Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

Policies for TFAs

Hello, some articles may be appropriate for Featured Article status, but not for main page placement through TFA, an example of this would be very recent globally distributed commercial products, like videogames, movies or series, because this would at best constitute unintentional advertisement, and at worst it would open up an opportunity for promotional campaigns and single purpose accounts to feature products on the main page. Are there any policies regarding TFA nomination that are not present in FA nomination?

Thank you.--TZubiri (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that any FA constitutes unintentional promotion ... by the time an article gets to FA, whatever advertising effect it could have has already passed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not any FA, only articles where the topic are recent commercial products that are globally distributed, for example a videogame that was released 6 months ago and is still on sale. See Paper Mario:The Origami King, released in July, and aimed at TFA in February 2021, not a bad result for a hypothetical campaign. Now the article in its current state is most likely just innocent unintentional advertisement, made by a young fan of the products, only an indirect consequence of the promotional campaign that resulted in the hundreds of web publications that compose the reference corpus of the article. But considering that the nominating account was created February this year, we cannot for certain discard the possibility of a single purpose account, can we? Even if it's not the case now, given enough time, it will. Considering the monetary value a front page placement on Wikipedia would have, a 1 year salary would be a possibly worthwile investment. A policy on this specific kind of subjects would remove this present uncertainty and future vulnerability.--TZubiri (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean Paper Mario: The Origami King, currently at FAC. Your AGF issues aside, you can raise these kinds of concerns if the article passes FAC, and when it appears on this page to ask for a slot-- at that point, you can Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware, the point of this section in the talk page is to ask for TFA policies that don't apply to FA, I take it there are none?--TZubiri (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not in that sense. FAC is the gatekeeper. If they pass it, we consider it eligible to run.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not connected to Nintendo in any way, just simply a fan. Le Panini ^[🥪] 05:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article, and invite contributions from readers of this page. Narky Blert (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

14th Feb

There is a Marilyn Manson album scheduled for the Valentine's Day FA. I think this might be considered tone-deaf at the very least after recent accusations. Crispclear (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It was a request at WP:TFAR and was scheduled before the allegations came out. If folks think we should reschedule that’s fine, but there doesn’t need to be something decided this second. Also suggested replace,ents would be nice. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be replaced. Perhaps The Triumph of Cleopatra? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't suggesting that it had been scheduled with any sort of agenda and it does have a tie to 14th February so I can see why it might have been requested. Cleopatra sounds fine to me for what it is worth. Crispclear (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware (yet) of what controversy has happened around Manson, but this seems to be a reasonable reason for a swap. There are lots of songs that could be used: I suggest the older "All You Need Is Love (JAMs song)", as it could use some TLC, which it will get if run TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This run 7 months ago with Ansel's face on it, but now Wikipedia has to be better? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be? Crispclear (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Every time, not only when the alleged sexual aggressor is not a pretty face. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap needed tomorrow

Hi @WP:TFA coordinators - just a heads up that there's been a report regarding at WP:ERRORS regarding tomorrow's TFA. The article doesn't seem to be up to scratch, which lots of unreferenced paragraphs and suchlike. Please can a replacement be scheduled? I can find something myself if necessary, perhaps from the upcoming sets, but it would no doubt better for you guys to handle this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I’ve removed the large section about the RAF base which was not only unsourced but undue weight in the article and then cut a coup,e of other sentences that were unsourced also. One reason for putting older FAs up is to see improve,ents...and show that anyone can edit...and make improvements..including you. If we only run recent promotions we get screams that we only feature a few topics...so we try to broaden the subject matter a bit.sometimes that means that some later additions will need to be cut before the article ripens on the main page...which is not something that only the TFA Coords can do. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This needs to stop. I have responded here. Something is very wrong when ERRORS is going beyond mainpage blurbs, and this trend has been to the detriment of the overall pool, and led to a decline in activity at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Secondary to these "non-emergency" emergencies (twice in a week?), Nine Inch Nails live performances was swapped in for an article that ran on the same day a year ago (?) after it had already been on the mainpage for 10 hours. This was an abuse of "emergency" swap as there is nothing "emergency" about an imperfect TFA. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", and we encourage new editors by not pretending a level of perfection that simply does not exist in FAs.

