Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive25

message: *Comments by Tony: I don't have this page on watch, because it's all or nothing and floods my watchlist when I do; so I've only just become aware of this issue. I disclose immediately that Sandy is a close wikifriend. Against that, I am quite capable of disagreeing with her, and by coincidence yesterday was an example, although on a relatively trivial matter (MOS talk). I want to make five points relevant to this discussion:
#I've squabbled with Raul about conflict of interest (mainly his self-nomination of FACs), my misgivings about what I see as his wish to maximise the proportion of WP articles that are FAs, which risks a fall in standards), and the proportion of renominations. However, Raul has my overall confidence and support in his unusual tenure of the Directorship. 
#For some time, I've wanted to see more activity by Raul during the process, and on at least one occasion have posted a thank-you note on his talk page where he has made comments that push things along or focus proceedings. I haven't seen these comments by Raul as COI.
#I'm delighted with his delegation of the management of FAR/C to Tim Marskell and Joel: it has worked well.
#Likewise, Sandy is an excellent choice as assistant, IMO, in what has become a huge task. I'm very upset at losing her as a free player in reviewing FACs, since she will need to exercise care in her activities. Her skills are unique here at the moment, and we can ill afford to lose her input. It may be possible for both Raul and Sandy (given that the task will be shared) to take a more active role in encouraging the inevitable need for rapid improvement as nominations move down the list. It's no longer a nominate, tweak, and pass or fail be damned process. The longer duration of the process—noted by Raul recently—allows time for nominations to be brought up to standard, rather more like the design of FAR/C. Where a nomination clearly needs work to meet specific criteria, and the review process has not made this sufficiently clear, I see nothing wrong with a comment from management. Nominators are quite used to the process of reacting positively to pokes and prods by reviewers, and a healthy culture has emerged in this respect. This culture needs to be nurtured by all three stakeholders: nominators, reviewers and managers.
#Talk of the need for Sandy to be a sysop is irrelevant: the RfA process clearly fails to filter out inappropriate candidates, which is amply demonstrated by the behaviour of some mop-bearers, not just once or twice, but as a continuing pattern. RfA proves very little. With Sandy, what you see is what you get. Tony (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like the natural development for FAC. Something needed to be done about the scaling problem here, and Sandy is the best choice for a FAC assistant. Gimmetrow 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the discussion above, so many people (not so much later in the discussion I guess) seem to be reluctant to accept this nomination due to the difference between this and an RFA. But didn't the RFA used to be similar to this? A trusted member of the community is decided upon, discussed and commented, and then approved? And even before that, just approved? It seems that this might go down that road, and might not. Who knows how this will turn out?--CM (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: very helpful comment!--Keerllston 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with how Raul runs this process and trust Sandy to do a good job, since she does so much of it already. I suggest, however, that we should have three people doing this job, then if there is a serious disagreement there will never be deadlock. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments; I just wanted to note that if there's a disagreement, Raul's the director.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the way things have and are being done in FAC/FAR process.  But if the view of a vote were to ever win out, I'd strongly oppose it being an election of all editors eligible to vote.  I'd say the Featured Article Director (FAD) spot should really be appointed by the bureaucrats and the Director delegates different roles.  That or limit candidates for FAD to bureaucrats and/or experienced admins.  Mbisanz (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Sandy is an excellent choice (I won't say the best because I'm biased :) I also don't think there is any need for this to be an RfA-like process, since I don't think it will happen too often (and many, many people are not happy with the current state of RfA) and there is no reason for adminship to be a requirement for this "FA assistant" position. The tools are not required for any step of the promotion/archiving process. I trust Raul's decision and Sandy's judgment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hardly an FAC regular, but if Raul is happy with Sandy, I don't see any issue here. Tim Vickers' point about a third person makes sense. Hmm, couldn't Marskell and Joel pop over from FAR if needed? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New subsection to break a huge page

