article, which was also FA, side by side on the U.S. general election day. See Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/November_4,_2008.

I think it would be a good thing to do this again. It shows that Misplaced Pages can regularly produce featured content on even the the most contentious of subjects at the most contentious of times. I see that another article has already been slotted for November 6, which is this year's election, but perhaps it can be bumped back a few days. (I had hoped to have this request lined up earlier, but the FAC first got delayed and then took a long time to complete.)

Unfortunately I don't have time right now to write the proposed blurbs for the side-by-side, as I live in central New Jersey and I still have no power due to Hurricane Sandy and my accesses to WP are very infrequent. But if there is a positive response to this proposal, I can hopefully find a chance over the weekend to do the blurbs, or another editor can. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

November 6 has already been scheduled, with Carlson's patrol running. For the record, featuring an article for a third time, and making a two-for-one exception for a national, not international, event twice in a row is a bad idea. Until we start running two-for-ones for more than just the US election then it's best to stick with something neutral for that event. GRAPPLE X 12:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Grapple X. In fact, it's two bad ideas in one (repeating a TFA, having a double TFA). Apart from Obama, the only other article to be TFA twice was Transit of Venus (repeated on the day of its last appearance this century) on the basis that none of us alive now will see the event again. US presidential elections are not of the same degree of rarity. Bencherlite 12:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Nick Drake ran for two days, but that was over the SOPA blackout (itself a terrible idea) so running a new article would have been a waste of a slot. GRAPPLE X 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remembered that situation (although I couldn't remember the article in question, thanks for the memory jog) but discounted that on the basis that it still only had 24 hours of exposure, not 48. Bencherlite 12:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"national, not international" because no one outside the U.S. is paying attention to this? Or because it affects no one outside America? Either way that's false. Sure, it is a national election. But let's not pretend it's not important elsewhere. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a national election. The Argentinian election has international reach but I don't see us clamouring to run special exceptions for that; ditto for China, most of the EU, Russia etc etc. Every major election has international importance but not a one of them is an international event. Simple as. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether or not we should make an exception, and I think that's a completely valid reason to say no. But I'm tired of people understating its significance. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, okay, you keep towing that line for the sake of argument, even though we all know that's not true. -- tariqabjotu 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Me? or him? Hot Stop (Edits) 13:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is aimed at me, I find that ridiculous to believe. There are huge political upheavals and debates across the world right now, between the Middle East dealing with Syria, the European Union looking at the possible collapse of an international currency, and the Sinosphere preparing for a once-a-decade shift in China's leadership. One election whose international repercussions in recent years have, barring the withdrawal of troops from actions started over a decade earlier, been largely diplomatic, is simply not the largest international event any more. GRAPPLE X 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me understand the source of your confusion. -- tariqabjotu 13:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that one exemption was enough. The article selected for November 6 has a high date significance and was promoted more than four years ago. I'm also not particularly fond of the idea that seemed to hover over the Mitt Romney FAC that this dual scheduling was a foregone conclusion.-- tariqabjotu 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I never assumed that the dual scheduling would occur even if the Romney article made FAC - I always anticipated there would be a lot of resistance to it, both due to Obama going up for a third time and due to some of the same criticisms from last time. And I respect all the arguments being made, then and now. Fortunately, there's a lot of value in having both candidates be FA going into election day, regardless of whether they are on TFA or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea. Election day in the USA is a fairly well-known event internationally, and I see no point featuring some article that has nothing to do with the presidential election. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It has plenty to do with November 6, though, which is why it was selected. GRAPPLE X 13:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, I just feel like a reader will be looking for something election-related as TFA that day, and will be uninterested with the article currently scheduled. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean, of course, an American reader. The rest of the world says 'hi'. Resolute 14:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A large number of non-Americans are also aware of US presidential elections; thanks for the sarcasm. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. But being aware of a foreign election and thinking "I hope they ran a TFA about it. Maybe the Obama article, yet again" are not the same thing. As with any major election, it can and should be covered under ITN. Resolute 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I dont agree with running the duel articles, while WP covers the spectrum of topics coinciding with the US elections again with articles of the two main contenders is questionable especially as we dont do it for other countries. What was novel/niave idea 4 years ago shouldnt be set in stone as a mandatory requirement for every US election. Surely within hours both article will fail both the stability test and comprehensiveness, IMHO if Romney is successful wouldnt it be better to for the article to be stand alone TFA at inaugriation in couple of months. Its not like either article is going to lack traffic on the day anyway. Gnangarra 13:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I liked the idea 4 years ago, and if we had two candidates of any election I think doing it again would be good...just not so sure about running Obama again Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• The danger of setting precedents... Oppose both the use of dual TFAs absent a reason to do so other than "because it would be neat", but vehemently oppose running the Obama article again. It's already been TFA twice, and there is no reason at all to run it a third time. Also, lets face it, a dual TFA proposal would never fly for a British, Canadian or Australian election (not withstanding the fact that they are all multi-party systems), so this proposal is also highly Americacentric. Resolute 14:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd happily agree to us running a single relevant FA on an election day for any country (eg Politics in Foo), so long as it wasn't one that gave an appearance of bias, but not two, and not one that's already Featured. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, although the idea is great, but like User:Resolute said, its not a "that" (for some it is, dont get me wrong) a major thing in England. Also, it is me, or is it a tad bit bias? — M.Mario (T/C) 14:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oh Hell No! NO need to privilege US politics over those of any other country.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Nope. Featuring both was fine as a one-off, but I wouldn't want to see it becoming a four-yearly tradition. Run the Romney article on some other relevant date, like maybe his birthday or something. Prioryman (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Obama's already run twice. --Rschen7754 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• I am not in favour of running these articles; I am Canadian and have not been following the election at all. It's US-centric and biased to run these on election day. Obama has already appeared on the main page twice, and is not in as good of shape as it used to be. -- Dianna (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Points again