But ... since the NIN article did run for 10 hours before it was swapped,[2] do we consider it has already run or not? That is, how do we mark it at WP:FA and WP:URFA/2020? I suppose it is considered already run now ?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the above point. If someone fixes up the issues then maybe it could run again. But I'm not going to apologize for pulling something from the primary slot on the whole project that probably wouldn't even be permitted at DYK/ITN/OTD, let along be considered Wikipedia's best material. Three editors, including TFA coord Wehwalt had already opined that some action was needed. If there's some consensus that TFA articles are not subject to the usual main page rules for WP:V, or that its primary purpose is to weed out articles that need an FAR rather than to showcase Wikipedia's best material, then show me the discussion that led to that. But until then, I consider it fair game for issues with the article to be raised at ERRORS, as they routinely are for the main page's other sections. And by the way I'm not having a dig at the coords, I agree that running old FAs is a good thing to be doing, but it would be nice to do some basic fixing up first... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Moved discussion from WP:ERRORS

Since WP:ERRORS is not archived, and is a relatively poor place to have a meta-discussion about how WP:ERRORS should/shouldn't be used to remove TFA's with problems, I've taken the liberty of moving the discussion that Sandy is refering to here (collapsed, below) for easier reference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that long box at right is messing with formatting. Any help welcome. The ERRORS thread is down below the box. Maybe I should remove the {{cot}}? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Hopefully fixed, as that long sidebar didn't need to be here anyway, when a collapsed version is available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, @Guerillero:, who started one of the ERRORS threads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Copy of thread on ERRORS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about NIN TFA @WP:TFA coordinators Today's FA does not pass the current sourcing standards for an FA. Youtube links, fan sites (The NIN Hotline), etc. I recommend we swap it in for another FA --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC) +1 Toddst1 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC) @WP:TFA coordinators Since the band's creation, the live performances of Nine Inch Nails, an industrial rock band, have been given worldwide. Jeez, can we form a decent sentence please? What are we trying to say? The Nine Inch Nails are an industrial rock band that have performed shows around the world for a long time. Wow. The Nine Inch Nails are a pretty impressive band, but that's what we say about them and that awkwardly? Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC) I've sent an email to the other coordinators regarding the possibility of swapping it. I don't have time myself to look into this right now, but will later in the morning (US time) if no one responds. Regarding the first sentence, the first link in the blurb has to be to the TFA article, which led to some awkwardness here.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Comment: Since there don't seem to be TFA coords available to action this, and there are several voices now calling for an immediate swap, I have WP:BOLDly gone ahead and done that. I've swapped in Pacific swift which is the TFA from exactly one year ago. This is what we typically do at DYK when a quick swap is needed, and is probably preferable to putting a brand new one in for its slot, since there now isn't a full day available. Obviously if anyone thinks I've done the wrong thing, please revert or do something else. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Seems fine to me, the latter parts featured several unreferenced claims, this is hardly what FA is about (although, admittedly, what would I know?) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC) I thought something had changed on the mainpage! Had to double-check that I did see the NIN article when I logged on earlier. Shame it's in such a state. Same for the List of Nine Inch Nails concert tours article, which is a FL, but uses www.nin.wiki for sourcing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency seems to have stopped being maintained. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Luckily I seem to have figured out and followed all the suggested steps anyway!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Amakuru It's a work of art that replacement FA: "The moult is completed in the wintering grounds, where adults have a complete moult" - professional writing and comprehensive explanation of "moult" (whiskey?!). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ERRORS should be looking at issues in the blurbs which appear on the mainpage. I object to this business of swapping out TFAs because they aren't perfect, and an FA not being perfect is by no means a reason to swap out on an "emergency" basis. An article with issues is likely to be fixed up when it runs TFA, and if not, that is a good recruiting tool for WP:FAR. Please step doing this. This kind of activity is what has led to a decline in the overall pool of FAs (as people think they don't have to keep older FAs up to snuff, since they won't run TFA), and has deprived FAR of a recruiting tool that brings new editors to FAR when they encounter FAs that need approval. This agida was created over article content, not the mainpage blurb. Problems in older FAs are addressed at FAR, not at ERRORS. And running only "perfect" TFAs gives a very wrong impression about the overall quality of the FA pool. Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"; one of the ways we encourage "anyone to edit", and discourage elitism, is to allow ... anyone to edit ... by not implying or pretending that FAs are perfect. And taking this trend too far, using an "emergency" when one is not, is heading down a slippery slope of undermining the entire FAC/TFA/FAR process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ERRORS isn't a great place to have a meta conversation about ERRORS. Any objection if I move this to either WT:TFA or WT:ERRORS? Any opinion on which is a better place? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Since this seems to principally involve TFA, may as well move it there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Discussion about Cheadle Hulme Ahem, tomorrow's TFA has four whole unreferenced paragraphs on the trot in the "Modern history" section. I'm pretty sure this would be picked up as a rapid fail at FAC these days (but who knows). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Oh crikey, sounds like another swap will be necessary. Another bird article, anyone? I have no problem with scheduling old FAs at TFA (this one was promoted in 2009), but let's make sure they at least conform to basic main page standards...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC) actually I’ll be removing the uncited sections when I’m able to get the laptop out. I am trying to get through some of the older FAs, and this is why they are scheduled a month at a time, so people can go in and fix them before it becomes a rush at the last minute. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC) It's also packed with unverifiable claims and dead links, we wouldn't even pass a DYK or a GA to the main page with these issues. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC) See above. Please stop this. ERRORS is for examining problems on the main page (eg, in the blurb). No FA is perfect. The place for improving FAs is WP:FAR, and the result of forcing the TFAs run to be a non-representative sample of the overall pool was that activity at FAR declined and improvement of older FAs declined, as editors stopped updating articles that wouldn't run TFA. I sense that ERRORS is going beyond its remit here, and getting into the territory of FAR, to the detriment of the overall pool of FAs. Let those that are less-than-perfect run, as they are likely to be fixed while on the main page. That is part of the whole "anyone can edit" deal, and good for it ... as opposed to, there is nothing I can add to this project, with a misimpression of perfection left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