message: It is not easy to be a FA director. You must know the FA criteria by heart, you must read a lot of comments in each FAC and you must know which opposes are "actionable". Raul654 has a few years experience as a FA director but SandyGeorgia is new to this. Even if she commented at a lot of FACs she only started closing them a few weeks ago. Raul654 needs to teach SandyGeorgia what to do and how to do it. --Kaypoh (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raul654 must teach SandyGeorgia what to do

message: It seems to me that the two topics of the "strangeness of the FA process" and the nomination/promotion by Raul should be treated separately, as they are different topics. I note three issues to the issue of the strangeness of the FA Process
#What is the "percived strangeness" of the FA process?
#from where is the notion of "strangeness" derived?
#how can we dispel the notion of "strangeness"?
--Keerllston 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking just for myself, I see none of the strangeness you mention.  The process does not always work perfectly, but I would never expect it to.  I think it works well enough.  Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree - but if we want more perfection, we must make it ourselves, and I think people want "more perfection".--Keerllston 10:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So all those detailed reviews I've done during an article's FAC (reviews that probably wouldn't exist if the FA process didn't exist) didn't improve the article? CloudNine (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would exist as "Peer Review" - and in fact - it seems that FAC is more and more becoming simply Peer Review+Vote the fact that longer nominations are allowed helps this - contributes  to this, exacerbates this.--Keerllston 12:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Oh - and the FA Criteria are really good too - serve to help along the Peer Review and all.--Keerllston 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that with the more complicated edits, it's worth explaining what you've done on the FAC page. Even if the reviewer doesn't return, others can then assess whether the point has been addressed; this is also a good opportunity to demonstrate your command of the topic and earn trust. Just saying "fixed" is often not enough, in my opinion. qp10qp 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Or even, dare I mention it, GAs. I think that you've hit the nail on the head. There appears to be an arbitrary amount of time that FA candidates are left open, and when they're passed or failed there's never any explanation as to why. That can hardly be considered to be a transparent process, and it certainly doesn't help the editors address whatever the secret "killer" was for their article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this idea.--Keerllston 10:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater FA process Transparency 

message: Proposed answer to 1: The strangeness is the erroneous promotion and erroneous lack of promotion and erroneous delisting from FAC.--Keerllston 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking just for myself, I see none of the strangeness you mention.  The process does not always work perfectly, but I would never expect it to.  I think it works well enough.  Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree - but if we want more perfection, we must make it ourselves, and I think people want "more perfection".--Keerllston 10:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So all those detailed reviews I've done during an article's FAC (reviews that probably wouldn't exist if the FA process didn't exist) didn't improve the article? CloudNine (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would exist as "Peer Review" - and in fact - it seems that FAC is more and more becoming simply Peer Review+Vote the fact that longer nominations are allowed helps this - contributes  to this, exacerbates this.--Keerllston 12:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Oh - and the FA Criteria are really good too - serve to help along the Peer Review and all.--Keerllston 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: ::I think that with the more complicated edits, it's worth explaining what you've done on the FAC page. Even if the reviewer doesn't return, others can then assess whether the point has been addressed; this is also a good opportunity to demonstrate your command of the topic and earn trust. Just saying "fixed" is often not enough, in my opinion. qp10qp 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even, dare I mention it, GAs. I think that you've hit the nail on the head. There appears to be an arbitrary amount of time that FA candidates are left open, and when they're passed or failed there's never any explanation as to why. That can hardly be considered to be a transparent process, and it certainly doesn't help the editors address whatever the secret "killer" was for their article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this idea.--Keerllston 10:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

message: I hate to break up the above discussion, but various FAs that were promoted yesterday don't have the FA stars on their page. I've certainly noticed it on M62 Motorway, Pre-dreadnought battleship, Powderfinger and others. Yet some already have got the star. Peanut4 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article editors are supposed to add the stars themselves. The bot that archives the FAC pages is only programmed to remove them when the lose FA status, not add them when they gain it. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never realised that - I thought the bot did it. Many apologies. Peanut4 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bot could be programmed to do it of course, but it's the custom for the article's main contributor or nominator to do the honors. Gimmetrow 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: More on the process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archiving.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never knew that (fx:goes to add star to article) The Land (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Stars 

