Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Question

Would it be helpful to suggest both a minimum and a maximum character (or word) limit for the description on the Main Page? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older Requests

I think this page should be split into two parts, with the second part having old and yet-to-be-featured-on-the-Main-Page article requests that have not appeared on the Main Page in the last six months. Most of these are requests that have not been accepted (and probably will never be) depending on various reasons. The reason behind this suggestion is that this page is bloating in size, and splitting would certainly help. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that an older request hasn't been main paged yet necessarily means that the article will never be main paged. As I understand it, the list of FAs deemed unsuitable for the main page by the FA director is rather small. (I'd still rather do away with the whole system altogether; I don't think there's anyone who doesn't want an FA he or she worked on to be placed on the main page . . . . ) — BrianSmithson 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree this page is getting bloated. I don't think splitting it is a good idea (it's just one more thing for me to pay attention to, in fact, and anything that makes my workload heavier is an inherently evil thing). If anyone has an idea about how to tackle the increasing page size without adding to my workload, I'm all ears. Raul654 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps splitting it in two sections: the first, with FAs requesting to be featured in a particular date, and another for FAs without no particular date in mind? That kills the problem of "dated" articles getting lost in the rest of the requests.
As for making the page smaller, per se, the only thing I can think of is of using the evil {{hidden}} hack. Titoxd(?!?) 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Besides the obvious general and date specific requests, I think this is useful to allow feedback by other editors on requests which can range from simple support or opposition to improvement of the article lead (i.e. the recent Stephen Colbert and Macedonia articles). It also seems it would help Raul to already have a modified lead for at least some articles chosen for the Main Page. Would it be possible to just have the article names and comments here, with the proposed modified leads linked but on a separate page (similar to the separate semi-automated peer reviews on WP:PR)? This would be work to set up, but would keep all the requests together in one less bloated place, and once set up, nominators could put their requests in both places. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page may be helpful

Articles that have not been on the main page

[edit] What's going on?

I noticed that an article I added to the request list, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. has been removed from the list without being added to "this month's queue." Am I missing something? MLilburne 10:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A number of articles have been removed by user Bole2. I don't know why. I was under the impression that only the "Featured Article Director" (Raul654) could schedule articles. If I were you I would ask Bole2 what's going on. If you don't get a reasonable answer, either revert or talk to Raul about it. Hesperian 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article which have or are going to appear on the main page should be removed. Buc 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that it's going to appear on the main page? As far as I can tell it hasn't yet been scheduled. MLilburne 14:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies you are correct. Either Raul had second thoughts about it being on the main page or it was vandalisem. Buc 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check to see whether the other articles you removed have actually been scheduled or not. MLilburne 14:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The imageless Aaron Sorkin article

It's been brought to my attention that an article does not go up on the main page without an image. Is there a precedent in which an article did go up without an image? It might be a good idea to start a policy in which articles that don't have free use images of the person in question have an image in it's place that says so. Something along the lines of "Free use photo not yet available" to highlight the problem. Could such an image be used for the Aaron Sorkin article?-BiancaOfHell 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, an article won't be on the main page if it doesn't have a picture that can be used. I went ahead and found a Flickr user willing to donate an image, so that won't be an issue for the Aaron Sorkin article now. ShadowHalo 18:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, amazing. so the process works. Did you talk to the Flickr user and they agreed? I'll have to check Flickr from now on. Your experience should be chronicled somewhere so that others (like myself) can learn from this.-BiancaOfHell 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much. I asked the user if she would be willing to release it under a free license, noting that she would probably be cropped out of it. She asked if it was possible to be attributed, and so I explained how attribution is usually done at Wikipedia and that it was required by the license, so she released it freely. A lot of the free images I've uploaded have been done that way, though some were already free. ShadowHalo 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Main Page request}} adaptation?

I see the requests section has recently been divided into chronologically-ordered date-specific requests and non date-specific requests. While the latter have no problem because their title heading is exactly the same as the article's title, the former are modified with the addition of the date between brackets. In this case, the template {{Main Page request}} cannot link to the article's request sub-section because the title isn't the same. So, I think the template coding has to be adapted, no? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer that that template not be used. Raul654 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? 195.99.247.27 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, it adds more cruft to the top of article talk pages, which is something I have been trying very hard to remove. For another, I WILL NOT be maintaining that tag, so unless someone else is going to be removing it in an organized fashion, it's going to end up on lots of article that are not FAs, or that have already run on the main page, 'etc. Raul654 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like this new layout. I suggests that articles with date requests are somehow superior. Buc 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I just counted and of the 31 articles with a date, only six (The Simpsons, Minnesota, Calvin Coolidge, Maximus the Confessor, Sasha (DJ), and Countdown (game show)) actually mention the date in the proposed lede for display on the main page. I did not bother to read all the articles to see if the date is mentioned in them, but for just over 80% the date requested is not something obvious to someone just reading the main page lede. To me this is another reason to get rid of the date in the request header itself - article name only should be fine. Ruhrfisch 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since main page FAs aren't advertised as anniversary articles in the first place, I don't see the harm in suggesting a date that isn't mentioned in either the intro or the article. Somehow I doubt this puts undue pressure on Raul. Everyone respects his choices anyway.
Peter Isotalo 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I also rather don't like this template. I just removed it from Triceratops, which is already scheduled. Also, it's obviously copied from the FAC template and uses some code that is only needed to address a problem with some FAC submissions. TFA got along for a few years without this, so I'm wondering why it is needed now? Gimmetrow 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't like it either; another unnecessary template cluttering talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help...?