I think it would be helpful if people used the Tomorrow's TFA and Day after Tomorrow's TFA slots at WP:ERRORS for the purpose they were put in for, or even the article talk page before that. That way you get considered discussion and you don't get overnight crises. There is a reason why articles are scheduled in advance, so not only the principal editors but the community can look at them. That is the most helpful course to all concerned. Everyone involved was acting in perfect good faith of course, I'm not criticizing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Wehwalt. A less-than-perfect FA is not an ERROR, no FA is perfect, and unless egregious (eg, BLP or copyvio) issues are present, should never trigger an "emergency" replacement. No FA is perfect, and we want "anyone to edit". Those who are concerned about the overall quality of the FA pool are welcome and encouraged to help in the ongoing effort at WP:URFA/2020, or at WP:FAR. That said, the TFA Coords are then encouraged to view WP:URFA/2020 as a means of knowing the status of a potential TFA.

Specifically: start noticing deficient FAs and adding them to WP:URFA/2020 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and I agree that if notice has been given of deficiencies, Coords might not want to run those TFA. Specifically, the URFA chart is sortable so that Coords can pull out those that have not run TFA, and see if several editors have marked them "Satisfactory". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Separately, could the Coords decide if WP:URFA/2020 should continue to list NIN as already having run TFA? That is, how do you all handle situations like this in terms of whether you would decide to re-run a TFA when mainpage day was truncated? Up to you, but please remember to change the entry at WP:URFA/2020 should that be the decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Define "emergency"

It sounds like a) there was some difficulty locating the "emergency" TFA (which may require attention), and that a separate discussion defining when that should be used would be helpful. My suggestion is that an "emergency" use of the set-aside "emergency" TFA is:

1. No TFA scheduled when we are within x days of TFA (3, 5 ?)
2. BLP issue found in the TFA
3. Copyvio found in the TFA
4. Something extremely "distasteful" as in, what happened with Marilyn Manson

and that the "emergency" TFA should not be used in instances where there are otherwise issues with quality of the article. That is not an ERRORS issue; it is a FAR issue. If we start switching out TFAs for other reasons, we go down a slippery slope that could end at, "because IDon'tLikeIt". Editors now have many days in advance to review TFAs, and WP:URFA/2020 is available for flagging issues to Coords' attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I've got additional situation I think it would make sense. In the rare case that serious verification issues are found in the article (pervasive, not just one or two sentences), I'm not sure that we should be putting up for everyone to see, simply for accuracy issues. The additional traffic to TFAs could help spur some updates, but like with the Battle of Tippecanoe issue before Victoria rewrote it - some decent-sized chunks had to simply be excised because they weren't supported by sources and were probably original research. When it is pervasive to that extent, I can some harm coming from running something like that where it looks fine but contains a lot of false stuff. But beyond that case and the ones listed by you above, I don't think we should be pulling TFAs, in hopes that the extra traffic will lead to improvements. As an aside, @WP:TFA coordinators , I'd be willing to donate Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment as the emergency TFA if needed. TFA isn't near as big a deal to me as it is to a lot of editors, so I'm perfectly fine if mine never get run or only get a partial days. Hog Farm _Talk 18:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