(The following discussion was started on my talk.)

Hi Gerda, I see you've added a point each for the December 1 nominations but can you please calculate according to all the points: when promoted; whether widely covered; based on the primary contributor's recent TFAs; and degree of representation. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeating: I don't do point math. I calculated one support each, my own ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you follow the system that's been in place for a long time? Consensus is the mechanism we use on WP to make decisions, and there hasn't been consensus to overturn the point system. I'm busy elsewhere and don't want to have to do it for you. If you nominate, you should be prepared to calculate the points. It's really that simple. You might not agree with it, but it's how do things here. At least in theory. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of this question, I don't see consensus for points --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you see consensus there? Perhaps I should bring it up there. What I see right now is confusion because some, such as yourself, don't use points and others do. Obviously some pages are no-brainers such as Betelguese, but when two are at the same time, then how do you propose we choose? I see that Brian has kindly removed the other which leaves only the princess, but these situations will occur again and it's nice to have a system that works. If you think this system doesn't, perhaps propose one that does? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, your defence seems to be "its beyond me". Thats fine, but dont berate others if thats the case. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the function of the page you've linked to? What confused me is that there was a request in the queue, and then another request was added. I have great respect for Brian and don't like to upset him; have done so repeatedly now. Equally I have great respect for Maria and also opposed there. It would be helpful to look a little more closely to prevent these things from happening. Personally I don't bother nominating there and leave it to the delegates. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The page should explain itself, please let me know what isn't clear. - I don't see Brian upset here. - The explorer was added to pending requests by Sven Manguard after the princess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont think any of us look well here. We squabbled on an FA of Brian's, one of the kmost helpful and gracious editors you could hope to meet. It was not a good time to take it up. This ends now. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Brian didn't seem bothered at all, and clearly put a stop to the flurry of polar expedition nominations this year - which someone had to do - and Truthkeeper88 could have removed the nomination herself, as Gerda did. Why leave all the work to the clearly overworked delegate? Calculating the "points" are a nightmare; Truthkeeper88 could have done it but didn't. Why not? Leave all that calculating to Dabomb? What looks bad is everyone backing out and refusing to chip in, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Mathew, but you are missing the point. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I simply swung through and looked at the nominations last night or at some point. I asked Gerda a simple question to which no answer is forthcoming. She wrote "pending requests" on the Brazilian article and I saw a completely different one on the pending requests. Since I didn't nominate the onus isn't on me to calculate points. It's very unfortunate that Brian got caught up in this, but the truth is, it's not the first time it's happened. Gerda says above she doesn't use math or points, yet it's a system long established by consensus and so why are we now throwing it away? At any rate, it's probably better for you to post these remarks on TFA talk so we can hash it out there. I suspect this will happen again, and keep in mind that already one request for arbitration has been opened in regards to TFA. If the problems are continuing by proxy, which is what it appears to me, then we'll be going through this again and again. Bottom line: nominator calculates points as you see the others doing. I hope that answers your questions about why I haven't. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