When I try to split the suggested intro for medieval cuisine into two paragraphs the way I want it, it refused to behave. It just sticking together into one big paragraph. What's the Hell is going on...?

Peter Isotalo 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem with my intro for Aaron Sorkin, that is on the page one tab over. It seems to work for some intros to articles, but not others.-BillDeanCarter 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Try putting the closing </div> tags on a new line, separated from the text body.
Worked like a dandy. Thanks.
Peter Isotalo 08:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridge Route?

Can Ridge Route be put on the main page (obviously through the proper process on this page), or is it exempt because it has already been there? It was demoted at the end of February and promoted a month later. --NE2 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already been on the main page, so I do not think it should go there again. Raul654 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old FAs

I am curious about whether any articles have been designated as not suitable for Main page exposure. I went through 2003 FA Promotions and 2004 FA Promotions and added strike through tags to all WP:FFAs. Below are the remaining TFA eligible FAs with {{ArticleHistory}} tags showing 2003 and 2004 promotion dates. If they are suitable, is there any reason why none of these have been on the main page?

Article Promotion Date Nominator Nominator Info Note
Quantum computer  before November 2003 unknown nominator
Sex Pistols before November 2003 unknown nominator
Action potential December 16, 2003 User:168... last edit 03:33, 21 April 2004
First Battle of the Stronghold December 17, 2003 User:Gentgeen active Administrator
Thou December 18, 2003 User:Ihcoyc active Administrator
History of the Peerage July 15, 2004 User:Lord Emsworth Administrator and System Operator last edit 20:49, 13 December 2006
Privilege of Peerage July 27, 2004 User:Revth active
Order of the Thistle July 30, 2004 User:Lord Emsworth Administrator and System Operator last edit 20:49, 13 December 2006
Quatermass and the Pit August 2, 2004 User:Angmering active
Privy Council of the United Kingdom August 7, 2004 User:Lord Emsworth Administrator and System Operator last edit 20:49, 13 December 2006
Edward VI of England August 24, 2004 User:Lord Emsworth Administrator and System Operator last edit 20:49, 13 December 2006
Color Graphics Adapter August 24, 2004 User:Ropers last edit 20:08, 27 February 2005
George I of Great Britain September 14, 2004 User:Lord Emsworth Administrator and System Operator last edit 20:49, 13 December 2006
Cristero War October 4, 2004 User:Mpolo last edit 13:59, 15 March 2005
William III of England October 5, 2004 User:Lord Emsworth Administrator and System Operator last edit 20:49, 13 December 2006
William IV of the United Kingdom October 6, 2004 User:Lord Emsworth Administrator and System Operator last edit 20:49, 13 December 2006
John Millington Synge October 10, 2004 User:Filiocht last edit 07:22, 6 June 2006
Augusta, Lady Gregory November 11, 2004 User:Filiocht last edit 07:22, 6 June 2006
William N. Page November 18, 2004 User:Vaoverland active Administrator No main page image
Presuppositional apologetics November 26, 2004 User:Jwrosenzweig Administrator last edit 02:18, 11 March 2007 No main page image (WP:FARC)
Modernist poetry in English November 27, 2004 User:Filiocht last edit 07:22, 6 June 2006
Reginald Maudling December 9, 2004 User:Dbiv (User:Fys) active
John Bull (locomotive) December 18, 2004 User:Slambo active Administrator
Lesch-Nyhan syndrome December 25, 2004 User:Larsie last edit 00:06, 4 March 2007
Matthew Brettingham January 7, 2005 User:Bishonen active Administrator
Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve January 9, 2005 User:Maveric149 active Administrator
John Day (printer) February 1, 2005 User:Maveric149 last edit 23:31, 22 April 2006
Battle of Warsaw (1920) February 2, 2005 User:Piotrus active Administrator
Death Valley National Park February 5, 2005 User:Maveric149 active Administrator
History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883 February 11, 2005 User:Jguk last edit 10:52, 9 March 2007
Nafaanra language February 15, 2005 User:Mark Dingemanse fairly active Administrator
Btrieve June 15, 2006 ?? User:Ta bu shi da yu active unsure why on 2004 list

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what methodology you used, but you missed quite a few FFAs. Since your work is incomplete, it would be better IMO if you'd revert the strikes in archive. Further, several of the list above are currently at FAR, Lesch-Nyhan thankfully has not requested mainpage because it's dismally undercited, etc. I plan to FAR Quantum computer ASAP; it's a wreck. And so on ...SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A few of these lack a main page picture (William N. Page, Presuppositional apologitecs), but for the most part, no, I don't have any reason not to feature this on the main page. "If they are suitable, is there any reason why none of these have been on the main page" - Stochastic effects. I make no effort to select older FAs for the main page, so the pool from which they are chosen will inevitably have a few that have been there longer than most. Raul654 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The algorythm I used was to look at 2003 FA Promotions and 2004 FA Promotions and check the discussion pages of each article without a main page date. Where did I go wrong? I.E., when you say I missed quite a few FFAs, could you be more specific. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/d/Wikipedia_talk%7EToday%27s_featured_article_requests_ac36.html"