Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What's going on? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The imageless [[Aaron Sorkin]] article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ridge Route? 

message: Hi everyone.  I've been editing for only a few months (I think my first edit was November or December 2006) and still think of myself as a New Wikipedian.  I began editing with one goal in mind - to get a particular article to FA status - a goal that was achieved in February.  I guess I've become a Wiki-addict though because now I do find myself working on other articles.:-) In the meantime, I did nominate my first endeavor for TFA and have been waiting patiently (and hoping).  The recent discussions on this page and the discussion on the FA page are interesting as I try to increase my understanding of how it all works.  In the 2 months since I nominated my article for TFA, I've seen nominations that have come later selected...and I've been wondering if Raul has some kind of criteria or formula (city, country, biography, movie, etc.) for TFA selections.  I guess what I'm really asking for is reassurance that my article has as good a chance as the next TFA nomination.  I mean, if my nomination is sitting in the queue a year from now, can I pretty much assumne it will never be selected?  Is there a maximum amount of months a nomination can sit in the queue?  Thanks in advance for any light that can be shed on this for me.  Kmzundel 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain subjects take longer to get to the main page than others. We have relatively few math articles, so those tend to go up on the main page relatively quickly after promotion. Music, media, and war (being that we have quite a lot of them) tend to take longer. See User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#Some_articles_get_there_faster_than_others Raul654 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Raul.  Your thoughts have provided more understanding and reassurance. Kmzundel 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for TFA 

message: I dind't support this article but I notced when I commented on Bill Russell there were 4-5 supports which have since been removed and only my oppose remains. See before: and look at it now. My vote is the ony one there now, something fishy is going on here. Aaron Bowen 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This must be the person who deleted all the comments. Aaron Bowen 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism/tampering? 

message: What was the purpose of doing that? You place something at the top, you're going to reasonably expect it will remain there for a while for people to see. Marskell 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we've done the date re-ordering regularly, no problem. If we haven't done this regularly, we should wait for more comments and Raul's input. My reason for reverting was pretty pedestrian: I had just nominated one, and I wanted it to hang around at the top of the page for a while to see if it would get comments. I posted, and 24 hrs later it had been shuffled to number 51. No fun :(. Like any meta process, I think it's fair if things get moved down/shuffled off organically. Raul can easily keep track of dates looking at the TOC. And I don't dispute that re-combining the date request makes sense. Marskell 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer that requests here are left in the order in which they are made. Not only is it less work for all involved, but it makes it easier for me to give priority to the older ones. Raul654 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorder chronollogically 

message: A few months ago I noticed Eurovision Song Contest was a FA that had not yet appeared on the main page. So I thought it would be a good idea to request it appear there on the day of the 2007 contest. Hence I placed an appropriate date request on here. It was on there on for about 6 months, so assuming he checks this page regularly he must have seen it. However initially Raul selected a different article for the requested date. I first I thought he simply different want to put it on there since it would after all have been two music article in a week. How after dropping him a note on his talk page Raul immediately compiled with my request. Which begs the question, was there really any point to placing a date request on this page?
So here’s my idea, remove all date requests from this page and instead inform people that if they have a specific date in mind to drop Raul a note on his talk page when it comes close to that time.
Buc 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date requests seem a bit redundant 

message: Just to add another factor, the TFA-request template is a recent development (January?) which probably has the effect of advertising the TFA/R page, and encouraging people to request specific dates. Would sending that to TfD help? Gimmetrow 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That thing is just more talk page clutter !!!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another factor

message: Nothing invested in this; feel free to rip it up, but hopefully this idea will kill all the following birds with one stone.
Problems/issues:
#The average number of new featured articles promoted during November – April was 60 per month.  Thus, we are promoting twice as many articles as we can feature on the main page.  (This does not account for delistings at WP:FAR; many of them have already been on the main page anyway.)
#A higher rate of promotion is desirable; anything we can do to encourage promotions is A Good Thing.
#Featured articles are not proportional by topic; some WikiProjects and areas are relatively stronger or weaker than others, resulting in under or over-representation of some topic areas.  Yet, Raul can't feature exclusively hurricanes, battles, and rugby players on the main page — variety is a goal.
#Main page date requests are making it hard to schedule the main page, considering all the other factors that must be considered.
It might be helpful to have a mechanism to feature more than one article on the main page, while encouraging more featured articles,  solving the date request dilemma, and allowing for variety in Today's featured article.
My idea is that we run two sections:
*Today's featured article would continue as it was in the past, subject to Raul attempting to schedule it for variety across topics, without the possibility of date requests.  Articles which sign up for that queue do not request a specific date, and they take what they get.
*We run a separate Featured event section, which allows a second vehicle for getting more articles on the main page, will hopefully encourage more promotions, and will address the date issue.  This is different than the Anniversary section, in that it would include only featured content.  It would be subject to the following:
#An article only goes in one queue.  If you're in the Featured event cue, you're not also in the queue for Today's featured article.  If you don't get your date, then you move to the Today's featured article queue, or choose another date, but no listing in both queues. 
#If there aren't enough featured events allowing for a new article each day, some events can run longer than a day (for example, World Cup Soccer, things like that, which are not one-day events).  This section need not change daily, as the daily featured article will already be providing the main page variety.
#If the system works, after a few months, featured lists or topics could also be considered for the Featured Event section.
#Talk page consensus can be used to remove, as always, inappropriate or pointy nominations (this issue came to light when its main editor suggested that he planned to request Christmas Day for atheism; we shouldn't be making political, religious or other statements via main page selection dates).
#If Raul has too many or too few in either section, he's free to ignore requests and use what he needs, to promote main page diversity.
I suspect if we carved out this kind of space for two featured articles, and made it clear that 1) ToFA requests do NOT include dates, and 2) it's still up to Raul - you get what you get - we could solve many problems at once.  This might lessen the issues coming up on Raul's talk page, and free his time up to be able to schedule two articles per day (or less, as some featured events might run longer than a day), while providing additional motivation for writing featured content.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested in this idea, but would feel better if I could see a mockup of the Main Page that incorporated this suggestion. You probably also want to spell out what are and are not valid date associations (even as guidelines) to avoid the "it's my birthday" argument. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't want to put more work into the preliminary idea, unless Raul thinks it's feasible.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting idea, but it's based on the premise that we can get more real estate on the main page. I don't think this is likely for two reasons - the main page is already pretty full, and getting people to accept a new section (which would, at least on its face, seem to conflict with selected anniversaries) is unlikely. Raul654 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be worth considering if we split our current "real estate" into two, by shortening our main page summaries?  Just an idea — I still have nothing vested in it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of splitting the real estate, why not split the time? In other words, why not have Featured articles be up for 12 hours instead of 24? Obviously the name would have to be changed from "Today's featured article" (or would it?). 8 hours or so works for DYK, but I wouldn't want less than 12 hours and more than 12 would be awkward. I don't know how much more work it would be though for Raul, and I agree he does a good job and do not want to make things harder for him. Ruhrfisch 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would fly; someone would get short shift (night time hours), and less than 24 hours isn't enough time for the kind of changes that an article goes through on the main page.  We'd be scrambling every 12 hours.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good attempt by Sandy to fix the problem, but I'll have to agree with the users above. There's obviously a lack of space, and this still wouldn't solve the problem about the date requests (which, without a doubt should stay, or atleast another system in which the people choose their own articles for the day). Splitting into two pieces would defeat the purpose of having a "featured article" because we would then have just a slew of info, not focusing on one thing. In short, good idea, but I'm not sure if it will work. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you could choose a time for changeover that would leave both slots with approximately equal audience. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the problem is so much that the articles wouldn't get equal exposure but rather that readers would not get equal access. I know that if one twelve-hour period coincided with 1:00am to 1:00pm (local time), I would not get much of a chance to see it, due to a combination of sleep and school. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be brutally honest, that problem is not one faced by experienced readers and editors, who know to look in archives, set up their own main page, etc. The Main Page is (or should be) for the casual reader and people who visit Wikipedia once a day to browse. As long as they see something, it doesn't matter what they miss. Carcharoth 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A new proposal

