Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:TFA

Templates transcluded within today's featured article are cascade-protected at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/A and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/B.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Contents 1 Irish phonology 2 Standards should be maintained 3 Critique of today's article 4 NFCC#9 5 Nomination 6 Clock-face pic 7 Neilston 8 No image again 9 TFA decorum 10 Redundant double bolding in TFA 11 travolta image is lame 12 FA procedure 13 Surtsey 14 Stricter standards 14.1 arbitrary section break 14.2 Second summary, break 15 Shared custody 16 Two featured articles at once? 17 List of forbidden FAs?

[edit] Irish phonology

Well, I'm pleased that Irish phonology, which I wrote pretty much single-handedly, is today's featured article, but I'm also very surprised, since I never requested it, and there was no notification on the talk page that it was going to happen. How exactly is Today's Featured Article decided, anyway??? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My magic-8 ball. Raul654 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (PS - there was talk page notification a week ago)

I see what happened - there was another message posted to the talk page just a few minutes later, and that second message was the only one I saw on my watchlist. At any rate, I feel a bit like a homemaker confronted with unexpected guests: if I'd known I was going to have visitors, I would have tidied the place up a bit! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to use this time to read up on WP:OWNERSHIP instead. MaxVeers (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I make no claim to OWN the article, but it is a simple fact that I wrote it and brought it to FA status virtually single-handedly. Since I didn't realize featured articles could become TFA without a request being made, and since it's highly unlikely anyone else would have requested it, I was naturally surprised to see it was TFA. And if I had realized it was about to become TFA, I certainly would have looked it over critically once more to make sure it was looking its best, not because I "own" it, but because I know no one else would have. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to admit though, it was your fault for not noticing you had guests who entered at the same time you answered the door bell for the person trying to sell vacuum cleaners? Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't claim to own it then compare it to your house? The internet doesn't cater to your personal beliefs and heritage you know, I actually agree with you, I am also suprised that such a minute and topically irrelevant article became the FA.Hebrewpridehebrewpower (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standards should be maintained

Visitors to Wikipedia could assume that the day's featured article is of high standard. Fine. So should the teaser article on the Main Page but it often leaves a lot to be desired, and today's is no exception. For instance the lead says the Crusaders "are" a team "that" competes. Surely "that" should be "who". The fourth sentence says "it" was formed, when talking about the team previously described as "they". It then reverts to "their" fifth title. Etc. Very poor indeed. 222.153.65.195 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In British English, teams are referred to in the plural, so "The Crusaders are a team that compete" is correct. "It was formed" refers to the formation of the entity; "their fifth title" refers to the team. As a BE speaker I see no problem, except that "competes" should be "compete". EamonnPKeane (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of today's article

See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NFCC#9

The future featured article pages need to be in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions so that my bot doesn't remove the fair use images from them. I'm not sure how the system is setup here so I'm not sure how to handle it. BJ^Talk 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

Where do I place my nominations for the daily FA, my vote goes for Persecution of Jews, it is a well researched well written highly relevant article that I believe would make the perfect feature article. Anyone else agree?Hebrewpridehebrewpower (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAC to nominate an article for featured status, though, I warn you, that one is a long way off. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clock-face pic

Is the picture illustrating Chrono Trigger (Image:Horloge-republicaine1.jpg) as today's TFA really public domain? Surely a clock doesn't count as a painting or a drawing. And exactly how appropriate is it to illustrate a video game with a photograph of an obscure clockface design from Revolutionary France?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on the copyright status of the image, but I think we should have some image that conveys the theme of the featured article. The main page looks plain and off balance every time we have a pop culture article with no free images. A free image that is somewhat related to the general theme of the article can do the job of visually attracting the readers attention to the article, and that's better than nothing. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neilston

Isn't it about time it the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Protection template was taken off Neilston? I'm looking to edit the UK place infobox but can't cause the FA protection on an old article is holding it up. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No image again

I would once again like to voice my opinion that a loosely-related image is better than no image. In the case of tomorrow's (April 18th) TFA, I would recommend some free stock photo of the rainforest. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TFA decorum

Considering that we're currently featuring a film focusing on cannibal gore and sexualized violence (and with pics like this in the article) are we to assume that we no longer have any main page pariahs among our FAs?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant double bolding in TFA

We have a link in bold in the first sentence and at the end of the section (i.e. more). don't you think it would be useless having redundancy. why not remove internal linking in the first line and just have this down below link. Sushant gupta (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the proper place for this would be WP:ERRORS conveniently located at the top of this page. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 10:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ERRORS. Woody (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the double bolding and don't find it redundant. The link on the first line is what the reader sees first and will expect it to be linked. It is the main subject of it and so should be linked. Woody (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] travolta image is lame

No offense, but Image:Be travolta 100px.jpg is not a particularly good picture, and is not worthy of being on the main page. Image:Battlefield earth poster.jpg would be much better.

I'd be bold and switch it myself, but I've decided instead to share my opinion here instead - and hope that one of you will heed my call. Kingturtle (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA procedure

In connection with the widely derided selection of Elderly Instruments as TFA, I started a discussion on that article's talk page about flaws in the TFA system. The article's creator, User:Laser brain, felt the discussion was out of place, and on his request I moved it here. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for those who don't remember, here are the procedures as they went during the Ernest Emerson debates: a few of us were concerned that featuring articles that looked like advertisements on the main page might damage our reputation. So it was suggested - not that the article be demoted, as it had met all FA criteria - but simply that the article be replaced with another article that better represented our work. A straw poll was overwhelmingly in favour of this idea. This is the response we got:

I don't know why this poll is being run; Raul isn't likely to replace a mainpage article, period. Just ask him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy is correct. Raul654 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

End of story.
Oh, by the way - a few weeks later SandyGeorgia was Raul's deputy. Is there anyone else who believes that this stinks? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you're all alone on that one. For the record, the "cabal of the concerned" were not out to "simply replace" the article. The agenda was deletion and scathing personal attacks made against the author. To say otherwise is a bald-faced lie.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No one's lying here. I can't speak for everyone who weighed in on the debate, but the poll was a simple Replace/Keep one. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, User:SandyGeorgia contacting User:Mike Searson (who just happens to be the author of Ernest Emerson) to get him to stand up for him on a talk page doesn't exactly weaken the impression of impropriety and camaraderie. I wasn't the one who brought in the word "cabal", but jeez... I don't think anyone who engages in that sort of back room dealings, rather than standing up for himself, deserves to be an admin, much less an FA deputy. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Raul did anything wrong here. There is not currently a rule against having an article about a business as the featured article of the day. You cannot complain that someone does not enforce a rule that doesn't exist. I do believe, though, that we, as a community, should establish a convention that articles about existing companies and specific products currently on the market are not eligible for selection as the featured article of the day. They can still be (and are desired to be) featured articles, but cannot appear as the main page article. This would be a change from our current practice - for example, on May 14 we had a video game called Super Smash Bros. Melee. Under my proposal, that would no longer be permitted. (I certainly don't think we should be in the business of choosing which kinds of commercial articles are ok and which are not - we need to either allow all of them or allow none.) We may also wish to consider other restrictions, for example, current candidates for political office. (I am not supporting that particular restriction, just suggesting it for brainstorming purposes.) I definitely think, though, that we should restrict commercial articles. --B (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think commercial articles should be restricted, per my comment made at WP:ANI. Here it is for convenience:

"[...] as the people who support this article's placement on the main page have noted, there is no rule that states commercial subjects are not allowed on the main page. I also think that it is fruitless to even try to create a rule like that; a lot of controversy and opposition will no doubt ensue. I think the most logical route, especially on a wiki, should be to go with the simplest solution. In the case of main page articles, the simplest solution is to allow any FA articles to be shown. If we begin to limit any type of article, then it will be difficult to figure out whether certain articles that are on the edge of an unsteady criterion should be shown. Also, it can be argued that if, say, all company articles were not allowed, who's to say that articles such as Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, does not indirectly advertise for Microsoft? Etc., etc."

