Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Proposal re sports

I propose as follows: Sports articles, for purposes of similarity, are deemed broken down into two groups:

1. Articles on individuals, whether athletes or not (i.e., including managers, coaches, owners, and so forth), including non-human athletes such as horses.

2. All other sports articles.

Regardless, two articles dealing with the same sport (defined broadly, so that college football and pro football are the same sport) are similar.

This proposal shall not affect the points of any article (Stoke City, the Grand Prix) now on the project page.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Works for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that is fair, although I wonder if horses should actually fall in that category. Jockeys, yes, but horses? Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I struck out the language on horses. Leave that for another day, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Jockeys yes, horses... no. We DO have two horse bio FAs (and eventually will have more... )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)
  • If the proposal is to add this to the instructions, I oppose. If the proposal is for rough consensus to treat articles this way in terms of assigning points, fine, but if you start sub-sectioning categories with this level of precision in the instructions, everyone will want to spell something out and the instructions will be a page long. This can be handled without instruction creep, via !voting and consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it is the latter. It might not be a bad idea to add a couple of sentences to footnote three on the project page, explaining this, once consensus is reached. And it isn't a too fine level of detail, it is just a pragmatic solution to a repeated problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

I'd like to nominate this article for front page for November 15 2008. I have chosen this date as it is around the 'middle' of November 2008, which is the month given in a report dated June 1808 (referenced in the article here) stating that the canal would be complete throughout (and hence fully open to navigation) by "November 1808". While no exact date of opening is known, I think that it's worth nominating the article at this time especially considering that November 2008 would be the 200th anniversary of the completion of the canal - so 6 points? An important stage of restoration has only very recently been completed (not the same month, but still nearly 200 years since original completion - see here). Also, this is the first UK waterway article to be awarded FA status. The last canal to appear on the front page was Panama Canal over 2 years ago, and I have not had an article on the FP before - and am a significant contributor to this one. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be nine points then. Can I suggest you wait until around two weeks before, then, before you nominate it? No one is going to knock nine points off the page. You don't want to tie up a slot for a full month, but if you nominate too early, people may oppose based on that alone. In the meantime, I've added it to the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. This is my first time and I'll inevitably make some mistakes, so I'm happy to accept whatever advice that others with more experience can offer. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You CAN add it anytime after Raul schedules Oct 16. As a matter of courtesy and practical politics, I'd wait, as I said, to around November 1 before adding it. I put it on the template, by the way, as you can see.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look again on Nov 1st. Should I delete this section, or just leave it? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Parrot, you should know that the strategy proposed by Wehwalt leaves you at risk of missing your date, in the event Raul schedules significantly in advance, as he sometimes does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Raul has not scheduled two weeks in advance in the whole time I've been on this page, about four months. And besides, you are seeking anytime in November, so if lightning struck and he did, you'd still be OK. However, if you want to nominate earlier, please feel free. I have not seen anyone suffer from nominating in the two week range, which I believe is optimal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok I will wait then - I'd rather 'go with the flow' and not upset anyone by doing things differently. Thanks for the advice. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anniversary points

Do articles which cover multiple events occuring on the same day get points for just one of the anniversaries or all of them? So, just 2 points for 120 years but no points for 38 and 167 years, or 2 points for 120 years plus a point for 38 years plus a point for 167 years making four points in total? DrKiernan (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd get the points for the higher scoring anniversary, so in that case, 2 points, period.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Message on nominee's talk page?

I was wondering if we should develop a standardized message to be put on the talk page of nominees for TFA. It might draw in more of the community to the discussion. It might also become part of the article history.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs less discussion, not more. DrKiernan (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you work that out? I would say that putting it on talkpages brings more people's attention towards it, thus the likelyhood of a full consensus is higher. D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to me and it is consistent with other Wikipedia practices, such as FAC, PR and LOCE in the olden days. See User:thedemonhog/Sandbox. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That looks really good IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we implement, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't come here often so seeing this on a talk page would be great. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unhappy with this template; respectfully request that it be db-authored, as we just got this page functioning decently and we don't need vote stacking and additional talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Further concerns now that I've looked closer, the template isn't being applied equally to all noms, and it isn't being removed when articles are scheduled, adding unnecessary talk page clutter. No, this template needs to be deleted. It's application results in uneven vote stacking. This is not like an AfD or a FAC, for example, where the template is part of the process; this is an optional template which is applied unequally and amounts to canvassing. Please db-author it. Who is going to remove them all when pages are scheduled, and who is going to check that all requests carry them equally, so that the end result is not canvassing? And just when this page began to function effectively, why add an element of canvassing that won't be applied equally on all requests, rather by those who know to use it? Not to mention instruction creep, which is already an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how it is different from any other talk page banner or how it is any more of a hassle to remove/add the template. And if we are worried about talk page clutter, we can enable that function that aligns it to the right and makes it smaller. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Six on the page

I unwatched this page a while back, but I see there is a one-pointer straggling at the bottom of the page that has been there for a week, without ever being added to the chart. Anybody maintaining this page still? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its been there less than an hour. I readded it to the que becuase it had removed it to get New Jersey back up some weeks ago. It seems that the edit I may to readd the article and an edit you made to update the table chart were so close enough togather that neither one of us noticed :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
ah, ha, I see ... no wonder it didn't make sense to me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Case closed! Too bad all problems can't be solved so easily. (Like Vandalism). (And Copyright infrigment). (And poor spelling). (And...well you get the idea :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Panic of 1907

The article was recently promoted and although it is very much relevant to recent global economic shifts, it doesn't score any points on the current system. I'll be frank and say I think it would be a crediability booster to the project to have this on the main page as soon as possible; but as I say, it scores no points. Procedural advice would be welcome. Thanks. Ceoil sláinte 09:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Add a request and say that it scored no points. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. However, due to Tulip mania on September 30, I'd score it at minus two right now. What I would suggest you do is add the request, schedule it for the first open date, make your case, and hope no one replaces it. This page has not been busy, it might slide through. Isn't October 23 open? Incidently, I'm not promising my support, as I think putting Tulip mania main page fulfilled any credibility requirement for WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It sems it less than no cance, but fine; I'll suggest anyway. <ahem> Ceoil sláinte 14:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to wait for a vacancy. Watch for Raul to schedule Oct 20, which will happen in the next ten hours, then add. And you can try more than once, the New Jersey was added to the request page three or four times. Try to format it like the others, and pick a specific date. Don't worry, if it is non format, others will help out to get it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok will do. Ceoil sláinte 14:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I just msg Raul. Ceoil sláinte 14:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ceoil's comment that started this thread. This is a magnificent article, deeply resonant with the current economic situation, and would be perfectly gorgeous on the main page in short order. Kudos to all who worked on it. The credibility of our project goes way up every time we feature something as good and relevant as this, in a timely way. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The only downside I see to this is that we just had Tulip mania on Main page, and if we have two articles about financial panics/bubbles in a short period of time, I'd be afraid people will think we're trying to make a point. Especially in this election season ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask who actually outside of Wikipedia notes what's on the main page. Do people outside of Wikipedia question articles that are on the main page? D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they question them, but they certainly have an effect. For those who don't know about this tool, can you tell which day Tulip mania was on the main page? It's interesting to note the fall-off in traffic afterwards, but continued interest. Considering how well the Panic of 1907 article adheres to NPOV I don't think that point-making would be a problem, but I understand that it could be a potential issue with main page choices. Antandrus (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont think its reasonable to presume anyone would care that we featured two finance articles within the space of a few weeks. Considering what is going on in the global economic climate, we should stick this up, and say "see we are not just about video games and hurricanes". Ceoil sláinte 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page feature

Just out of interest, as I really want to nominate a feature for the front, how many of the featured articles nominated here actually go on to make it as the main page piece? -- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

About 80 to 90 percent. If it has a decent number of points (at least 3), it rises even higher.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting situation

Ok, so I see that PlayStation 3 is on the list at 2 pts for a Nov TFA, seems completely reasonable. However, I do note in the planner that there's another VG article (Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of time) that would also fall as a Nov TFA but would gain 3 pts (primarily for anniversary). Obviously those of us from the VG project don't want to flood TFA with VG articles (a valid concern) but here's a case I think that knowing there's two conflicting articles in the same, overrepresented category that I think we're rather go with one that has better score (in this case, a 10 year anniversary as opposed to a 2 year one). I've asked the person that put the Zelda game to get a TFA request up (we've only got 4 listed on the TFA request page, and I can't do it myself since it would wreck the point value), so I don't know if the discussion will take that into account.

Maybe there's some part of this system where, in the cases of over-represented topics, that instead of replacing the lowest score topic on the list with an over-represented one, that it should replace any other instance of the same over-represented field as long as the point value is clearly higher. For example, take the same situation above but where we have 5 articles listed on TFA, one being the PS3 one (at 2pts), and a under-represented topic that only has 1 pt (I don't think it can by definition of under-represented, but hang with me). Instead of a new VG article at 3pts taking the place of the under-represented topic, it should take the place of the topic in the same field. Of course, several under-represented topics can display that itself, but at least, as in the case here of video games, if there's multiple possible requests in an overly-represented field, selecting only the best one per the point system makes sense. --MASEM 07:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I'd agree with that. We have enough rules as it is. This can be handled by replacing an article with fewer points by one with more points, or if that won't work because the article in question isn't the lowest point scorer, by voting "oppose" and using the fifty percent rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not following the discussion correctly, but the easiest solution is to just replace the 2-pointer with the 3-pointer; the tally is still 3 points. What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed

In case anyone is interested in the tasks, Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page hasn't been updated for eight weeks (since September 1), and the bot that indicates the TFA at WP:FA has been busted for several days. Someone should monitor that, bold the TFAs that were missed, and notify the bot owner that he's busted again. More info at User:SandyGeorgia/FA work. The articles that haven't been on mainpage needs to have all of the promotions since Sept 1 added, and demotions and TFAs removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a hack at it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Grr, I just lost close to an hour's work in a power outage... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

I've never nominated an article for mainspace before, but I thought that Halloween III: Season of the Witch would be perfect for Halloween. Remember (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like The Simpsons has secured the spot. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That's okay. That one is cool too. Remember (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I asked Raul for the spot a while ago and he agreed. I kind of regret that now, because it would have been cool having Mary Shelley on the main page that day. Still, I'm not complaining. -- Scorpion0422 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I kind of regret that this went through back channels instead of being put on the requests page "a while ago", because it will probably affect whether Doctor Who missing episodes goes up on Nov. 23. I've asked Raul for his opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul Report

Today's Featured article scheduling
Today Tomorrow Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

I thought I'd sure with you my latest discovery in the abuse of parserfunctions. Times are computed in UTC. — Dispenser 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

How on earth did a 5 point article with widespread support get bumped for the second time?—Kww(talk) 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the article being discussed directly above will get on. Why it can't wait, well, I don't know. D.M.N. (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm disappointed for Kww and AuburnPilot, who haven't had a TFA yet. Thinking back, didn't Sandy express concerns that we might outrage the family by running it on her birthday? Perhaps we should renominate for another day as a four pointer. Of course, if this article is on the unpublished list of articles that are not to appear on the main page, it would be good if we were told that, so we could avoid wasting the community's time. We don't aspire to be the Harold Stassen of TFAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Correction before this archives, no, I don't believe I ever mentioned "outrage" anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooops - I wrote down the wrong request date. I'll fix it momentarily. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Raul. It is greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page

FYI - If you create your monobook.css file with: 

.has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }

You can then go to WP:FA and easily see those featured articles that haven't been on the main page. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css; thank you, Gimmetrow ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't I put it in my monobook.js file, or would it have no effect whatsoever - does it have to be a .css file? D.M.N. (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimme put mine in a .css file, even though I have a .js file, so I assume it has to be done that way; Raul's is also in a .css file. See the discussion on my talk.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The .css is for visual presentation (that is only changes appearance). While .js file is for programming related (CSS modfications, add/removing/changing content, functionality/interactivity, etc.). — Dispenser 04:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
javascript:void(appendCSS(".has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }"))

For those of you who don't want to install anything; paste the above into the address bar on WP:FA and hit enter to see the color change. It can also be used as bookmarklet. — Dispenser 04:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