message: If Raul thinks the current system's not working, then we need to take that extremely seriously. Here are my thoughts on five different systems:
#Clearly, any system which revolves around a request mechanism will lead to "why this not that" type messages cropping up on Raul's talk page. I think therefore that we cannot perpetuate a request-based system.
#Vote (or !vote) based systems are inappropriate because (to cite just one reason) we would see the most "popular" topics over-represented, which is not what today's featured article is about.
#A purely automated system will not work because (to cite just one reason) we could end up with (say) four articles in a row about medical science.
For those reasons, I think that there are only two possible systems that will work
:a) Utter autocracy - Raul decides and that's that. No canvassing or solicitation for articles. 
:b) A TFA cabal, headed by Raul to help spread the load/expertise (and that way one or more member may be happy to be a conduit for requests)
As an aside, whichever road we go down, I have a simple suggestion. A "commented out" note at the very top of each FA article with a few suggested appropriate dates.
Final comment: I'm happy for Raul to select whatever route he likes and he has my absolute support... and thanks. He does a great job, for which he cops an unreasonable amount of flak. --Dweller 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think that Raul has done a tremendous job thus far because it is a tough job. But that is just the point; we are churning out so many FAs that the job is becoming too stressful for one person. Or even a handful of people anyway. This process needs to be more open, in that the only thing the 15-25 person cabal group would do is ensure that that date has an article that is not like any previous one. Other than that, the community should decide which articles go in which day, and any disputes that arise would be settled by a cabal member. It should be as simple as that. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a classic problem of scale -- a system that worked well when an organization (Wikipedia) was at a certain size, will not work as well when the organization is much larger. Unfortunately, the transition point (that we're going through now), when not properly planned for, can be a very painful process. My recommendation is to think about how the system should work when it's an order of magnitude larger, and then we can transition towards that goal. The task is obviously going to be more than one person can handle. I have the utmost respect for Raul's efforts here -- he stepped up to the plate and took on a volunteer job in the past, and he did it so well that it became a system that many people used.  It's time to move to the next level now -- I recommend a group/committee decisionmaking process in the interim, with discussion moved off of Raul's talkpage to some other location, and with Raul maintaining veto power over the committee decisions.  Would that work? --Elonka 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked that above, until the end when you said Raul would still have veto power. This is anti-Wiki. There should be no one user that is more important than any others. Sure, he should be revered higher, but certainly should not gain any privledges over any other committee members. I think, yes we should be moving from a single-person job, but we should be moving toward total community involvement. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, thanks, but no. The problem is not one of scaling, except in that one (unnecessary) negative outgrowth of it (the requests for certian articles on particular dates) is causing problems. As others above have said, eliminating the date requests would go a long way towards fixing the problem. Raul654 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comments like this one above are precisely why I think the job needs to be spread around. Raul has done a good job, but the curt objections in response to reasonable suggestions to let others chip in are a sign of too much power. I don't have an especially serious issue with one person doing the job, but I wish that person would be nicer about it. -- tariqabjotu 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are conviently neglecting to mention that, when asked to explain those comments, I gave the reason in great detail, after which, everyone was satifised with the reasoning and dropped the issue. Raul654 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't seem that the system, in its current state, is likely to suffer scale problems that make it impossible for one person to manage it. After all it is one article per day and will be so indefinitely. The current problem isn't one of scale, its one of a particular trend (requests for specific dates that are "meaningful" to an article) increasing to a level at which it disrupts the actual functioning of this process. I don't see that a committee structure would in any way fix this problem. (There is an impending process of scale, which Sandy points out above -- we are reaching a point where we have far more FAs available than mainpage slots. Thinking ahead about how to manage this problem would be useful, but I don't see that a committee structure would help the problem.) Christopher Parham (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly prefer it not to be a committee, but I think it is the next step in a logical progression toward a full community choice. If the community writes the articles, it is only fair for the whole community to promote them to the main page. One user who most of what he does is TFA/FA stuff should not be in charge of knowing what the community does and doesn't want. I would be moderately happy with a mid-sized group, though. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think people believe Raul's not doing a good job, then propose to eliminate the position. I think you would find the suggestion rejected thoroughly. The constant harping on the "unfairness" of the issue, however, is quickly growing wearisome. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The advantage of the current system is that articles such as the Eurovision Song Contest and the 2007 Cricket World Cup can be featured on their relevant days. The disadvantage is that Raul receives complaints a few times a week, which he can either ignore or reply to with a quick explaination. Epbr123 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Add Knights Templar to the list.  This year, October 13, 2007 will be the 700-year anniversary of the famous events on Friday, October 13, 1307 with the Templar arrest.  Shooting for that date really was a motivating factor for the team of editors that worked on that article.  It's also something that's being used for word-of-mouth to other non-wiki friends, like, "Hey, check out the Wikipedia mainpage on October 13th, you'll see something I worked on!"  If the article were to be featured on some other day than October 13th, it would be a major downer for the editors that worked on it. So I'd still like to see some mechanism that allows for date requests, rather than just a powerless sense of, "Well, it's in the queue.  It might pop out in February, or December, you really have no idea."  I agree that not every FA should necessarily get to pick a specific date, but some definitely do -- perhaps there should be more of a community review process, to help decide which articles do "have a case" for a date request? --Elonka 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with (to use your example) the Templar article running on the 700th anniversary. I have a problem with people creating dates for *every* article (most of which are really reaching) and then dropping notes on my talk page when I schedule the article for a date other than the one requested (as happened with Flag of Portugal) or when I pick something else for the date they requested. If anyone can devise a system that threads the needle, so to speak - allows requests but only in the few cases where they are highly relavant - I'm all ears. Raul654 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a buffer between yourself and the requests. Delegate initial decisions on accepting date requests to a community process, then made the final (few) decisions yourself. Delegate. Delegate. Delegate. :-) Carcharoth 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I see common through the requests are for the articles main page presentation to coincide with commercial dates, things like release of next album, movie and sports events. While this may garnish some additional hit for wikipedia. What it does do is give the appearance of a commercial association these also attract more reaction when it doesnt occur. Maybe the process should draw up limitations on what acceptable date request things like the Knights Templar request would still occur do we really need to have a Simpson FA on the main page the day the movie is released, that said if Matt was to make a substancial donation to the foundation then if there is a suitable article.... Gnangarra 03:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestions 1) Add a clear concise explanation of the Main Page TFA selection process to the top of the page. Include the number of FAs that have not been on the Main Page yet, and update it every few months so people get some idea that it may be a long wait. Explain the goal of diversity / variety in articles selected, and note that (almost) all FAs are eligible to be on the Main Page once and that several each month will not come from the requests page (link to the list of featured articles that have not been on the Main Page). Use summary style and refer them to Raul's essay for more details. Also include what is already there about only FAs being requested, that it is not a vote, and that the final decision rests solely with Raul. 2) Have a brief "How to make a request" section with rules mentioned in the next sections laid out here. 3) Make the page a list of article titles (since Raul has said he rewrites the Main Page leads anyway). 4) Allow one or two suggested image(s) for the Main Page to be nominated (as wikilink(s)). Comment on image choice is OK. 5) Allow one (or two?) date(s) to be suggested. Make firm rules about dates - as I suggested above, the date should either be in the article lead when it was featured OR it should coincide with a major event of international appeal (Eurovision etc.). If you want to exclude movie premieres and album releases as valid dates, do so explicitly. 5) Allow one request per user (once their requested article is on the Main Page, they can request another). 6) If possible, allow one request per closely related topic (one Pokemon character, one Star Wars film, one version of a video game, one obscure creek in Pennsylvania ;-) ). 7) Any other rules for the good of the order - perhaps something about only 10% (or wahtever number it is) of date requests actually make it on the requested date. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sensible suggestions. In addition, make clear that suggested submissions/changes to the Main Page lead text and image should be done once the article enters the Main Page queue for the current month (that queue tends to be only a  few days long). That focuses people's attention on the forthcoming appearance, and leaves Raul with only a few lead texts to discuss changes to (I think he tends to accept most sensible suggestions regarding wording of the lead text and image). There should also be somewhere for people to deposit Main Page lead texts if they want to write them - I suggest the talk page of the article, or a suitable subpage, and a link is added from this page (which would now be a list) to the suggested lead text subpage/section. Carcharoth 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking this through 