message: After *another* FAC going down in flames because not one, not two, not even three but four opposing editors never showed up after multiple posts on their talk pages, can we put some sort of note on the FAC page asking for more time, as concerns have been addressed but the reviewers don't show to refactor? David Fuchs (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to leave a note on their talk pages, please make a note of non-responsive objectors on the FAC nom page. I can't guarantee it'll save a nomination like the one you just described, but it could help. Raul654 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very helpful would be a diff; something like:  I contacted so-and-so on x date (diff) and haven't heard back.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A diff on the FAC page, you mean? David Fuchs (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; the more you can do to keep the FAC apprised, the better.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This comes up too often; sometimes, nominators don't realize they should re-contact those who have opposed, and sometimes nominators don't understand they need to keep the FAC apprised; in some cases, the nominator abandons the FAC, in others the Opposers don't return to strike, and in others, the Opposes aren't resolved.  AT FAR, where more than 32 noms on the page is considered a lot, we're able to check back on Opposes and with nominators; that's harder with the volume at FAC.  I added a sentence to the  and asked Tony to tweak my typically miserable prose.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel quite diffident about approaching people on their talk page if they have opposed and I've made changes.  I feel like I'm nagging them.  I have done it occasionally, with mixed results.  I'd also feel diffident about posting a note at the nomination saying "I notified this person and they haven't responded".  People get busy on other things, and perhaps they don't think the problem is fixed; I would rather just let them return if they have time, and if not, the FAC can wait.  I suppose in an ideal world the Raul and Sandy could go verify that the opposition is still valid, as part of the closing process, but I don't expect them to have time to do that either.  So I just live with it.  Not to say I don't feel sorry for people who have multiple un-revisited opposes on their FACs, though.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not really sure what to tell you - the FAC isn't the best mechanism to address issues of problem editing on contentious topics. Raul654 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. While it would be nice to see some editors who engage in personal attacks warned more seriously, the past and present experiences taught me that the FAC process still works reasonably well, allowing community to suggest improvements and express opinions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it FA candidateship is renewable - one can be restarted as soon as the old one is done. This would mean that any FAC "going down in flames" would not be a great tragedy if it is true.FA listing is removable as well per FAR- I believe big problem is that the quality necessary for FA status is and has been rising over time and those promoted in 2004 are not often as good as those promoted in 2007.--Keerllston 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the raise in quality is a problem; it is a very good trend that I have with pleasure observed over the past several years. The problem is that as Wikipedia grows, as and FAC attract more attention and comments - which is overall a good thing - the amount of incivility, flaming and pure trolling increases too, and we should develop tools to deal with it. Otherwise we risk scarring the FA content creators - a rather valuable breed of editors - away, as they may question why they spend time creating quality content if it just puts them on the spotlight for some trolls to snipe at.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean in terms of consistency in what FA status means. Not a problem in terms of being a Bad ThingTMI think edit warring and NPOV concerns also have been increasing in importance as time goes on.I think wikipedia has trolls and so on, as well as article owners, neither are very good and there is some interlapping. I've seen a lot of article ownership in FAC I believe. I don't believe it's a good sign.--Keerllston 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With 3+ years experience I have yet to see a serious example of WP:OWN. I am sure it happens somewhere, but I doubt it happens in FAC. Simply, because what can one editor do against the community? Not much :) Unless of course they agree with him, but than OWN issue never comes into play. So far FAC seems to be pretty good with teaching humility to OWNers, it is the rise of TROLLing that I fear may be more problematic. That said, I have yet to see a FAC derailed by trolling - but I admit I have not been following the FAC much in the past half a year or so, certainly not as much as I used to once.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the problem with WP:OWN in FAC is that it is "wiki-culturally" considered to be a one-man job to bring an article to FA level rather than a community -we see stars on User pages claiming to have brought an article to a better level and so on. (Many do this, not just Piotrus) -putting FA stars being done by an individual resonates this. - An article has a "main contributor" - the author/senior editor made the article instead of the general community.Article ownership has a great deal of good. "Owners" do take care of their "property".Barnstars, Awards, Contribution numbers, Adminship status, and so on - are all valuable somehow in defining a contributor's "worth" or quality- since they signify to some extent the appreciation the contributor has gotten.--Keerllston 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gah! 