Gary King (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly agree. Well said. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are, however, rules about respecting consensus. A strong majority of editors pushed for changes in the way TFAs are chosen here. Raul promptly reverted the change and proceeded to ignore gathering opposition to their decision. I really think that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we choose TFAs on wikipedia. One man has all of the power. That is just wrong. Wrad (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough — I am not familiar enough with the actual process of selecting main page articles to comment on it. My comment above was for which articles can be chosen as main page articles, not how to choose a main page article — which appears to be what the link you posted is discussing. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you were right on to say what you said. I think that Raul is a good editor who is part of a system which is fundamentally flawed and needs to be fixed. Wrad (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad's got my point. During the Emerson debate there was a widespread concern in the community about the outward appearance Wikipedia gave when featuring corporate articles. This was met by an arrogant "we don't care". Now history repeats itself, as again the community consensus is being ignored. I'm not promoting any particular policy change, I'd just like to see a system that was slightly more responsive and slightly less dictatorial. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "Emerson Debate" was mostly driven by hoplophobes. The article was about a Custom knifemaker who founded a knife company. A handful of ninnies who cannot fathom that some people make or use knives primarily as weapons were joined by a few loudmouths who think unless the featured article of the day isn't about some effeminate and obscure deceased crown prince of Austria that it doesn't belong on the mainpage; a twerp or two who thinks if a business is mentioned it must be an advertisement may have chimed in as well. Personal attacks were made against me and my family. I was spammed over this and some overweight loser that used to be an admin even told me that he wanted to lose a fistfight to me in the worst way possible. And over what? That an article I wrote made it to the Front Page? That it beat out an article about William Howard Taft? That someone might have read of a knife used by NASA and might think about buying a pocketknife in the future? Or *gasp* someone used articles from knife magazines to source an article about a CUSTOM KNIFEMAKER!!!! You call a herd of armwavers like that "widespread concern"? Histrionics seem to be your forte'.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's the most deranged, paranoid entry I've read in quite a while; I'm sorry if the episode messed you up so bad. Look, I've been to the military, I enjoy hunting and target shooting, and I own more knives than I need to butter my bread. Austrian royalty I know less about, though I'm eager to learn. My personal background has nothing to do with this, however. I can't speak for others, but my views and those of anyone I'd bother to engage with had nothing to do with crazy left- or right-wing political views (typical exchange: Anon: "This whole piece reads like a P.R. brochure. Are you serious that this represents the "best work on Wikipedia"?", Mike: "Nice comment coming from a vandal. Sorry they banned knives in the UK and the article frightens you."). Nutcases aside, the overwhelming majority of comments were on the line of "This reads like an advert", and you know that, so don't try to distort it by some straw man argument. Now, when that is the impression given to the millions of people who visit Wikipedia every day, is it smart to put it up on the Main Page? Just because it might strictly formally adhere to some rules most people don't even know about? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with the Emerson debate, and I've never really seen an article I didn't like on the front page. I just feel strongly that the system needs to be changed. There are more FAs than TFA slots now, so we have a clear choice everyday of what should be on the front page. I think that should be a community choice. Wrad (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surtsey

Surtsey was demmed featured in 2005 but still hasn't been featured? Why? ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not every featured article can make WP:TFA. There are more than 365.25 nominated in a year, so some get left out. Ral315 (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stricter standards

The feature of Elderly Instruments on the Main Page caused a great commotion, and was reminiscent of the similar outcry over Ernest Emerson a few months ago. Regardless of the merits of the arguments, such a stir should cause concern, because it reflects Wikipedia’s outward image. Even ill-informed comments by anons should be taken into account, because they represent the impressions of random readers, rather than hardcore editors. TFA is after all WP's showcase to the world, not a backslapping fest for admins and long-time contributors. In this case, perception is just as important as procedure.

Suggestions have been made to ameliorate the system, including a complete ban on articles with a commercial subject. As Gary King points out, such a measure would be excessive, and probably not even fully solve the problem. I believe a solution can be found that is far less dramatic, and builds on existing policy rather than radical innovations.

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, or for this purpose, more specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We operate with a hierarchy of sources, at the top of which are peer-reviewed journals, books from reliable publishing houses, and widely circulated newsmagazines or broadsheet newspapers like Newsweek or The Daily Telegraph. Closer to the bottom of that hierarchy are publications like Vintage Bluegrass Banjo Aficionado Monthly. The reason why these publications are undesirable are at least twofold:

1. It is unlikely that anyone but the article's author will have access to them, so it is difficult for the community to assess their reliability
2. These publications often stem from small, close-knit communities where everybody knows and does business with each other, and as such run into trouble with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Now, if these are the only sources you can find, then fine – write the best article you can, but does the article really need to go on the Main Page? We have plenty to take from, so what’s the urge? The demands of WP:RS should always be upheld, but much more forcefully when dealing with TFA. This strict standard should apply to all subjects, but particularly articles dealing with commercial, religious or political topics, that can easily be perceived as promotional. I don't think that is too much to ask. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the proposal here, and what does it have to do with TFA? I can't discern the proposal that relates to TFA. Are you saying either Emerson or Elderly didn't use reliable sources? Take that up at FAC or FAR. Are you saying we need a separate review of sources prior to mainpage appearance? Reviewers across all content review processes (not just FAC and FAR) are short; if there's a concern about sources, engage FAC which is where this is dealt with. As far as I can tell, whatever this proposal might be, it seems to be mixing up FAC and TFA. FA standards are upheld at FAC and FAR, not TFA. And we still have no answer to why the same people who are decrying the results of a consensus-driven, community-wide process at FAC now want to extend the same consensus they decry to the mainpage choice, here at TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see the point of this overly aggressive response, and recourse to formalism and Wikilawyering. I know the difference between FAC and TFA, but currently more than two FAs are created a day, so there’s plenty to take from. Is it really too much to ask of those who select the TFAs that they apply some stricter standards? Or is it ok with you that Wikipedia’s reputation is tarnished in this way on a regular basis? I was hoping such an appeal could lead to a constructive debate, but when you immediately go in the trenches with a "we followed the rules, we did nothing wrong"-attitude, that becomes hard. The personal attacks are also unnecessary, is it really relevant how I or anyone else choose to apply our efforts here on Wikipedia? Cannot the suggestion be addressed on its own merits? Perhaps it is necessary that the TFA is chosen by editors and not the community, but in that case at least those editors have to be responsive to community concerns, not just jump at the throat of anyone who disagrees with them. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Lampman, it is not my intent to be "aggressive": I simply fail to understand your proposal. No article should use non-reliable sources, featured articles should be well sourced, this is a FAC/FAR issue that is unrelated to TFA. If an article has poor sourcing, it shouldn't be featured. It is not the function of TFA to review articles anew; for that, we already have two processes, FAC and FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I'm suggesting is another level of review, though an informal one. Under the current system that review has to be undertaken by the FA admins. Perhaps a reform of the whole system is needed, but I just don't think that's necessary to solve the immediate problem. My concern is that even though editors – particularly those involved in the FA process – understand what an FA entails, regular readers don't, and that's why extra caution is needed with TFAs. Even though an article adheres to all the formal demands for an FA, it can still give a poor impression outwards. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements make the community stronger. It happens that some people disagree with a community decision, think that it has been rushed or whatever, it doesn't mean that the process is flawed (for example, we have WP:DRV for deletions) See my response at ANI for more details. Cenarium (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here are some relevant discussions: 1, 2. Wrad proposed that the community chooses Today's featured articles. A proposition for TFA is made on a page, where the community, in a classic community debate, decides if the featured article should be featured on the Main Page for a certain day. Then, after a reasonable period of time (two weeks ?), the discussion is closed by a member of a designed group, say, as featured or not featured based on consensus. Cenarium (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• "A proposition for TFA is made on a page, where the community, in a classic community debate, decides if the featured article should be featured on the Main Page for a certain day." This is exactly how the requests page currently works. BuddingJournalist 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all, read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Cenarium (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• So, Cenarium's proposal is that we'll drain more reviewers from the content review pages where standards are upheld (e.g.; FAC and FAR) and where we always need more reviewers, by inititiating yet another review process at TFA/R, that will again be subject to chaos and disagreement from those who haven't engaged the process and don't understand the constaints and variables in mainpage scheduling. In the meantime, all of the people concerned about the standards of what appears on the mainpage could be better spending their time in reviewing articles at peer review, GAN, FAC and FAR, to help assure that articles that reach TFA/R are at standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Even ill-informed comments by anons should be taken into account, because they represent the impressions of random readers, rather than hardcore editors" you are so correct on this one. The original reason I picked up on the Eldery article was from simply browsing the main page. If it struck me, and a lot of other people, that it read like an advert from a brief glimpse, then it should have raised immediate warning bells and not been brushed off by involved admins saying 'well it went through the FA process fine'. After all those of us with no connection to the article or the FA process were really the only objective source of opinion on the fact that something felt wrong. If it 'went through the FA process fine' and still raised so many complaints then it is justifiable to question how good the FA process is too. Mfield (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Of note, almost every complaint about the article came from people who have never engaged FAC, FAR or TFA, and almost no complaints came from people who have. Engage and understand the processes, policies and guidelines; object to articles at FAC if you feel they don't meet featured standards. This is a very separate matter from TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter that people didn't complain whilst the article was at FAC. It also doesn't matter if someone complaining never even knew of the existance of FAC, FAR or TFA. Not everyone has 16 hours a day to devote to every aspect of a communal process. Once it's on the front page its way past the point of being just relevant to FAC, it's become a representation of everyones communal efforts in this project. If it got through and people complain about it there has to be some acceptance that there may be something wrong and a willingness to address it. Burying heads in the sand and blindly defending the process when it clearly failed in this case is an insult to the intelligence of everyone involved and everyone who read the article once and felt it was biased. Mfield (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Burying heads in the sand and blindly defending the process ... That's not the case here, Mfield. I'm pointing out to you that, if you don't like what's appearing on the main page, please start engaging the process and reviewing articles at FAC and FAR. (We welcome more reviewers, more scrutiny, any help we can get at FAC and FAR; pls reference out attempts at many Dispatches, like this one.) That's where these issues are addressed. Creating a parallel process at TFA/R will drain resources, when we're already short of revieweres across all content review processes. I am not defending the process: I'm telling you we already have a process, and you only need to engage it. (I also disagree that it failed, but I doubt there's much chance that message will be heard now, and we have to take longer term steps to help the community understand notability of product and company articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I also agree with this assessment, SandyGeorgia, you seem to take off criticism labeling it as "bad faith attacks on hard working Wikipedians", I've been particularly shocked by your comments at Raul's talk page. Cenarium (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Are you disagreeing that there were some pretty serious bad faith attacks made on the talk page yesterday ? I certainly hope not. Are you disagreeing that there have been volumes written on this matter by editors who haven't engaged or understood the processes they're commenting on? I fail to find the shocking aspects of this commentary. And I'm still waiting for an answer to why people who decry that a process failed want to create yet another, parallel process, with duplication of effort and purpose. Can anyone answer that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Again, no, no, but you cannot reduce criticism to unfounded bad faith accusations on hard working Wikipedians. Bigtimepeace tries to tell you that on Raul's talk page. Why changing the process ? Because we think that the new process is better than the old one. This will involve the community at a larger scale, not only the typical FA reviewer like you call them. Cenarium (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Where on earth are these new community people going to come from? If we can't convince them to help review articles at FAC, then I think it unlikely that they'll suddenly decide to review articles post-FAC. If these same community people participated at FAC then the end result might be better articles, without adding an unnecessary step to the process. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• FACs and FARs are quite impressive and, frankly, I can understand why people avoid them. I'm not even mentioning the system of points and the 5 articles rule for TFA/R. Add to this the fact that all FA processes are monitored by a very small number of people, this is very bureaucratic. And WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is one of our most fundamental policy, which means that it is widely accepted and respected among our editors. Don't get me wrong, I try to find an explanation on why reviewers are lacking, and why more generally the FA area is relatively deserted by the community. I'm not making judgment calls or whatever on the job you accomplish, the community is grateful for this. Wikipedia is built on community consensus, though there are exceptions making sense like WP:ARBCOM or WP:RFCU. FAC is consensus-driven and community-wide, and we have FAR(C) when the FA status of an article is challenged. Fine, no objection to the FA process, except that I think that more people should be allowed to close FACs and FARs. This may need to be discussed. Now the TFA process, the Main Page definitely attracts a lot of users, and I'm pretty sure tat a revamp of TFA as proposed above will be successful, and potentially drive people to FAC and FAR. I'll give a summary of advantages soon. Cenarium (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that adding an extra layer of review at TFA only increases the bureaucracy. It may be that you are suggesting that all articles for the main page should be chosen by the community: at present, Raul chooses most of them, advised by the discussion at TFA/R. But again, then, what you are suggesting is more bureaucracy. I have no problem with that in principle, but it would be good for you to recognize the fact (and its implications).