message: I just finished reading through the entire talk page... I have three points to make:
*(1) Raul could (and maybe should) consider getting more people to help him out with stuff that needs doing. Unofficial clerks, or talking and co-ordinating more with people that do other stuff at the moment, or whatever. That might help. As the number of FAs jostling for position in the queue gets larger, there will be more people asking questions.
*(2) There is too much emphasis placed on Main Page exposure of Featured Articles. Rather then try and get all featured articles appearing on the Main Page at some point, and trying to devise systems to have two articles appearing per day, why not just accept the inevitable: not all featured articles will appear on the Main Page. Instead, promote another page and try and drive traffic towards that (via some prominent link on the Main Page). A good example of this is the Wikipedia:Featured content page, which is a featured content portal in all but name. In some ways this does a similar job to the Main Page (which is essentially a portal as well), in that it increases exposure of featured content, and has the rather nice 'random content' feature. So why not promote this page more and direct some of the TFA queue over there or to where ever? Articles that appeared "over there" (and this request process could shift seamlessly to debating a queue for that page) would still be eligible to appear on the front page, and Raul simply goes back to choosing the TFA from the entire list of available FAs that haven't appeared yet (that list could be maintained by Raul, a bot, or the community, but the final choice would be Raul's). Effectively, I am arguing here for a "secondary portal" to handle overflow from the Main Page, but for now I think integrating excess FAs into the already-existing WP:FC would be the best option. Currently its 'featured article' section only includes articles that have previously appeared on the Main Page (I think, I'm not entirely clear how the setup at Template:FCpages works), but I suspect it could be tweaked to include all FAs, and not just previous TFAs.
*(3) FA motivation. Some people mention that appearing on the Main Page is a motivation for writing featured articles. This is true, but the featured article process should be its own goal, quite separate from the Main Page. I've seen FAs degenerate as the primary editor loses interest, either as it takes a long time for the article to receive Main Page exposure, or indeed after the article has been featured on the Main Page. Also, the thing about FAs not being featured again after appearing in TFA can be a problem, as there is less motivation for editors to bring older FAs (that appeared on the Main Page before current standards rose so high) back up to FA status, and even to bring articles back after FARC. This problem could be addressed if people bringing articles back up to featured status knew that the article would still be re-featured in some way (such as on WP:FC), even if not on the Main Page.
Do these points help solve some of the problems? Carcharoth 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:FC page currently selects randomly from a list of previous 'article of the day' sub-pages based on the date (with dates for articles which have been 'demoted' removed from the list). Thus, presently featured articles that have never appeared on the main page are not displayed. Featured pictures work the same way. However, featured lists, sounds, portals, and topics are never shown on the Main Page but have sections on the featured content page. Of those the lists, which are essentially just a specific kind of 'featured article', are most relevant. Those are displayed by transcluding the actual list article with inclusion tags inserted to define the scope of material to be displayed. When I came up with that methodology I had some worries that people would frequently remove / misplace the tags and cause display problems, but to date (after several months with scores of lists marked up) it hasn't happened once that I know of. The same process could be applied to featured articles which have not appeared on the Main page yet and the logic updated to pick randomly between those and the dated ones. Alternatively, people could set up blurbs like those used currently on sub-pages in a particular location and the system could include those in the random picklist. Short answer - it can be done. If people are willing to set up the proper formatting for each page then we could have ALL of the featured articles included in the random selection list for Wikipedia:Featured content. --CBD 11:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's brilliant, thanks! I think this would be a good way to go to reduce pressure on TFA and increase exposure of featured content. With the caveat that what is really needed is a non-random, sequential display, of featured content that for whatever reason has not appeared on the Main Page, or is facing a long wait to appear on the Main Page. Nothing to stop featured articles waiting in the Main Page queue, but a non-random, "latest featured content" portal might be a way to take pressure off the Main Page TFA and increase featured content exposure. In a way, it would be like the Signpost's weekly feature on featured content, but formattted to appear like the Main Page does. Do Raul, CBD and others think this is feasible, and would it help with the problems that were discussed extensively above? Carcharoth 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more thoughts 