waking up, mildly astonished, trying to clarify: pending requests are in a transcluded box - UNTIL they are requested. Everybody is free to enter to pending, everybody is free to nominate from there, everybody is free to calculate points at that point, I don't because they serve a function ONLY when there is "competition" about a specific date, I think it's a waste of time for the regular nomination. I said this on the TFA talk and am ready to repeat it there. The list WP:QAI/TFA is open to suggestions for any time in any style, from just mentioning an article for a date to a blurb suggestion, - if that is not clear on the page please let me know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

end of copy, start of discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The hardest thing about calculating points is reviewing the list of recent TFAs to see when the last similar TFA appeared. I think that it's useful to calculate points to force the nominator to see how long it's been and to resolve any (infrequent) ties for a specific date. I think it's important to retain the current points system for exactly those reasons and I would argue that if a nominator doesn't calculate the points that the nomination be deleted after one or two pointed reminders. The burden, such as it is, should rest on the shoulders of the nominator, not the delegate or any other person.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take much effort to calculate the points, so this seems like more of an individual protest against the points system (in the hope that if a prolific nominator doesn't do it, no one will?)...

Also, while I agree with the spirit of Mathew's post, Truthkeeper is not required to calculate points, and it seems obvious that it's better to address a problem at its source. Ed  09:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The points served a function as long as we had only 2 any-date slots here and five dated ones, and there was competition for those slots, decided by points. They don't serve a function anymore, imho, so why bother. I would be interested in a word from the scheduler, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We just went through this, Gerda! I was the one who suggested getting rid of points, in fact, but was persuaded by the arguments to the contrary, and there was certainly no consensus to do away with points. The points system requires people to consider various important factors. In no particular order:

1. How old is the FA? The older it is, the more there might be a sense of "it's about time it had its turn", but the more one might want to check that the article is still in good condition. Not every one checks - there are two TFAR nominations with dead links, for instance.
2. Is this a "newbie's" FA? The bonus point for this is, I think, designed to help encourage new FA contributors with the increased prospect of their work being TFA sooner rather than later. (slight correction/clarification: the point bonus only applies if the requestor is the prime contributor, so those who nominate FAs by others can just skip this.)
3. Is this a good date for the article, and if so why?
4. Is it an article on an 'important' subject, either as we have determined these to be with the lists of vital articles and core topics, or as demonstrated by coverage of it in many languages?
5. Is it an article on a topic where WP is short of FAs? This in theory helps encourage those who want to write on topics about (for example) engineering, computing, chemistry, geology, medicine and philosophy where Misplaced Pages needs added depth of coverage in high-quality articles.
6. When did something like this last appear? This helps those who comment, and the scheduler, with appropriate spacing out of subjects. People might have different views on whether two articles are "similar" but actually most of the time it's not controversial.

Ignoring the points system and then nominating something with just the words "from pending requests" does the nomination a disservice and hinders discussion at TFAR because all these factors are still relevant, nay important. The points are as useful as they were, even if they are unlikely to form the choice between appearing on this page and being booted off by another nomination, because they address the factors which experience has shown are valid considerations for discussion and selection.

Gerda, please calculate points in future nominations, to the best of your ability (and it's not a nightmare, really) - if you get it wrong, others will no doubt discuss. Otherwise I agree with Sturmvogel that nominations without point calculations should be removed after a reminder is left with no response. Bencherlite 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed a new nomination from Gerda that did not calculate the points (and also took one of your comments, Bencherlite—sorry about that). Ed  21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I agree. Not only was Gerda ignoring the points and the consensus here, but she was ignoring all the explanatory factors (age, similarity, date relevance) that help commentators and the scheduler(s) know which are the best requests. Bencherlite 21:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeming source of the problem

• The source of the problem seems to be that Raul stopped editing over two months ago, and Dabomb, the delegate, has limited time. TFA's were not being selected until an hour or less before their appearance on the main page, and primary authors weren't being notified in time to clean up the article, and sometimes not notified at all. There was much complaining from FA editors. Poor articles, often old, no longer up to par with current FAC requirements and with maintenance tags were appearing as TFAs.

• Enough people weren't willing to vet articles, calculate points and nominate articles so that Dabomb did not have a decent selection and had to pick unvetted article at the last minute from those that hadn't appeared on the main page. (Points are often calculated inaccurately, so Dabomb would have to check the points even if the nominator provided them.) Gerda's solution was an attempt to address this problem, since so many are unwilling to nominate articles and calculate points.

