Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Archive 4

message: I've finished updating my list of featured articles without references, and there are only 25 left. I'd much rather see them get fixed than listed here at FARC, so pick an article you're able to help research and reference. As I noted at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review, I'll commit to researching and adding references to Labour economics. If several more people did that we'd be in good shape. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *And then there were 24. - Taxman Talk 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last 25 unreferenced featured articles 

message: I just noticed that the Ku Klux Klan article was nominated for removal, but I do not know if it were ever listed on this page. See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ku Klux Klan - Dozenist talk 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Ku Klux Klan]] 

message: FWIW, I wholly endorse Jeffrey's decision to get Raul to close off the FARC for Spoo. Tony 08:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I didn't ask him... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes... Tony's message had me confused too ;) -- I removed it because I didn't want an open farc on an article while it was on the main page, and since it's for April 1 there was an additional likelihood of confusing people. Raul654 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoo decision 

message: these articles all have their filmographies the wrong way round (should be oldest-to-newest not the other way round). clearly the result of a lazy copy-paste from imdb:
Uma Thurman
Julia Stiles  
Lindsay Lohan
Katie Holmes 
Karen Dotrice
KaDee Strickland
as this goes against all guidelines and policies relating to filmogs on wikipedia, can i list them for FARC, to prevent them being used as "reference articles" for all upcoming actor articles? i already put a notice on each of their talk pages to fix it, but dont expect anybody to actually take any notice and make the change. Zzzzz 11:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, certainly not. Listing them on FARC for something so easily fixed is clearly not helpful. If there is consensus that that is the way it should be, just go fix them, but make sure the consensus is clear and link to it. - Taxman Talk 12:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Just leave a message requesting the filmography fix on the talk. This isn't a major violation of the FA critieria, if it's a violation of them at all. At best, it's a minor but easily fixed pet peeve. Any old fan can just fix the articles up as necessary, but they won't find out unless they happen to be watching the FARC talk. Leave a message on the article talk instead. Johnleemk | Talk 06:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect filmography orders

message: Does anyone disagree that such a template would raise the awareness of would-be nominators of the proper process before nomination, and reinforce that actionable reasons should be included in the notice? Articles to which the template has been added might then be auto-listed at the top of the FARC page, with the date of listing. This might help the FARC process to become more orderly and productive.
I don't know how to construct a template, but the following text might be included:
Impending nomination as a Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC)
Notice is hereby given that this article may be nominated as a FARC after [insert date two weeks hence] because, in the opinion of the Wikipedian who has posted this template, it fails to meet the following FA criteria:
[Insert criterion numbers]
Contributors to this article are asked to consider making the following improvements to bring the article up to current FA standards, thus avoiding nomination:
[Insert suggested improvements]
Contributors may wish to consult Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article%3F and the related project pages and links to access further information about the standards expected of FAs. The FARC process is described at Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates.
 Tony 06:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bad idea. I do think that potential FARC nominators should drop the primarily author(s) a note ahead of time to give them the opportunity to fix any problems. I'm not sure it should be a requireement, and if it were, I am very much against using boilerplate text to do it. Raul654 06:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose the addition of a new requirement (in my capacity as FA director) because I prefer to keep the whole FA process free of you-must-do-this requirements as possible. Dropping the primary author a note ahead of time is a courtesy; it shouldn't be a requirement. Furthermore, I am opposed to the boilerplate text (on a personal level) because   it seems impersonal and uncourteous. Raul654 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, apologies if you took my comments as impolite - they were not meant to be. Raul654 08:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the intention, I think that having specific criteria numbers would be nearly useless, since many of the criteria are (purposely) quite vague.  Having someone put down that they feel the article no longer satisfies criterion 1, for example, would meet the letter of this requirement, but would be of little help in actually determining what needs to be improved. Kirill Lokshin 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have to object to a template at least for listing the reasons because it would be much more valuable to have specific written out reasons for why the article doesn't meet the criteria. And it's more polite I think. Having a way of tracking pending listings may have some value in coordinating work on articles, but maybe that should be a function of WP:FAR, or at least coordinate there. - Taxman Talk 15:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No template, please.  Let's try to interact like human beings. HenryFlower 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that my suggestion is tantamount to some kind of inhuman interaction. Say that you don't agree, by all means, but don't be rude to me, please. My proposal was well intentioned, and I don't expect off-hand remarks like that. Tony 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but lets just see how this goes for now with comments left on the talk page. Your idea was clearly well intentioned, just not the best solution yet I think. - Taxman Talk 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Of the current nominations on FARC, how many of the nominators contacted the main contributors of the article or posted a summary of the article's short-comings on talk page before making a nomination? Would not a template allow that human communication to occur through the warning (that can be seen by the general community). The current system assumes that nominators are familiar with this process and actually interact to improve the article. However, reality is that casual readers see a mistake or something they don't like and FARC-it (some stick around to elaborate, some don't). --maclean25 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of the current listings have. It's relativley new that we're enforcing the guideline, but a lot of us feel the process will be more valuable if the guideline is followed. It will take some time to work. If somone notices a problem with a FA, they don't need to fix it even if that would be nice. What we are saying is they need to be polite and let the article's authors and contributors know specifically what is wrong with the article so it can be fixed. - Taxman Talk 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template advising of impending nomination? 