Again, I think the easiest solution would be some kind of edict that there should be no commercial organizations on the main page. (Plus whatever other restrictions the community felt: I've noted the informal "no porn stars" and "no bad language" rules.) I'm pretty neutral on that. But it would be a non-bureaucratic solution to the problem that you perceive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is proposing a TFA review process? Have you even read the proposal. It isn't a review process. We won't be reviewing articles, just choosing the best ones for the main page. It's not like FAC where you have a strict set of criteria or anything at all. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, that is a review process. Again, it may be of a different kind and less time-consuming than (say) GAN, FAR, FAC, FAR, and PR, but it is a review process. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, there is indeed a confusion between FA processes in some comments, but it doesn't change the fact that some editors, even profoundly involved in FAs, think that the TFA process should be changed. As for this article, some valid points have been raised, but it's past, really. Cenarium (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• (e.c.)This FA is an exception, I don't think that the FAC process is a problem, as I explained above, the FAR process can take care of "problematic" FAs. However, the TFA process should be renewed as suggested above. Cenarium (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard to some earlier comments: A community TFA process will absolutely NOT drain FAC reviewers. Why? Because TFAs are already FAs. Choosing a TFA is not about copyediting or reviewing or rewriting an article, it is about deciding which of a set of articles that are already good should be on the front page. It is not a time-consuming process. Also, please stop calling the TFA proposal a "review" process. That is misleading. It is a community process, but actual article reviewing may or may not occur. That's up to the individual. Wrad (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you're saying here. It seems to me that the following points have been made:

• First, that this particular article was not up to scratch for an FA.

  If so, then whatever problem there may be should definitely be sorted out at WP:FAC. Adding an extra layer of review for FAs that go to the main page is a drain of resources, and soon unsustainable.

• Second, that this particular article was unsuitable for the main page.

  I have no problem in principle with suggestions to exclude certain types of articles (in this case, articles about companies or commercial organizations) from the main page. Raul has already said that Jenna Jameson is de facto excluded from the main page. So that would make commercial organizations plus porn stars. I had once inferred that 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) is also informally excluded. That would make commercial organizations plus porn stars plus articles with "bad language" in the title. So let's have some debate about which types of article are or are not suitable for the main page.

• Third, there's recently been the suggestion that this particular article covers a non-notable subject.

  In that case, it would seem that WP:AFD is not doing its job. Either that, or notability could become a criterion for FA status.

I think attention to process is important in this case, to ensure that yesterday's fiasco is not repeated in the future. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, you don't understand what I'm saying at all. I'm trying to say in no uncertain terms that the TFA proposal is not a review process. It is merely a choosing process and is not time consuming at all. Wrad (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're not sure what I mean by "the TFA proposal". Then please read all of my comments in this section. I am not talking about Elderly Instruments in this thread at all, but the TFA process as a whole. Wrad (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that goes to my second point: whether or not certain topics are suited for the mainpage. TFA is indeed a review process, albeit perhaps a less time-consuming one than others, in so far as it reviews proposals for the main page. It would seem easier and less bureaucratic, however, (albeit more bureaucratic than the current process) simply to set some kind of guideline about what kinds of article should or should not appear on the main page.

But as soon as quality is at issue, then TFA is starting to duplicate the functions of other review processes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, JB, if commercial articles and porn were the only problem, but they aren't. The TFA nomination process is very confusing, frustrating, and bureaucratic as it is, and this would greatly simplify it. The TFA proposal didn't spring up just because of this silly Instruments thing, it has been brewing for a long time. If you don't think the TFA process is bureaucratic now, then you aren't as familiar with it as you think you are. Wrad (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the TFA process is a hodgepodge: there's a place for community input (which I likewise find confusing, frustrating, and so on); and then Raul makes the final decision, in most cases the only decision. You're proposing replacing this emphasis on one individual with a fully-fledged community review process. I have no problem with that a priori, but it'd be good to be straight about what's being proposed. It is another review process. It is more bureaucracy. It substituted a bureaucratic process for the decisions of an individual (advised, at present, by the community). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no complication in the TFA process; Raul manages it fine, even if you and a couple of editors want it handled differently, and every system anyone comes up with to allow community input is gamed by the participants to make it look like a mess. The problem on this thread is that Jbmurray, Karanacs and I are reading and responding to this thread, while Wrad is referring to an entirely different issue, unrelated. This thread proposes additional content review, ignoring that that review occurs at FAC and FAR, and ignoring that all featured articles should conform to strict sourcing standards. Adding another content review step here would be duplication of effort, and editors concerned about stricter sourcing standards should be over at FAC opposing articles with marginal sources (which was not the case for Elderly Instruments by the way). Wrad, if you would try to read the proposal here and respond to it, rather than your proposal, we might all get on the same page. Which is: if you think FAs need stricter sources, get over to FAC and oppose those that don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(after countless edit conflicts too) A general debate on what kind of articles should appear on the MP is unlikely to change things in the future. But a choosing process will take care of any kind of objections in a consensus-driven manner. But as I said at ANI, "If the appearance of a FA on the main page requires a community debate, then it's likely that people supporting the article will improve it in order to diminish the arguments of the opposers. This kind of things happen countless times in AFDs.". Whether it will drive people to FAR or FAC, I'm not certain in all honesty. This is not a review, and the bureaucratic side of points etc will be replaced by community debates. To reduce bureaucracy and increase openness, I think that much more users should be allowed to close. Cenarium (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break

OK, I may be repeating myself (see my points above), but for clarity, in response to Wrad and echoing to some extent SandyG... It would be good to break down what the problems are perceived to be.