• Having just checked the polar expedition articles and the star articles to determine their frequency of appearance this year, it is a job to figure out when the sequence of the last appearances, never mind the other point requirements (which I didn't check and would be hard to do - like is this the main editor's first appearance on the main page, anniversaries, geographical over representation and such.) I found the articles were "bunched" and certain topics (polar expeditions) were over selected under the "old" system.

• The "points" are not well understood. Birthdays are often used for points, which Raul specifically says do not count. Further, as Raul says, the FA categories are not the same as categories used for TFA selection, such as a biography of a film director is not the same category as a review of the film, so each were not prevented from appearing near each other. Also, some categories pertain only to certain countries and exclude others. Raul is no longer around to clarify these misunderstanding such as occurred with the Stephen Crane nomination. Thus there are unresolved arguments about what the individual "points" mean.

• Gerda's suggestions for increasing the slots for article suggestions alleviated this problem and gave Dabomb more to select from, preventing the last minute choices and the many complaints. Gerda's solution at least provides Dabomb with some assistance, and I am not aware that he has complained. Rather, his job seems more manageable now.

• If someone has a better solution, please offer it - especially since some FA editors are unwilling to nominate articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, there is Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/emergency just in case too. We could put a couple more in there too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably cycle those from time to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just one comment for now: Mathew, do you have a link or diff for Raul saying that birthdays don't count? My understanding of the workings of this page is that birthdays count but anniversaries of death usually do not. See Raul's comment at the nomination of John Lennon for December 8, 2010: "I'm OK with this date request because his assassination is itself notable." Bencherlite 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my wording was too casual, Bencherlite. Recently someone gave points to feature Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil for December 1 because she was born on December 1, 1831. However, Raul has said in his "Notes" regarding date relevance: "Multiple points are only awarded for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in the article or, in a biographical article, for the anniversary of a major life event." As I interpret Raul's wording from that sentence and some of his other comments, if a subject was born on November 5, for example, November 5 would not be enough of a date relevance as it is not a specific "anniversary" according to the way Raul defines anniversaries. Only an "anniversary" of that birth would count, e.g. 25th anniversary or some such. Also, how much "significant coverage" of a birth must be given in the article? e.g. more than the usual details about the birth? (Hope I'm wording this clearly - this is as I understand Raul's wordings made at various places.) The example you give regarding Lennon seems to be because the date was an anniversary of his death, IMO. - although the link also quotes User:Iridescent as saying: "I know Raul dislikes death anniversaries", the quote from Raul is "I'm OK with this date request because his assassination is itself notable." so I'm not clear what anniversaries are ok, since the "death" anniversary dislike is not in the point rules. And it seems to me that there would be very few equally notable births. Is there a statement by Raul clarifying the needed notability of a birth or death to count besides widely covered assassinations of extremely famous people? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hunting through the TFAR archives, I found this discussion from 2009 which clearly worked on the basis that birthdays would count as a point bonus; the discussion was formalised a couple of threads later on the same page, with many of the same participants (including me!) - so I think I've established to my satisfaction that my memory is not at fault. A birthday, or anniversary of birthday, is still an "anniversary" even if it is not divisible neatly by 5 or 10. My recollection is that the "death date anniversary" was often looked as a weak claim to an extra point, which is why Raul made a point of saying that Lennon's death was noticeable. Diffs to support that recollection will be harder to find since it will be mostly in the page history of the discussions, which aren't archived. However, Iridescent's comment and Raul's reply are good evidence of the point, I think. Come to think of it, Wehwalt has a lot of experience in the points system so he might be able to help my recollections... Bencherlite 14:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