How many TFAs do you think have been "improved" while on the main page? I'm 100% certain that the viewing public don't believe TFA is a place to "improve" articles, rather to see "Wikipedia's finest work" which, in today's case and tomorrow's case, is far from the reality. When TFA is the worst quality item on the main page, things need to be examined in more detail as to what the real purpose of TFA is. And by that I mean not that of editors embroiled in process, but what the actual readers expect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I trust the Coords and think the last few days have second guessed them, creating unnecessary agida, while bypassing established processes. I doubt our readers notice as much as “we” do. I suggest an “emergency” is something that can lead to real world harm, ala BLP or copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question about how many TFAs have been improved on the main page, nor discusses the situation relating to the purpose of TFA. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - thanks to Ealdgyth for removing the sections raised yesterday that were completely unreferenced, but there are still major problems with this article, which has now been on the main page for nearly ten hours. There are a large number of citation needed tags, two orange banners for update needed and expansion needed, dead links, pieces of text that don't correspond to what the linked source says etc. Not to mention more minor issues that would be raised at FAC such as sandwiching of text between images and single-sentence sections. If this article was proposed as a hook at DYK or ITN it would be rejected immediately, yet here we are telling readers this is an example of our best work.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Well this goes to heart of my question: is TFA about convincing our readers that "featured articles" are our "best" work and exemplify that Wikipedia is a trusted and reliable source or is TFA about demonstrating that articles can feature on the main page full of failed verification, full of out-dated information and full of dead links in the hope that someone feels bold enough to try to address the arcane markup of citations (for example) that are long-dead? A straw poll of my (non-Wikipedian) colleagues suggests they'd expect the "featured article" to be an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man and SandyGeorgia: I have no problem with things that are very fixable (inconsistent formatting, some more facts that could be added, 2-3 CN tags, etc.) on a TFA. My problem is when the quality of a TFA is lower than the quality of the articles in DYK, ITN, and OTD.

  If this were a DYK, the DYK prep makers would have rejected Nine Inch Nails live performances due to the quality. If they didn't the admins that promote articles would have. Neither the prep makers nor the promoting admins caught this, someone would post on WP:ERRORS and a patrolling admin would remove it. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, Guerillero, for helping towards "let's define emergency" so we know when to engage and switch out the TFA. After breakfast, I will set out some context for consideration in the discussion. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts Sandy, but per my above comments I'm broadly in agreement with Guerillero. There's a de facto standard that DYKs, ITNs and OTDs have to follow including all major claims verified, no orange or yellow tags, and a basic coverage of the essential points as they are known at the time of posting. Obviously an FA is supposed to go considerably beyond this basic standard and also have what we used to call "refreshing brilliant prose" (i.e. criterion 1a), suitable images, be a thorough and representative analysis of the sources etc. We could debate whether an article which no longer meets these latter points is still valid for TFA, but I don't think there should be compromise on the standards that apply elsewhere on the main page. I'm not going to use the word "emergency", because that is over-dramatizing the situation; and you'll note that I haven't swapped out today's TFA even though it doesn't meet the above standards. But from my point of view we need to be clear that this isn't permitted going forward, and make sure the community and the coords are on the same page such that midday swaps wouldn't ever be considered. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  I invite you to step up and become a TFA coord. Due to constraints on my time, I've already told the other TFA coords that I will need to step down as TFA coord in the near future... so please.. be my guest and step up to the plate and do the work. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Ealdgyth: I might actually consider that, as I did really enjoy being the POTD coordinator for the year or so I was there, it's quite fun curating content for the main page. I'm a bit wary though, because like yourself my time is stretched thin... current lockdown regulations have thrust me into a role as educator, in addition to my work commitments and on-Wiki life (which includes an unwritten expectation that I'll muck in with checking and promoting DYK hooks to the queues, as well as writing content - which is what I really want to be doing!) What sort of time commitments does coordinating actually involve?