Ernest Shackleton

Trolling through the FAs, it strikes me that Ernest Shackleton, if run on Jan 9, would be a good choice, the centennial of his establishing a "Farthest South" record, and would be at least six points. Still early to add it to the template, but I'm putting it here for discussion and so I don't forget. I have no connection with the article; I've never edited it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just seen this. I strongly believe that Ernest Shackleton is not the right article for 9 January. The proper article to celebrate the centenery of his Farthest South record is Nimrod Expedition, during which the record was set, and I have a long-standing note to myself to nominate this article for FP on 9 January 2009. The Shackleton article has recently had a complete overhaul, with extensive rewriting and additional sections, and still needs going over with a fine toothcomb before it is ready for front page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Three men from Nimrod Expedition claimed to have been the first to find the South Magnetic Pole on 16/17 January 1909. Seems like a better dates. Halgin (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Notifications

A recent post, "Sure would have been nice to know Giant Otter was going up today"[1]. This something that happened to me too, as a result of the fact that I dont allow bot edits on my watchlist and missed the article history update. I would be prepared to take on the job of notifying nominators that their article have been scheduled, but am not sure how to spot them as they arise. Anyone know what is the best page to watchlist? Ceoil sláinte 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all of the upcoming unscheduled TFA pages (for example, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 26, 2008); then you'll know when Raul schedules them. Alternately, watch Raul's contribs. If interested, you can also add the maindate parameter to the articlehistory on each page as Raul schedules them (GimmeBot does them if I don't).[2] More info/detail at User:SandyGeorgia/FA work#TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The first two suggestions were easy, and I've watchlisted the last days of October, and will me minful to stalk Raul ;) I'll take on the maindate parameter as I'm at it, to spread the load. Ceoil sláinte 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still adding the maindates;[3] it would be great for others to pick up this task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidential candidates - winner on November 5; loser on November 6

I am sure someone has already thought about it, but after the 2008 US presidential election, it might be nice if the winner was featured as the main page article (since both McCain and Obama are FAs). The loser can be on the main page the next day (or not at all if people think that is too much US Politics in a short period). Thoughts? Remember (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama has already been featured on the main page, almost four years ago. -- Scorpion0422 18:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful idea - I note in the rules "Please nominate only one article at a time. The article must not have been previously featured as Today's Featured Article," but in this case, with some support from others, rules are made to be broken i.e. WP:IAR Smallbones (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What if we don't know the winner in time? What if there is disagreement over the winner? Such things have been known to happen. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be extremely scared at the state of those articles the day after the elections if they are anything but fully protected in the 24-48 hrs before those dates. An article about US election practices or the Presidency or anything generic like that would be good on the 4th, but not anything specific for 2008. --MASEM 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, not a bad idea, but difficult to implement. They will be heavily vandalized without protection. And with full protection both are guaranteed to be out of date on the night of the 4th. Even with a vigilant vandalism reversion squad it will be difficult to simultaneously update them with the new information, keep the FA quality, and fight off the vandalism.Dave (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Will not know who wins for the November 5 TFA. Wikipedia posts TFA based on UTC. Mosted polls are not closed for several hours due to Time zones. Halgin (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, I'd think it would be better though to run the loser on January 3 (opening day of Congress, although that can vary a bit, well, whatever it is, as the loser will still be a member of the Senate) and the winner on January 20.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Besides, folks will vote on November 4, but the 44th U.S. president won't actually be chosen until mid-December :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
How about the winner on inauguration day? Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that I think about that, how do you handle the change of status from President Elect to President in midday? Best to run it on the 21st then, at least it will start in the evening of the 20th in the US, while the balls and so forth are going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be a bad idea to run any kind of American politics related article for at least a few months. Otherwise, any article you run would bring on some kind of accusations of wikipedia bias. -- Scorpion0422 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We've never put the same article on TFA twice, have we? Since Barack Obama was on the main page in 2004, isn't this discussion moot? In the unlikely event that McCain wins, we could discuss putting him up on Inauguration Day, but since one of the two candidates is ineligible for TFA, this discussion seems rather pointless to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, McCain is entitled to AGF too, ya know! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that Raul would be crazy to put up these articles on those dates without a lot of suppport here, e.g. for what might be considered a controversial posting by some editors, and to help with vandalism patrol. But most of the above objections have easy answers. The Obama article from 4 years ago really isn't the same as today's Obama article - and the "rule" (as far as I can see) is not a policy, but only a strong suggestion (that usually makes a lot of sense) on the TFA request page. As far as a US bias - my experience is the the US Presidential election is followed all over the world - perhaps even more strongly outside than inside the US. Any change in status can be carefully planned well ahead of time. Given the current polls, I don't think anyone expects a repeat of the 2000 difficulties in coming up with an apparent winner. Vandalism will occur on these articles no matter what, but they are already being patrolled effectively and are semi-protected. If people really wanted to do this, we could do it well. Otherwise fuggetaboutit. Smallbones (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the presidential candidates have a place in the featured article section on this day . There is a section to the right called 'in the news' that is a much more suitable home for this information. Obama has already been featured so shouldn't re-appear, which leaves using McCain as the source of claims of bias in Wikipedia. Personally I'd choose an article as far from US politics as possible - many people around the world will perhaps be rather sick of the US election on that day... Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should take the featuring four years ago as decisive. IAR and all that. But I wonder about systemic bias. Jan 20 arguably the better date. Marskell (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion - both Obama and McCain as FA on Nov. 4

Break the rules and have two featured articles for November 4, both the Obama and McCain articles. See below for an example. Remember (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts anyone?

  • I kinda like this. They are certainly relevent articles, and this provides a unique solution to what could be a contentious issue. I dig it! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Very cool idea. Maybe have them side to side instead of top/bottom is the only suggestion I have. Wrad (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you know how to do the coding for this, please do a mock up. Also, if you think there is enough support for this could someone please formally nominate this idea on the main page so it will be discussed along with the Harriet Tubman suggestion. Remember (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Or we could combine them into one blurb instead of two. Wrad (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Even with this arrangement, I really really caution this for two reasons. The first is the obvious vandalism issue and unless steps are taken now to fully protect these, the end result linked from the front page may be rather laughable. The second is that this sets a slippery slope precedent - I don't doubt the impact of the US elections on the world, but this is a systematic bias. What happens with another significant country (Canada, England, Russia, etc.) holds their elections? Should we clear the way to make all candidates have a front page spot? What if one candidate's article is not FA in time for that but the other(s) are, do we run that anyway? I'd rather not see that slope started here. --MASEM 18:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a problem with the slippery slope argument. I would think that you could set a bright line rule being that whenever there is a national election where the major candidates have both of their articles up to FA status then it is appropriate to have them share the FA of the day. If one article isn't up to FA status, then you don't use either one that day. I really don't think this will be an issue in the future since I doubt that there will be a high occurence of situations where both major candidates will have their articles up to FA status on election day. And even if it does occur in the future, then that is not a bad thing becuase it just means that we will be featuring highly relevant FA content on that day. Remember (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I watch Arabic news regularly, and they never discuss Canadian politics. They discuss American politics very frequently. This isn't systemic bias, it's an international news issue. Wrad (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, with regard to the "prevent vandalism" arguement, I don't see how keeping them off the main page is likely to limit the vandalism to these articles. I fully expect a shitstorm of vandalism leading right up to the election, regardless of whether or not these are on the main page. I don't see the main page feature as actually increasing this vandalism in any marked way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And we've broken the protection rule for the front page before, with Islam. I think semi-protection is justifiable. Wrad (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It would be stongly adviseable to stay away from US political stuff as much as posible over the next week. We do not need people thinking wikipedia and politics together.Geni 05:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Different layout

John Sidney McCain III Barack Hussein Obama II

United States Senators John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) and Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) are presidential nominee for the major Republican and Democratic parties in the 2008 United States presidential election.

McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. [...]

Obama is graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama [...]

I didn't the duplicate content, so here's another alternate version. Maybe we should add red/blue box around the images? Ideas for the blurbs:

  1. One blurb of what they have in common
  2. blurb about their life in politics
  3. blurb about their lives outside of politics

The order was presented this way since McCain photo was facing inward. Other issues concern around length and topic of each blurb. Both articles should likely be semi-protected 1-3 day ahead, but less than 4 day to prevent the creation of sleeper accounts. — Dispenser 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More standard layout

  • NOTE the edit conflict with the above. I think it's obvious that McCain should be on the right, and Obama on the left (but McCain on top because of seniority) Smallbones (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and made the blurb so that it might be proposed formally, but

  • 1 this needs widespread support. Probably about half of all wikipedians will hate it, and half love it. So I'd like to see that support here. Having lots of supporters will take most of the burden off of Raul in justifying this to the community at large, and the supporters will in effect be commiting themselves to vandalism control that day. I'd also suggest that any admins looking at this page comment about issues of protection. I count 4 supporters so far, including myself, and about as many against. On the request page, I think it needs 75% support to be considered by Raul. I wouldn't make the request unless at least 10 editors support it.
  • 2 you'd need to figure out how to get 3 points to put it on the request page. I count 2, 1 for the date and 1 for vital topic. If User:Remember nominated it, that's probably another point for 1st time nominator.

Smallbones (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. In October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture and refusing an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer; his war wounds left him with lifelong physical limitations. (more…)

Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 United States presidential election. Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, he worked as a community organizer, served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70 percent of the vote. (more…)

In terms of increased vandalism, I just want to mention somewhere in this discussion that school holidays (our schools are off on election day) are huge vandal fighting days for me on the articles I watch, as they all get hit by kids home for the day, playing on the internet. I rarely have time to watch additional articles on school holidays. I think this whole thing is a very slippery slope: I'm glad it's Raul's decision. We just *happen* to have both candidates featured this time around; probably a very unusual circumstance, but raises a lot of questions about future elections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Presumably these articles will be linked from "In the News". Organize the text/picture for that, not for some unusual "today's featured articles". Gimmetrow 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to type the same thing. –thedemonhog <:Perhapssmall>talk • edits 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Another consideration against this is that we are effective ignoring the third party candidates (which we know they are WP:SNOW, but still). WP is not a public media channel so there's no requirement for us to provide equal airing, but from the standpoint of trying to show a lack of bias and our free content mantra, to completely ignore the other 5 tickets (at least on my absentee ballot) does implicitly point WP as ignoring these. I agree that on Jan 20th, whomever wins can have their article up there, that's a perfectly reasonable solution, but on or immediately around an event such as the US election, make sure that TFA doesn't show any bias. (A similar case would be if SCOTUS is to be hearing a case on abortion, we should not have TFA that touch the subject with a ten-foot pole). --MASEM 14:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps use of flagged revisions would be useful and appropriate in limited circumstance, especially when TFA shows articles such as these or Islam that otherwise need protection. I have seen flagged revisions in use on wikinews, and think it would work well in this situation, though don't see the need for or consensus for broader use of flagged revisions. --Aude (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Side issue

Given the results and events of last election setting these up as being the 5,6 November are we sure that a result will be announced, will there be enough time for it to occur before the update at around 0:00 UTC time. I'd think it would be more appropriate to keep the winners article until inauguration, with the other article appearing at some other appropriate date. Gnangarra 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, another issue has also come up. After a discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#More_Obama-Drama and its subesquent sub-headings, all four biographies of the candidates (McCain, Palin, Obama, Biden) have been fully protected until after the election. I don't think there would be consensus to downgrade to semi even for a TFA appearance? -MBK004 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia won't crash and fall if people can't edit the main page article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If 4a

If 4a gets a run on the 4th I suggest that to give balance to all candidates addressing WP:UNDUE/WP:BIAS add the line For a comprehensive list of all 2008 Presidential candidates follow this link or something similar to the bottom of the TFA box Gnangarra 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that no part of the media will care that we only have Obama and McCain on the main page, but this sounds like a good idea. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't exactly object to this proposal, but I do think it's unnecessary. All the reliable sources treat McCain and Obama as the only nationally viable candidates. Ignoring the candidate for the Boston Tea Party isn't bias, it's realism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nov 4 discussion

Once November 4 is scheduled, I'll copy the request discussion to here, so we'll have a record for archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion below copied from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

November 4a

John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967, during the Vietnam War, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981, moved to Arizona, and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. He served two terms, was elected to the Senate in 1986, and re-elected in 1992, 1998, and 2004. (more…)

Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 United States presidential election. He is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, he worked as a community organizer, served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and was elected to the Senate in November 2004. (more…)
version 2
Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 United States presidential election. He is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, he worked as a community organizer, served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70 percent of the vote. (more…)
John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967, during the Vietnam War, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981, moved to Arizona, and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. He served two terms, was elected to the Senate in 1986, and re-elected in 1992, 1998, and 2004. (more…)
Tally: 28 supports and 12 opposes Nergaal (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Run an unprecedented double TFA, using John McCain and Barack Obama (per talk). Obama has already been on the mainpage, so this is an IAR, points not applicable. Let's get this up for opinions; someone add a blurb pls. (Although I added this, I should not be tallied as a Support; I abstain.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this proposed blurb passes the word count and space limits for the TFA; pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's a 1400-character limit, spaces counted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, it's our standard at TFA to use common names in blurbs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). I think we would be very ill-advised to deviate from our own standard here. Barack Obama and John McCain are the location of the articles and, per our own custom, should be the bolded names in the blurbs. --JayHenry (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good point, and I'm going to be bold and remove the middle names and suffixes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object to replacing the current McCain blurb (which takes him through his POW captivity and doesn't mention his political career) with the version I suggested below? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it for the side-by-side (V2) 709 characters + spaces for Obama, 706 for McCain. Evenness in space is important in that format, but it still doesn't look very even. Should the names be linked? Smallbones (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I tightened the prose very slightly to make the lines even (on my monitor; your mileage may vary). I suppose that since we've got "United States Senator" in the first sentence we don't need to say "U.S. House of Representatives" and "U.S. Senate" — it's clear enough from context. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(semi-outdent) Thanks. Why don't you replace the text in the over/under format as well, since it's likely that that's the one that would be used (see Raul's comments below)? If you want to improve even more, you might want to look at all the "He"s that I couldn't deal with on McCain. As far as the over/under format, it might become controversial who's on top (though nobody mentioned anything so far). Since I was the one who suggested it: I put McCain on top because there really isn't an objective way to choose, only traditional arbitrary ways. Seniority is important in the Senate and McCain is the senior senator. Another way might be alphabetical, but it comes up with the same result. Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the McCain text in the over/under format, but based on Raul's disinclination it may be academic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support- (of course). Remember (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose Changing vote because it will be seen as a bias to third party members, which have a very strong voice on the internet particularly. The fact that both articles will be fully protected will just enrage people more. To those unfamiliar with the site, it will be like we're saying "This is the authorized version of these articles, approved by us for advertising, and you can't change it even though we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit." The more I think about it, the more it gives me the heebie-jeebies. Wrad (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain and plead chicken; the potential for vandalistic problems and criticism of politicizing the mainpage scares me off. I would be fine with this running on November 5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Both of these articles are fully-protected until after the election (per Wikipedia:ANI#Should_the_election_bios_stay_full_protected_through_the_election). That should take care of the vandalism problems, but I think it is unprecedented to have a TFA fully-protected. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sandy for 4 November. I'd be fine with the winner on Inauguration Day, even an IAR for Obama. -MBK004 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally have a bigger problem with posting one article (alone) twice per IAR than I do with having two in one blurb. Wrad (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is far more neutral than featuring just the winner on Inauguration Day. I don't think the vandalism should be considered, given that most of it will be reverted and chances are that most of it will occur between three days. I don't really think that vandalism will be worse than any other article on TFA, even if its spread over two articles. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Would prefer Nov.4 for Tubman, and Nov.5 for this double. Also think widespread support very important when IAR is invoked. Nov.5 would minimize some of Sandy Georgia's concerns. How long should the blurb be: I see 23 lines, vs. 19,18, 26, and 27 on other articles.Smallbones (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think (not sure) it's 1400 characters including spaces, and they should be combined into one frame, with links to their articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I get 1439 characters with spaces, not sure about "combined into one frame" also the 2 space indent on McCain still throws me. McCain was easy to blurb, but the Obama one was harder. In short - I'll try if needed, but could somebody else give it a shot? Smallbones (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Trimmed a bit, updated to current articles. I get 694 + 692 characters with spaces. Will the extra picture cause any space problems? Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support putting McCain/Obama up. The articles will need to be semi-protected, and yes, Obama was on the main page in 2004. But think it's okay to ignore some rules in this case. I knew that Obama was a FA, but didn't realized that John McCain was a featured article, having missed it when it came to FAC. I'm very pleased that we have FAs for both candidates, which is the result of excellent work by those involved, and those maintaining the Obama page. --Aude (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support featuring both articles would be very neutral and an excellent choice for this date. I'm not sure if they should be both full protected though. Artichoker[talk] 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Screw Nader and Barr.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this idea. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Good idea. D.M.N. (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:IAR. Wikipedia should be proud that the articles for both candidates are FAs — why not advertise it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support! Wizardman 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, relevance with date. --maclean 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The proposed McCain blurb doesn't seem like a very good summary of the man's life to me — it ends with his release from captivity in 1973. I suggest this wording instead:

John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. During the Vietnam War, in October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981, moved to Arizona, and entered politics. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, he served two terms, and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election easily in 1992, 1998, and 2004. (more…)

Is that succinct enough to match the Obama entry? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I get 753 characters + spaces vs. 692 for Obama. Otherwise, I have no problem with this. Even having c+s almost equal might be seen as pandering to the "everything must be exactly equal" crowd. Smallbones (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a rule that we have to truncate the existing lede in the article, or are we allowed to summarize the lede? I would prefer Josiah's summary instead of the truncated version.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No, there's no such rule — most TFAs use a summary of the article's lede. In this case, we've got half the space for each article, so we'd need to have a shorter summary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Not the concept of a double TFA or IAR for Obama, but that this is very very bad political territory that may harm the reputation of WP. The winner on Jan 20 makes perfect sense (and agree with IAR for Obama if that's the case). However, this is poking a hornet's nest with a short stick - there will be vandalism galore (thus requiring full protection), and the lack of third party candidates (even if they are snowballs this election) could be seen by some as a political bias. Heck, I'll even suspect that people will complain about who is on top and who is on the bottom pre-election results. --MASEM 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the articles are already fully protected. As for 3d party candidates, they aren't featured articles, and the presidential debates excluded them too.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Users will be very very critical of neutrality and bias on this day, cause flame wars, yadda yadda. Would reccomend waiting until after the election. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I have no problem with having tie in to current events but we already have enough problems with political POV. This will make it even more imperative for politicians to have people white wash their articles. Gnangarra 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Showing both major candidates on the day of an election is very date related. Hopefully the vandalism and political problems won’t mar the picks. I'm not a big IAR supporter, but this seems great set of picks for this day. Halgin (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
but how do we handle other elections, what about bias why only two candidates are we saying the others arent worthy of note. How do we address the situation with a similar request for other countries like UK, Russia, India, Canada, France, Australia. What happens with the next US election candidates will hire editors to whitewash Wikipedia articles and get them to FA standard, consensus is a fickle beast we dont want create have problems with deliberate BIAS/NPOV into the furture. Gnangarra 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds to me like that old "parade of horribles" argument. Other elections we can handle on a case by case basis, if it gives people incentive to bring both major candidates to FA level, God bless. Won't happen often. As for the "infiltration by professional writers", that argument's been around for a while. Good luck bringing an article to FA level while making it so biased it would be worth it to the candidate, and yet so subtle it wouldn't be detected and corrected in what would be a closely watched FAC. Maybe it would flash subliminal messages? Is that the best you've got?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We can handle on a case by case basis, in this the request is an IAR. IAR is for when policies get in the way of building an encyclopedia, I given/hinted at WP:BEANS to the problems and issues such an action would create. So how is IAR going to benefit the building of WP, in light of the problems this raises to WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV and what long term benefit is there to Wikipedia? Gnangarra 08:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that putting these two articles on the front page raises any significant problems with WP:BIAS or WP:NPOV at all. The only way this will come up again in the future is if both/all the prominent candidates for a major election have articles which have reached FA. So what if a candidate hires someone to make their Wikipedia page a featured article? Other people will contribute to the article as well, and if the result is biased it won't pass FA. If the article is good and follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it doesn't really matter who wrote it. I don't see the problem here.
As for the long-term benefit to Wikipedia, it's that we will demonstrate that Wikipedia can create neutral, accurate and comprehensive articles about contentious subjects. How is that a bad thing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thats just the point WP hasnt written neutral and comprehensive articles about the 2008 election, all the major articles give prominance to these two candidates only. This is the WP:BIAS that already exists look at United States presidential election, 2008 it has photos of only two candidates in the infobox, then you read that article it isnt until following a link to List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008 that one finds an accurate list of all candidates.
The tie in directly with the election is the problem with this choice of articles thats because its not comprehensive, it has BIAS, and it isnt neutral. The reason behind this is the lack of FA quality articles for all the candidates, by association holding these two articles up and waving them around saying that Wikipedia can cover contentious subjects is just laughable. I recognise that the most likely the next President of the US will one of these people, but I have yet to see a reason to invoke WP:IAR If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
A possible solution is to add a section in the TFA box that links to the list of all candidates. For a comprehensive list of all 2008 Presidential candidates follow this link Gnangarra 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
All the reliable sources treat these two candidates as the only nationally viable candidates. Barr and Nader may have a small influence on the result, but there's no chance that either man will be the next President. Are you seriously suggesting that we should treat the Boston Tea Party's candidate as if he were equal to McCain and Obama? In this election, the third party candidates are a footnote, and it's not bias to recognize that fact; the TFA blurb is a summary, and minor details are properly omitted from summaries. That's not bias, that's realism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as Obama will be linked from "In the news" anyway. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This is a good idea. WP shouldn't duck from featuring extremely topical/political content, but celebrate that it can handle such content at a high-quality level. If you do it on November 5, the GMT start of day will cut in right around the reporting of results in the Eastern U.S., which would be kind of cool. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We are not a newspaper. Will this be done every four years? For elections in the UK will we have three featured articles? How about elections in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the largest English-speaking nation of all, India? Kablammo (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, we are not giving the news. We aren't stating who won the elections and who didn't. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support athough I would STRONGLY suggest to put them side-by-side rather than one on top of the other one. I bet it is doable, although it might require some editing skills... Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This would be an ok starting point:
John McCain (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. In October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing torture and refusing an out-of-sequence repatriation offer; his war wounds left him with lifelong physical limitations. (more…)
Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 United States presidential election. He is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, he worked as a community organizer, served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and was elected to the Senate in November 2004. (more…)

Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Place them the other way around: people in the US associate the democrats with the left and the republicans as the right, therefore IMO it would make sense to be the democratic candidate on the left and the republican on the right.
  • Although, right now they are looking in to the text. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a little more padding to the central vertical line so the words aren't quite so bunched up. I also bypassed the redirect to the rest of Barack Obama's article ("more" previously linked to Barack Hussein Obama II. It looks good on my 1280x800px display, but feel free to undo me if I broke it on yours.... J.delanoygabsadds 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - As a non-profit organization, Wikipedia cannot legally be seen supporting either candidate for election, if Wikipedia is taking public funds from the U.S. government.[4] Might want to feature the winning candidate on Jan. 20th, though. miranda 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how having both simultaneously is supporting either candidate. On the other hand, putting the winner might give the message that we are support the election (if the likelyhood is that Obama will win, and Wikipedia is already seen as a left-wing "organization" then the chance of misconception of us support Obama all along is much greater than someone interpreting who we support if we put both at the same time). JonCatalán(Talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
But again, we are given the two leading candidates coverage over the third-party ones. That's still a bias, despite the fact that the third parties have no serious chance in this election. --MASEM 04:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
ALL the articles on the election in the US have in the infobox ONLY candidates that have realistic chances of winning. When there were truly 3 candidates with decent chances, the template shows all three, but now there is only an infinitesimal chance that the others can pull anything. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Both articles are currently fully protected due to "preemptive" vandalism. Thus IPs and autoconfirmed users cannot edit these articles if both were to be featured on Nov. 4th. miranda 05:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not the meaning of this law. The law applies to supporting or opposing candidates, not providing information in a non-partisan manner for informational/educational purposes. Firstly, the law does not care about our main page. If this was the meaning of the law, then we've already violated it by having these articles. The exact same information is already on the project, and we're just debating here whether or not to put it on the Main Page. This is a prominence/site architecture issue-it is unrelated to the law. If you had correctly understood the law, or if there were a prominence provision, then we've already violated it by mentioning Obama and McCain multiple times at WP:ITN. --JayHenry (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Concerned with the width on the side-by-side view at 800x600 (it fits about 4-6 words per line). — Dispenser 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a frame/border around the McCain stuff and a frame/border around the Obama stuff? Anyone know how to do that?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, but a) side-by-side is better and b) perhaps with full protection of both pages on the day itself. Alert admins can edit where necessary in response to suggestions on the talk pages. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose using TFA for this. I have no great problem with having a double TFA, but I think this would be better in the In the News space, where the articles will need to at least be linked, and where some of the TFA text would probably be duplicated too. I think the TFA for the day should either be something general (if only United States presidential election, 2008 were FA), or completely unrelated. I would be happy with a former US president (eg, Grover Cleveland) for TFA except it could be taken as biased. Gimmetrow 14:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — This is an excellent idea, though I prefer the side-by-side format. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the bias concerns and the fact that Obama has already been on the main page. If this is done, I think the second version (with the bios side by side) is better. -- Zombie Scorpion0422 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. How often do we get two featured articles on politicians running against each other like this? To me this shows how far Wikipedia has come, that we can do this, that we got these two articles to FA in the midst of an epic U.S. presidential election. Yes, if we got Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg (how nice that their parties' strength also coincides with their alphabetical order!) up to FA status by the next British elections, we should do that too! Isn't some possibility like this an incentive to editors to do so? I say go for it (and put them side by side with Obama on the left and McCain on the right). Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. These articles really show Wikipedia at its finest. Despite the fact that this is one of the most brutal, down-to-the-wire elections in United States' history, Wikipedia's contributors have managed to make the articles about both major candidates pass our highest threshold of article quality. That's what Wikipedia is all about - putting aside our personal biases to collectively make something that benefits humanity as a whole. If we do put this on the Main Page, I like the side-by-side version better.
Unfortunately, they would have to be at least semiprotected —- I suppose that no one in their right mind would suggest unprotecting them —- and perhaps fully protected. If we do this, the articles should definitely be copy/pasted to a temporary cascade-protected page to prevent template vandalism. However, considering how many people watch those two articles anyways, combined with how many people (and others) watch TFA, we may be able to get away with semiprotection, even on that day. In any case, leaving TFA protected is not without precedent. J.delanoygabsadds 01:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If politician FAs are available, shall we be doing this on election day in other Anglosphere countries? If not, why not? And what about the rest of the world? Yes, most everyone on the planet has some interest in who becomes the U.S. president, but this is still systemic bias no matter how you cut it. And I would suggest that supporters who are American take a step back and consider it in these terms. I would support an IAR nom for Obama on inauguration day or perhaps next July 4. But politicizing the main page for the sake of an American election is not a precedent Wikipedia should set. Marskell (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strawman much? Where has anyone suggested that this only be available to Anglosphere countries, or not available to some parts of the world? Systematic bias goes both ways, and avoiding topics because they're political or US based is just that. Ben (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I don't strawman much (I didn't even know it could be used as a verb...). This is the English Wikipedia. When political partisans turn to the FA process during future elections it will likely come from the Anglosphere. So if we have a British election next year and all three party leaders are FAs do we do something like this again? I suspect it would get voted down. (If it were Sweden or Botswana or Ecuador it would get laughed off the request page.) Of course systemic bias does cut both ways: November 4 is an important day for the U.S. and I don't have a problem TFAing something related to the country. Hence my support for an American bio with some relevance to electoral suffrage above. But this proposal is one suitable for a news site, not an encyclopedia. Marskell (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I would wholeheartedly support the same thing happening for any other major election around the world. I do think it will be exceedingly rare that other candidates are both FAs but in that situation I would support that they be featured as well. Remember (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I do think it's a bit of a straw man, as there doesn't appear to be a single other country in the world that has leaders of both parties at FA. Moreover, though, I agree with Remember. Why shouldn't we encourage editors from every country to have the most important articles for their civic participation at the highest possible standard? To me, this is one of the greatest possible goods that Wikipedia could accomplish. IF we ever got to the situation where every country was always in the situation, then we could a) applaud ourselves for one of the Wiki's greatest accomplishments ever and b) find a new mechanism other than TFA to showcase our historic accomplishment. If the heads of the leading parties of Botswana are at FA status the next time Botswana has an election, I explicitly ask to be invited to this page so I can support it being featured prominently, so I may award barnstars to the editors who accomplished this highly laudable effort, and so I can troutslap whoever thinks we're taking slots from something more important. Geez, Marskell, I dream about the day where we have too many African politicians at FA. --JayHenry (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Marskell, why do you think people will oppose a similar proposal come the next Botswana election, provided the relevant FA's exist, any more than this one? It would be brilliant if Wikipedia were in a position to do this again, and I'd gladly support it. It seems you believe people have suggested that this should go up because it's a political or US topic, when in fact they suggested and supported it because, in your own words, November 4 is an important day for the U.S. and [they] don't have a problem TFAing something related to the country. I'm not picking on you here, a few others made similar comments, and it just happened your comment was the closest to my own support. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
  • Support. I'm not American, and I've only been following the election when major things pop up in the news, but I still think this is a brilliant opportunity for Wikipedia to show how far it has come. Ben (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support as long as (a) Josiah's summary is used and (b) Ms. Tubman gets a spot sometime soon. Don't force that article out, and completely screw the main contributor(s) to Tubman simply because of a (admittedly sweet) IAR idea, ok? If Tubman wouldn't get a spot on another day soon, I'd have to oppose strongly. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I think the idea of the "only once on main page" practice is that there are always going to be FAs waiting, and since we promote at the rate of more than one a day, that list is only going to get longer. However, we are still running one FA that day which has not been on mainpage (McCain), so I'd say it was OK. Agreed on Tubman.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Ed's suggestion (see below). But I must say, I think it is best to leave both candidates up, even on Nov 5. We'll put up Ms. Tubman on the 6th. (WP:NEU) —La Pianista (T•C•S) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm glad to see that both are featured. I would also say that we would find it hard to snag a more date-appropriate subject. Not only that, but this is our chance to show the world that we can produce quality, topical work on controversial subjects. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit break

  • Comment If we are going to go all IAR on everyone, why not leave (the winning or both(?)) candidates(s) there for the 4th and 5th? (Ok, assuming both stay on just for the sake of plurals) If people want to know who the people are after the election, look, there they are! This is special, because a chance like this won't come around again for four years...and who is to say that both will be featured then? I think that leaving one/them for both days this could generate some good press for Wikipedia too! .......what do you guys think? —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Slashed per Raul's comments below. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose that. Too cute, and too much. We're stretching a point, and I think this pulls it too far.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ed's nutshell idea per Wehwalt. Let's keep it as simple as possible. Smallbones (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not proposing this for its "cuteness" vale; rather, I prefer this because we will not have another chance to try this, and it will generate good press coverage for Wikipedia. Besides, two TFA's should be on for two days, right? :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 22:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I can see it now:
  • Chozick, Amy. "Still Don't Know Who The Candidates Are? Check Out Wikipedia!", Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2008, p.1
  • Nagourney, Adam. "Wikipedia runs two featured articles at the same time for two days", New York Times, November 6, 2008, p.1
  • Milbank, Dana. "Real election winner: Wikipedia", The Washington Post, November 7, 2008, p. A2
I kid of course, but we shouldn't be making our decision off hypothetical press coverage. You ask "why not" do this. We could easily ask "why not" do anything (and hope for good press--when frankly the press is unlikely to be watching or caring). It's getting it all backwards. We're already suggesting a pretty bold pushing of the envelope (that a lot of editors are already uncomfortable with). So to push it even further we'd want a really coherent reason to do that. Why are we trying this? What, exactly, are we even trying? We have answers to those questions for running articles about presidential candidates on the day of their election. We don't have clear reasoning at all for why we'd do it again the next day. I would imagine that once the election is called the winning candidate will move over to WP:ITN, for those still looking for information. --JayHenry (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
So, use the ITN space to begin with. This TFA proposal would set a big precedent - the first time any FA ran a second time as TFA. Wikipedia is already accused of having a "liberal bias" - it doesn't help making this particular article the first exception. It also opens up another 1500 or so past TFAs for potential repeat appearances. Please use the ITN space, not TFA space. Gimmetrow 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't necessarily set a precedent. I don't think anyone references what happened to the Main Page during 1 April 2005 for support. We can't avoid press coverage since Wikipedia's top 10 site. — Dispenser 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Gimme, this would be an exception or outlier to the rule, and it would not not start a new precedent. I think that we should make some exceptions in exceptional cases anyway—wasn't that one of the reasons why IAR was written? When he was featured in 2004, he was not even close to running for President... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Since Mars ran as TFA in 2007, a lander verified the existence of ice water. Should Mars rerun since something significant has happened? Why or why not? Even if you can find a reason why other articles can't use this precedent, Wikipedia is already accused of having a "liberal bias", and it doesn't help making this particular article the first exception. Gimmetrow 01:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose this article, or an extension. I still vote in the US, despite not living there any more, and I have always resented this attitude that only two parties count. If you want to put up a grid of candidates, go ahead, but there are several dozen candidates for president. I wouldn't vote for either of these two men under any circumstances, and can't see why Wikipedia would make it seem that they are the only choices.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Kww, I have some questions, if you don't mind, about the "grid" that you're suggesting. Would it have to include the fascist candidate Jackson Kirk Grimes, even though his Wikipedia article has been deleted? How about Ralph Nader whose Wikipedia article has been de-listed as a "good article"?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Exactly. We are not trying to make it seem as though they are the only choices for the general election. We are not suggesting these candidates because they are members of the United States' largest political parties. These are the only two candidates for this election whose biographies are featured articles. If any other of the candidates' pages were featured, I have no doubt that they would be included. J.delanoygabsadds 00:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would be willing to bet that if a third-party candidate had a featured article, that would probably not be included in this proposal, due to arguments like Ottava Rima's. I just don't like having any subset of candidates as the featured article. If we ever hit a case where every candidate had a featured article, I could go for it, but such a case is unlikely to ever occur.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Besides FA status, there are plenty of objective reasons to not cover 3rd party candidates like the big two in this election. Polling is the principle one, as high poll numbers bought Ross Perot a spot at the debates in 1992. Media coverage is another. Our objective is verifiability in secondary sources, not diving truth by our own analysis. And the media coverage this cycle is disproportionately on these two.--chaser - t 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Chaser is correct. It's not bias to ignore candidates who are treated as footnotes by all the reliable sources. We're not saying that these two are the only choices; we're saying that they're the ones who are treated as serious candidates by reliable sources. That's not bias, it's realism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is US based and this would be a good idea. Plus, people from all over the world will be tuning into this election. Ottava Rima (talk)
  • Support Good idea.--chaser - t 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I love the idea. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I think this is an excellent idea that would really highlight how Wikipedia has succeeded in overcoming the problems of political bias. Also, none of the opposes bring any convincing (imho) reasons not to go ahead with this. The opposition based on US-centricity is a non-issue imo because #1, nearly 60% of this site's traffic already comes from the US, #2, this election has been clearly and reliably demonstrated to be closely followed by people around the world in addition to US citizens, and #3, we feature articles about topics pertaining to specific countries around the world on a regular basis and no one ever complains we have a bias toward them (for example, today's FA is Delhi; anyone complaining we are India-centric?). I also don't see an issue of politicizing the Main Page because any article could potentially be seen as "politicizing" Wikipedia (Israel anyone?) and a policy like that would exclude a large proportion of FAs from ever appearing on the Main Page. POV in the articles isn't a problem because they wouldn't be FAs if they had it (and the side-by-side configuration eliminates the other issue with this). The issue of "other" candidates is outlined above by Josiah Rowe. And finally, on vandalism... umm... not trying to be disrespectful here, but I am absolutely dumbfounded that anyone would oppose for this reason. All TFAs get a ton of vandalism. This one will simply get more. Are we to make the hundreds (thousands?) of hours of hard work put in these articles come to naught because of the vandals? That (imo) defies the whole purpose of fighting vandalism at all. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    And those supporting have not given any convincing reason why these articles should run in TFA space. Use the "In the News" space for this - that's more appropriate. Gimmetrow 01:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Ironically enough, I have heard people complain that we were India-centric. People always complain about TFAs and this will probably be even worse. Wrad (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, this is the first time a major event has occurred that Wikipedia has FA(s) about before it happens, I don't see why we shouldn't jump at the chance for a little "showing off" of our content with more than a blurb in "In the News". Either way, I don't really care if it goes on the Main Page or not, but I do think it's an outstanding idea. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Can it be replicated on a more regular basis in future? To include the other English speaking nations mentioned above (also Ireland which gets forgotten about a lot)? Or perhaps for other two-way events of significance? Or a doubler on a festival of some sort, (just missed Halloween, how about Christmas?) If so, I like it. As for the suggestion that this could only happen every four years - there are other countries out there who won't be waiting four years... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: That seems silly to me. We already have an over representation of some types of articles on the main page. If we did what you just suggested we would have a politician(s) being featured on the main page every week if not few days. I'm still very opposed to this idea. Also what makes the elections in the US more notable then the ones in Russia per say hmm? --Kuzwa (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The English Wikipedia gets far more American than Russian hits. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hits does not signify importance. I wouldn't be surprised if video game articles get farm more "hits" on Wikipedia than events such as The War of 1812, Civil War etc... Just because Wikipedia is "American based" dosen't mean we should feature everything that is more important to America differently than others. It adds an enormous amount of bias. That is the last thing that Wikipedia needs. --Kuzwa (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - This is ridiculous, the are other places in the world than the US. "In the News" will be enough for people to look up who the winner is. ChrisDHDR 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this will be redundant with In The News. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the side by side. I think its a great idea.-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • My thoughts I have no problem with two FAs on the same day being TFAs together IF neither has been TFA before (Obama has) and they have a connection (McCain and Obama do). I think an article should only be TFA one time. William Hanna and Joseph Barbera would be a good TFA pair and both are FAs. Hewlett and Packard would be good too if they were FAs. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support putting both on the main page and keeping the winning candidate on the next day (regardless if Obama might end up on 3 times in a row, WP:IAR). Alrighty, just about ten minutes 'til global time brings us to 0:00... Master&Expert (Talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose How can we claim that running only two of the many candidates running for office is NPOV? This is obviously pushing McCain and Obama as the only viable options, thus discrediting the other parties that will likely be garnering over 1,000,000 votes. Again, there is nothing NPOV about this. I was very disappointed to see Wikipedia pushing the viewpoint of America having a sole two party system. Terry (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul's thoughts on the election-day TFA