• If the problems have to do with quality (as was the concern on this thread; see the title, "stricter standards"), then short of adding a new quality control layer, these are problems to be dealt with at FAC or FAR.
• If the problems have to do with selection, then that's an issue for TFA.
• If they have to do with notability (as per the latest on the Talk:Elderly Instruments), then that's a matter for AFD, or perhaps including notability as a criterion at FAC and FAR.

Of course, selection could be made an issue at FAC and FAR, too. But my understanding is that in essence (with some exceptions, decided upon by Raul), passing an article at FAC means that it is suitable for the main page. It is true that another option would be to say that articles about commercial organizations can never become featured. Moreover...

• Almost everyone who is criticizing the choice of Elderly Instruments for the main page is seeking more process, more bureaucracy, by means of community debate or whatever. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be good to be clear about that.

Once the issues are clear, then they can be debated clearly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I never really engaged in the question of whether the TFA selection should be a community process or not. I respect those who think it should be, but I've tried to suggest improvements to the system as it is, rather than making structural changes. Furthermore, let's be absolutely clear that this is a debate about TFA selection, not about the FAC process. Changing the FAC rules or process wouldn't really solve the problem at hand, unless someone decides to go through every single FA that hasn't been featured yet.

What I'm suggesting is simply stricter criteria for certain types of TFAs, enforced by the FA admin. I can't see why Jenna Jameson – who's a lovely girl, I'm sure – should be the only person or subject in the world excluded from the Main Page. Similar judgement can also be applied to other articles, and I've tried to outline some guidelines above. My suggestion was meant as a milder version of banning all commercial topics, by rather submitting these to stricter scrutiny. BAE Systems was never called an advertisement, but then again that one was based on BBC and other reputable sources. To me Elderly Instruments' failure was marginal sources; does that show flaws in FA rules and process? Perhaps. Should it have been stopped before entering the Main Page? Certainly. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which types of FAs? Again, I think you're confusing issues of quality with issues of selection. If the FAC process is not rigorous enough, and has allowed poorly-sourced articles through, then it needs to be fixed. If an article was passed with marginal sources, it should have been stopped there. On the other hand, if there are certain types of article (articles about commercial enterprises, or articles about commercial entrprises under a certain size, or whatever) that should not generally be on the main page, then that needs to be decided clearly and openly. Mixing up the issues, however, really doesn't help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think I’m confusing the issues, but this is not the place to debate changes to the FAC process, and neither would that solve the problem, without a systematic review of hundreds of FAs. All I’m saying is that banning all articles on commercial enterprises is too extreme, so as a compromise I suggest submitting these to stricter scrutiny in the TFA selection. As such this is about both quality and selection, yes, but only in the sense of interpreting WP:RS more rigorously when dealing with corporate TFAs. That way BAE Systems would get through, Elderly Instruments would not. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FA standards are FAC and FAR matters. The proposed TFA process is aimed to select an article for the Main Page, it will requires community debates and closes (is this bureaucracy ?), but it will also add transparency, and most importantly, the community will make the choice. This is only about selection, but it will certainly make supporters of the article improve it, and rejoin with the spirit Wikipedia:Article_development#Featured_article. And about notability, there is a difference between WP:N, the notability for inclusion on Wikipedia (which is covered by AFD), and the notability expected for a TFA, which has nothing to do with AFD. Cenarium (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Community debates and closes sure are bureaucracy! Again, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but those proposing these solutions should be clear about them. Moreover, in the same line, such debates and closes will suck up more time and effort from editors. Again, nothing necessarily wrong with that, but let's be clear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the incremental changes I would propose to the second of the above problems (selection) would be:

• A discussion as to whether or not there are certain types of article that should not go on the main page.

  My initial position here, for what it's worth, is that any FA should be worthy of the main page. I don't see why Jenna Jameson can't go on the main page, for instance: it is not pornographic; it is about porn, however, which is an important cultural phenomenon. But let's have this debate, if not once and for all then once and for the time being, about whether articles about businesses, porn stars, etc., should or should not go on the main page.

• I see no reason why there should be a limit of only five articles at WP:TFAR at any one time. Increasing the number immediately increases the amount of community involvement in the process.

These are minimal suggestions, and neither increases bureaucracy or adds an extra layer of process. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• And for the record, I'm strongly opposed to anything more than five articles on the requests page at a time, as the community has demonstrated time and time again that any system put in place to allow community input to mainpage scheduling will 1) game the system, 2) fill up immediately, leaving no leeway for the major factors that Raul has to consider in mainpage scheduling, and 3) reduce mainpage diversity by mainpage featuring of over-represented categories at the expense of diversity (let's have the Simpsons every day). Raul has a job to do, the mainpage needs to be stable, he has allowed a process for some input from the community, but opening up the mainpage TFA entirely to community consensus is a pathway to the same kind of problems we just saw, with people not even understanding the FAC process. Editors participating in this discussion, some who haven't yet even become familiar with FAC, FAR, and notability and who decry that consensus isn't working at FAC, want to extend same to the mainpage, which will result in pandemonium. Perhaps if more of them would actually review articles, they'd understand the issues of FA promotion and mainpage scheduling better. Several issues have been conflated in this discussion (and while we're having it, one featured article is being taken apart by editors who don't even have the sources, and possibly, no one is over reviewing articles at FAC to make sure they meet standards, and we just lost one of our best reviewers). Backwards steps all 'round here :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  FWIW, five does seem a rather small number, and perhaps unnecessarily restrictive. I wander over to WP:TFAR fairly often, and usually wander back, fairly frustrated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, this is a reply to JBs comment above) I agree with your first point and its always been my opinion that any FA should be able to get to the mainpage regardless of content since trying to appease sensitivities is next to imposible with objections raging from Mohammed to Sex.. Better to displease everybody than to be selective...

Regarding your second point, that opinion is shared by alot of people and Wrad tried to implement it but Raul was not interested so it dindt happen (I agree with the proposal too for whats its worth)