  Anyway, notwithstanding that question please don't assume that any of what I'm writing here is a criticism of yourself or anyone else. From what I can see in this thread so far, there seems to be quite a bit of a disagreement about what TFA is really for, and what its rules really are. Evidently there was an assumption, as voiced by Sandy, that subpar TFAs are OK on the grounds that they may attract editor attention. I don't agree with that, but given the uncertainty I wouldn't think of blaming you for having gone with the version of things mentioned by Sandy. I suspect some sort of RfC or similar might be required, so that we can ensure we're all on the same page going forward. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  DYK, ITN and OTD are not broad community processes. Anyone can add something to OTD, and they are basically chosen by one editor. DYK has similar issues. ITN has broader community input, but please (after the COVID debacle) don't pretend their quality is any better. FAs are vetted by the community; I think it apples and oranges to compare. Those processes have no correcting mechanism except for an admin to step in: the correcting mechanism for TFAs is FAR, and pretending that the mainpage content is error free (beyond what is on the mainpage) is folly. Whether or not you have used the word "emergency", we have an "emergency TFA" process, and we should define when that is engaged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  This doesn't answer the question which is fundamental to whether this was an emergency or not: is TFA designed to improve really duff FAs (like today and yesterday's before it was pulled) or is it designed to demonstrate to the readers that the project produces excellent material than can be used and relied upon? If the former, then by no means were we in emergency territory either yesterday or today, we just had TFAs which were the lowest quality target articles on the main page, ripe for improvement. If the latter, then we had two emergencies where the FAs really needed to be pulled as they clearly didn't promoted Wikipedia in a good light at all (to our readers who don't much care about "anyone can edit", they care about "can we rely on Wikipedia"), so once again, what is the purpose of TFA? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I think our only question here is "when do we pull a TFA". We aren't producing enough FAs to guarantee that we can always run recently promoted TFAs, or that even those will assure "perfection". Considering the reality, working to sort through those that haven't run TFA via WP:URFA/2020 is productive, and all we can do is figure out under what circumstances do we pull the deficient. Criticism is easy, but sitting at a computer for hours at a time to figure out how to balance quality, diversity, date relevance, and resource starvation is quite demanding. I aim for practicality. And no matter how much we say we didn't intend to criticize, when a TFA has to be pulled, the person who had to sit at their computer for a ton of hours to sort through hundreds of potential TFAs, and competing demands, is going to feel the brunt of the criticism. Ours is to figure out how to help rather than (in Guerillero's words) "freeform complain". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  We should pull a TFA when it is very clear even from a cursory glance that it no longer represents the best work on Wikipedia. Running the terrible article we insisted on keeping on the main page today will have done no good to the project at all, it will have undermined confidence in what this project is claiming to be a worthwhile endeavour. This is not about scheduling FAs or sorting potential TFAs or FAR or anything like that, this is about the few rare instances where the quality is so compromised that it's obviously going to be harmful to run it on the main page claiming it to be representative of Wikipedia's finest articles. If, however, the remit of TFA is now to encourage readers to get stuck in and improve the purported finest article on the main page, that's a different matter altogether and "emergency" pulling takes on a whole new definition. That's why I want to understand what the community think the purpose of TFA is. No-one seems to be prepared to answer that, and that's what we need to focus on right now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Context; please have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics#By year and Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020: the latter can be sorted by TFA date to reveal how many very old (2004–2009) and old (2010–2015) FAs have not yet run TFA. FAC is no longer producing 365 FAs per year, while there are still plenty of old TFAs that can be run. The TFA Coords have multiple challenges before them: quality is one factor in scheduling TFA, but so are mainpage diversity, date relevance, editor consensus at TFA/R, and others. To maintain diversity on the mainpage with fewer broad topics being promoting at FAC, the Coords must increasingly rely on the older FAs.

This was one of the main reasons that URFA/2020 was launched-- to systematically identify and address issues in the older FAs, and provide a sortable format that the Coords could use to see which have been marked "Satisfactory".

So, we have a deficient TFA today, Cheadle Hulme, which I have now noticed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, which means if issues are not addressed within a few weeks, it can be submitted to WP:FAR.

Could we use this as an example to help define when we use the "emergency" TFA and pull an article from the main page?

My personal view is that one bad TFA (as long as it's not a BLP or Copyvio issue) is not going to break the Wikipedia. And I prefer to view the glass half full rather than half empty. The very good news is that one of the editors who is combing through and identifying issues is a recent participant at FAR, who came there because of the WP:URFA/2020 effort. So an important objective has already been achieved; more scrutiny on older FAs, and more participation to clean them up via FAR. I don't see any harm in letting it complete the day at this stage of the game, as it can serve to demonstrate how the overall process (FAC, TFA, FAR) works.

But that still leaves the issue of defining how/when to engage the "emergency" pulling of the TFA in the future. As we must increasingly rely on older FAs, and hopefully if more and more editors start combing through TFAs, we are likely to see more of this. How "bad" does it have to be to pull it, and how is that measured? Please remember that whatever criteria is set up, it could be applied to something you wrote in the future, and I don't think we'd all want a TFA to be pulled because someone rightfully put a jargon cleanup needed tag on the article. My suggestion, because we are this far into the 24-hour UTC cycle, is to let this article run, and use it as an example to help define processes that will be more useful for the future. My own preference is that I have no problem with admitting that no FA is perfect, and the deficiencies in this FA aren't harming anyone, so letting it run at this point can be more useful in the big picture than pulling it. We need to give solid information about when to pull a TFA, and encourage editors to engage FAR and WP:URFA/2020 rather than complaining about the state of the FA pool overall, which won't solve the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I agree with you that freeform complaining isn't going to help this cause any and that Cheadle Hulme should live out the rest of its time on the main page --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So, if everyone viewing this discussion will go review one old or very old FA that has not yet run TFA (or any other old TFA for that matter, as TFA is now using re-runs), and add their notes to the article talk page, with a link back to WP:URFA/2020, we will be on the right path.