More or less. The death date by itself is going to raise eyebrows. Sometimes it was overlooked for the sake of peace, or to encourage an editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should hear from Dabomb how useful the points are to him. The point system is complicated and not intuitive. If it isn't that useful to Dabomb, we might want to simplify or scrap it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. I was dubious about the changes this summer, but have to say they don't seemed to have caused problems, except that I think this second group of factors are tending to be forgotten. Gerda in particular is doing fine work, but seems heedless of these issues, and frankly unreliable in her assessment of "similarity". This I think ultimately places more work on others, especially Dabomb, & I'd be interested to hear how he feels about the current situation, and officially abolishing the points system. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's my problem of not seeing similarities if a writer is chosen (for a valid reason) just before another one (Stephen Crane) was requested, a medieaval bishop is scheduled although a different one was on TFAR for a week later, or - today - a pilot when there is one waiting in the pending list for 4 Dec. It tells me that Dabomb should not handle those things alone, it seems too much for him. I suggested that several others should have the right to schedule, because I think it's too much for any given person. As of today, we are looking ahead just 2 days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I was making the simple point that you are still doing nominations without attempting to cover the "points" issues such as similar articles in any way. I wasn't thinking of particular examples, though if you want to go there your belief that the Lost operas of Monteverdi was unique and not similar to to other articles on opera sticks in the mind. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not calculate points until I get an answer who needs them for what. I am trying to learn. Lost operas are no operas, no? We don't have most of their music, it's a completely different article content than the usual Tosca or whatever, - points will not be able to do justice to it. - Forget my complaints about only two days ahead, - Dabomb (not Raul) scheduled a few more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at one time there was intense competition for main page slots. However, that has subsided.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Gerda is right I think. One choice was a book review, the other a biography of a writer - not the same according to my understanding of Raul's rules. However, long, discursive arguments on the nomination page are discouraging. IMO Gerda was a breath of fresh air, and for a while I was enthusiastic about helping out with the TFA page, rewriting blurbs, looking for FA nominations etc., but apparently its going back to the same old way. I'll not nominate FA's because I don't understand the points and don't have the knowledge to go searching through years and years of archives to figure them out. (Fortunately two of my choices got on the main page before the breath of fresh air was closed down.) It was fun while it lasted. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear that I am right, but it was a bit different: the similarity between book and writer was accepted as not significant, but then Ian Fleming came suddenly (for the new 007 film what I called a valid reason), and that made it writer next to writer, similarity accepted. I like to hear even more that I am like a breath of fresh air, thank you! I am missing so many supportive friends that I would really like to have your support continued, Mathew, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, here's the simple truth. I opposed Stephen Crane so as to avoid another fun event like this one that Maria had to endure. She almost left over it, and if researching and writing good pages is to met with that kind of crap when it runs on the front page, I think that any editor should be shielded from having to go through it more than once in a single month. Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism to stop that kind of behavior, so I opposed the nomination (and there were good reasons: the same editor in a short period, another author in the queue, the similarity to the other piece) and sent Maria email to apologize. Can you now please drop the stick? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you (usually followed by Ceoil) will stop posting after every comment I make. Since you are repeating yourself I will repeat myself. Your comment doesn't make sense and is not a "simple turth". The simple truth is the two articles involved were not in the same "category" according to Raul's rules and could have each been run. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, what two articles are you referring to? Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek or Crane and Ian Fleming? The latter pairing is ultimately why Crane's nomination failed -- after Fleming was nominated, Crane's nom received three or four opposes (including mine) that pointed out that featuring two white male authors on the main page within eight days of one another does not exemplify diversity of subject matter. TK had her personal reasons for opposing Crane's nom, but that's not why the nomination failed -- it was bad timing. I would also like to point out that Crane's nomination should have been removed ages before it was, and then even after it was removed it was accidentally scheduled by Dabomb to appear on November 2nd -- the day after it was nominated for. So, after all of the supporting/opposing and removal from TFAR, it was added to the freaking queue anyway. It's kind of funny, but also fairly annoying. I'm not blaming Dabomb in the least, but obviously there's something wrong with the system if more people can't or simply aren't paying attention. María (yllosubmarine) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Crane and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - that's what Truthkeeper88's lengthy and repeated objection to my posts on the nomination page addressed. I wasn't involved in anything regarding Ian Fleming, his article didn't enter the thread when I was posting and I wasn't aware of his nomination. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion reminds of my recent comment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You say there were misunderstandings about Crane's nom, but the only one you can point to is TK comparing Crane to Pilgrim in her oppose rationale (which another user agreed with, btw). Again, that's not why the article wasn't scheduled for TFA -- it wasn't scheduled because of Fleming, which multiple people agreed was too similar to Crane. I don't think this one article failing to appear on the main page is a worthy example of a failed system. The nom was up for ages, and TK's objections were only a smattering of what was wrong with it. Perhaps said objection was merely what you took umbrage at? If so, let it be. María (yllosubmarine) 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That was the one I was referring to. Truthkeeper posted other lengthy links on the same subject. I just gave you an example. There was also the horrible ugliness over my Miss Moppet nomination, all because I didn't know about the secret list of FAs that can't ever be on the main page. (That's still not been settled, though I took the heat from Truthkeeper and Ceoil.) From that time on TK put length posts after all my comments. Ceoil supported Truthkeeper and accused me of a conspiracy against another editor that I've never hear of. It was an ugly experience for me. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Mathew. Is saying "I'll not nominate FA's because I don't understand the points and don't have the knowledge to go searching through years and years of archives to figure them out." yet another iteration of your "newbie" argument? I'm flabbergasted, because this page requires a minimum of institutional knowledge. Hell, the full instructions are at the top of the page. Ed  21:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum after your post above: the Miss Moppet debacle wasn't a picnic for us too. See your own archives: this, this (I didn't know it was possible to frustrate MRG), and this. Many people have tried to help you, and you have either ignored or spurned them. Ed  21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the instructions are on top. Some people may just follow instructions because they are there. I asked what function the points serve (just one example), and got no good answer. I asked Dabomb, who seems the only one for whom they may be of interest. - The process has changed since the rules were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The process has not changed - all that's changed is the number of slots for nominations. You've been repeatedly told the functions that the points serve e.g. Johnbod's comment above: It was intended, like the whole current system, to bring order to competition for places, which is currently less of an issue, and to highlight positive and negative aspects in terms of diversity, avoiding similar TFAs close together, preference for "widely-covered" subjects and older articles, and so on. These factors remain important. What's the problem with that explanation? Bencherlite 11:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The definition is fine. I may have a problem with English. "...to bring order to competition ..." means to me that we don't need points if there's no competition. When I propose an article I am offering it for discussion and improvement, always ready to accept that others may think it is not good to run it that day or not at all. No competition. I see that as a change in the process, from competition to discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect, the last few weeks suggest otherwise. This would seem typical. I get you are trying to help, but you are reailroading to a certain extent now. Reform is fine, welcome ever, but obstinacy is not the path. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table