I also agree with most of what Wrad says, a community decision process might add some more bureacracy but atleast it should reduced the numbers of complaints and add an extra level of legitimacy. If we trust anonymous usuers to write articles on advanced physics, I think we can trust them (us) to pick the TFAs.. Acer (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What the community expects is more transparency and involvement. Look at the instructions at the beginning of WP:TFA/R, they are almost frightening, this is obscure bureaucracy. Wikipedians are used to community debates, and I don't consider them as bureaucracy. I'm not convinced that discussions on what should be included will be that useful, however a case by case analysis will be really fruitful I think. Cenarium (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You may not consider community debates to be bureaucratic, but they absolutely are.  :) In general, bureacracy (if done well, at least) does improve transparency. In fact, there's nothing particularly obscure about the instructions at WP:TFA/R, though they are indeed fairly restrictive. What's obscure (for good or for ill) is what those instructions do not cover (and this seems to be the source of some of the complaints): i.e. how Raul chooses articles that have not been nominated there. But bureaucracy does have its various downsides, of course. Again, a bit of clarity would come in handy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The TFAs which have led to complaints by a considerable part of our community and readers I could find are ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Ernest Emerson and Elderly Instruments. All of them have been criticized for their insufficient notability (note that none of them have articles in other languages by the way). Though it is clear that they meet our criteria for featured status (and I am sure that the sourcing and POV problems of Elderly Instruments will be settled), it seems that more is expected for a today's featured article than a simple FA status. The choice should be left to the community, not only to the so called FA community and its director. Cenarium (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with the "Considerable part of the community" statement; I agree with having the article in more than one language as part of the "Main Page Criteria". Actually it's about the most sensible thing I've heard come out of this discussion. Apart from having the chronic complainers get more active in FAC/FAR, etc. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The "chronic complainers" complain about TFAs, not FAC or FAR. FA is a quality status, what we say is that TFA requires more. After all, Raul654 has also expressed that he wouldn't feature Jenna Jameson on the Main Page. What I say is that it should be the decision of the Wikipedia community. Cenarium (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, notability is (at least at present) a matter for AFD. If you would like to propose that it should become a matter for FAC, then I think you should be clear about that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Countless of factors may be taken into consideration, it's why a case by case analysis by the entire community should be done. As I said above, there are several levels of notability, these articles are certainly notable enough to be included on Wikipedia (this is the notability pertaining to AFD, WP:N). This minimal notability is, of course, needed for a FA (otherwise, no article...), but no further notability is required for a FA, which is perfectly fine I must say. I have no problem with the FA status of, say, Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, but I wouldn't be happy to see it on the Main Page and preferred to see, say, Introduction to general relativity (treat me of naysayer if you like, but I have right to my opinions, they should be respected as such, and those of innocent readers too, not all the complaints of annons or newbies are made in "bad faith"). Indeed, the question is : are they notable enough to be featured on the Main Page ? Cenarium (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a somewhat pragmatic approach, and might not satisfy the strict formalists, but I would like to point out that my suggestion of stricter interpretation of WP:RS for TFA in reality would go far towards also solving problems with notability. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 03:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A community discussion on the promotion of a featured article on the main Page is likely to involve reliable sources too, and any other kind of opposition. They will be valued by discussion and community consensus will decide. Cenarium (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All articles must use reliable sources, not just FAs, and reviewing for WP:V is already part of WP:FAC; there is no need for duplication of process, nor has a problem with the sourcing of Elderly Instruments been demonstrated. We have here a straightforward failure of understanding about notability. Notable topics deserve articles; non-notable articles are dealt with via WP:AFD. Articles that meet the criteria can be featured; the process for this is at WP:FAC. Any article that is featured deserves to be on the main page, particularly since diversity encourages more editors to write more similar articles, and there's no reason not to have a variety of articles on Wiki. The only breakdown in the processes already in place was a failure of editors uninvolved in any of these processes to understand notability: a pointy editor would put the article up at AfD to show how quickly it would be kept. The proposed solution is that we write a Dispatch to deal with this confusion about notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly all articles should have reliable sources in theory, but we all know this is not the case. Just because an article wasn't deleted doesn't mean it has reliable sources. Similarly, just because it was featured doesn't mean it really is (or currently is) featured-quality. I think it is not unreasonable to play around with the idea of stricter review of TFA candidates. In the case of Elderly Instruments, there were a lot of comments on the discussion page critical of the sources. You may see all the criticism as wrong, but its existence seems to show that there is a problem with the article of some sort. If I understand, you are suggesting that these editors were at fault for not knowing proper wikipedia notability and verifiability policies. But I interpret this as putting existing policies before consensus. If we have this many people complaining about the same thing, either the policies are not being followed or the policies are wrong. My basic point is that I don't see how your argument (as I see it) fully respects the tenet of consensus. I have been reading many of your recent comments spurred by the recent TFA problem, and I am really sensing from you a desire to protect the work of wikipedia "insiders" from "uninvolved" contributors. Perhaps you could elaborate and clarify for me what outcome you are seeking from the discussions about TFA reform . Thanks Dwr12 (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second summary, break

To sum up the debate so far, there seem to be general agreement that some sort of reform is needed to avoid the situation we had on Wednesday. There is, however, different ideas about what to do:

• Structural changes:

1. Change the FAC/FAR criteria
2. Make the TFA selection a community process
3. Give the FA admin clearer guidelines for TFA selection

The FAC/FAR process is not a matter for debate here, and I think much can be achieved by changing the TFA selection process. I am personally in favour of a more open and democratic TFA system, but I believe changes can also be made within the current system, as long as that system is responsive to community requests.

• Changes in guidelines:

1. Ban all articles on commercial subjects from TFA
2. Apply a stricter reading of WP:RS on TFAs that might appear promotional

Personally I think the first suggestion is too radical, and at the same time insufficient. It would affect entirely unproblematic articles like BAE Systems. And where do we draw the line? Video games? Musical artists? Films? Furthermore, non-commercial articles can also appear as promotions for their subjects, such as articles on lesser political figures, or religious organisations. The second approach would deal with all of these issues.