message: I would have thought that a major advantage of this page is that it allows editors to post correctly formatted (proposed) main page content. I went to quite a lot of effort in composing my proposed TFA content; on two occasions I even went to the trouble of providing more tightly cropped images. Surely this makes things easier for Raul, and improves the quality of the main page content. If this page is discarded, we will need to figure out a new mechanism by which we provide proposed TFA content. Hesperian 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing TFA content 

message: Yes I'm the guy who requested Everton F.C.. It was frustrating watching several football articles go up before Everton even though Everton was requested first. City of Manchester Stadium, Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and Gilberto Silva come to mind. I know Raul has a tough job but I was very puzzled by the whole situation. 
My intention was never to pester Raul but to find an answer. I'd also support the 2 articles a day idea. SenorKristobbal 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My input 

message: I'm assuming Main page is the most-visited Wikipedia page, but maybe sex is visited more often (probably is, actually). Still, looking at sensible pages, does anyone know whether there is any portal-type page that is a clear second in popularity to the Main Page? Carcharoth 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the second most-visited Wikipedia page 

message: I question why the dates were removed "secretly" from the page, with no edit summary or no prior discussion to do so. There were active objections to doing so, so I would urge that they be put back up until a sensible solution has been decided upon. Raul, you cannot dictate everything that goes on here, and there certainly is some good discussion that I wish you would sensibly read and consider. └Jared┘┌t┐  18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't "secretly"; the problem has been well discussed on this page, and the date requests weren't working.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus to remove them. Epbr123 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was, but isn't it rather a moot point, since they were only getting in Raul's way as he attempted to schedule the main page?  Rather than complaining about the status quo, why don't we put our heads together and come up with some date request guidelines?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replacement date request guidelines should have been decided before removing the current ones. Epbr123 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think a new process was in order before the old one was deconstructed. Who knows if Raul will even be the sole director after we have decided what to do here. We certainly cannot base all of our claims on this one possibility. So, like the user below said, could someone please put the dates back, as there was no consensus. └Jared┘┌t┐  19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I will continue to be the FA director. No, we will not be restoring the dates. You are wrong on both counts - contrary to your claims, it has been previously discussed and and there was consensus to remove them, as it is abundantly clear that they are not working; (2) There was nothing secret about the removal - (cur) (last)  20:56, 15 May 2007 Raul654 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Temporary protection to prevent edit conflicts while I scrub date requests [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) I don't know how much plainer it can get than that. Raul654 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not believe there was consensus, and I'm sure others agree. I would hope that you get rid of your rude tone and work out a solution to this. You do not seem to want to help out at all at fixing this, and thus it is just making me hate even more the fact that one person controls this process. I don't understand how you think that you will always be the FA director, because I think you are sadly mistaken. The community gave you the job, and I believe that if consensus show they don't like it, they can take it away. I would kindly ask that you place the dates back into the article due to lack of consensus. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've spent 3 or 4 days harassing me and then you complain that I'm being "rude"? Unbelievable... Raul654 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is unbelievable.  Raul is the director, period.  And he most certainly CAN dictate everything that goes on here.  He's done a fine job of it for years from what I can tell, and any other "community" method for the main page would be absurd.  He was, however, considerate enough to come to the talk page and ask for suggestions to his problem and you have contributed nothing but controversy, a perfect example of what a "community effort" for FAs would be like.  He deserves a heck of a lot more respect than you're giving him and your disruptions, quite frankly, are exhausting.   Get over it.  Cricket02 03:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think he can over abuse his power to get things done around here? He was ratified by the community, which means that ultimately, we can give him the boot if we wish. I certainly would never do such a thing, because frankly, he's been here so long that he knows what's going on better than most others. I would however suggest that others join him. I'm not denying either that he's done a fine job, and certainly will do all he can in the future, but I think the current situation inhibits him from doing everything he should be doing. Thus, while he is the director, I think he has some strong say, but this say is way too overpowering (the fact that he can delete templates and date requests at his will with active objections would get him desysopped anywhere else) and something must be done about this dictatorship role before a solution to the overall system is reached. I would appreciate if you would work with me to find a common ground, from which we may be able to strike a solution, but it doesn't seem like there is anyone willing to admit there is a problem, so that is why I have been pushing my thoughts so strongly here. If I have offended any of you or been rude at anytime, I am doing it because I feel strongly for this and hope that a solution will come soon. └Jared┘┌t┐  11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is a tool for Raul... he is under no obligation to use it.  It is there to help him identify FAs to go on the main page.  If date requests hinder him, then I support the move to get rid of them.  Heck, I think a large part of the reason people use them is to jump to the front of the line.  There are very few dates that I think are truly meaningful that jump out as must haves---and those can be highlighted via a note or message to Raul.  It should also be noted that the addition of a section for date request is a new one---it was an experiment that failed.Balloonman 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the removal of date requests from the process, but simply deleting all existing date requests is going too far. Please just add a bold note at the top of the page stating "AS OF 16 MAY, NO MORE DATE REQUESTS PLEASE", and let raul work his way through the remaining existing date requests. Please restore the dates. 82.2.59.101 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced that Raul's reason for removing the date requests was to stop people complaining on his talk page. That reason alone would be a pretty poor excuse to remove a useful process as I'm sure the complaints aren't that difficult to cope with. I think its just that he doesn't have time to incorporate date requests into the main page selection process. Its probably time he started delegating. As Wikipedia gets larger, he'll get more work to do as FA director and I'm sure he won't be willing to do this job alone for the rest of his life. Epbr123 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you read the last few threads? Epbr123 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Look at the oldest version of the "Today's featured article/requests" page here (it was moved here from another page). The comments have reasons given for the request and some date requests. Now look at the current version, which still has comments with reasons given for the request and some date requests - what's the difference? Raul does an excellent job scheduling TFAs and serving as FA director. If he wants to take the dates out of the headers (or get rid of this page altogether), fine. My guess is over 90% of FAs have no compelling reason for being featured on a particular date. We need a new way to make date requests that avoids the current signal-to-noise ratio (the few valid date requests are being drowned out by lots of trivial requests). Having a date in the header (or requesting a date because it is the requestor's birthday) is not working, so what's the uproar for removing them? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about the 10% of FAs that do have a compelling reason for being featured on a particular date? Epbr123 21:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not all FA authors are aware that its possible to request dates from Raul654 directly. If it wasn't for the previous date request process, articles like the Knights Templar, 2007 Cricket World Cup and Eurovision Song Contest would not be featured on their relevant dates. Epbr123 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  Where they're extraordinarily relevant, they would have made it.  And in the current process, the useless requests far outweigh the good requests.  Ral315 » 04:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just your opinion. It's not certain that those articles would have made it. Should the GA nomination process be removed because the fails outway the passes? Epbr123 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If 5 or less out of every 100 articles nommed at GA passed, I'd argue yes.  Ral315 » 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date removal? 

