Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Not archived

message: * Moved off list.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved off list

message: Rick, on these, the process we used when re-creating articlehistory on these was a shortcut, linking to the RBP.  On others, later, I started stepping through the old WP:FAC diff by diff to find the comments and re-create the FAC files.  Can your other tool be used to identify the month in which each of these articles was added to WP:FA?  That will help me find the entries at WP:FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the FA lists, by month, on my PC (as far back as I've run the FA diff tool) - so, yes, I can find the month anything was added to FA.  I'll annotate the list with the months. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, then we can rebuild those.  Now that I understand it better, it seems maybe we were lead astray when building articlehistory.  It seems to me now that RBP were essentially the same as FARs, and that all of them should have been added, but someone (I think it may have been ALoan) advised us not to.  At any rate, I'd like to at least rebuild and archive the original FA date for that list of RBPs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've annotated the ones in the list (I've only run the tool back to Jan 2003, so anything before then shows up as then or earlier - I could run it all the way back to Larry Sanger's first edit in Oct 2001 if that would actually be helpful).  (and you mean FAC, not FAR, right?) -- Rick Block (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rick; I'll work on those next.  Do you want to review all those that I just resolved with redirects?  No, I meant FAR.  Still trying to understand RBP.  It seems like they were FAs that were reviewed and Kept or Removed under RBP, which makes them similar to FAR.  No?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you annotate the list?  (Betcha had an edit conflict with me and lost it ... eeek !!!)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: annotated here (hmm, must not have saved before). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see the problem; WP:FAC didn't start up til June 2003, so the method I used on others can't be used on these.  By what process were they added?  Anyone could just add an article?  If so, there's nothing for me to reconstruct.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log only cares if they were before October 2003, should I just add them all there?  Or should I quit now, and forget about those?  Are we getting to the point of diminishing returns?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is before I was around, but looking at a very old version of the talk page, I think anyone added anything but (it being a wiki and all) anyone was free to remove anything as well.  Eloquence was around, and seems to have been involved in the shift to the nomination process.  I'd expect he'd remember.  To have an entry in a by-year nomination file for every FA and FFA, I added the moldy oldies (without noms) to Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003.  Re "point of diminishing returns": didn't the return on this start at about 0? :)  Could it go lower?  -- Rick Block (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, right :-)  I'm pretty much bombed out here from having my head in archives.  From a list of more than 400, we made a big dent.  Can we call it a day, pretty please :-))  What do you all think is still important to get done?  Those 18 at the top may be really messed up, but I'm too tired to sort them out.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RBP FAC created