message: There is a bit of a backlog.  I've been super busy lately, but I'll definitely be able to get to it within the next thirty hours or so unless someone else does it.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: This is a featured article that has had some issues listed on its talk page that may threaten its featured status. If you can help please see Talk:Blue Whale#FARC Proposed. --maclean25 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue Whale

message: In general, do you believe that merging Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates with Wikipedia:Featured article review is a good idea? (Keep comments short please).
====Support====
* Support. Solves the talk page review issue, is less antagonistic, and if structured properly will focus people on article details rather than broad generalizations. Marskell 10:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * nope, the opposite! The current procedure is more complicated than the proposal. Maysara 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include the supposed two weeks for the notification on the talk page this is indeed no more complicated; it simply brings the review into the process rather than leaving it on quite possibly idle talk pages. The hassle and occasional acrimony of "enforcement" is avoided. Two more noms today and again the period is being roundly ignored... Marskell 17:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, actually, I'm misreading comments from Taxman or others somewhere along the line. I thought two weeks was the undeclared time. Hence Alabama briefly changing it to that. I don't think it substantially changes the point. Marskell 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In short, it will take a lot to convince me that this is a good idea. As I had previously proposed, I support requiring people to raise issues on the article's talk page and think this will do a lot to make the FARC "less antagonistic." But the essence of this discussion is that the FARC page functions well and accomplishes its job. Why change something that is working (especially by merging  it with a page that is not currently working too well)?--Alabamaboy 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To User:Alabamaboy: It is rather inappropriate that you just so easily reject, and more importantly, undermine the collective activity of so many contributors in here, by pointing to the inclination of yours, that some other users to which you have a personal preference and "respect", and regard somehow superior in whatever sense, have not lied their input yet. As if the hitherto our decisions and conclusions, our consensus, has to halt until after the group preferred by you should intervene, or otherwise we're being just "moving too fast"! While the supposed truth is: Your group of respectable users is simply irrelevant to our discussion here because it is personal to you, thus, it concerns you alone. And if you care so much for the input of those whom you particularly and personally respect, you should contact them personaly and ask them respectfully for an input, instead of asking the world so recklessly to slow down and wait for them! Only the actual contribution itself counts, not the potential of contributing. For, in front of the potential of your basically personal little group, there stands the potential of an entire world, or perhaps a universe, in which a superterrestrial creatures who are far more intelligent than human, far more Humanistic than human, have been also contributing to Wikipedia! It is a *WIKI*, dear administrator! Thank you, -- Maysara 08:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting your bombastic words aside, it is not unreasonable for Alabamaboy to expect at least the input of the official Featured Article Director (Raul654) and a number of other regular participants in the featuring process. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to attack me over this. As stated, I believed the discussion had progressed to a poll too quickly, without the input of a number of editors who have been heavily involved with FARC over the years. I fail to see how my concerns are irrelevant to this discussion. I have a track record of taking part in FARC and have even worked to mediate issues on articles when they are nominated for FARC but have the potential to be improved (such as Ku Klux Klan, which was nominated for FARC but, after mediation between conflicting editors, emerged even stronger than when it first became a FA). My reason for raising these objections was not to undermine any consensus but to raise issues that I feel should be addressed in order to reach consensus. I'm also afraid I don't get the "superterrestrial creatures" comment. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evil strawpoll