Here are my thoughts on the objections raised here, in order from least-to-most concern.

  • Don't do it, because "As a non-profit organization, Wikipedia cannot legally be seen supporting either candidate for election, if Wikipedia is taking public funds from the U.S. government" (-Miranda)
    • I'm not a lawyer, but there are several things wrong with this statement. First - unless it was the recipient of a NEA grant that I haven't heard about - the WMF doesn't get any money from any level of the US government. The WMF is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 non-profit. This means the government doesn't treat donations ot the foundation as taxable income. (In other words, the government doesn't take money from the foundation, which is *not* the same as giving it to them) The rules governing non-profits are that they cannot endorse a candidate officially. This is a *much* higher bar than "be seen as supporting a candidate". Many, many nonprofits out there clearly support one candidate or another. It is quite obvious who the NAACP wants to win this election, for example. They are not, however, allowed to endorse a candidate. Therefore, this objection is not a concern insofar as running FAs on the main page.
  • Don't do it because of the potential for vandalism.
    • The articles will be fully protected until after the election. Therefore, this is not a concern.
  • Don't do it because it shows bias against third party candidates.
    • With all due respect to the third party candidates, none of them has a realistic chance of winning. If there was a third party candidate who was running and had a viable chance of winning, he/she would be included in this discussion. None of them do, so I don't think it's worth getting too worried about it.
  • Don't do it because Barack Obama has already been featured on the main page.
    • I'd prefer not to repeat any articles. I'm willing to make an exception for important cases, but that risks creating a slippery slope. We must bear in mind that if we do it in this case, people will want to run double (or triple, etc) FAs in the future for less important reasons. So I'm not saying no for this reason - I'm saying that it's a big concern.
  • Don't do it because having two FAs on the main page is a slipppery slope.
    • I agree (somewhat). I'm not fond of the prospect of having more of these requests, but I'm not absolutely ruling it out just because of the potential for future headaches.
  • Don't do it because it will conflict with ITN
    • This is, IMO, the most important concern raised here. I do not wish for the TFA to conflict with ITN. ITN's job is explicitely to cover news topics. And there's really no way to avoid a conflict except to have ITN not report on it at all, which is just silly.

Overall, I'm disinclined to run these as the FA. I'm not absolutely ruling it out, and there's still a good 12 hours before I have to make up my mind. But, I think it might be worth doing something like this on ITN instead. That seems like a far more appropriate venue for this.

Side notes:

  • I prefer the above/below look rather than side-by-side. The side-by-side look has extremely crammed text next to the pictures, and looks rather unpleasant.
  • About the names - yes, I always use the title of the article (Barack Obama, John McCain) when doing the write up.
  • As far as Harriet Tubmanl, I think the Nov 5 suggestion is excellent. If we don't run McCain/Obama on the 4th, I'll definitely use Tubman on the fifth.
  • If I don't use McCain/Obama on the 4th, what do you guys want to see?
  • Running the FAs on two consectuvie days is no... just no. I really don't care for that idea.

I'm about to go to bed. I'll check here late tomorrow morning/early afternoon EDT and see where the discussion has gone. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your thoughts on being US centric, Raul? Marskell (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding running Obama for a second time on the Main Page, here is the version of the article that passed as a FA in August 2004. The article subsequently appeared on the Main Page on August 18, 2004, which is many many moons ago. That version wouldn't even be a WP:GA today. The article is completely different now. If the article appeared on the main page in 2005 or later, I would be more inclined to disagree with running the article for a second time. My opinion on all this would be exactly the same if John McCain was on the main page in 2004, instead of Obama. --Aude (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I also don't see a conflict with ITN. Just a few days ago, we had Halloween-themed material as TFA, as well as DYK and the featured picture. ITN would be more focused on the 2008 elections article, which is the main article to be updated and bolded, with the latest election results numbers. Also, I looked over on WT:ITN and realized that the elections article won't be updated and suitable for ITN until we have some results, which will be in the evening (US time) when TFA switches over to the November 5 article. --Aude (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I also don't think the ITN issue should be of major concern. The ITN will most likely just have a one sentence blurb about the election and so readers will not know that we have both major candidates articles up to FA status. Plus the major link on the ITN section will most likely be the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and not Obama or McCain since they are not the news event. Having Obama and McCain in the TFA section of the main space will let readers know immediately that we have those two highly pertinent articles up to FA quality if they want to read about it. Plus, I don't think there will ever be a more relevant time to feature both McCain or Obama on the mainspace than on election day. By far and away, these articles are the most relevant of any FAs to the events of that day. Remember (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia readers don't know anything about "FA Status", they just see that we are featuring articles about Obama and McCain. If they also see that we are featuring them in ITN, they will rightfully conclude that Wikipedia is rather obsessed with the U.S. election. Kaldari (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think IARs can/should ever be brought up as precedents. If that were the case, it means that the actual rules in discussions have serious weaknesses and should be therefore completely rethought. ITN part may mention only the main article of the election, w/o giving specific names until an actual presumtive winner is known. That cannot reasonably happen before ~7pm eastern, when the TFA is almost done anyways. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Washington, D.C.

Raul, in reply to your request for alternatives: Washington, D.C. DrKiernan (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea doc, except Delhi is today. Marskell (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see something completely unrelated on Nov. 4: like some animal from bio. Or better ... since it's hard for Raul to run his own FA ... I request parallel computing. That'll generate enough complaints on election day :-)) Oh, look, the featured article director ran his own FA !! Has anyone notified ITN of this discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see much of a conflict with ITN. From their talk page it looks like they won't run an article until after the winner is agreed on - which will be at least a couple of hours after this TFAR is removed. (ITN folks might want to check this). More importantly, we wouldn't be running news, but some of our best encyclopedic content, which while being very useful in understanding the news, is not news in itself.
As far as "slippery slope" arguements - I agree with Nergal "IAR's" should never be brought up as precedent. We should go further and make clear here that this IAR is based on an extraordinary situation and is not meant in any way as a precendent. What's extraordinary? 1) 2 long term FAs (2 months+, 4 years+) are directly related to an extraordinary election. 2) the election is extraordinary in that voter registration has jumped (after a long decline) to above the 1964 level, and turnout of registered voters is expected to be at record levels. 3) the vote (subjectively) seems to be as important world-wide as to US citizens. 4) The 28 supports (so far) are 3-4 times the usual number of supports an article gets on this page.
We can very easily just outright refuse to consider any request for 3 TFARs at the same time (from space considerations) and say that a double has to be justified by something at least as important as this election, as well as the condition that both articles must have been FAs for over 2 months. (Maybe that would be seen as setting a precedent - but it would eliminate 99.9% of such requests)
A couple of folks at the ITN talk page are also involved here. Yes, please run Parallel Computing if McCain/Obama doesn't run. My other second choice is Obama/McCain  ;) Smallbones (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that since ITN is not going to run anything specific about the candidates themselves until there is a reasonable chance that we could know who the winner is, I don't think there is a major problem with running the Obama/McCain duo. As far as setting a dangerous precedent, I don't know about that. I really don't think it will be a major problem, but I can see the future just as well as anyone else.
In a nutshell, what I am saying is, to me, the ITN concern does not seem to be a major problem, since ITN will be running info about the election itself, not the candidates. I don't know about setting a precedent. The other concerns you mentioned in your post seem to be negligible to me. J.delanoygabsadds 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt ITN will run a blurb linked to Obama or McCain, leaving out the 3rd party candidates, on election day. The only links will likely be to United States presidential election, 2008 or United States Senate elections, 2008 or United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. --maclean 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there's not really a conflict with ITN. ITN says, "This is going on" (and once there's a victor will say, "this is who won".) The proposed TFA would say, "These are the people who are running, and look, Wikipedia has excellent articles about them." It's equivalent to a sidebar: complementary, not conflicting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The concern I have on precedent is that it may be seen as the green light for any pair of FAs that are closely related to apply to be on the main page together. Hanna and Barbera has been kicked around recently, I believe. Wikipedians are bright, and are endlessly inventive when it comes for finding reasons for what they want.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


How would it conflict with ITN? By the time ITN is updated with the results, it will be November 5 and there would be a new article on the main page. In fact, there will be a new article on the main page by the time most states' polls close on Election Day (new article goes up at 7pm EST). -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

8 pm EST. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. DST ended yesterday. East coast is now UTC -5. :) - CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
*Smacks head on desk* Idiot, idiot, IDIOT! :) Never mind... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Raul, the main concerns you raise are ITN and slippery slopes for rerunning a single article as well as running multiple articles.
    • According to Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com[5], the earliest the election can be called is 10pm EST. That translates to 3:00 UTC, November 5th. ITN should definitely not call it until 5-6:00 UTC, to be safest. So there is no conflict either. And it really is OK for Barack Obama and John McCain to be listed on the Main Page for several days, albiet in different sections.
    • Slippery slope for running the same article - As others have mentioned, a precedent already exists IAR? Plus, the old article would never have passed. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Slippery slope for running 2 articles at once - IAR handles this one. And plus, if two featured articles just have to be mentioned together, there is no problem in doing so. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • What precedent exists already for running the same article a second time? Gimmetrow 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • NVM, I read a previous comment wrong. Refactored