message: 'The automated review from Peer Review is  useful and will pick up issues. There are huge benefits from running the script on FA candidates. It makes sense to put the results on the talk page of the FAC; in the style of edit count on RFA.'  My version/interpretation/paraphrase of Nilfanion's comment- Let us begin again!--Keerllston 21:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Automated Review in FAC

message: Hi guys, I hope all is well. Can some of you pop over to my FAC above and give some feedback? I appreciate that the FAC page is really busy, although I'd like to get this specific FAC finished as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. I'd also like to thank everyone nice I've met on Wikipedia since my time here, and those that have helped at PR and FAC etc. I wish you all the best. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South of Heaven FAC 

message: So - does the directorship believes that not noting (significant) NPOV concerns as a nominator constitutes negligence?--Keerllston 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negligence or not

message: While copy-editing was going on he nominated another article that (predicably) had copy-editing needs. This does not constitute ensuring FA quality - he should have contacted a copy-editor before nominating.--Keerllston 13:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting related to 17Drew

message: There is a discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that seems to be discussing Wikipedia:Featured pictures, which aren't the same thing. Most FPs are not on FAs, and most FAs do not have any FPs (which might be unfortunate, but so it goes).--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been around a while. :) Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture requirements for featured articles 

message: I have just discovered the Dead links toolbox installed next to the FAC TOC; it indicates several of the FACs have an alarming number of dead links that may need to be checked.  Have others been checking this, and is there a way to run that tool on a specific article and paste that to the article FAC?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a useful tool.  If you go to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/linkchecker.py you can enter a specific page to check.  The number of those broken links is certainly worrying! Carre (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the links aren't actually broken; they're just links to JSTOR, Blackwell, etc, which do not allow entry without subscription. Some, obviously, really are broken. There's a link on the tool called  [recheck] next to each FAC's name. That URL can be copied into the FAC discussion. here's the one for Bird. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I finally caught up on this after Gimmetrow deciphered it for me:  you check an article by changing the page parameter. Examples:  or   Yes, some aren't really broken; is it mostly the 404s we need to look at or are there others ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the redirects need to be looked at as well, as they might indicate that a link is about to go dead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this morning when I was using the tool to fix a link on Allosaurus that changing the redirect to the live version sometimes has no effect, and the new version still ends up a pink "soft 404" redirect. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link returns a 405 Method Not Allowed at which point the tool reissues the request with a standard GET instead of the faster HEAD and then it gets redirected to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cookie_setting_error.html which triggers the "soft 404" error.  It also appear that the site needs to set the cookie before granting access, the changed link avoid thats and prevents the cookie from being set thus preventing the download :-).  Cookie detect is now on the todo list.  —Dispenser (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet! Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a difficult question to answer.  404s are obviously broken, but that could just be bad web design - if a page requires subscription/registration to view, and the site isn't well designed, you could end up with a 404.  Redirects could be as Malleus describes, but are also used for properly designed sites where a sign-up/login is needed.  The only real way to be sure is to manually check each and every link that doesn't return 200-OK.  Carre (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: [edit] Redirects can sometimes be used to hide 404s too, can't they?  Where a 404 results in a redirect to a site-designated page to handle such things.  So definitely redirects need checking. Carre (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The tool makes it very easy to check where redirects are going anyway, so definitely worth doing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Web.archive.org usually will have a cached version of the page. If it's a scholarly journal or something, there should be a print edition anyway (so the journal itself can just be cited). A dead web link with no cached version is probably not a reliable source, and definitely cannot provide verifiability. In the case of a dead web link with no print version, that is absolutely objectionable.Firsfron of Ronchester 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure on that :-)  On links that I know will go dead (Miami Herald comes to mind), I add a direct quote to the footnote at the time I cite the link.  I think (?) I should leave the dead link, because that shows where I got the info initially? Oops, strike, sorry Firsfron, that's not a good example, because the Miami Herald is available hard print.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) No problem; I understand exactly what you mean here. There could be situations that arise where there are no print versions and no cached version. I'm hard-pressed to think of any off-hand, but the situation may arise. In situations like that, we may need to evaluate if the source can be used as a reliable source anyway: if it's never been cached, it probably wasn't on-line very long, or wasn't popular. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something along the line of Yahoo News maybe? Those links last a couple months, then die. Google caches only last a while, too. Gimmetrow 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think they should be objected to; much more relevant than objecting on the basis of incorrect use of dashes anyway. The link should be repaired, replaced, or marked as dead. It would depend on how important the link was to the article as to how much weight ought to be placed on its disappearance so far as the article's verifiability is concerned. But like SandyGeorgia, if the link is to a newspaper's site, then I would have included the publication details anyway, so the link could easily be changed to a note. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for popping in to help, Dispenser, and that's a handy tool you've developed.  I admit a lot of this is Greek to me, so I hope reviewers and nominators will use the tool and sort it out!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  format generator seems interesting, although its usefulness maybe questioned.  —Dispenser (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links toolbox 