I did not initially mention notability, as I believe that is a matter for AfD, and should not be an additional issue for FAC or TFA. I have, however, noticed how this tends to confuse the casual reader, who generally seems to think the TFA should be a subject of particular importance. The measure I’m suggesting would - as a side effect - undoubtedly raise the notability of TFAs, without actually changing the requirements on this point. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• To sum up the debate so far, there seem to be general agreement that some sort of reform is needed to avoid the situation we had on Wednesday. No, there isn't. You're looking at one page, where a very small group of editors have contributed, and the sentiments expressed elsewhere are quite different or people aren't even worried about the issues perceived by this small group. In fact, no one yet has given a credible reason for the attacks on this article's reliability or notability. What is needed is a means of helping some of our editors better understand notability, and a discussion of why some readers think only large companies can be notable or be on the main page. Throughout this discussion, what stands out most is the incredible disencentive for any editor to want to produce featured content in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how you can say this. On the talk page, there are a lot of good reasons why the types of sources and their verifiability are not as good as we would like them to be. Dwr12 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Change the FAC/FAR criteria. The FAC/FAR criteria (WP:WIAFA) are not going to deviate from Wiki policies and guidelines like WP:V and WP:NN. Right now they reflect policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ban all articles on commercial subjects from TFA. OK, more than half of our featured articles would no longer be eligible to be on the mainpage, and someone can find a way to define just about anything as commercial. Certainly, that would be the end to books, film, companies, video games, engineering and technology products, and a whole host more. Again, another disencentive to editors to write featured content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Apply a stricter reading of WP:RS on TFAs that might appear promotional. Another strawman; at FAC, the strictest interpretation of policy is and should be applied already. There are not two different levels of FAs; articles either meet FA criteria or they don't (IMO, Elderly Instruments did, but it fell prey to a feeding frenzy of people who don't understand WP:ADVERT or WP:NN). If they don't, take them to WP:FAR, or get more active at WP:FAC to assure these issues are reviewed for. When I was one of the most active reviewers at FAC, I was typically the only reviewer checking sources. I haven't seen any indication that any of the people over here asking for change are over there reviewing articles, and since one of our most thorough reviewers is now gone from the building after this debacle, there's a gap to be filled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC and FAR are kind of like "smoke-filled rooms" to borrow a political phrase. Saying "too bad, they should have been more involved in the bureaucracy" is surely not a way to go about this. Many people would love to get their input in, but can't realistically devote hours to being involved in these venues. I thought consensus can be re/established whenever and wherever. There is no basis for people having to express their concerns only at the review proceedings or forever hold their peace. Dwr12 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The measure I’m suggesting would ... Again, I'm still unable to decipher what the suggestion is, I only see overlap with and misunderstanding of existing policies, processes and pages, but will put out the reminder one more time. While people are over here trying to create duplicate processes to do what FAC already does, I'm not seeing any of these people over at FAC actually engaging the criteria that are already in place to cover these concerns, and we're one reviewer short at FAC. My responses are not intended to sound "aggressive" (as was claimed elsewhere): it is just incredibly sad to see a good writer and reviewer chased off, leaving a big gap, while many of the people engaged in this discussion don't appear willing or able to fill that gap. I know many of you are trying to help now that the feeding frenzy has subsided; please consider that the best way to help is to actually review articles at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wrads and the Dukes proposal for a revamped TFA selection process involving direct community input, which I agree to, got mixed here with a bunch of comments related to FA that are a separate issue altoguether, this has led to alot of confusion in this discussion. The propoal for allowing the comunity to chose TFA has nothing to do with notability concerns that have benn raised here nor is it related to the Elderly Instruments "incident". Acer (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy I don't think its helpful to say that Elderly Instruments fell prey to a feeding frenzy of people who don't understand WP:ADVERT or WP:NN, while alot of comments left on the talk page were hurtful and not very usefull, there were real issues with the article and some editors engaged honestly to solve them, including user:Bigtimepeace and user:Mfield, Laser Brain himself admitted as much. While I certanly believe that it was not your intention, generalising comments like the one you made can cause ressentment among the people who actually tried to improve the article Acer (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FAs are already high quality articles, TFA is a matter of selection, and we advocate that the Wikipedia community should make this selection. The FA criteria are not in cause here, and we have a vast choice of FAs for the Main Page. Don't forget that our readers are not necessarily aware of our guidelines like WP:N or WP:ADVERT. Further notability may be a factor in the debate over the appearance of a FA, stricter requirements for sources too. For example, for this particular FA, concerns over sources are serious, and as you can see, even users familiar with the FA processes agree. I don't think that the FA criteria should be changed, more reviewers appear to be needed. But, if I may, how do you think you can attract more users to review FAs ? And helping at FAC is a good thing, but this is very different from TFA. Cenarium (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If I knew what else I could do to attract more reviewers across all content review processes (this is a problem at WP:PR, WP:GAN, WP:FAC and WP:FAR), I'd be doing it. We've set up shop and written Dispatch articles for the Signpost (see {{FCDW}}), I've given barnstars and awards to top reviewers, we've discussed setting up a competition for choosing an FA of the month (that went nowhere), and I've generally badgered people on their talk pages as well, and gone out and recruited editors who seem to have good reviewing skills. I have put weeks and months into trying to strengthen our review processes, only to possibly lose a good and productive reviewer to this debacle. A peer review volunteer list was established, and we wrote a Dispatch about how to achieve a good PR. We wrote a Dispatch about FAC and FAR reviewers. We wrote a Dispatch about editors who had made great saves at FAR. I've done everything I know of to do to encourage and reward reviewers, because it is hard and thankless work. The simple fact is, we're short reviewers throughout Wiki's content review processes, which is why the energy that has gone into this page, and the possible loss of a busy and thorough FAC and FAR reviewer, has me seriously bummed out. This episode has 1) provided a strong disencentive to editors who might write future featured content, 2) possibly cost us a good reviewer, and 3) drained a lot of time from others who might be reviewing articles while 4) playing with the notion of creating yet another process which will only leave us more short in the processes we already have. On the positive side, hopefully this will draw some attention to the shortages at our content review processes, although I've yet to see a new reviewer show up or any evidence of that happening. I feel this episode will only be a disencentive for featured article writers and reviewers, and we'll lose more than we'll gain. And I still fail to understand the logic in people wanting to expend energy on choosing the mainpage articles (which Raul handles just fine) rather than reviewing to assure that articles are up to snuff to begin with; it seems to me like a real cart before the horse issue is going on here. (And no, I don't at all agree that concerns over sources used at Elderly Instruments are serious, but I'm trying to stay out of that discussion now and move on to the bigger picture. I'm fairly convinced now that Elderly won't last long at the rate it's being deconstructed by editors who haven't even accessed the sources, so there's no point in looking back at that article; for the editor who wrote it, I imagine it's a heartache, and it will be hard to motivate future editors to want to write similar content, having seen what happened to that article. So, I guess we want only science and history on the mainpage and as featured articles from now on.) Cenarium, I hope you understand my comments aren't directed at you or any individual: it's the situation, and my concern that the proposals here will only further these kinds of problems by turning over the mainpage selection to editors who may or may not have fully engaged these processes and our policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if we assume that nobody else understands the pocesses and guidelines, I don't really see what having to choose one article among a list of FAs (which are already supposed to conform to all rules) to be featured on the main page has to do with an understanding of policies... People will simply be choosing among articles that are already FAs, they don't need to understand the FA criteria (which is really not rocket science) in order to choose Acer (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Acer, but I've got to disagree there. This episode has evidenced the number of people who don't understand WP:V, WP:WIAFA, WP:ADVERT or WP:NN, and we shouldn't have people choosing TFAs who don't understand fundamental policies and guidelines and Wiki processes. That's why we have a director. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didnt answer my main point, why do they need to understand policy to choose TFA? They'll be choosing from the pool of FAs Sandy, all those articles already conform (or are supposed to) to all those policies so there inst any room for an article that doesnt conform to get on the mainpage. If your concern is that some FAs will be effectively stoped from ever being TFA, a couple of simple rules can keep that from happening. Also, most of the prople (though certanly not the only ones) that gave harsh/hurtful criticism of Elderly Instruments were one time accounts or IPs, meaning that those people were wikipedia readers and not editors and short of banning IPs or new users from commenting there really isnt much that can be done to stop them from making hurtful comments on the talk pages of articles that they didnt like for whatever reason. Acer (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I concur with Acer) Some users said that the article was not notable for Wikipedia, which is wrong per WP:N, but these users were mainly anonymous users or newbies (even some SPAs emerged), they were not long standing members of the community. Some editors however, including administrators and other respected users, thought that this organization was not notable enough to be featured on the Main Page. This is very different. WP:ADVERT has been misused also, but some editors think that placing a small business article on the Main Page may appear to be advertising, which is, again, very different. Some editors, indeed, have shown a lack of knowledge in WP:WIAFA, but this is not the point, TFA is not FAC/FAR. Finally, for the sources, this is discussed by competent editors who are fully aware of WP:V. I understand that this is not personal, but some generalizations were quite unpleasant. I will elaborate on the proposal later. Cenarium (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Acer lost my response to multiple ecs, having a hard time getting in here. I thought the main point of this discussion was that editors who don't understand ADVERT, notability and other policies and guidelines would reject articles that they perceive as advertising, which is why we have a director who understands policy. (And thanks for the reminder that a lot of the bad-faith issues and nasty claims about the article came from IPs and one-time redlinks; that has been somewhat lost in the discussion with the mantra that the article had real problems. This has been a tempest in a teapot on this page and the article talk page only, and the article didn't even raise eyebrows in most places, and the reactoin on the mainpage talk page from knowledgeable editors was far more measured.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well they can certanly try to stop articles from getting to the main page, but we can have mechanisms to stop that from happening (rotation of topics for instance) I dont share views that some FAs should be barred from the main page, and in fact, I'm more radical in this view than Raul since I beleive that even Miss Jenna should have her chance to shine.. The reason that I want the TFA selection process to be open is simply because this is a wiki, everything else we do (including selecting FAs) is a community process, so why cant this be too? I'm opposed to one person holding ultimate authority on principle.(with the additional advantage that people will not have somebody to point theur fingers to when something they have a problem with gets featured.) Honestly I dont beleive that oppeing up the process will lead to confusion, everything else on the site is collaborative and surprisingly enought it works! Acer (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm fairly convinced now that Elderly won't last long at the rate it's being deconstructed by editors who haven't even accessed the sources, so there's no point in looking back at that article". I am surprised that you think that article is now in such a worse state now than it was when it was allowed onto the front page. The claims now bear a much closer relation to the citations they were drawn from, there are more people with a clearer idea as to the actual trustworthiness of the references, and the language in general has been improved to the point that if it were to be put back up on the front page it would attract far less complaints. That is consensus editing, and if more of a measure of that had been applied to the article before it was put up there, then maybe this whole situation would not have developed. It can be improved more, it should be, that's the way this works. Do you expect one person to write an article and no one else to ever need to edit it? What happens when that person moves on, is no one else allowed to edit the article without being deemed worthy? It seems fairly obvious that the system failed in this case and the constructive thing to do is to try and fix it or at the least review the system to prevent it happening again. There's nothing personal about that which should lead to any accusations of over defensiveness, its just common sense. Mfield (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No this isn't obvious to me at all. I saw an overreaction and a feeding frenzy, resulting in damage to the article before it could begin to be put back together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Sandy that an admin-run TFA process is preferable, but that requires at least a certain measure of dialogue between those in charge and the community. All we've gotten here so far is "I'm not even interested in discussing your suggestion, now let's talk about something else." I have said repeatedly that my suggestion had nothing to do with FAC. All I'm saying is that with the current abundance of FAs, we're able to show greater discretion in selecting TFAs. Yet Sandy constantly brushes that possibility off with a mantra-like reference to current policy, and then repeatedly returns to FAC problems. I'm sure that's a valid issue, but shouldn't that be on the FAC talk page, or at least under a different thread? Is it so hard to admit that an article can pass the formal criteria of FAC, and still look bad on the Main Page? Other than Jenna Jameson? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shared custody

I've been loosely following the FA process debate for awhile, and could talk about the strengths and flaws in the system in some detail, but I know that the longer I make my post, the less likely that anyone's going to read it. So, to boil down to the core points: The process needs a change, because too much power is in the hands of too few people. However, precisely because those people (such as Raul and SandyGeorgia) get attacked so often, and because some of those attacks are inappropriate, I feel that they go into a "bunker" mentality, where they feel that they're the only ones who can really be trusted to make wise decisions on the behalf of the community. Therefore they circle the wagons, refuse to let go of any power, only let people into their "circle" who agree with them, and effectively plug their ears against the rest. But what they're missing, is that mixed in among the ranting from trolls, there is good faith criticism from good faith editors, and that a change really is needed.