Ok, so as I read this, ITN isn't going to do anything with the election until after midnight UTC. If that's the case, my largest worry is alleviated. My second worry is setting precedents with regard to featuring (A) two articles at once, or (B) featuring articles on the main page a second time, remain. However, I think this can be dealt with by me saying, here and now, that this is an extremely unusual thing that I have absolutely no intention or desire to repeat in the future. Does that satisfy everyone? Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS - about the alternatives - I'd rather not do Washington tomorrow because we already have a city article on the main page today. (I'm so-so about using my parallel computing article) Raul654 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, about US centrism - we already feature more articles on english speaking countries than non-english speaking countries, and (by virtue of its size, population, and internet precense) more on the US than any other country. I don't see how featuring these articles (with world-wide implications) makes us more US-centric than we already are. Raul654 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Experience says that ... users will still use it as a precedent in the future, and will ask you to run double TFAs or repeat TFAs. Mark my words :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As SCOTUS once said, "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem ... in election processes generally presents many complexities." I'm satisfied.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Raul's rejection of running either of these articles on the 5th, much less some kind of odd dual-TFA disaster; no issues with Sandy's nom of parallel computing. However, I would support Miranda's proposition of running the winner's article on January 20th, Inauguration Day. GlassCobra 22:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Aside: we don't usually archive past requests here, but I'll archive this discussion to the talk page once the date is scheduled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I for one will strongly oppose any use of this as a precedent - this is essentially a unique occurance. The simplest way to prevent this is to put in the rules above. "Absolutely no nominations of FAs that have previously been TFA, and absolutely no double or triple nominations for the same day." Smallbones (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • With regard to Slipery Slope arguements, it seems patently rediculous; people ask Raul to do stuff all the time, as the FA czar, he's free to do whatever he wants. The only danger would be if this was a thing open to "voting" or "consensus" or we had some feeling that there would be a change in the near future to how we pick FA's. There isn't. Raul picks them, and to say there would be a "slipery slope" is rediculous. If he doesn't want to do this again, he doesn't have to... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me make my position clear - I was reluctant to feature these articles on the main page for two reasons - the potential to set precedents, and the conflict with ITN. The latter is now not a concern. So now I'm leaning towards it, assuming we can make it substantially clear for TFA requestors that this is a one-time thing. Insofar as a date is concerned, if I use them, it will be either for tomorrow (election day, Tuesday, Nov 4), or Inaguration day (Jan 19), not for Nov 5th. Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I think it makes more sense to do it for Nov 4 than January 19, but IDK. This is, IMO, an excellent opportunity for Wikipedia to do some strutting; given how hotly contested this election has been (and still is), getting the biographies of both major candidates to FA-class is a simply incredible accomplishment. Similar circumstances do not seem likely to occur, and I would be more than happy to accept this as a one-time shot. And as Jay says, you do has the final say, so if you flatly say "No." to a future request, that's just how it is. (Ahh! Power! Muahahahaaaaa!!!!!) J.delanoygabsadds 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that you'll/we'll all be able to stand up to future editors who may want to view this is a precedent. I'm just saying that history shows we'll probably have to do it. I'm still rather an indifferent chicken on the matter. It is definitely special that we were able to feature both candidates during an election cycle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Slight support (I refuse to use the word "weak", as is custom, because I think my reasons for supporting is strong; it's the support itself that is not.) I think the biggest issue, as Raul said, is conflicting with ITN. However, while I generally like the idea of putting the winner's article up for the inauguration, but that's an equally large conflict. I would rather (despite being a hardcore liberal and hoping Obama will be sworn in on January 20) have both up tomorrow (side-by-side, for all that matters, as opposed to one atop the other; which one will appear on the left side of the screen is irrelevant to me), as it presents a balanced view of the candidates. I'm not worried about people agonizing over lack of third parties; let's be honest, all third party candidates combined will get maybe 2.5% of the vote, so even if their articles were FAs, I wouldn't want them included. In addition, by using these as FAs, it's not as if we're going to actually affect anyone's vote. If there are people who still haven't decided (and I'm sure they're are, even though I'm stunned that such a thing is even possible), Wikipedia featuring articles for both of the main candidates won't change any minds. As far as having to protect the articles... well, they're already semi-protected, and by tomorrow, they'll both probably have to be fully protected regardless of what's on the Main Page, so I'm not concerned. Lastly, by the time the election is called for certain, it will be the fifth UTC, so there's no possible issue of putting up the winner's picture on ITN before the FA is changed.Essentially, while there are a few things that worry me, they are not sufficiently problematic to make me think this is a bad idea. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Slight oppose. I like the idea -- it's definitely timely -- but the two at once is unwieldy. Let's run the winner's on January 20, when he'll be inaugurated. Coemgenus 22:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and set-up a mock-up for the two candidates. Check out Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow to see what it will look like on the main page. I've left Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008 unprotected for the moment so you guys can tweak it (although I'd like to avoid major changes in format or length). Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I move this all to talk now so we can continue discussion there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to leave this here another few hours. Raul654 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, as long as someone doesn't wipe it out. Can I move Tubman to the 5th? Also ... oopsie ... Gimmetrow, what are we going to do with Obama's articlehistory? How do we record the maindate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we change it to say "Today's Featured Articles" (plural)? Just so we have one less thing that people can flood Talk:Main Page with. J.delanoygabsadds 22:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, what about copy/pasting both articles to some temporary cascade-protected page to prevent template vandalism? J.delanoygabsadds 23:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Both articles should already be fully protected themselves, including cascade protection. Raul654 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Note to Gimmetrow, we need to solve articlehistory: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I did not see these when I wiped out this section so sorry. Anyway, what if we just use the markup from the template page instead of {{}}ing it? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll move this to talk in another hour if that's OK with everyone. Gimme fixed the Obama articlehistory by fudging the previous maindate as a peer review. Not sure I'm following your question, thedemonhog? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Any link for the previous TFA's blurb? (why do I doubt that that is possible... =])
Maybe a special {{ArticleHistory}} template put at Template:ArticleHistory/Obama or something? Somewhere where we can duplicate the "main page" coding? ...just my thoughts... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
For example, {{Talkheader}}
is generated by doing either of the following: typing {{Talkheader}} or copying and pasting everything from the editing window in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Talkheader&action=edit; however, parts can be added or removed using the latter option. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This can probably be worked out with gimmetrow later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm thinking that when I move this to talk, I'll leave a placeholder here with a link, so that any Johnny-Come-Lately's will find the discussion. That means we may have six slots here for a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you are looking for a non-political alternative for Nov 4, then you wouldn't go far wrong with Ernest Shackleton. It is very well written and ties in with the 100th anniversary of Shackleton setting sail for his "Great Southern Journey" to the South Pole. Or, I suppose you could always use George Washington, although he is a GA at present. Maybe he could be 'tidied up' a bit beforehand.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • There are several FA U.S. Presidents that haven't been featured ... Grover Cleveland, for one. Coemgenus 22:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, except maybe it should say "Today's featured articles" with an "s" at the end.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The Today's Featured Articles (the s at the end) looks like the major problem, how's the length? Obama is a bit longer than McCain, but then McCain is on top. I'll suggest that somebody (who is aware of length restriction) look at the McCain blurb. There are 2 spaces starting the McCain blurb that I dont know how to delete, and shouldn't McCain and Obama be bolded rather than linked at the start? Smallbones (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Belated Support Two great articles deserve the timely TFA(s). This is an extraordinary case of two FAs on subject that will be on global front pages Nov 4 and 5. No slippery slope, as nothing else really compares. Joshdboz (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Raul Smallbones (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a blunder...

Were the editors of the two articles at TFA right now ever notified? A note left on the article talk pages? Many of them seem surprised. That was a bit of a blunder, I suppose. Wrad (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge participated in the discussions (McCain). Also, I announced this discussion at the AN discussion about full protection, so if this is a surprise to anyone, it's people who weren't following the protection discussions to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess you can't tell everybody. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

2x TFA

Totally ignoring the subject choice and looking only at the format and future potential. I think the 2x TFA looks good and should be occur every day. But Raul doesnt want that so throw that away altogether, WP should at least consider using it where there is a conflict with the date connection that includes anniversaries like 11 November. Gnangarra 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap!

I can't believe this actually happened. Thanks to everyone who helped get the two FAs on the main page and thank you Raul for stretching the rules a bit. I think that having these two FAs on the main page will help show our readers that Wikipedia is able to put forth high-quality and highly-relevant articles. Again, thanks to all of those that helped make this happen. Remember (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

A request for main page feature with nine supports and four points (for Oct 29) just got turned down in favor of a topic which no-one voted on, but Raul opted for. How can this be. Surely not democracy?

Also, I just spotted this: "Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to have appear on the main page." Are there any clues as to what topics might be banned?--79.64.160.231 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a democracy. Raul decides. That's it. --C S (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly doubt Group is on that list. The nominators of Group should lick their wounds and try again soon. Both Natalee Holloway and Augustus got not used by Raul before finally making it as a TFA. Others have, as well, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Lick their wounds? That's a pretty obnoxious statement. I don't think any wounds were suffered by the nominator (note the singular) nor by anyone that voiced their support. Not everything is a battle, you know, although you can treat it as such.
To clarify: Raul654 is basically the FA dictator so he can do whatever he likes, and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. There needs to be a single person in charge, and I think he does a pretty good job. --C S (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, consider that the Group request was a last-minute request, and Raul may have had other plans. And that we have so few math featured articles that they may need to be spread out. There could be many factors, but an 11th-hour request may not be the best way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
We must protect the children from the horror of groups! :) Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Last time that I checked, Raul654's "very small, unofficial list" consisted solely of Jenna Jameson. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the group article will run on November 5. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured Article of the Year?

I just ran across this, did this ever get used?--SRX 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. If memory serves, there was also a "article of the week" and "article of the month" (not sure if they are related to that page) but they were quickly deleted. -- Scorpion0422 01:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Never heard of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Er...why is that page still hanging around? GlassCobra 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, MfD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Er, if you MfD it, someone will (with the best of intentions and not realising why it was deleted) recreate it. Far better to use {{rejected}} instead. Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also possible to conduct periodic searches of Wikipedia to find stray pages like this. I would be happy to do this (as I did on WT:BLP recently) using the new search tools. That way anything remotely related to the "featured" family of pages could be tidied up and filed away somewhere, rather than "hanging around". Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition/replacement

I've added The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, since at three points it can replace another entry. Second Ostend Raid is scheduled to be replaced, but replacing PlayStation 3 also seems to be a good option. It's got some opposes and has fewer points than Ocarina, and is in the same topic area. However, it has more points than Ostend, so I didn't feel right removing it without discussion. Any thoughts? Pagrashtak 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I corrrected it Pagrashtak; the Next to be replaced was clearly identified, so it's OK for you to do that. There were two on the same day, which can't happen; that one was clear to go, and anyone could do that for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at the situation as it now stands, PlayStation 3 has over 50% opposes (if you count mine, which is admittedly a COI), meaning that it could have been removed instead of Second Ostend Raid. This was why I was hesitant to remove Ostend. Although, I suppose they might both end up removed, making this all moot. Pagrashtak 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It was all in the timing of your vote. You did it properly. However, if you had voted first, then you could have replaced Playstation rather than Ostend. I'm hoping, like Sandy, that the WWI mavens will come up with a stronger article. Are there any that have been up for two years?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It all works out, Pagrashtak, hopefully. When Playstation passes 50%, Ostend can add back if they want. As Wehwalt said, it's in the timing. It worked how it should work: seeing a better option, I opposed Playstation (I don't usually oppose unless another worthy article needs a slot). And, the WWI issue will change it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
@Wehwalt, wouldn't it be nice if someone update Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the skills to do that other than the brute force method. But if it would help you, I'll take care of it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's painstaking brute force ... pulling up the diff of WP:FA from Sept 1 to present, and making the updates to the other page. Horrible task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it. I will delete the ones which have been selected for TFA first, then add in the new FAs (and of course a few will have been both, like Jena Six). It may take me a few days, because I am still on the road.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
But FARs also have to be removed and older than a year have to be identified; not the kind of task you can likely do easily while traveling. Very difficult page to maintain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, I'll hold off, then, and if no one else does it before I get home, I'll make a project of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not place a category tag on the takpage of the articles involved with a label of "FAs not on the mainpage yet"? Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(@ Wehwalt, ec) Actually, if I would have voted first, the article would have had seven supports and five opposes, and Ostend would still have been replaced. It's a chicken-egg situation. I would have preferred to add Zelda and replace PS3, but the extra opposes wouldn't come until I added Zelda. Anyways, they're both out now so I suppose I'm making too much out of things. I don't spend a lot of time at TFA, if you couldn't tell. ;) Pagrashtak 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line is that it worked: after all the blood, sweat and tears we put into trying to get this page to work, I'm happy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

November 11, MilHist

Can we get someone involved in MilHist to request the best military option for November 11 ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You can rule out the ships since USS New Jersey (BB-62) appeared in mid-October. -MBK004 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to go for any military history related article rather than World War I, I think Omaha Beach or Operation Varsity would be great choices. -- Scorpion0422 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Sandy meant the best WWI military option because if it isn't WWI then we loose the date relevance. -MBK004 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering if anyone had checked the points on anything eligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There isn't much from WWI as far as I can see after ruling out the ships since New Jersey ran on 15 October the best option would be Battle of Arras (1917) (Featured July 2007) but that battle occurred in April-May so the relevance is just that WWI ended on 11 November 1918 and this battle occurred during that war in 1917. -MBK004 22:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The following appear in the Category:FA-Class World War I articles but have not yet been on the main page:

Note the content of these pages wasn't checked, they are simply listed here for transperency. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out the ships since we've had a ship appear this month. I still say Battle of Arras. -MBK004 22:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Lazare Ponticelli would be appropriate. November 11 is mentioned in the article. Gimmetrow 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I would avoid the navy officers since we've had the Harvey article recently. I still don't think you can claim the one point for date relevance. Are all WWII articles entitled to claim for Pearl Harbor Day or VE Day?. Do any have primary contributors who have not had a TFA? If Arras has that, and one point for promotion, that would put it past the Dr. Who, which can be replaced (and can be reinserted later when a spot clears).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The requestor of Ponticelli has not had a TFA, I don't think. And, there's a pending conflict (see the pending template) on Dec. 7. Ponticelli could kill two birds with one stone: I'd support featuring a veteran on that day. Cool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Arras's primary contributor Carom (talk · contribs) has not had a TFA (in fact Arras is his only FA) -MBK004 22:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
So either one could work, but notice the boat conflict coming up on Dec 7 (see the pending template). Weird, though, a Battle that happened on a different date? Y'all know best :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ponticelli may not have a connection to December 7, since his birthdate isn't really known, so November 11 works well for him. Arras would be good too, except that between the two Ponticelli seems to me like a better fit for Armistice Day. Gimmetrow 22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It is Veterans Day in the US and Armistice Day. It should be a Veteran not a battle. Józef Piłsudski was appointed Commander in Chief of Polish forces on November 11, 1918. Halgin (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Ponticelli would work, because he frequently attended Armistace Day ceremonies. While his date of birthday is not known with certainty, it was recorded as December 7, though his mom said he was born on Christmas and was recorded on the 27th, though the "2" was erased. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Piłsudski or Ponticelli then for November 11. Gimmetrow 23:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
We need to see the points. Piotr has already had TFAs, but Jozef was promoted a longer time ago, so the points may come out the same. We should determine if another of the choices has higher points, so it won't be knocked off ... there are a lot of high-scoring choices in the pending template that could knock out Nov. 11. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ponticelli is the sort of thing mainstream media would run as a human interest story on that date. Gimmetrow 03:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Unless someone finds a MilHist article with three points (which would be optimal), I'm in favor of putting up Ponticelli. I'd like to see a veteran on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Arras has two points (one for date of promotion and one for contributor history); Ponticelli also has two (one for date relevance and one for contributor history (I think). I don't believe Piłsudski could match that. Are they eligible for the additional point for main-page representation in the past three months? -MBK004 23:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudsk has the best date connection. He has a national holiday Polish Independence Day, the date chosen is the one on which Józef Piłsudski assumed control of Poland. He gets Decennary anniversary (10-year multiples) 2 points for November 11, 1918. If not him, then Ponticelli has a better date connection than a battle on a different day. Halgin (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Grass Fight a battle was TFA was on October 11, so the battle can't get main-page representation points. Halgin (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to see this taken down, not so sorry to see the Playstation go. If it's any help Harry Murray was divorced on Novermber 11, 1927 (didn't think so!) Smallbones (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, but I just checked out Lazare Ponticelli - this seems like the best article and the obvious way to go. Smallbones (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So Ponticelli would have one point for no prior TFA, possible one point for date relevance (I don't think he could sensibly claim two there, because he may be connected with Armistice day celebrations, but not with 11/11/18, if you get my drift. Any other points? I don't see main page representation, we've had a number of soldiers and marines. Kids don't study him in school. I guess it is either one or two points.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On a date such as this it doesnt matter that a direct date link exists, though it'd be a bonus. What matter is that it has a direct correlation to WWI. We have already have a Halloween related article today, we are arguing for articles on the presidential candidates for tuesday that to me is enough US specific consideration in the last week that the article should be specifically European Józef Piłsudsk fits that. Gnangarra 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
from the article On November 11, 1918, in Warsaw, Piłsudski was appointed Commander in Chief of Polish forces by the Regency Council and was entrusted with creating a national government for the newly independent country from the article thats a direct date tie in to the date. Gnangarra 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If it hadn't already been featured on the main page, Shrine of Remembrance would have been good (it's under "art and architecture" in the FA list and doesn't appear in the WWI category mentioned above). I suggest that for next year someone try to get a more directly related topic to FA, such as Remembrance Day. On the other hand, Shrine of Remembrance did go through a FAR recently. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shrine of Remembrance/archive1. Would featuring FAR "saves" on the Main Page be too radical a step, seeing as there are lots of FAs waiting in the queue? Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

FAR "saves" that haven't already been on the main page are eligible along with any other FA. WRT next year: it's a Wiki. Whoever shows up to do the work. If you have a tickler file, pls add it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"tickler file"? You've lost me there! Just to be clear, this FAR save had been on the main page before it was "saved", so that still makes it inelegible, right? I was hoping for a moment that you were saying it was eligible, but I think you are saying it is not eligible. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
FAs that have already appeared on the mainpage are not eligible to appear again: I can't think of a good reason to make an exception for FAR saves, when we have over 1,000 articles waiting to go on the main page. No reason to give an article two stints when when there are a thousand waiting. "Tickler file" means put a note for yourself somewhere that will pop up next year if you want to request something next year on Nov. 11. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Hmm. I'm ruminating on Wikipedia:Featured FAR saves... :-P Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It could be right up there with Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, that hasn't been updated for more than two months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Though in all seriousness, is there a list of FAR saves somewhere, without needing to dig through the archives? I'll ask Marskell. Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest changing name of notable topic point to "basic subject matter" point

I think the word "notable" is throwing people off. I don't propose any substantive change, just the change of name, which I think would clear up confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Good idea (provided others agree). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice. I like how it directly quotes what the point is actually for. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree and would also support removing that point criterion altogether. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did Alfred Russel Wallace loose the extra point for notability/subject?

As the co-discover of natural selection it would seem to me that Alfred Russel Wallace would be a classic topic for a junior high school research project, which is the criteria for the notability (or subject matter) point as I understand it. This is especially true given the ongoing creation-evolution controversy. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, natural selection sounds like basic subject matter, but Wallace does not. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
For better or worse, Wallace is barely mentioned in Natural selection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. He's beyond the 12 year old level. He might make a sentence or two in a kid's report on Darwin, but the average 12 year old won't have heard of him, let alone do a report on him.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright I won't argue the point. I don't know enough 12 year olds to do a survey. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin help?

I'm thinking about running for admin just to copyedit TFA blurbs. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I will vote yes preemptively here and now, or support, or however that goes. Wrad (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't you have an admin in your pocket? Oh, neither do I. Unspace those endashes on the year ranges, see WP:MOSDATE, WP:DASH (endashes are spaced when the date elements surrounding them have spaces, dashes on solo year ranges are not spaced). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Julian, while you're at it, November 24 needs to be fixed to reflect the previous ... Raul juggled them after he scheduled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I got the last one. By the way, should I add Image:Triforce.svg to the Legend of Zelda entry for Nov. 21? It appears to be free... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That is what we had here at TFAR so I say yes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. I hope the caption is OK, as I don't actually know anything about the Zelda games. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis writing

I'd like to post a request but I'm not quote sure how to proceed. It looks like the requests each have an excerpt. Do we just take the X number of words from the article, or should we write a punchier synopsis? I don't see any guidance so I'm asking here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think most people just use the article's intro. That's what I've done. By the way, only five articles are allowed on this page at any one time. I learned that the hard way the first time I tried to make a request. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. As for the limit, that's also a bit confusing. The article I'm requesting has four points. Currently, the Zappa entry has "0-2" points and is marked as "Next to be replaced". So does that mean it's OK to simply delete that entry? Is there an archive at least? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There's no archive, but it's all in the page history. Yes, if you've got a 4-point article you can replace Zappa — at least, that's the way the page is supposed to work. As for the blurb, Raul sometimes rewrites it himself; if you think that the article's intro is too long, you can rework it as a suggested blurb for Raul's consideration. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I hate to delete the Zappa entry - he was a great musician - but if that's the way the system works then so be it. Thanks for the guidance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
By a cosmic coincidence, 20 years and a couple of weeks ago Frank Zappa was commenting on the LaRouche criminal trials.[7][8] Somehow, that makes it seem alright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but we get a centennial once every hundred years, and Zappa will have as great a claim on the main page next year, even more so because it will get an aging point . . . I'd hate to see it interfere with the other article, at the least it might be better if it wasn't renominated until the birthday. Yes, it might lose points, but again, we will still be here next year and the centennial won't.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, and I'm not sure that it do, the request page entries are intended to be there long enough to make sure their points are correctly tallied, any conflicts are identified, and obvious problems are resolved in order vet entries and give guidance to Raul. So deleting the entry doesn't change the outcome, it just ends the discussion. Right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn´t say that. I would say it has a slightly better chance if it äges out of the process. In practice, Raul seems to use a majority of the articles proposed on this page that have two or more points, but as we are unsure of his system, there is little we can say with certainty. His use of Tyrone Wheatley two weeks after it got knocked off the page on a rather doubtful anniversary (Michigan homecoming) makes it pretty clear he at least glances at what is going on here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Date connection debate

Is it really fair to offer 6 points to articles that have a relatively vague date connection - say "December 1908" without a specific day? I think in this example, the points should be halved (rounded up?) since the date connection is somewhat loose. Since they literally have the entire month to get a spot I believe this is quite fair. What do others think? Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the canal, the nominator came here and asked us that very question. He then in good faith considered his article to have the full number of points, when no one said no. I think that this will happen very rarely, that most articles will have a specific date selection. I´d hate to clutter up the rules with a rule just for tht case.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Many articles about old topics only have a month and a year - I think they should be allowed to use that connection in some way. History doesn't always record "to the day". Many of the articles that I work on from the eighteenth century, for example, have no "date" connection, but they do have a month connection. A book was published in "December", for example. Is there any way this can be accommodated? (If you go further back in history, even the month disappears!) Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised if it happens too often that a really important date to an article, not just hoping to glom onto a minor event to get six points, will have only a month and year.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that most articles don't have a specific day connection, especially those dealing with events in the past. This system is biased against those. Can we somehow accommodate those with months, at least? Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree on bias. The idea of the centennial points is to give an article celebrating a centennial an overwhelming advantage. If it is a month-year situation, we can handle it on a case by case basis. Where are the many articles you posit deprived of points for lack of a specific day? Only the canal do I see, and we dealt with that appropriately. How about a few examples of articles that will be deprived of points for lack of a specific day that are coming up in the next year?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost every article I have written on eighteenth-century literature has either only a year or a month and a year (see User:Awadewit for a list). It is not necessarily about next year, it is about any year. I can never suggest these articles on this page because they don't have a "date" connection (articles without a specific date connection are almost always shot down). There are lots of historical topics like this, where the date is simply lost - we don't know anymore - the date has been lost. Once you back a few hundred years, we just don't have a specific day for a lot of things. So, I think allowing a month would be perfectly acceptable. Awadewit (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree to allowing it, but not to a full 6 points... Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The focus of this page seems to be finding articles that should be featured on particular dates, but we seem to review fewer than 30 a month. Would it make sense to have a parallel list, using similar rules and maybe on the same page, for month-specific anniversaries? Raul could pick from that list to fill in dates which don't have date-specific articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul has asked for one page, five requests at a time. The month-date request this time was handled fine; why can't that continue? If an event only has a month date, yes, it should get its six points; this page is biased towards current events that have multiple dates, as pointed out by Awadewit. I opt for doing exactly was done for the canal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy. In addition, Raul does a good job. We could run this page more efficiently by nominating later and probably increase our throughput to 10 or 12, but I think, in practice, some single individual needs to be in charge of selecting the articles. Since Raul does it well, I'm inclined to say, leave well enough alone.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" opposes

Is there a rule/guideline regarding "I don't like it" opposes? I've seen a number of editors oppose because they find the subject boring, and although they are entitled to their opinion, is this kind of !voting allowed? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that this is one place where "I don't like it" opposes are not only allowed, but might even be encouraged; we have more FAs than we can feature on the main page, so we should like the choices. I could be wrong :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I would think a vote of "I've read them both. I don't like article A, its boring. I like article B, it's more interesting." is fine. That is what this forum is for. My concern is specific to the vote you are referring to. I can't tell if they "didn't like A" or didn't even read A and assumed, "A must suck because all article from that project suck." The way the vote is stated it could be either.Dave (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy. People are allowed to oppose or support for any reason they want. This is about the communitys recommendation. However, giving reasons makes it more likely that you will persuade others to your point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