And, by the way, 1080° Snowboarding is a very old FA set to run this month, so don't wait 'til the last minute to check it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It looks runnable to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

So, in the absence of solutions or definitions, how about this? At the time that a month is scheduled, volunteers go through and flag at WP:URFA/2020 any old FAs that have been scheduled for the month, so that other volunteers will have a unified place to pre-scan for problems? They can be flagged in the notes column with “TFA pending”, and anyone can then sort on that column to locate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that's a neat idea if you can find the volunteers, job done. But the point remains, terrible FAs will still make it to the main page, because of human nature and real life etc. What constitutes the need to replace one? Should today's have been replaced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would let one solution-based discussion happen— hence the new section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestion is fine (hope volunteers review the TFAs in advance), hence "job done", it's a no-brainer, but that doesn't answer the questions on when an emergency is an emergency and how to deal with them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I will try to do it --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Guerillero; one thing I do is to watchlist the first TFA page of the month, to know when the Coords start scheduling. Then the older ones for the month can be flagged at URFA, and hopefully that will trigger reviews. That does not guarantee that deficient FAs will not slip through, though, as WP:URFA/2020 does not include FAs promoted after 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If it would help, Sandy, I have the draft list for March prepared already, though I'm waiting to schedule to give the community a fair shot to nominate at TFA/R. I could send it to you (and anyone else who drops me a note by email) to allow more time for checking. Or I could simply post it somewhere, it's not secret.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Don’t want to create extra work, so will leave that to you ... but if you were to post it anywhere, the talk page of WP:URFA/2020 would get the attention of all the editors working on that effort. Or you could emai me and I will pick out the older ones ... but with my “growin’ old ain’t for sissies” health issues, Hog Farm is increasingly assuming leadership in the URFA effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Better to post it here I think. What others do with it then it’s up to them. I will try to get it done tonight but my time is very occupied right now.––Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Stepping down..

As I mentioned above, I've been considering this for a while, but I'm stretched too thin and something has to give. While I've mostly enjoyed being a TFA coord, and I've loved working with the others, it's a pretty hefty drain on my time and I'm tired of not being able to actually work on editing articles like I originally got involved with wikipedia to do. I will still remain as an FAC coord, but I told the other TFA coords a while back and now I'm making it official. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks you for the long hours and hard, selfless, thankless work. I am not disappointed in this news, as I think your talents are sorely needed at FAC. We have not even begun to address the FAs that came out of years of neglect of sourcing reviews while you were engaged here instead of there. You will be missed here, but appreciated where you are sorely needed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I really want to get back to editing articles some, quite honestly. And working on stuff outside Wiki has to take priority - I have a book to plan with another author as well as my own to work on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Understood, and I've been having similar thoughts. You've always understood what it means to be dedicated and professional, and it's been a pleasure working with you. You'll be missed at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it is now the right thing to do, having given so much over all the years. That you "really want to get back to editing articles some" is great news, frankly. Agree however with Dan's last statement. Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for all your hard work; it's much appreciated! Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 Pending TFAs from "very old" or "old" Unreviewed FAs

See WP:URFA/2020

@The Rambling Man, Amakuru, Floquenbeam, Guerillero, and Hog Farm:

1. Feb 7 TOMORROW, Margate F.C. is a 2007 FA that does not appear to have been updated for several years. TRM and Amakuru, might you and ChrisTheDude be willing or able to get on this post-haste? Margate F.C.#Return to Hartsdown Park seems to stop at 2016. (I will separately ping the talk pages of these football editors to make sure they see this ASAP.)

   Re Margate F.C., the article is pretty up-to-date. The history section doesn't mention anything since 2016 because nothing of note has happened -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   Whew, thanks ChrisTheDude-- that's a relief (momentary panic here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, as it happens I gave it a quick glance a couple of days ago and notifed it was mainly fine. I updated some attendance figures then and I think TRM made a few tweaks too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Amakuru, ChrisTheDude, and The Rambling Man: when you do this, marking the article “Satisfactory” at WP:URFA/2020 would save other editors from having to check, and help move old articles off that list ... which would also make it easier to locate the deficient FAs ... this one could go if you would all sign off, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Feb 16, Dermotherium is a 2011 promotion, nominator Ucucha who is hardly active.

   Not aware of significant new work on this animal since 2011, so not much updating needed.

   I'd be OK though with not running these fairly short unillustrated FAs that I wrote if we have other articles to showcase that can go into more detail. Ucucha (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

   Ucucha, it's not hard to guess that the Coords are always thrilled to run your articles, as they are sound :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Feb 19, SS Mauna Loa is a 2008 promotion; might we get Peacemaker67 or Parsecboy to give it a glance?