It's tough to change a situation like this. For the most part, Raul and SandyGeorgia do a really good job. They shoulder a lot of responsbility, and are juggling a lot of conflicting demands, every day. They deserve respect for such an undertaking. However, they're also spread very thin, and the constant barrage on them would cause pretty much anyone to get a bit testy every so often. I do believe that they have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. And they have reasonable concerns about what a new system would entail. It's true that if they just "let go" and we opened the gates wide and tried a new system, there would probably be some problems. BUT, would they really be devastating problems? Or look at this way: if every single major FA admin simply disappeared today, would Wikipedia crumple up and die? I don't think so. There might be a few bumps, but then the beauty of this collaborative community is that other people would pick up the slack, and the project would continue on. For example, look at how WP:DYKs are handled: it seems to move along pretty smoothly, we get a steady flow of DYK notes on the mainpage each day, changed every few hours, handled by multiple editors, and it's not a nightmare.  :)

For now, my recommendation is that we try for the best of both worlds. How about splitting custody of TFA? Like maybe let Raul make decisions on odd days, and let a community review process make decisions on even days. Or alternate weeks, or months, or say "every day that's a multiple of 5, will be a community-chosen TFA". I think that would reduce the frustration level, increase trust all around, and also give more "outsiders" some insight on the difficulty in choosing a nice balance of articles for our main page. --Elonka 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the situation. I have a lot of respect for the amount of work Raul and Sandy put into the project, but the hard-headedness anyone in disagreement is met with is really frustrating. I noticed how Sandy recently turned for support to User:Mike Searson on his talk page. Here are a couple of random flowers from the lovely bouquet that's Mike's recent posts: "most of them are still scarred from having their lunch money taken from them at school by a little girl in pigtails so they're just going to be bitter" "some overweight loser that used to be an admin."

In light of this, Sandy's lamentations over bad-faith posts seem a bit ingenious, and one is inclined to believe that he prefers to surround himself with yes-men, rather than serious contributors. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec reply to Elonka) This is where I should mention that ITN (In the news) is a community process like DYK, and it fell apart a few weeks ago, with the same image on the news for too many days to remember, so that Raul stepped in and changed it. They had a big fuss about it, accused Raul of abusing his powers, but it was a perfect example of how a community process stalled over consensus problems, and the mainpage ITN section suffered and grew stale, because they couldn't come up with a consensus. This is exactly what the concern is, and it does happen in those processes. There are also frequent posts to the administrators' noticeboards when someone forgets to update DYK. On the other hand, there has only been one instance of a TFA issue, and that was a day that Wiki suffered some sort of complete outage (can't remember the specifics, but Gimmetrow knows), so TFA has worked flawlessly for years without a single glitch (thank you, Raul), while DYK and ITN often have glitches. And, yes, I go into a funk mentality when a FAC reviewer or FA writer is run off, but that's not the process, it's just how I feel about people who contribute selflessly to the Project. I can deal when I'm criticized or attacked, but I get pretty bummed out when a good reviewer or writer is criticized and maligned as Laser has been. (That's a hefty strawman there, Lampman, can we stay on-topic here? Mike Searson went through something as bad as Laser did, and reliving that isn't going to address Elonka's proposal. Lampman, please stop and think for a moment how you would feel if you had researched and worked on an article for months, maybe even a year, jumped through all the hoops of multiple content review processes many times, and then were accused of having a financial interest when the article appeared on the mainpage. I might not write that post that Mike wrote, but it's not that hard to imagine how one feels after something like that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Elonka's points. A smooth passage is certainly a good idea. With regards to the treatment of the criticism, I was frustrated for sure. Saying that the talk page of Elderly Instruments is full of "crap" is not encouraging to improve the article. And being accused to have done nothing to prevent this or help to improve the article beforehand, while this is not possible since the choice of the article is not ours is quite disheartening (again, it's TFA, not FAC). Laser's response to criticism (justified or not) was very good by the way, but it's not about that. In response to Sandy, ITNs are necessarily difficult to handle, since we have to respond to the news in a timely manner. And DYKs are not a big deal. Cenarium (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Sandy) It's not a strawman when you've directly solicited his support in the ongoing conflict. These are recent posts from Mike, not from September, you'd think the trauma had passed by now. I never accused Mike of taking money from anyone, I resent that kind of comments deeply, and I actually remember chastising those who made them. I do reserve the right to raise legitimate criticism though, that's the risk you run when you contribute here.

But I do agree with Elonka that it's madness that one man should be solely, and seemingly indefinitely, in charge of the most prominent piece of real estate on Wikipedia, indeed one of the most prominent on the internet. I suppose that's a remnant from Wikipedia's earlier days, but now I think the poor guy should get some rest. I refuse to believe there aren't plenty of admins ready to take over. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's be clear here, Lampman. Not all of the attacks on Laser came from IPs or single-post redlinks. You launched the first inappropriate attack on the choice of this article, accusing Raul of "enemy action". [1] And now you have a problem that I courtesy notified Mike Searson that his article had been mentioned, and asked him to help us write a Dispatch dealing with and clarifying these issues?[2] I don't know what you even mean by "solicit support"; yes, I want to write a Dispatch dealing with notability and mainpage selection. I'm getting the idea, from your comments here, that you must have been one of the editors who engaged this same discussion when Ernest Emerson was run on the mainpage, and if that's the case, this is starting to make more sense, and I see that perhaps describing the choice of the article as "enemy action" is a plain vanilla personal attack.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, details here Sandy. With reference to Emerson and Elderly, I said that "Twice is coincidence", while "The third time it's enemy action". "Coincidence" can hardly be considered a personal attack of any flavour? And besides, I didn't say that, Goldfinger did. Lighten up! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

oh, I have, now that I've realized that it was you who said some pretty off-base things about a lot of editors early on in this discussion, and that this is just a recycling an old issue you had with the Ernest Emerson article. I'm much relieved to see the bigger picture now and that the whole episode wasn't merely an attack on Laser, and am disinclined to further engage these plain vanilla assumptions of bad faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You’re damn right it’s got nothing to do with Laser. I believe he’s an excellent editor, as I’ve made clear several times on his talk page and elsewhere. This has to do with selection process, where Emerson and Elderly fall into the same pattern. This I’ve also made clear several times, so there’s no prize for discovering that. As for bad faith, I’m not sure where you have that from, my main concern here has been errors of judgement. The "disinclined to further engage"-comment falls into a pattern though. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) For what it's worth, I agree with Elonka that the process for choosing TFA could be opened up somewhat. I've already made the rather minimal (but not insignificant) proposal that the number of articles allowed at WP:TFAR at anyone time should be increased to ten. I could also imagine other ways in which the decision is opened up. (And as Wrad points out, there have been a series of slightly less minimal changes suggested at WT:TFAR, not least in this thread). And NB Raul himself has expressed some dissatisfaction with the current system. But realistically, any such discussion is going to have to happen with Raul, rather than without him; and at present his voice is rather notable by its absence. (He has commented on similar proposals here).

I've also said that I'm open to a debate about what kinds of articles should or should not be featured on the main page. I still think it's simpler all around if that is a debate that takes place at FAC, instead of created a two-tier FA system of FAs that can go on the main page versus FAs that can't. I should say that my general view is that any FA should be worthy to go on the main page; that includes Miss Jenna. But there was a time, as I understand it, when certain classes of articles were not considered viable for FA status; the GA process sprung up to recognize them instead. (See, in fact, this week's signpost.) The decision to change that could be revisited.