5 requests rule

Why the hell do we have this useless rule? It needs to go. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 does not want to deal with a laundry list of requests; he enjoys leeway in scheduling for topic diversity, etc. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5 topics is still too little. Why don't we increase it to 10 or so? ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul654 says that once it is increased to ten, people will ask for fifteen and so on. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Plus, I get first crack at Dec. 7th, as I put Nevada on there, only to see it replaced when it shouldn't have (point totals were later found to be wrong, and they were equal). However, like I said in the voting part for that article, I'm not going to push to have Nevada go back on there right away to re-replace that one becuase people have already been voting on the new one, but if I wish out on my chance because I decided to not be a jerk...well, I would be extremely annoyed. =/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
So what if it's a slippery slope? What is that harm in making the TFA based on requests every day of the month? Voting works well in Wikipedia as long as there is a neutral person do decide whether we have consensus, which is where the director would come in. I can't figure out the justification for having the majority of the TFAs chosen by one person. If we're worried about topic diversity, why can't we trust the community to vote down extra requests on the same topic? We trust the community everywhere else, why do we think they would do a bad job a choosing TFA? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Because we've tried it before and it didn't work; feel free to read the archives and to look at the history of this page. The neutral person shouldn't have to sort through several hundred (often back biting) requests. The page works now: it never did before. Why can't we trust the community? Read the archives to see what this page degenerates to without some limitations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like back when there were hundreds of requests you didn't have the point system in place. The points are a pretty good indicator of how worthy an article is and seem to be effective at controlling which articles are being discussed at any one time. Couldn't they be used to manage discussions for thirty days per month rather than just for five? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it: there are more factors than just the point system. And, since Raul is honoring almost all requests here, and since many slots are going begging even with the point system (there's no one fighting for spots lately), I suspect we've hit the right balance (except that there will always be someone rolling in here new, without reading archives, without understanding the complexity, without ackknowedging that even though they want their recently featured article on the main page, there are a thousand articles waiting (400 more than a year), and wanting to change the system so that their article can jump the line). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to hear that we're avoiding chaos and back biting in the selection process, but if no one is fighting for spots lately, and if this place is usually producing favorable results, I still don't understand the need to be so strict about the five-article rule. If there are five proposals already ongoing and I stumble upon an article that would fit well on an unclaimed day, I don't see the harm in me proposing it for that day without having to knock another appropriate article out of it's request for a different day. Presumably, more eyes and brains would notice more suitable candidates than one person. If my extra proposal would represent too many articles on one topic in a month, the community would vote it down anyway, and if my extra proposal was for the same day as an existing proposal, the point system would sort it out. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a fan of "Don't mess with success". The page was a trainwreck for almost a year, and has only stabilized in recent months, too soon for change, IMO. We've also got, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's working now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I personally consider the fact that this has to be a one-man show rather than a consensus vote to be an indication that something is broken and needs fixing, but I'll let this system settle for a while longer before complaining again. Out of curiosity, if there happens to be a month with six date-appropriate FAs, will Raul at least consider including the sixth in his 25 appointments or does he have a set-in-stone way of doling those out? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You see, it's the misunderstandings from people who don't familiarize themselves with the page functioning that lead to confusion, even though we've got a Dispatch posted at the top of the page :-) Raul is not scheduling only five requests per month from this page: he has asked for five requests at a time. That is not the same as five requests per month. He schedules much more frequently than once a month. The ratio is working fine. He probably schedules about a third of the mainpage from the requests here, and if requestors weren't greedy about holding a slot far in advance unnecessarily, even that ratio could go up. The fact remains that requestors are greedy, and have shown they will game any system put in place. That we have attained some stability is remarkable. Yes, something is broken: it's called greedy requests in an environment where we have more FAs than we can feature. It's encouraging that some discipline has finally settled in on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about the confusion. I can understand why people want to claim a spot for their FA as soon as possible, so if there is a problem caused by people requesting far in advance, why not shorten the amount of time open for requests to two or three weeks? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree with Sandy, the system is working, though I suspect it is because of little demand by the community, meaning we don't have to make hard decisions here. We could not possibly do it 30 days a month, unless we had a fair sized community participating, which we don't (maybe 8 or 10 regulars, the same number of semi regulars and an ever changing squad of drive bys). We'd wind up taking anything that was nominated, and things would be terribly unbalanced. When was the last time the community recommended an art article? A biology article? Architecture? As a practical matter, we're recommending maybe 10 articles a month, probably less than that. Say that Raul picks 8 from the community's recommendations, he then still has 22 to balance out what we chose if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's another aspect to the current system which isn't talked about: the fact that in addition to taking nearly all recommendations that come through this page, Raul also sometimes takes recommendations through "back channels" (that is, via direct requests on his talk page, email or IRC). Obviously, we don't want to recommend that explicitly, but it does happen, and Raul often schedules articles which have date relevance but which don't have enough points to remain on the page. Tomorrow's Doctor Who missing episodes is an example: it lost several "main page representation" points when "Treehouse of Horror" (another TV-related article) was scheduled on Hallowe'en, but I contacted Raul and he kindly scheduled it anyway. "Treehouse" in turn was also scheduled through "back channels".
If Raul isn't bothered by this low level of back-channel activity (and I hope he isn't), then we can continue with this "two-track" system: on the one hand, formal community recommendations via this page, five at a time, and on the other hand occasional back-channel recommendations for entries which might be TFA-worthy but which fall through the cracks in the formal system. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. My second question still remains: if people are causing a problem by requesting dates as far in advance as possible, why not just try lowering the number of days open for requests down to three weeks and see if that helps? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that, but I think at some points Sandy indicated both the 5 requests and the 30 days came down on stone tablets from Sinai.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Resolved
 – archived –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we could archive the election stuff and other closed matters which are cluttering up this page?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please wait until the Dispatch is no longer at the Signpost? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No hurry, just would like to get the Obama/McCain stuff, which goes on forever, off the page at the earliest possible time.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The Election Dispatch is no longer in the current Signpost, so I did some manual archiving; automatic archiving should be OK now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

SkyTrain (Vancover) removal

I note that SkyTrain (Vancouver) was briefly added to the project page, then removed, in place of the USS Nevada article. I do not believe it had sufficient points to replace the Nevada, though five points were claimed. Date anniversary and one year points were fine, for two points. It could not claim basic subject matter, since the Sky Train is a local thing and I think we look broader than that for that point, and I do not think it gets main page representation, though it claimed six months since last local transit system. My view of the intent of the main page representation points is that it be a significant field of human knowledge, so that if Raul nods, and does not schedule something in that field for ninety days, we're entitled to say "WTF?!" and recommend something with extra points. It does not apply to local mass transit, because that area of human knowledge, while no doubt nontrivial, could not reasonably expect to be seen once every ninety days, and transportation has had several articles recently. So Sky Train is only two points and they will have to await a vacancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the SkyTrain article, and will happily support it. Personally I think that transportation is a very broad topic, and would consider this article to be rail related even though it isn't a railway is the usual sense. The last rail related topic was John Bull (locomotive), on 15 September, nearly 3 months previous to the suggested date of this article. Having said that, I agree with not replacing USS Nevada for the time being. When Raul schedules beyond 27 November, this should create a gap. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Granted, there are significant differences between the John Bull and the SkyTrain. However, we can't slice THAT finely. The idea of the main page representation points is to reward areas of human knowledge neglected on the main page. Not articles that are just a little different from the next one, an article about a game of football rather than a football player, for example, or a rail system rather than a rail locomotive. We need to look more closely at these claims. Two points is a heavy weight to be swinging around, and I can't believe it is for articles that are just a little different from the last in the field; it is for an article in a field which has been missed for the last 90 or 180 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar articles

I think the above raises the question of what defines a similar article. Do we define all transport articles as similar? I cannot see the connection between, say Interstate 70 in Utah and John Bull (locomotive), yet this comparison was drawn on the poject page recently. I'm not saying we should have a different transport article every day, but given the frequency that pop music articles, for example, appear on the main page, one every three months seems a little sparse. Transport can easily be subdivided, say into road-related, rail-related, ship-related, etc. Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 09:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is going to be the old Potter Stewart definition of obscenity, that you know it when you see it. I don't think rules for that could be written in any reasonably sized page. I'm sorry, I would lump all transportation together, because I think the intent of the points is so that if an article on a certain topic hasn't appeared in three months, then it is a crying shame and a thumb needs to be applied to the scales, and if it has been 180 days, you need to sit on the scales to weigh them down. That means (in my view anyway) that everything is divided into not more than 90 topics (in practice, less) and that just doesn't seem to leave room for transportation to be divided. In July, these points were almost never used and I think Sandy went so far as to say that they were not intended to be used very often. Now we are almost handing them out with the rations, and people are dropping broad hints that if there's no other article on Utah within the last three or six months, the highway article should jump up two points, etc. I think that this is such a heavy weight on the scales, we need to question and restrict the use of this. As for the three pop music articles, none of them came from here, all three initiated with Raul. Guess we know where his musical tastes are!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we might need to closely examine what is a similar article, and create a guide as to what is similar and what is not. It is obvious that there has never been any discussion as to what is a similar article and what is not, just some broadly accepted guidelines. For me, I would argue that there is an immense difference between a rail locomotive and a rapid transit system. I would instead argue that John Bull (locomotive) is similar in respect to the Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit article, not SkyTrain (Vancouver), based off the technical and article merits. ThePointblank (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's practical to try to create a written guideline, because every case is going to be different. What we've been doing so far is figuring it out case by case, and when there's a dispute we listen to the arguments on both sides. In this case, I agree with Wehwalt that the John Bull and SkyTrain articles are "similar", since they're both trains. The technical differences between light rail and heavy rail are pretty insignificant when you're talking about the entire breadth of human knowledge. However, I don't necessarily think that Interstate 70 in Utah and John Bull (locomotive) are similar. (I didn't dispute the claimed points for I-90 — my opposition was accurately characterized above as an "I don't like it" vote.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I am arguing that a locomotive engine is different than a metro rail system. They may run on the same two pieces of steel, but they are two different and distinct articles. One is about a locomotive engine and its history, full stop. The other is about the entire system (trains, stations, security systems, etc), and history. It is not just about a engine. If we were arguing over whenever John Bull and the LSWR N15 class are similar, then yes, they are similar. However, to argue that John Bull is similar to the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway is a bit of a stretch. ThePointblank (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
By that reasoning, BBC television drama would not be considered "similar" to Dalek, because the former is about the history and development of television at the BBC and the latter is about an element in one TV series. I don't think that argument holds up — as Sandy says below, "a train is a train". Which is not to say that Raul couldn't schedule two train articles if he wanted to — he scheduled Doctor Who missing episodes less than a month after Treehouse of Horror (series). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Occasionally we've had points disputed right up to the time when Raul schedules the articles for TFA. I'd assume that he takes these things into consideration. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Wiki works on consensus (we don't need more rules); I think a train is a train. A road is not a train and a boat is not a train. Last similar was in September. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy. No points there. Given the guidelines that we have on this point, atom and noble gas, you can't slice so finely as to distinguish between Bull and SkyTrain. Otherwise, we have so many categories that anyone can claim main page representation points for almost everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing articles from the request list

I very much want to put forward an article to be considered for TFA, but am hesitant about knocking off someone else's article from the request list. (It seems a bit mean!). There is a little time to go yet, so I'm not too worried at the moment, but how long do people here think you should wait before adding an article to the list? (I want a date a few days before Christmas).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't wait very long. Raul has been scheduling up to 12 days in advance. Tough luck for SkyTrain but there are vacancies coming up and Raul may use it anyway, if not, there is something most editors want their articles run right here right now overlook. It's a newer than new concept called "next year".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can one nominate a list to the Today's featured article?

As far s I can tell, a list is basically an article. So my question is, as the title suggested, can one nominate a list to the Today's featured article?—Chris! ct 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we have more than enough articles waiting without including lists. See the perennial proposals by TonyTheTiger and The Transhumanist for "today's featured list" at WP:LOTD and WP:LOTDP. Sorry, –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_7&oldid=1147972940"