message: Topic started by Keerllston 14:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an editor said "I don't like it", an FAC nominator can easily dismiss this as inactionable. Such an objection wouldn't be valid. I think it's best to cite one's concern, like bad grammar for example, and highlight examples of bad grammar that need to be addressed. With those specific examples which are highlighted, one should specify why the grammar or writing is bad etc. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely nobody would make a review comment like that without providing at least a few examples, would they?  :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Tony1 asked if examples needed to be provided. If you would like to make veiled criticisms towards, actually have the guts to do it on Tony1's talk page instead of being a coward. I absolutely, 110% detest such spineless comments. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW! (at Aggressiveness/uncivility)Using Tony1 as an example is useful because he is probably the best reviewer - and we should follow his example - an example against stringent requirement of examples rather than a veiled criticism of Tony1 - I can see no reason for "coward" and "spineless comments" - I believe you misunderstood his comments.--Keerllston 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific Rationale 

message: This is an example of what most of our readers see (even if dates are formatted) if different raw formats are used in an article; they aren't logged in, so they don't have user preference settings:
*On 25 December 2007, Chrismas is celebrated, while January 1, 2008 is New Years.  2007-12-28 is the equivalent of April Fools Day in some countries, while 2008-01-06 is Kings Day.
On the other hand, logged in users with user preferences set will see consistent formatting depending on their preference settings, no matter the raw formatting used (same text as above, but linked):
*On 25 December 2007, Chrismas is celebrated, while January 1, 2008 is New Years.  2007-12-28 is the equivalent of April Fools Day in some countries, while 2008-01-06 is Kings Day.
Which in my preference settings, yields:
*On December 25, 2007, Chrismas is celebrated, while January 1, 2008 is New Years. December 28, 2007 is the equivalent of April Fools Day in some countries, while January 6, 2008 is Kings Day. 
The point is, we're logged in and have preferences set, so we're not seeing the raw formatting mess that most of our readers are seeing, caused by different formats entered by different editors.  Because we're logged in, by wikilinking dates, we are covering up inconsistency seen by most Wiki readers.  The proposal has to do with consistent raw formatting, since that is what most readers see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I have determined that I don't have autoformat date preferencess set when I log in. I was just curious if I would have to redo dating in some articles I plan to take to FAC soon, but apparently I won't since I see everything in raw formatting whenever I browse logged in anyway. Thanks for the explaination. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure; what is the Wiki default if we don't have preferences set?  Is it the same thing unlogged in readers see?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fairly sure the default preference is "no preference". Should be whatever the wikitext says, same as for those not logged in. Gimmetrow 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. Thus I'm able to tell at a glance if inconsistent dating is used in an article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wesley, since you're used to seeing them with inconsistency, can you finger a good example of how bad it can be?  I've been looking for one, but haven't yet hit on a great example to show the extent of the problem.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current WikiProject Alternative music Collaboration of the Week Oasis (band) has pretty inconsistent dating that should be fixed up pretty soon. I didn't occur to me that possibly I'm the only editor working on the page right now who sees how inconsistent the dating is, especially in the references. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back (had to log out to look at it).  It's inconsistent, but not atrocious.  I'm hoping for an example that is short and atrocious :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know of one example where the dates don't match the regional practice, and the ISO dates are even wrong, but the dates are not wikilinked and article is likely to be deleted soon. Gimmetrow 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wesley, have you considered simply not using the autoformatting system in your articles? That, to me, is preferable; to start with, it will reduce the amount of ungainly blue splash all over your otherwise nicely written and formatted pages. Tony (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the Manual of Style insist full dates are always Wikilinked? Regardless, the linking has never been a problem for me, I was just unawares of the whole autoformatting debacle in the first place (and the fact that we even have autoformatting dates in articles in the first place is . . . odd). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it doesn't now insist thus. Although the guidelines still say that autoformatting is "normally" used, the option not to is implicit. Now that there are rules for the formatting of raw (non-autoformatted) dates, the way is open to article contributors who wish to make the appearance of their text cleaner, not to mention its maintenance easier. Tony (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: This is a ridiculous limitation in the MediaWiki software. Even if non-logged-in users have no Wiki preference set, there is still a locale associated with the browser itself, such as en_US (English, United States), that gives both language and country; that should be used as the default to render the dates in a consistent style. That's how most internationalized web sites work. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is that any changes have already been pretty well shut down by the developers, so we need to start solving it ourselves, with consistent formatting.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Limitation

message: People (and by this, I mean non-Wikipedians) often wonder who it is exactly that writes Wikipedia's articles, especially the FAs.  Often, they will assume that thousands of monkeys on typewriters wrote the thing equally, each individual contributing only an anonymous sentence fragment or two.  While random passers-by do help, in reality most FAs are primarily written by one or a very few authors in close collaboration, and that is probably a Good Thing in terms of coherence of the writing.  And it is valuable to know who these primary authors are for a variety of reasons.  Unfortunately, though, discerning the primary authors from long edit histories is not practicable for outsider non-Wikipedians, and can in some cases be a seriously time-consuming task even for those of us most familiar with wiki structures.  So, I propose that we simply include a listing of the primary contributor(s) to the current version of the article in the FAC, when such information is still fresh in everyone's minds, to be consulted for future reference.
Among the people and processes that would find such information valuable:
*Academic researchers
*Media inquiries
*WP:FAR
*And finally, Distant Posterity.
I also suggest that the listings be made machine-readable (perhaps through a template?), so as to keep options open on the further aggregation of these listings.  Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can of worms. Tony (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you define who are or are not the "primary" authors? How do you define the "current" version? This could provoke a lot of "credit" wars. In any case, many users remain anonymous behind a username, so it isn't clear why academics or media would get some value out of this unless the users got "outted". --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think WP:WBFAN can serve all these purposes and is about as non-controversial as we could hope to make this.  It's quite similar to what you're talking about.  The primary author of a featured article is most often the nominator.  It's certainly not a perfect system, but as it seems to exist with little objection, we may as well continue to use it for the purposes you mention. --JayHenry (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have those handy "Maintained by" templates. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. it is the whole collaborative process that produces FAs (apart from a few very good writers who can seemingly produce prose from (insert random noun here))  -this enocurages ownership which reduces this process. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed too.  It also strikes me that any primary author who has gone to the trouble of taking an article through all the hoops required to attain FA is likely, if still active, to have the page watchlisted, and so is likely to spot any questions or comments on the article's content at the article's talk page. Carre (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And lets not assume that main editors would want their name on an article. I would only want my name on an article if I had total control of it (and I don't want that). I don't agree with all the content of articles I have been the main writer of. That's Wikipedia. It's frustrating but, I am sure, salutary for the ego. qp10qp (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Against that, I've been brough to AN/I a few times when I denfened articles [I own] from random low value edits.  Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As the versatility of the technology increases, I would like there to be a larger underlay of notes and references, made visible by a click on a tag. It would be convenient if these were user-signed. We could then quickly tell who had reffed a point, without dragging through the history; and we could contact them to ask about it, if necessary. If a lot of the notes had the same sig, we could tell who were the main editors. qp10qp (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Pharos and Tony1 - I must stress that it can be profitable to open a can of worms (if one is to fish for example). - It is the way it is done that matters and the motive - So far both are unreasonable. I think it is important to know who has written in large part an article - this is not truly known through an edit count, some make huge edits, some many many tiny edits. Let's not attempt to artificially simplify the complex.--Kiyarrllston 14:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking note of the primary contributor(s) 