message: *I think what is really needed is a (separate?) process to allow valid date suggestions to be made, whilst strongly discouraging tenuous ones. There seems to be a clear consensus in this discussion as to what is a sensible date suggestion and what is not. This might sound a bit CREEPy, but perhaps the community could come up with some short guidelines? Some parts of the guidlines at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries would be a good start. It should also be made clear that it is normally not neccessary to suggest a date for your article and that listed articles are merely suggestions and might well be ignored. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date suggestion guidelines 

message: I've blanked that page. (1) I'm adamantly against have (yet another) FA-related page. We have too many of those already. (2) I've added a section to this page for requests. It has unique rules around it that I think might resolve some of the old problems. Raul654 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be the best idea. That proposal above was created by people who see it incumbent to have a date request page or some sort of way to request when an FA is on the main page.  (Which evidently brings me to the point that you, again, overstepped your power by blanking the whole page because you felt like it, but that's another problem that still has to be worked out.) That page signifies all those people who believe that requests are important. I would suggest that you don't remove the requests as an option, and in fact bolster requests, because naturally it would only help your job; all you would have to do is ensure the requests don't cause two subjects to be featured in the same week. While, yes, all people will eventually want their page on the main page, would you rather trench through each article to see when it would be best to feature it, or would you rather others to suggest the best date for you? The latter certainly makes the most sense. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raul's idea 

message: How about putting a link to the current queue at the top of the page? --Dweller 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to queue? 

message: I'm really happy that Excel Saga is to be shown on the main page shortly, but has there been a policy change to prohibit fair-use images on the main page? I like the new image of Watanabe, but it's not exactly representative of Excel Saga. --Monocrat 15:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only free use images can appear on the main page. Buc 17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Morphh  (talk) 1:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also confused by this.  Gnomebot changed the fair use pictures on TFA page as they were not in article space.  Should we change them to a link to the image?  Will they be acceptable on the main page?  How come use on this page is not acceptable since the summary generally acts the same way the article does and should fall under the same fair use rational?  Anyway... some guidance here... are we not to use fair use images when submitting for TFA? This whole fair use nit pick crap is driving me nuts.  Morphh  (talk) 15:13, 06 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use images 

message: I just added Arrested Development to the requests and it has now been removed.. What's up? --Willball1987 01:23, 9 June 2007 (GMT)
*Please read the article's talk page Talk:Arrested Development (TV series) before nominating, it already appeared on the Main Page (as the edit summary removing the request said "Already featured" ). Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrested Development 

message: The guidelines say this: "Members of the community may comment on pending dates requests; those without significant support will be removed." What counts as significant support? Who does the removing? This is an issue especially because only five requests are allowed at any one time, so it makes sense to quickly clear out requests that aren't going to make the cut. MLilburne 09:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date request removal 

message: If the date requested is less than a week away the "no more than 5" rule does not apply. Buc 10:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - this basically clears the way for an unlimited number of requests for everyone of the next five days. Raul654 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can say: "if a TFA within the next 5 days has not been filled, the 'no more than 5 rule' can be suspended." This seems more reasonable, non? Especially if you (Raul) would like to ensure that last minute requests are not brought to your attention on your talk page, right? └Jared┘┌t┐  17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The less bureaucracy, the better.  I'm not even sure I understand that rule completely.  Ral315 » 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, he's saying that if the queue is less than 5 days into the future, people can file as many requests as they want. Once again, I don't care for this proposal. Raul654 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As "Today's featured article"s are chosen about three days in advance, it won't leave much time for requests less than five days away to be supported or objected. Epbr123 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed date request rule change. 

message: *July 25 - Abdul Kalam as his term as president will end on July 25,2007. He is the current President of India, a notable scientist and engineer, he is often referred to as the Missile Man of India for his work and is considered a leading progressive, mentor, innovator and visionary in India. --Phoe6 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abdul Kalam article is not a featured article yet. It has to gain the FA status before it can be listed in TFA requests. Thanks. - KNM  Talk 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Date based FA on  Abdul Kalam 

message: Is the following request too broad to up in the date request section?
August (any day) - Chelsea F.C., Everton F.C., Gillingham F.C., History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966), Ipswich Town F.C., Margate F.C. or York City F.C., This is when the new english fooball season will begin. Buc 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very broad request 

message: Would it be possible to have two or more days in a row for the same topic.  For example, what if we had Lost-related articles on February 6 (fourth season premiere) and 7?  Or is there some unwritten rule that there should be five or ten days in between?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 05:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, there's no hard-and-fast rule about it, but Raul prefers to have TFAs jump from topic to topic and location to location - and while I reserve the right to disagree with him at other times (I'm yet to give much input here, but that may change), I support him on that one. Keep it varied, particularly on something like Lost - plenty of people don't care one dot about it, so while one TFA is fine, two consecutive or close ones would be overstepping it, IMO. Is there even any Featured Lost-related content? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response, and there are featured Lost articles and a list.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consecutive days with the same topic 

message: Recently, they became acceptable in article's leads without any warnings, because it is expected that people who are on that page know what they are getting into.  Are spoilers acceptable on the main page?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Some of the featured articles have dead links in them.  Yesterday's featured article, Houston, had at least 8 references that were dead.  I've written a tool which can check for dead links in an article.  —Dispenser 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links in Featured articles 

message: The article Fun Home just passed FA, and I had hoped to ask for it to be TFA on September 10 (the author's birthday).  September 10 is still open, but there are already five date requests in the queue, including one for September 10 (although it seems that the nominators really want September 9 for that article).  Have I just missed the chance of getting Fun Home up on that date, or is there a way I can request it despite the "no more than five requests" rule?  (It's my first FA, so I'm still learning the ropes here.)  Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really want to bug him unduly, especially given #Discontinuing the use of this page above.  But if you think he wouldn't mind being asked, I will... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like mentioning it here did the trick!  Thanks, Raul. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missed the window for a date request? 