   Unclear why we are re-running a ship when we have so many ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC) OOPSIE, so sorry, I confused the ship with the volcano of the same name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   Sandy, this is an article about a ship. Named after the volcano. Feb. 19 1942 was the date when she was sunk in WWII with heavy loss of life, so it looks like it's being rerun for the date connection. Hog Farm _Talk 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Feb 25, Grey currawong is a 2010 Casliber promotion; Cas, have you been through?

   I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

5. Feb 26, Oryzomys gorgasi is another 2010 Ucucha promotion ...

   Coords, might I suggest not running two older FAs from one inactive nominator in the same month? Who can review both of Ucucha's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   @SandyGeorgia: The citations are a mess due to archiving some links but not others. I don't know how to deal with archive links in the Ucucha citation style. Would there be an objection to converting them to CS2 templates? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

   Guerillero Ucucha is around sporadically; it might be better to ask him. I wouldn't worry about perfection in citation formatting, and do you really want to take on the work of correcting them ? :) But it's up to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

   I'm OK with changes to the citation style, although it doesn't seem particularly useful since the citations are in a consistent style and they tell you where to find the sources. All but two of the sources are to physical journals and books anyway; the links are just for convenience. I don't think anything very significant has been published on this species since I wrote this article. I should get around to publishing the fact that is also occurred on Aruba though. :) Let me know if there's something specific you need my help with. Ucucha (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

6. Feb 27, The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is a 2010 promotion from a nominator who is no longer active; who can check that one?

   Fwiw, the The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is a Moni3 article and probably fine. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, but that's 10 years and we have to check that crap hasn't been plopped in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   @SandyGeorgia: I will take a look tonight --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 00:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

   Thanks, Guerillero, any that you review, if you can mark as “Satisfactory” at WP:URFA/2020, that is one less for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

   @SandyGeorgia: It is satisfactory. I need to tinker with the post-Moni citations to get them to the Moni format. But, it looks good to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

7. Feb 28, 1080° Snowboarding, is a 2008 promotion from a retired nominator.

   Looked at it yesterday, and again today, and I think it's fine. I've marked it as satisfactory. Hog Farm _Talk 21:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Hog Farm: I concur --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Lots of reviewing needed here. If you find deficiences, please note them on talk, and add a link to the talk note at WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all; it looks the rest of these are within the realm of reasonable, to better. On to March! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 tentative lineup

I'm posting this list, which is tentative, and I'm not cutting off TFA/R, to enable checking of article quality. This is something of an innovation and I don't take this as a precedent. "Free choice" means it was chosen by me, in all cases because there was nothing suggested for that day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Interstate 70 in Colorado (Moabdave) 2009 Roads. Free choice.

• I have newspapers.com access. Let me see if I can't find most of those page numbers --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 00:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not current.[3] [4] Run it anyway-- that's the sort of thing that may get fixed up while it is TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Lionel Matthews (Peacemaker67) 2020 Warfare, TFA/R.
3. Carmen (Brianboulton) 2012. Music. TFA/R (rerun)
4. Warren G. Harding (Wehwalt) 2015. Politics. TFA/RP (100th anniversary of inauguration)
5. Riegelmann Boardwalk (Epicenius) 2021. Architecture. Free choice.
6. Northern voalavo (Ucucha) 2011. Biology. Free choice
7. The Grand Budapest Hotel (DAP) 2020. Movies. TFA/R
8. Women's poll tax repeal movement (SusanW) 2021. History. TFA/R (International Women's Day)
9. Paper Mario: The Origami King (Panini!) 2021. Video Games TFA/R
10. Battle of the Aegates (Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare TFA/R
11. Typhoon Maemi (Hahc21 and Hurricanehink) 2014. Meteorology. Free choice.
12. Limusaurus (FunkMonk) 2020. Dinosaurs. Free choice.
13. Lewis and Clark Exposition gold dollar (Wehwalt). 2014 Numismatics. Free choice
14. Nasr of Granada (HaEr48) 2020. History TFA/RP
15. Battle of Halmyros (Cplakidas) 2018. Warfare TFA/RP
16. Zino's petrel (Jimfbleak) 2010. Biology. Free choice
17. O Captain! My Captain! (Eddie891) 2021. Literature. Free choice.
18. Australian Journal of Herpetology (Bobamnertiopsis) 2020. Biology. Free choice
19. University of Washington Station (SounderBruce) 2018. Transport. TFA/R
20. Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany (Serial Number 54129) 2020. History. Free choice.
21. Sirius (Casliber) 2008. Astronomy. Free choice (rerun for the equinox)
22. HMS Princess Royal (1911) ( Sturmvogel 66 ). 2011 Warfare. Free choice.
23. Lewis (baseball) (Therapyisgood) 2020 Sports. Free choice.
24. Buruli ulcer (Ajpolino) 2020. Medicine. Free choice.
25. Biblioteca Marciana (Venicescapes) 2020. Architecture. TFA/R
26. Hi-5 (Australian group) (Satdis) 2021. Music. Free choice
27. Sennacherib (Ichthyovenator) 2021. History. TFA/R
28. Manned Orbiting Laboratory (Hawkeye7) 2020. Engineering/Space. Free choice
29. Hannah Glasse (SchroCat) 2019. Food and Drink. Free choice.
30. Dresden Triptych (Ceoil, Victoriaearle) 2013. Art. Free choice.
31. Dr. No (novel) (Schrocat) 2016. Literature. Free choice. (Anniversary of publication)