message: I have some concerns about a recent trend of lists and quasi-lists being nominated here instead of featured articles. Specifically, I'm talking about Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and List of works by William Monahan. Should these be (or be nominated as) featured articles, or featured lists? Raul654 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see those as articles and not as lists. I am a traditionalist in terms of lists. Lots of columns and rows, ie Aston Villa F.C. seasons. The pages you specify just have too much prose to be a list. Although that seems arbitrary, it is not. A list is something that links many articles together under one heading. The Monahan one seems to span both really. The character pages though, are to me anyway, articles. Woody (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me all of them are lists. Basically, in my opinion, any page that merely enumerates is a list; anything else is an article. Joelito (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I still have a difficult time seeing €2 commemorative coins as not-a-list. Gimmetrow 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would see that as a list. Woody (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All Raul's egs are lists. Maybe the definitions need to be tightened. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, if they turned up at WP:FL they would be rejected (eg Monahan). In my opinion FL does not have the capacity to deal with that much prose. FL deals with "true" lists such as Aston Villa F.C. seasons and List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients ahe reviewers don't tend to deal with prose issues as well. It is an unhappy compromise I suppose, they aren't lists but not really articles. Woody (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes has a lot of prose, and the actual number of list items is rather small. At least one user has suggested it is really an article (see the talk page). It should also be remembered that that list was nominated ages ago, so FL in its current form might not pass it if it had been nominated today. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the List of works by William Monahan obviously belongs at the Featured Lists content page, but perhaps the best place for it to be nominated and processed is here at FAC.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't promote a featured list at featured article candidates; if we promote it here, it's to WP:FA, not WP:FL.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that I've read Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of works by William Monahan/archive1, I concur with Colin that it wasn't necessarily rejected at FLC as a list; it reads more like a case where suggested improvements were rejected. The comments there were that a lot of the prose belonged in William Monahan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But could either FAC or FLC choose to take in the list of works? In other words, could one of the two say "we accept you for what you are" and will make a place for you.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have a doubt. There is no article on wikipedia on a Tour by an artist which is GA or FA. I wanted to ask whether an article on a tour will come under a list or article. I am willing to work on The Sweet Escape Tour but have no idea under which category does the article fall. Indianescence (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would hope we could generate consensus between FAC and FLC to do a sort of "trans-Wiki" without having to tie up FAR.  An FLC page would serve to explain the moves in the articlehistory template.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problems waving the process if we're all in mutual agreement to convert them (the 3 FAs and 2 FACs) to featured lists/featured list candidates. I think they they should be. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "we"? The nominators and the set of editors or wikiproject behind the "Characters in xxx series" might object. They lose their chance of main-page glory (€2 has had its day). Also, I can't speak for the rest of the FLC regulars. Colin°Talk 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the nominator of Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series, I personally don't have a problem with the switch, but per Woody, these character lists do invest a lot more prose than is typical at WP:FLC, and a review would be more likely (not that it wouldn't happen, just that it's more likely) not to address all of the prose issues. However, opening a thread at WT:FLC to test opinion there would be good. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As one of the main contributors to and nominator of Characters of Kingdom Hearts, I concur with Sephiroth. I don't see a switch being a problem so long as some more distinction is made as to what falls under FA and FL, though there may be some disagreement from the Video game Project. We took the FA route because it seemed to be the appropriate path at the time. When editing, we tried including as much real-world content as possible and trimmed down as much fictional content as possible to meet FA criteria. Though I must admit that the video game character FAs seem to be in an in-between state. Though this may be irrelevant, two questions come to mind regarding the issue. What would need to be done for something like Characters of Kingdom Hearts to comply more with article standards/definitions? What would need to be done to comply more with list standards/definitions? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: FLC isn't some kind of merit badge for a pretty design. The FL criteria and the FA criteria are actually very similar. Both require the candidate to be "our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation". "Neutrality and accuracy" are core policies of WP and checked by both review processes. I'm not sure I understand your second sentence, but suspect it is off-topic. Colin°Talk 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List articles as featured articles versus featured lists 