message: I know there is a lot of discussion here about scheduling of FAs.  This lead to Raul removing a lot of requests from the attached project page.  I am interested in the outcome of date-request reform, but this post is about a slightly different question.
I would like to see a place where editors can work on suggested language for the FA blurb.  An example is the recently featured 2005 Texas Longhorn football team.  I think the lead works great for the article but that some small changes can make a better blurb.  Also, I think that the first image in the article is great in the article, but that the second image is better for the blurb.  I have put my suggested text here.
My request is that we create a place for interested editors to discuss proposed wording of the these blurbs, and not just a day or two ahead of time, but whenever they want to work on it. Johntex\talk 01:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of the FA blurb 

message: Should we still be adding Support and Oppose?  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a vote? 

message: Three of the current five requests are for non-specific dates, which have no reason or justification for the date requested that is relevant to the subject of the article (The Office, Barnard's Star, Ronald Reagan). Since there is a limit of five article requests, this means other, more relevant date requests are blocked. Just as an article that was not featured (or a sixth article) would be removed if nominated, why not have some sort of rule that date requests have to provide a justification that is relevant to the content of the article itself, or they will be removed.
The header already says "The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary), or the article is relevant to a major event or well-known holiday occurring on that date." but I do not see how any of these three nominations meet either of these criteria. I also note that there will be many articles with no obvious date to request, a fact addressed in the Barnard's Star nomination. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have withdrawn The Office.  I had hoped that I would be able to request September 27 (third season premiere date), but that spot had already been filled by Smallville's pilot.  I requested "late September or early October," but then all the September spots were scheduled, so I changed it to "early October."  Now there isn't really a good reason to have it in early October, so I have cleared the space for a more relevant article.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have the office on my unofficial list (the ones I have not yet scheduled). Raul654 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully, we all want to see our articles on the main page, but the request page should only be for dates relevant to an article, like anniversaries and such. As well, any chance you would be willing to up the request limit to 10? -- Scorpion0422 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Date request abuse? A little melodramatic. And the page is not titled Date requests but Today's featured article requests. If people can't request articles that have no particular date, then we're introducing systemic bias. Any article should be allowed for request. Further, the date request appears to be exacerbating the over-reliance on pop cult. Marskell 07:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that this page is for date requests that are relevant to the article, not just for a specific date. I quote from the header: "The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary), or the article is relevant to a major event or well-known holiday occurring on that date." I have nothing against Barnard's Star (your article request) and think it would be fine on the Main Page, but I do not think your date request meets the criteria of the date request page. Requesting "after October 8" because of a business trip has nothing to do with Barnard's Star. There used to be a section for just regular Main Page requests, but that was eliminated (see above discussions). I  also wish it still existed, but it is gone. Hope this clarifies my opposition, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it clarifies the wikilawyering involved. I have four pending and none has a strong date linkage. Your argument would bar requests for a large chunk of our FAs. That makes no sense. Marskell 10:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to make a request if there's no good reason for it being featured on a particular day. If the only reason is that you want it on the main page as soon as possible, the same will apply to every other FA in the queue. Why should your article be able to jump the queue just because you ask for it to? Only about a quarter of main page articles are decided by these date requests, so there's no need to worry about your FAs never featuring. Epbr123 10:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, there used to be a way to request that articles appear on the Main Page that was date independent, but it was removed this summer (thereby blitzing my request that had been in the queue since September 23, 2006). While it is "my argument", I did not make the rule, nor did I remove the previous "request for any reason" page section. Raul654 (who did both these things) has said that all but a handful of FAs will get on the Main Page eventually and most of those FAs appearing there since the non-date request page was blitzed have not been selected via date requests. I also think the date of discovery of Barnard's Star would be just as valid and relevant for a request as the date of a premiere of a movie or debut of a tv show or video game. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Epbr, there's no queue-jumping involved with an article that's been waiting a year. Raul agreed here that, in general, listing how long you've been waiting, how many you have pending, and whether the subject is of general interest is a good idea. If people don't lawyer but consider the request in sum, there's no problem. Marskell 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't Raul see for himself which articles have been waiting the longest and which are of general interest? Aren't these the criteria he already considers when choosing from the non-date-request articles? I'm not sure why the number of FAs an editor has pending should be a factor; the decision should be based on the article, not the editors. Epbr123 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add "featured in November 2006" it obviously helps Raul. And looking at the editor is courtesy. Marskell 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding "featured in November 2006" doesn't help Raul identify the many articles featured before November 2006, which are more deserving of a main page feature. Epbr123 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a truly bizarre argument. Because you can't help him completely, don't help him at all. Marskell 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means being "featured in November 2006" isn't a good reason for an article to be chosen as a main page article, as there are many articles which have been waiting longer. I agree it would be good if there was a system where older FAs could be brought to the attention of Raul, however, there was such a system until a few weeks ago when he removed the non-date specific articles from the request page. Epbr123 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a reason by itself. It's one point to consider. Marskell 18:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Along with other points such as how many FAs the editor has pending, and whether the subject is of general interest? All three of those points together still wouldn't be a good enough reason to make a request. The only valid reasons I can see for fast-tracking articles onto the main page are if they are relevent to a particular date or if they are one of the longest waiting FAs. Epbr123 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God Epbr, if you just want to yell "last word," feel free. They are points to consider, that's all. I'd also suggest you revert yourself until it's established that anyone can make a determination. Marskell 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind people presenting points to be considered, I'm just pointing out why some people will be opposed to those points. It's long been established that anyone may remove unsupported nominations if it's preventing other nominations being made; other's do it frequently. Epbr123 19:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But only having the five requests is just weeks old. We should wait for Raul to decide how things move off. Or whatever. Perhaps we should just rename it "Celebrity birthday requests". Marskell 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The date request system has been around for a few months. You're entitled to oppose the birthday requests if you disagree with them. Epbr123 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But only having the five requests is just weeks old. Last word! Marskell 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now's our chance to find out how Raul feels, by whether or not he reverts me or tells me off. Epbr123 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last word! Just for fun. Marskell 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it courtesy to look at the editor? Epbr123 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He he he. Marskell 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with the above. I came to make a request for October 7, but all 5 spots are taken and the earliest request of the 5 is October 15.... two weeks away. M3tal H3ad 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Raul654 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date request abuses? 