• Comment Unless one of articles that listed as TFA was protected long time ago, they will be receive high level of IP vandalism. It is the arena that vandals can edit in bad faith. 182.1.230.155 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• That is flat out untrue. Most TFAs get minimal vandalism when on the main page, and every study that has ever been conducted shows that the majority of IP edits are at minimum in good faith. ‑ Iridescent 08:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Other than concerns already mentioned at the talk page of WP:URFA/2020 (about Sirius), nothing else here sends up red flags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson TFA

See #14th Feb SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Moved from WP:Main Page/Errors

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned to see Heaven Upside Down as today's featured article, given https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/marilyn-manson-dropped-manager-1124545/ and similar developments. As editors, we realize that a topic being featured doesn't imply any endorsement of the topic itself, just the quality of its article, but that's something many readers may not understand. Given that 99% of the recent news coverage of Manson has been about the abuse allegations, readers are going to assume we're featuring it because of the allegations, not because of whatever actual reason we chose it months back, and when they click on it, they're going to be confused to not see any coverage of the allegations (WP:NOTNEWS is likewise something that most readers don't thoroughly understand the way experienced editors do). We could be featuring any other FA right now, so I wish we'd scheduled something that doesn't make us come off as tone deaf at best. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I expected to see something like this here today. It's unfortunate on a number of levels, but I wonder that pulling it would only worsen the matter. (Wondering again what having implemented this before the fact would do...) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not really an error. Please consider moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article and talk to the TFA co-ordinators. Please also be encouraged to check out the queue of upcoming TFAs and participate in the selection of TFAs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This was avoidable. At least six women just accused Manson of abuse. I know we're WP:NOTCENSORED, but featuring his album right now just seems tone deaf. gobonobo ^{+ c} 05:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators With respect to the many victims of Marylin Manson, please change today's featured article. Tacit approval ( or ignorance at best) of rape and abuse is unacceptable on a site that aims to be neutral and academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.232.213 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This was raised above, 10 days ago. (see #14th Feb). I thought it had been changed; what happened? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that was a different article (Nine Inch Nails live performances, and removed for quality reasons. gobonobo ^{+ c} 06:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it was not; please reread #14th Feb. We discussed this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You're totally right. gobonobo ^{+ c} 06:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we're only a quarter through this TFA's period, I'd strongly support replacing it. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that is probably for the best. I have a lot of respect for the editor who worked on the article, but the timing is rather inappropriate right now as already discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators Pinging the coordinators. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we talked about replacing it, suggestions were given above, and it should be replaced. This was discussed in several threads on this page. The ball was dropped here. A suggestion was given in the 14th Feb discussion above. Just replace it; the Coords were already asked about this 10 days ago, and nothing was done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Triumph of Cleopatra SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Iridescent: for a blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  The civility policy prevents my saying what I want to say in response. Writing blurbs for visual arts articles takes an hour at minimum, since it involves carefully cropping and resizing images and experimenting with different display widths (a detailed painting like this is incomprehensible at 150px if shown in full), and I've no intention of doing it with zero notice just because the delegates have changed their minds. I particularly have no intention of doing it for a topic like this where we actually have the genuine date significance of a 200th anniversary coming up in three months. ‑ Iridescent 07:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Allrighty then ... Hog Farm mentioned above on this page that he would offer Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment as an emergency TFA,[5] and there is a blurb at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, I have not pinged Hog Farm as he just had a concussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, the M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service article I led the development of an nominated has just passed a FAC, and I'd be happy to volunteer it as an emergency FAC for use now (or later). Gog the Mild prepared an excellent blurb at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service/archive1 which is good to go. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm reading the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced it because there seems to be consensus for the change. If anyone sees there are things that need to be done beyond the RECENTLIST and the changes to the talk pages of the two affected articles, I'd appreciate it if they would just do it. Whether articles replaced mid-day should be eligible to run again or should be listed as having run can be discussed at some point. My thanks to Nick-D for their willingness to have their article run.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Wehwalt Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)