message: * Support. Solves the talk page review issue, is less antagonistic, and if structured properly will focus people on article details rather than broad generalizations. Marskell 10:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Neutral. The proposal has merit, but at this stage, I'd be more comfortable trialling just a change to the notification requirement at the top of the FARC page (two weeks' notice) and enforcing it. I'm a little concerned that the proposal is more complicated than the current procedure. Tony 01:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * nope, the opposite! The current procedure is more complicated than the proposal. Maysara 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include the supposed two weeks for the notification on the talk page this is indeed no more complicated; it simply brings the review into the process rather than leaving it on quite possibly idle talk pages. The hassle and occasional acrimony of "enforcement" is avoided. Two more noms today and again the period is being roundly ignored... Marskell 17:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, actually, I'm misreading comments from Taxman or others somewhere along the line. I thought two weeks was the undeclared time. Hence Alabama briefly changing it to that. I don't think it substantially changes the point. Marskell 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: * Strong Oppose Alabamaboy 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *A couple of comments on User:Marskell/Featured Article Review - it looks pretty good to me, but the instructions are rather long and could be tightened up, I think (there is always a tendancy for these things to get get longer and longer, so it is best to start with them as short as possible and try keep them that way); and regarding "basic review", if we are expecting to review all FAs at least every 18 months, that is a pretty large workload (there are around 1000 FAs, so we are talking about 2 per day, every day, and the workload will only increase).  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: While I am not opposed to integrating the FAR and FARC pages to a greater degree (and have even proposed doing this a while back, this proposal to merge the FAR and FARC pages is moving too fast and without the input of a number of FARC editors I really respect (like Raul654, among others). I am also extremely concerned for several other reasons:
# The FARC page has functioned well for a number of years and I see no reason for this change.
# The FAR page is slowly dying, having limited work done on it in recent months; I don't see why a page that fails to attract a considerable amount of work should be merged with a page that does.
# The main issue people seem to be having with the FARC page is that it seems too harsh to some editors. Taxman's recent edits to the rules have addressed this by requiring that issues with articles be brought up on the article's talk page. Since the two-week wait after raising issues on an article's talk page before a FARC nomination is a new rule, we should give this rule time to work. In addition, I believe that if major issues with an article are not addressed after a few weeks, a FARC nomination may do more to help improve the article than anything else by motivating the article's editors to finally do something.
# On a related note, the proposed example of what this merged page would be (User:Marskell/Featured Article Review) seems like the worst of both worlds in that it is overly bureaucratic and would make it harder to remove bad FAs, which would mean that fewer FAs would be improved (b/c the article editors would see no reason to make the needed changes).
# The only reason some editors seem to be supporting this idea is that it would be "less antagonistic." However, the point of FARC is to delist FAs when other methods fail to work. Just as the featured article review process does more to improve  articles than the peer review system (mainly because editors are motivated to address concerns to reach a desired outcome), so too does the FARC system drive editors to make needed changes. This doesn't mean the FAR page doesn't have a role but merging it with FARC would seem likely to water down the good things FARC does without improving the process to improve bad FAs.
:In short, it will take a lot to convince me that this is a good idea. As I had previously proposed, I support requiring people to raise issues on the article's talk page and think this will do a lot to make the FARC "less antagonistic." But the essence of this discussion is that the FARC page functions well and accomplishes its job. Why change something that is working (especially by merging  it with a page that is not currently working too well)?--Alabamaboy 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To User:Alabamaboy: It is rather inappropriate that you just so easily reject, and more importantly, undermine the collective activity of so many contributors in here, by pointing to the inclination of yours, that some other users to which you have a personal preference and "respect", and regard somehow superior in whatever sense, have not lied their input yet. As if the hitherto our decisions and conclusions, our consensus, has to halt until after the group preferred by you should intervene, or otherwise we're being just "moving too fast"! While the supposed truth is: Your group of respectable users is simply irrelevant to our discussion here because it is personal to you, thus, it concerns you alone. And if you care so much for the input of those whom you particularly and personally respect, you should contact them personaly and ask them respectfully for an input, instead of asking the world so recklessly to slow down and wait for them! Only the actual contribution itself counts, not the potential of contributing. For, in front of the potential of your basically personal little group, there stands the potential of an entire world, or perhaps a universe, in which a superterrestrial creatures who are far more intelligent than human, far more Humanistic than human, have been also contributing to Wikipedia! It is a *WIKI*, dear administrator! Thank you, -- Maysara 08:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting your bombastic words aside, it is not unreasonable for Alabamaboy to expect at least the input of the official Featured Article Director (Raul654) and a number of other regular participants in the featuring process. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to attack me over this. As stated, I believed the discussion had progressed to a poll too quickly, without the input of a number of editors who have been heavily involved with FARC over the years. I fail to see how my concerns are irrelevant to this discussion. I have a track record of taking part in FARC and have even worked to mediate issues on articles when they are nominated for FARC but have the potential to be improved (such as Ku Klux Klan, which was nominated for FARC but, after mediation between conflicting editors, emerged even stronger than when it first became a FA). My reason for raising these objections was not to undermine any consensus but to raise issues that I feel should be addressed in order to reach consensus. I'm also afraid I don't get the "superterrestrial creatures" comment. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alabama comments and replies