message: There's a discussion at this discussion that may interest some here.  It's not directly a FAC issue, but I'm posting here because (a) at least a couple of FAs may be affected, most notably Constantine II of Scotland, which was promoted very recently; and (b) it relates to a MOS issue and I know there are several MOS experts who read this page.  Please contribute at the discussion page if you're interested.  See also Talk:Constantine II of Scotland for some related debate.  Mike Christie (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal names 

message: sgeureka self-nominated the good article Mythology of Carnivàle for featured article status at 1:12 on December 18.  By 21:43 on December 27, there was not a single vote (with the exception of an implied support from the nominator) and the discussion was closed and not promoted.  The FAC is here.  Is there anything wrong with this?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what's with all these FACs getting closed for absolutely no reason other than not having more comments? People work on these articles for hours and hours and closing them because it receives a few comments is just wrong. So yes, there is something wrong and it needs to be rectified. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something does need to be rectified.  We need for people to review articles.  There's a template at the top of this page with about a dozen articles that have been there well over a week, needing feedback.  It might help if editors add that to their talk pages and attempt to review articles.  It's nice to bring an article to FAC and get feedback, but to get feedback, someone has to give it.  I used to be the person regularly running through all of them.  Since I'm no longer in the reviewer role, I've noticed many articles aren't getting reviewed.  For example, Karanacs who regularly reviews FACs for everyone, has gotten no feedback from anyone on her own FAC.  That's not nice.  The Mythology article was up ten days, and no one looked at it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the Carnivàle nomination archived when it had only been up for ten days and some current nominations were started over a month ago?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hurrying through season 2 so that I can actually read this and review it. Looked good, but I didn't want to spoil the series for myself. If it goes back up soon I'll review it. Also, sometimes if you wait someone who's been glancing at an article occasionally finally does a full read and does a review.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Friendly Notices - should be used - if comments are not available, neither can they pass and become FA status, nor can they remain in FAC indefinitely.--Kiyarrllston 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor can they be delisted from FAC because nobody bothers to review (IMHO), that would bias Wikipedia towards the interests of FA reviewers. There is evidently a problem here. Arnoutf (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed with no votes 

message: ASTM International uses a consensus process to develop standards documents;  perhaps it would be a useful model for FAC. --Una Smith (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A model of consensus process 

message: So I stumbled across User:VeblenBot/C/Requests_for_peer_review, which is a product of the revamped peer review process. I figured that FAC and FAR could use a similar page, so I dropped a note on VeblenBot's operator User:CBM, and he kindly set up User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article review candidates and User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates. So for those of you who dislike wading through the 1 MB monstrosity that is the FAC page, enjoy! (and don't forget to thank CBM!). BuddingJournalist 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!! I'm really glad that the category listing bot is being put to further use. Note that if you want to change the format of the page, you just have to change  etc.. Also, it is possible to transclude VeblenBot's data onto different pages, and use different formats for different pages: see , which uses VeblenBot's data to generate WP:Peer review, WP:Peer review list and . Feel free to contact CBM or myself for further info. Geometry guy 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing [[User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates]]