Can periodic table be a TFA? It was nominated for refreshing brilliant prose in 2004, put on the Main Page shortly afterwards, and then demoted in an FAR the next year. However, this year (2012) it was completely rewritten and was promoted as an FA recently. I know that articles shouldn't appear on the main page twice, but this seems more borderline (and would get 7 or 8 points, depending on who nominates it). Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It would look like this, BTW. Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I second this proposal. Admittedly, I may be slightly biased because I was one of the primary contributors to this article, but 2004 was a long time ago (probably before most of us even contributed), and Misplaced Pages as a whole was very different back then. Since things have changed so much, it would be great if we could have this as TFA again. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the content of the article has changed a lot, and the article is on the whole much more informative now. Also, it covers a very important subject. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I also think we should rethink our approach here, especially regarding FFAs. Abuses can be met with opposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There are issues of fairness both ways, of course. On the one hand, when we have 1,331 articles that have yet to appear once on the main page, why should the 3,180 articles that have done so appear again, absent exceptional reasons? On the other, if a new team of editors has reworked an article to FA standards and the article appeared years ago, does it hurt every once in a while to break the "once and only once" rule? To emphasise the exceptional nature of such cases, and to prevent it being "open season" at TFAR for repeat TFA requests, I wonder whether some or all of the following might be prerequisites: (1) an FFA; (2) brought back to FA standards by editors uninvolved in the first FAC; (3) a vital article or core topic (since these will be the most "encyclopaedic" articles and it will rarely hurt to run them twice, whereas a second TFA slot for a cartoon or a video game may have less to commend it); (4) X years since the last appearance as TFA, where X is suitably large. As it happens, Periodic table would pass all of those tests, so I'd be inclined to support this appearing, even as a "one-off" exception, but perhaps there is scope for more rethinking of the approach, either in terms of rules or in terms of expressions of view from the community given to the scheduler(s) to inform the use of their discretion in selection. Bencherlite 09:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would set the bar a little lower than VA or CT. I would say widely covered should be sufficient. If it has 20 other-wiki articles, then it's a subject of interest. Alternatively, if we retain the point system, a minimum point value, say four or five, would be a good reason to justify an exception. In addition to being a FFA brought in by a fresh team. Or a major event regarding the subject, for example I plan to ask for an exception for Gough Whitlam's funeral, if and when (he's 96). Or, alternatively, his 100th birthday, I think he would be the first modern head of government to reach his 100th birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article that matches the description: J. Robert Oppenheimer. It is a widely covered VA that was TFA back in April 2005. It was demoted in April 2007 but promoted again after a lot of work in March 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd broadly support the relaxing of the restriction for articles with compelling reasons, like most of those mention here, but am not sure you could leglistlate for it. You would hope that common sence would be enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should legislate for it. I think each time should be a community discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for repeating what I just said. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we agree :)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I expressed myself badly, I can see how it might have seemed otherwise. But yeah, on this we do :) Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So, unless anyone has any objections within the next 48 hours or so, I will nominate this article to be TFA again. I'll definitely link to this discussion in the request. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, we don't run articles twice without very broad discussion (certainly nothing like a few editors agreeing), and if the community really wants to have more input into this page, the community should be responsible in how that is exercised. Opening up the possibility of any TFA running twice-- when there are so many that haven't run once-- is not where we should be. Further, flaunting the setup of the page which was established by consensus is not a good thing. Further, calculating points as if this article had not already run is disingenous ... if another article comes along that hasn't run, it is worth more, so even if we were to go this way (which I doubt we will), there would be a large deduction for already-runs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this would be the first time an FA has been on the main page twice. I seem to recall one earlier this year, although I can't remember which it was ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus, also Barack Obama, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes! In 2011, an article nearly ran twice due to a name confusion. (Misplaced Pages talk:Featured articles/Archive 14#Featured Articles that have appeared on the Main Page more than once) I note Raul's response: The no-repeating thing is a rule I've imposed on myself. I reserve the right to wave it at any time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nick Drake has also run twice, due to the soapbox blackout we had. GRAPPLE X 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, Transit of Venus was the one I was thinking of. I may be alone in this, but I've never felt that TFA was any kind of a reward, quite the opposite really. All you can expect on TFA day is a load of vandalism and if you're very, very lucky maybe one minor punctuation correction. What I'm trying to say is that TFA ought not to be a reward for writers, but something interesting for readers. Please don't let's go down the same dark hole that DYK has gone down. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not alone. I think of it as a necessary evil that goes along with writing an article and then going through a FAC. It's just something that needs to be endured and then the mess cleaned afterward, but not anything I'd seek out - well I did one time, but I thought for a good reason. I certainly don't think of it as a reward. But perhaps only a few of us think that way. It this is becoming a "rewards" page - then, yes, trouble could be brewing. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus was a once-in-our-lifetimes event, Obama/McCain was well discussed and Raul made it clear it was an exception (both of these were extremely rare circumstances), and Nick Drake was run as a repeat on a day when the encyclopedia was blacked out and no one would see the TFA. We have no such circumstance here, and no reason to begin re-running routine articles when there are hundreds of TFAs that haven't run. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA delegate volunteers/nominations