message: I assume you can no longer request an article appear on the main page unless you have a specific date request? I had a request up, for anytime, and now I see it is missing. Does this mean the article I worked on cannot appear? If that's the case I have now lost all motivation to work on featuring an article. Any clarification would help. IvoShandor 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are probably about eight days within the next thirty that will be filled by requests on this page, the other ~twenty-two are chosen by the featured article director from the list of featured articles that have not yet appeared on the main page.  It will take some time, but the article that you worked on will eventually become today's featured article.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with doing it this way is that most of the Guadalcanal-related featured articles that I had completed up to now I hadn't intended to be featured on the main page.  My goal was to finish the main article and have that on the main page and then everyone would see all of the featured sub-articles of the campaign through the main article. Cla68 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just reading above, it appears that it isn't the case that every article will make a main page appearance, or at least that seems to be the implication. I wonder, without a request does that decrease its chances? Maybe main page articles should be chosen by a consensus of experienced editors as opposed to just one person, that is if every article isn't going to appear on the main page. The fact that I am not too keen on the idea of directors on Wikipedia aside, I think that if every article no longer has a chance at the main page it would only be fair to let consensus rule. IvoShandor 10:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: What happens if a featured (TV show) article doesn't have a free image, but one of its subarticles has at least one? E.g. Carnivàle has no free images, but it seems like I'll get a flickr user to contribute one of his images to WP soon that would work very well for a main page appearance of the article (the image basically is the central and therefore notable ferris wheel of the show, but I'd rather add it to the more plot-ty subarticles instead). The old "application" way has been removed now, and a date request seems out of place for an old cancelled TV show, so I can't make it clear what image should go with the article as a TFA. I also fear that these reasons may result in the non-free-image-less article to be ignored for a long time or to be featured without an image. Is a note on the article's talk page enough? Any other comments? (And I'd rather not replace the show's title screen image in the infobox with the ferris wheel photo, or add the photo to main article somewhere where it doesn't really fit, just because the article might be a TFA someday.) – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image question 

message: Is there some sort of proper Template so use when requesting an article on this page? The Clawed One 03:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is not: (1) there is no need for one, and (2) if we created it, then someone would have to maintain it. (3) If memory serves, we did have one, and it was deleted because of 1 and 2. Raul654 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so if I were to request an article, how do I get the sample and picture stuff like the current requests have? The Clawed One 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can copy the ones that are already here. But as I have said before, I don't actually look at the suggested write up - I write them all from scratch from the article's lead. Raul654 03:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: This dual limit of no noms past 30 days in the future and no more than 5 at a time is not right. I can understand limiting to 30 days only as otherwise the page would again become unduly cluttered. But only 5 noms in a 30-day window?--that's just not right. What if there are 6 really good and really appropriate FAs suited for a 30 day window? A user can't make a simple request for the near term, especially if there is no other request for that day? Can you spell W-R-O-N-G?Rlevse 16:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already replied to this comment on my talk page. But to answer the question you posed here - What if there are 6 really good and really appropriate FAs suited for a 30 day window?  - then that sixth person has to wait for one to be fulfilled before making it. The not-so-subtle point you are missing, however, is that there are many users out there who have written featured articles and want to see them on the main page. A no-limit requests page is an invitation to all of them to file a request -- even users who normally wouldn't put in a specific request feel the need to put one in because otherwise their work will never show up. Raul654 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The not-so-subtle pointS you are missing is: a) What if the date they want passes before a slot opens up? and b) I didn't say no limits, I said I can see a 30day out limit. Rlevse 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rlevse, I have a request for the 31st of October, but because the page is full of 5 requests, I am unable to place mine in. I'm sure there are plenty of others who also have this problem.  Having no limits would be a bad thing, I can agree to that, but I think allowing just 5 is a disappointment to some of the editors who have been waiting a year or more for their article to be featured. DarthGriz98 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with 30-day limit is more appropriate, the other limit of only-5-requests-at-a-time is too restrictive. The best way solution, IMO, would be allowing a maximum of 10 requests at a time, for the next 30 days. This would ensure, a rotation of an article atleast once in three days, on an average. - KNM  Talk 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah the same problem would occur. All the slots would fill up straight away and users would demand the max be increaced again, then they would all fill up and so on. Buc 06:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but the problem is that right now the limit is so low that people can't, for example, make requests for next week when all five slots are filled by requests towards the end of the 30-day limit. 5 slots is simply TOO LOW. And what is wrong with each slots being filled anyway, assuming people have a reasonable chance to make a request? Sometime ago Raul wrote a piece about what it's like to be FA director and his frustration at it grows every day. While I understand it's largely a thankless job, shutting people out and ignoring them is not the answer. One solution is to get rid of the main page FA--it's nothing but a massive vandal target anyway that wastes the time of vandal fighters while touting a vandalized article as "wiki's best", so newcomers see a constantly vandalized article as TFA.Rlevse 12:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution is to get rid of the main page FA - Absolutely not. Raul654 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: every thing is an option. you also conveniently avoided the issues, but that's nothing new. Rlevse 03:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, it's not an option. Getting rid of the daily featured article is patently unacceptable - a non-starter. As far as the other issues, Buc said it best - increasing the limit is a non-solution, because any increase simply means those extra slots will fill back up. An actual solution would be for a system that rewards merit rather than first-come-first-serve (Marskell has already devised the necessary criteria). Raul654 04:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is Marksell's proposal? So what if the extra 5 slots fill up? At least people would be getting more of a chance. Getting rid of the TFA is of course an option. For something that's supposed to be so open and consensus driven, the TFA/FA/MainPage area is something that is most un-wiki.Rlevse 15:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say he had a proposal - I said he had criteria for comparing requests. His criteria are here. The idea is that we use a system that gives priority to something other than the first person to file a request. Raul654 18:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as getting rid of the daily featured article - it's a highly popular (the 2nd most popular thing on the main page after the search box), generally well liked feature. It has a demonstrable effect of stimulating better article writing. Getting rid of it due to issues with this page is an option that exists in your mind alone. On the other hand, I'm more than willing to end the requests problem by deleting this page and entertaining no more requests. It won't make anyone happy, but I'm *quite* certain that will solve the problem. Raul654 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I think we should get rid of it, it's your summary dismissal that's it's even an option that I'm not appreciative of. Getting rid of the request page is a option too, but it would indeed cause even more problems. This horse is about dead now, but I still disagree about the current request process.Rlevse 20:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because that request was made many months ago, shortly after the article was promoted, and before this page (in its current incarnation) existed. Raul654 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual nomination limit 

message: If the limit is 30days out and 5 at a time and the mention of this was first made in Sep, how did this get slotted in for Nov 9 already: Rlevse 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that request was made many months ago, shortly after the article was promoted, and before this page (in its current incarnation) existed. Raul654 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How did this happen?