message: Re: this edit - I really feel it's overly prescriptive.  I feel these things do not need to be defined exactly, and an exact definition is rather stifling.  I think allowing a certain amount of judgement is much better - if there is no response at all to comments left on talk pages after a week, say, then why enforce another week of inaction?  In the end, I think a whole month between identifying potentially serious problems and removing an article from featured status is too much.  Worldtraveller 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Tony says. The problem is that the old "some time" standard leads to situations like with the FARC on Bible Code, where the editor placed a notice on the article's talk page and only waited three days before coming here. Not all editors at Wikipedia check in every day (or even ever few days) so adequate time must be given for people to see the notice on an article's talk page. That said, I'd also be ok if the time span was only one week (I went with two weeks b/c that had been discussed before in regards to this). Either way, though, it needs to be spelled out.--Alabamaboy 15:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't want to make the process lightning quick by any means, I just don't want to enforce a particular length.  Maybe we could say 'leave some time (up to two weeks)' or something, to allow for some discretion to be used.  I just used my discretion anyway, listing Venus a week after having left comments, because there had been no acknowledgement or attempt to address them so I don't see the point in waiting another week before moving on to getting general community input.  Worldtraveller 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to going with one week but, as previously stated, I think we need a specific span of time.--Alabamaboy 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign up for reform above and problem solved :) Marskell 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And any other number of problems created :-)--Alabamaboy 16:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the time reference for now since there is no consensus here to make the change. If more people end up supporting a specific time span, we can insert it again.--Alabamaboy 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "At least a..." isn't bean-counting. "Decent" can be interpreted any which way and it doesn't solve the problem that one out of two nominators seem to ignore it anyhow. Marskell 18:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; don't know why two weeks is bean counting; the fuzzy instruction that persists is causing more trouble than an explicit time frame. Tony 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposing a time-frame is indeed a good idea as it prevents unnecessary discussions. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-specifying?