For those who missed my comment on WT:FAC, I'm considering nominating a new TFA delegate and I'm interested in suggestions / volunteers. If anyone here is interested, please contact me privately. Raul654 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you consider to nominate more than one, and named Bencherlite on said page, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you suggest yourself Gerda, do you think you'd have broad support of your judgement and pushy, aw shucks, style? Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I would not suggest myself ;) - I am the cleaning lady of TFA, no more. The only two FA's I was involved in will not be requested until March and September 2013, - way too little experience, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that any name given by Raul be considered, but that the community discuss it when it is made and make the final decision. After all, Raul is inactive and may be unaware of editors who could do a good job. Necessarily, he will have to rely heavily on those who choose to advise him, and I don't see how his judgment would be better than that of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I don't think these kinds of comments do much to diffuse tension or factionalism. I do, however, agree with you that at this point transparency is paramount - particularly given the, now stricken, comment about enemies. I assume you consider me an enemy - but I haven't any intention of sending Raul email. Were I to make a recommendation, and I've been watching this page for a number of months now, I suggest Bencherlite, if he has the time. He's been doing excellent work. There are a few others I've thought of, having stayed above the fray, good writers to do justice to the blurbs, and around long enough to have a sense of how to balance what's available to run on the main page. I'd rather make notifications first but honestly don't know when I'll get to it. Bencherlite, I know, keeps this page on watch and I assume he'll see this post. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I obviously agreed, which is why I refactored it several hours before you left your comment. I do not consider you an enemy, we do not have interests in common so we rarely review each other's articles. I actually like how much you care about prose. And you may misunderstand, my reference to an enemies list is a reference to Raul's ill-advised comments regarding myself and others on his talk page, and that of others.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Factions are always created by issues that haven't found a good solution. If factionalism is perceived as a problem, I suggest the underlying issues be looked into. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Truthkeeper, thank you for your kind words. I've already suggested a name or two to Raul by email, and I'm sure others will have done so too, so hopefully there will be more suitable possibilities than me! I won't say any more than that here because Raul asked for suggestions / volunteers by email rather than on wiki, and I don't think that I should risk turning this into hustings (whether for me or for others) for the position. Bencherlite 14:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have my short list. I hope to make two TFAR delegate appointments in the very near future. Once that's done, I'm going to wait and see what happens with the lead time. Raul654 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo

Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo is listed in pending requests for 17 December. That date of first airing seems the better date than Christmas Day, to me and others. I think it was almost a mistake to request it here for the 25th, given the pending request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can get Hawkeye7 to change his request, but you can't unilaterally change it unless the conditions laid out in the instructions are met. My bigger question is whether folks weighing in there understand the September 17 air date and are meaning to refer to that 17 (September or December). I also oppose it for December 17, btw (anything within a week of Christmas is my oppose). I'm not sure why "Pending requests" is relevant to anything on that TFA request-- it's a template that I set up as a courtesy reminder, parking place for things we didn't want to lose sight ot, and it appears that it is being used as if something is somehow set in stone. Side note-- when I set it up, it was merely something on the talk page-- now the main page here is unnecessarily cluttered, and I'm not sure why that template is cluttering the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The original airdate is December 17, I don't know where you both pulled September from. To be frank, it has date relevance on both the 17th and 25th of December only, and I would oppose any date that's meant to be a compromise with the class of complainers who will never actually take part in these main page discussions but throw stones afterwards. EDIT: Surely the 17th is more than a week before the 25th, too, unless I missed something. GRAPPLE X 03:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Grapple X .... that will learn me not to believe everything I read :) I got it from here; it is on the page now, has been for a while, no one has corrected it-- so now we've a mess. If in fact the original airdate is Dec 17, not Sep 17 as Gerda stated, then I see reason to support the Dec 17 date after all. Will have to go fix all that now. Ugh. Gerda, please strike your September 17 date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe things have changed, but it used to be that the Potential upcoming requests box was purely advisory, and the articles listed were more often not run. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Judging by Gerda's edit summary in the cited diff, it seems that "September" was a typographical error for "December".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It was, and I marked it as such. - Back to the original question, if the rules are in the way of making sense - in this case move the nomination from a date many people opposed to one that (so far) few people opposed - let's change them. I will not touch this nomination but watch when it will be moved to 17 December. - If the rules are so important, I wonder why nobody reverted the nomination for 25 Dec as still not within the timeframe of one month ahead. Needless to say, that's another limitation I would like to see disappear ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it says: November 28 to December 28 (only up to December 18 if the entry would have five or more points) It only has 3 points, so 25 December is within the time frame. :p Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, please try to understand the instructions before advocating to change them. It is within the time frame from the last scheduled; the reason it's there is so that the page doesn't grow to the unmanageable 200 entries that it used to have before we limited the time frame. And as to changing the date to what is supported/opposed "so far", we have the 48-hour rule so that ample editors have time to weigh in before people start reverting things-- it's still a month away, so there is no urgency. Should consensus emerge, there is plenty of time still to change it to the 17th-- one goal of this, and every Misplaced Pages page, is to allow time for consensus to form. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How to request

OK, per the section above on the periodic table, I thought I would nominate this article to be TFA. However, I cannot find any instructions on how to nominate the article. I think it would be really helpful for people if there were instructions, as I literally have no idea what I am supposed to do right now. If someone could nominate the article for me, I would be grateful. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the lengthy instructions at the top of the page not enough? That's not sarcasm - a lot of people have tried to make a complicated process as comprehensible as possible, and if people aren't understanding it they need to be improved. Mogism (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the instructions, but nowhere does it say how to nominate it. It very comprehensively covers the criteria, but I can't find anywhere where it says something like "to nominate an article, go to Misplaced Pages:Sandbox", or "edit section A, add a blurb about the article, and explain why it should be TFA". StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This diff might help. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Or tell me, I am not afraid to make mistakes ;) which article for when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is Periodic table, and would presumably (am I right, StringTheory11?) be for a non-specific date slot. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion, I would conclude the same, that StringTheory11 wants to take care of it, Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done; the article is now up! StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a dream

User G suggests an article for a day.

The author and User B trim the blurb.

User P looks at the referencing.

User R improves it.

User T improves the prose.

User N finds a better picture.

User S finds that a similar article was run shortly before.

We park it for later, but have it ready then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)