message: Since we contribute to a free encylcopedia, I assume we all agree that more information is a good thing. With that in mind, here is a three part suggestion for replacing the current TFA request page. These are all just ideas to get discussion started. I also do not expect Raul to do any of this work - he has enough to do as it is. I could help if this is decided on.
1) Have a single page for all possible date requests, with the page divided into thirteen parts: one for each month, plus one for movable dates (such as Pentecost, Passover, Eid, Thanksgiving, etc.). The months would be broken down by day, and the movable dates would  be listed alphabetically. Each article could be listed for one and only one date (multiple requests would all be removed). The article would be listed as follows: linked name of article, inline link to suggested image (optional, if none then assume first image in article), and a one sentence (30 word limit?) rationale. As an example (borrowed a current date request example):
October 16
*John Mayer, :Image:JohnMayerCrossroads2007.jpg, Rationale: This is his birthday, note he will be 30 on October 16, 2007
There would be no limit on the number of requests per date, but there would have to be some relevance to the article or holiday (and not "It's my birthday", etc.). Requests without a relevant connection to the date could be removed. There should also be some mechanism to prevent moving the date requested too often (i.e. if someone's article date were changed each month to the current month). There would be no voting or comments on the page, they could go on the talk page, although that would be primarily to comment on a date or dispute a page's date. Raul would be free to look at this page or not, but at least everyone who wanted would get in one date request per Featured Article. I think it would also make clear how many worthy requests are out there.
2) Have a single page listing all Featured Articles that have not yet appeared on the Main Page prominently linked (is there one already?). Organize it the same way that Wikipedia:Featured articles is organized, with the exact same twenty-eight categories . Call it "Today's Featured Article Queue". This way it is clear to everyone that their FA is in the line (as are hundreds of others). It might also be useful to have a page organized the same way that showed only FAs that had already been on the Main Page.
If you want to get fancy, this TFA Queue page could also list the total number of FAs in each category, the number and percent that had already been TFA and were in the queue, and the name and date of the most recent TFA from that category. For example for "Food and drink" (smallest category) it could say "11 articles in this category, 11 (100%) have appeared as Today's Fetaured Article, the most recent was Trade and use of saffron on September 29 2007, 0 (0%) have yet to appear on the Main Page". Once this was set up it should be fairly easy to maintain (maybe even by a bot?). 
It would probably also be useful on the main FA page to prominently display a statement such as: "As of date, there are X FAs on the English Wikipedia. Of these, Y (Y%) have appeared on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article, and Z (Z%) are still in the queue to become TFA." with links to the pages proposed above for the already been TFA and still waiting pages.
3) Make this page into some sort of comment page. It could be for discussions of TFA in general, letting Raul know if a certain image was preferred for TFA, the whole "I only want the main Guadalcanal article as TFA, not the subarticles" discussion, etc. There has to be a place for people to vent. 
I hope this is helpful. I think by allowing all date requests and showing people the whole queue, it will both cut down on the frustration people feel at not being able to make a date request and give them a better idea of the numbers involved in terms of time to wait on average and number of similar articles also waiting. Thanks again to Raul for doing a thankless  task very well. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea of making the requests page for the next year, instead of the next month.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Have a single page listing all Featured Articles that have not yet appeared on the Main Page prominently linked." I have been thinking of this for some time. It should list how long an article has been waiting and (perhaps through the WBFAN bot) how many users have waiting. Marskell 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the main page Raul654 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Neat. Perhaps one of the bots could generate a supplemental date list? Marskell 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for TFA 

message: I'm Alexelliottwelch 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Channel Four does not appear to be a Featured article and thus does not yet qualify to be featured on the Main page.  If you wish to change this status, please consult the Featured article criteria and if you believe the article meets these requirements then submit a request at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --Allen3 talk 12:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Because I've recently been getting a number of questions/complaints about this page, I've significantly rewritten the instructions here to include most of Marskell's suggested criteria. In particular, I've reworded it to make it clear that a date connection is not the only factor. Raul654 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh - it's still kinda confusing. Can someone give a Step 1), Step 2) etc etc list to me as to how I'd go about nominating an article which I don't care when it goes on the main page? Great scott, I miss the old request page. Why don't you bring that one back, but limit it to like 10-50 or something? I hate that there seems to be an onus that your nomination has to have a date above it... :( Bring back the old version! 05:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significantly modified instructions 

message: I'd like to nominate the Webley Revolver article for "Today's Featured Article" on November 8th, as it will be the 120th anniversary of the Webley's introduction into service. There are currently no featured articles scheduled for November 8th, but it would seem I have to wait until one of the articles currently under consideration for a different day is voted on before I can make a request on this page. Some of the nominations have been there for almost 2 weeks now, so I'm wondering: How long do they typically remain there before being voted on, and is there a way I can request the Webley Revolver article appear on November 8th in spite of the "Five requests only on the page" limit? --Commander Zulu 07:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long do requests remain here before being decided on? 

message: This would be a non-date requests for articles where there is not a suitable or notable enough date for them. Like this page it would be limited no more than 5 requests at a time.
That’s the basic idea.
More specifically I propose it have the following rules.
*No request may remain on the page for more than 30 days
*Any request with no support in the last 10 days can be removed
*For a request to be valid the user must provide a good reason for making. What a reason is would be down to judgement, but for me it’s either:  It has been a FA for a long time, the subject is very notable or there hasn’t been an article of it’s kind on the main page, for a while/ever.
*Any request with an oppose: support ratio of at least 3:1 (minimum of 10 day) can be removed.
Buc 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what the point of that is, because the page would get filled up immediately, and then remain full for a couple of weeks. And if Raul DID put any of those five pages up, a new request would immediately go up, most likely by someo ne who has the page on watch, so in the end it would simply reward whoever is quickest. I was thinking that perhaps there should be a list of pages where the contributors DON'T want it to make the main page for whatever reason (needs cleanup, waiting for an appropriate date, etc.). -- Scorpion0422 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't that exsacly what's happening on this page. Buc 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said this page was perfect. I just said I think having two of them is unnecessary. -- Scorpion0422 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Buc's idea. It would create a fair balance between the two types of requests. Although, maybe both types of requests could be placed on the same page, but kept in separate sections. Epbr123 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, call me ignorant, but I'm pretty sure this has been tried. It used to be (recently) a free for all where everybody got to put up requests for any FA. And I think that's been done away with in favor of only doing date requesting. Unless I'm missing something... Okiefromokla•talk 02:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So are you allowed to make non-date requests on this page? Buc 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you at least increase the max number of requests to 10? -- Scorpion0422 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an alternative (or perhaps in conjunction with earlier suggestions), perhaps articles could be removed once it is obvious that there are no objections (or an overwhelming majority in favour of them)? For example, there are no objections at all for the November 1 candidate Karnataka; so why not accept it as passed and remove the nomination, freeing up another slot for another article nomination? The same could be said of the November 9 nomination Montreal Screwjob; the only 2 "Oppose" votes are from people who object to having a "Pop Culture" article on the front page. I don't think large numbers of people are suddenly going to announce an objection to the article appearing on that day between now and then, and even if they do, the article has been up for discussion for weeks now; there's been plenty of time to lodge any objections since then. --Commander Zulu 08:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed additional request page 

message: Are they acceptable on the main page?  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this question in reference to? Raul654 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence before "(more…)" of this old request.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Per Commander Zulu's suggestion. Buc 11:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: remove Oklahoma