message: Unless someone comes up with a good reason not to, I intend to remove Goomba and Windows XP from the list later today, since those nominations have failed to meet the first requirement in the procedure. Tony 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the Air Force One FARC. Johnleemk | Talk 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For Goomba, at least, the problems have been raised quite awhile ago. Anyone editing the article is well aware of the complaints and has had ample time to address them. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of intention to remove nominations 

message: I propose to specify a time date in this part of the nomination procedure:
*Before listing here: post comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, specifying the FA criterion or criteria that, in your opinion, it fails to meet; leave time for these matters to be addressed before nominating the article here. 
I propose to change "leave time" to "leave 2 weeks" since it has been clear that not specifying a time frame promotes the creation of many invalid nominations. These nominations either do not post comments on the article's talk page or do not leave sufficient time for the matters to be addressed. Joelito (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea, but let's see how this new system works. I'll be the first to complain if it doesn't. Tony 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not really working now, is it? Marskell 16:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not working now because there's no person closing off—Jeffrey has left—and there's no specified time. Apart from that, I think it's fine. Tony 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closing volume isn't the issue as it can be handled by others (tho it's too bad if he's gone period). The red "invalid" comments are simply going to create confusion. If there's an obvious remove consensus and one stamp from you, what to do with it? You can complain if it gets removed or someone can complain if it gets kept and then its square one again. The only way the process would work is if they are a removed immediately after the nom as Taxman has done a couple of time. But, as Geogre points out, that's just setting up gatekeepers and would appear annoyingly unilateral. Marskell 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto there. If the noms are frivolous/erroneous, it's better to contact the editor privately and ask if they can withdraw the nom so the article can be worked on. Otherwise, just leave it. If we get consensus to defeature anyway, then the article obviously has some major problems that would be so difficult to fix that it's better off being defeatured for now. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why leave the nomination if it does not follow procedure? I am all for contacting the nominator to inform him of procedure but nominations that do not follow procedure should be removed by an admin. Leaving it defeats the purpose of having a procedure. Joelito (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we want to deal with one another as cordially as possible? I would find it a bit offensive for one guy to stick a big red "Nomination invalid" notice on a FARC nomination I made in good faith. We must never lose sight of the mischief rule in interpreting policy/process. The reason we have this procedure is to give editors time to improve articles. No editor acting in good faith could be opposed to this, and for the sake of avoiding unnecessary friction, it's best if we could get editors to agree to withdraw their noms rather than forcibly doing it for them. It's not like FARC (or almost anything on Wikipedia) is a critical process anyhow; see m:eventualism. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There wouldn't be any big red invalid nomination. The nomination would be withdrawn, the nominator would be explained the reason for removal and comments/concerns would be left on the talk page of the article. I don't see offense in that. Joelito (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm beginning to sound like a parrot... Assuming the merger with WP:FAR goes through, this point will be moot. Two weeks review + two week removal period. See above. Marskell 16:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to specify a time date to nomination prodecure 

message: I just closed a very tough one in Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Quantum computer. There was only one vote in the article citing lack of refs and two comments. Quite a few refs were since added to that article so I decided to keep the article as a FA. I'm not touching the small town FARC though. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Quantum computer]] 

message: A number of nominations—such as History of Scotland—have been sitting there, damned, for more than two weeks. I'd archive them myself, except that I'll probably get it wrong, technically. Tony 00:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one is done - I'll look through the others as well. He'res my checklist before I forget:
#Remove from WP:FA and update FA count
#Add to WP:FFA
#Remove featured article template from article
#Remove FARC and FA templates from article talk page and put in FormerFA template
#Close debate here noting if it is or is no longer an FA
#Move the debate to the archive page
Phew.... hopefully that is all and I didn't miss anything. RN 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please clear the backlog? 

message: Since the nominator has withdrawn his concerns and consensus seems to be clear, would anybody mind closing that up? I'd do it myself, but I've voted/commented, and I wouldn't want to seem partisan. Cheers! The Disco King 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I meant DNA Repair, not Synapse. Sorry! The Disco King 14:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Synapse
 DNA Repair

message: Hello? Niz, what are you doing? Tony 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unexplained retention of Edward Vi as an FA