Finally, about the specific issues that have caused so much fuss here: I'm rather surprised that some seem to be suggesting that a small retailer such as Elderly Instruments is inappropriate, while a mega-corporation such as Microsoft is not. Should it not, if anything, be the other way around? If we're saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity, and that main page exposure comprises some kind of advertising, then heck, I'd rather see my local mom-and-pop store get a bit of exposure than add to Gates's billions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why a case by case analysis is needed, we shouldn't make general rules for TFAs. I don't think that it's realistic to think that the discussion can be bring to FAC, anyway, the selection problem will still remain (we have the choice between numerous articles). And I really think that any kind of article should be allowed to gain featured status, this is about quality only. However, the community (and our readers) doesn't seem to accept that any kind of featured article be on the Main Page, neither Raul. Cenarium (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Jbmurray that the topic itself should not be a factor in deciding TFAs. I do, however, think that we should tweak the WP:RS requirements a little bit further for TFAs. Further even than for FAs - why not, when we have the luxury to do it? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 21:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this, I think, is not only that it adds bureaucracy (which, as I've implied above, is not necessarily a problem if it's done right), but more that it creates a two-tier system within the FA system: some articles are deemed worthy for the main page; others are not. That way lies confusion and complication. Again, better to ensure that all featured articles are worthy for the main page. If there's a sense that they aren't, then the answer is in the first place simply more participation at FAC.

And on this last point: the one item of absolutely unanimous consensus in this discussion is that we need more people to take part in the FAC and FAR processes. Look here and here for where contribution is most urgently needed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks jb, I like your clear and amicable presentation of the issues, would you like to be FA director? (just kidding) Anyway, I still think it’s worthwhile, because I believe there could be a difference between what we recognise as an FA within the community, and what we decide to expose the general public to. But I’ll try to find the time to look at some FACs though, cheers! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are different views on the subject, it's why I don't think that a set of general rules should guide our choice (except maybe in terms of diversity), besides, I don't think that we'll agree on such a matter, at least not in a near future. I believe that a case by case analysis is the best solution, an article should be judged on its own merit. Cenarium (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that we continue with discussions towards the "Shared Custody" idea. What I was pondering, is that we set up a parallel process, which makes community recommendations for a TFA queue, about 30 days in advance, with other dates listed out for maybe a year. I liked the way that the Requests page worked last year,[4] where FA writers could request a specific date, well in advance. As a note, the first time I formed my "too much power in the hands of too few people" opinion was when Raul arbitrarily shut down that entire page, without discussion. I also very much dislike the current "only 5 a time" requests page, which I feel is extraordinarily condescending to FA writers as it requires too much "scrambling" and high-stress maneuvering to make a request. Anyway, as I understand it, TFAs right now, as decided by Raul, seem to only have a 3-4 day leadtime. So, we could set up a parallel page (Not sure what to call it, maybe TFA alternate?), and clearly banner at the top that it is not an official page, it is just a set of recommendations. Then Raul could refer to the page when he was making his own decisions, and use or not use the recommendations as he saw fit. Ideally if he didn't like a recommendation, he could say why, so that the process could be further improved. Then any article that was listed on the community's "suggestion" page that didn't get chosen, would be at the discretion of the primary editors there to choose which date they would most like in the future, or whether they just wanted to go back into the "any date available" queue. --Elonka 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) For what it's worth, I don't think that would do any harm. (I don't understand your final sentence, though.) You'd have to drum up support elsewhere, too. And NB Raul has commented on the previous state of the TFA/R page here:

As for everyone hating the limit, I'm aware they do. To be equally blunt, that's because they are too shortsighted to see what will happen with no limits. We once had a suggestion page once with no limits, and it was a disaster. It had upwards of 250 requests, nobody maintained it, and it was so large and unwieldy I tried never to look at it. In fact, now that I think about it, I'd be equally happy to go back to that old situation -- no limits on requests, and I get to ignore all of them.

Looking at the link you provided, I have a fair amount of sympathy for his view: it is rather chaotic! Which is not to say (as I've suggested) that the current limit of five could not be increased. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a comment concerning the discussion of the unofficial/secret ban list of FAs. Claiming that we still maintain a consistent view on inappropriate mainpage articles after Cannibal Holocaust became a TFA on April 18 2008 seems to me rather arbitrary. That article is about an explotation film with bloody mutilation, cannibalism, animal cruelty, gratuitous sex, extreme sexualized violence and exoticized racism. On top of that the article includes images like this. FA quality aside, can anyone seriously claim that Jenna Jameson is less appropriate as a TFA?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You think the community could do a better job at this? Right now - thanks to the community - we're having Troy McClure on the Main Page because it's 28 May, the day Phil Hartman was shot to death.
By his wife.
I hope I'm not the only one sickened by this. If this is what the community will do then I say leave it to Raul. Just give him some better rules to go by, cause right now he's stinking it up. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the history of the page, that nom had one oppose, one slight oppose, one neutral, and two supports. So consensus split or leaning towards oppose, and it was Raul that decided to feature the article, not the community. Noble Story (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So Raul acted in spite of hesitant voting and some seriously weak arguments for featuring the article. Does that mean that Raul made a bad choice? Or is anyone disagreeing with Raul by definition always wrong because they're not calling the shots?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but for clarification, this is the nomination before it was scheduled. Obviously, this is not a community choice, as Lampman said it was. I'll leave people to judge for themselves if Raul made the wrong choice.

Note, though, that the top of the page states "community endorsement [/non-endorsement] on this page does not mean the article will appear on the requested date." So Raul does have the authority to overrule the community. But the question is if he made the right choice in doing so in this case. Noble Story (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly how many times should Raul overrule the community before we start discussing how to alter the process? I consider the choice of Cannibal Holocaust especially problematic since Raul has publically stated that he intends to keep certain article off the mainpage indefinitely. As far as I'm concerned, his definition of what should be considered inappropriate for the mainpage has been somewhat compromised by that choice. We should have guidelines for what we consider appropriate, or a more transparent selection process. Either way, I don't find it especially satisfying that Raul makes the occasional public statement about entertaining a ban list, only to follow it up by featuring a semi-porographic exploitation cannibal splatter flick.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Cannibal Holocaust is an important film. In fact, it touches on a topic on which (in my day job) I'm actively working. Were it down to my personal preferences, I would far rather have this film featured and on the main page, than an article on a Simpsons character. But on the other hand, I recognize that on Wikipedia there's something for everyone. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue for that article is not if it is important. Maybe it is, but it shouldn't be on the main page. Exactly how can Wikipedia claim to have a core base of students and schools, when they feature a "semi-porographic exploitation cannibal splatter flick" on the front page? I think Raul definitely, definitely made the wrong choice there. Noble Story (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two featured articles at once?

Would it be possible to do two featured articles on the main page at once? With Barack Obama now as the presumptive Dem nominee (and an FA!) and John McCain as the presumptive GOP nominee (and a current GA/former FA candidate), I think it'd be great if we could do a "double header" on Election Day. Since that's November 4, it gives us plenty of time to smooth out McCain's article and bring it up to FA status. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. I recall a New York Times crossword doing something similar on Election Day in '92. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I met the professor who designed that puzzle.  :) More info on it here: Jeremiah Farrell. --Elonka 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two FAs at once? If it's done well, it could be a nice idea. Cheers, Face 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of forbidden FAs?

"Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to have appear on the main page."
That makes me curious. What articles are on that list? Can I find it somewhere? Cheers, Face 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson is the only one I would be hesistant to feature on the main page. Wikipedia (now a former FA) was another one because it would be too self aggrandizing. Raul654 (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is Cannibal Holocaust, a cannibal splatter flick full of gratuitous sex (mostly in the form rape), clean enough to go on mainpage but not a mainstream pornstar?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My goal is to feature as many FAs as possible while not creating shit-storms. I did not expect Cannibal Holocaust to cause one (and I was right); I do expect putting Jenna on the main page would cause one. Raul654 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As a reviewer of the Jameson's article, and having watched (up to a certain moment of course) the professionalism of the editors of the article, I can't say that I share Raul's hesitations. Mainstream pornstars deserve their place in the project's front page! All articles treating their subject in a strictly encyclopedic and professional way deserve their place in Wikipedia's main page.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If we're to keep porn and the likes off the mainpage, it should still be done a bit more consistently. I get the feeling that Cannibal Holocaust got away without any major criticism merely because most people didn't know what the hell it was.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Cannibal Holocaust got away without any major criticism merely because most people didn't know what the hell it was. - this conclusion is almost certainly wrong. People didn't care about Cannibal holocaust because they are a lot less sensitive to violence than sex. That's just the way it is (There was a south park episode which hit on this point) Now, even assuming your conclusion is correct - and frankly, I doubt that it is - that is just fine by me. Some people got educated, whoever wrote that article got his day on the main page, and I didn't get any headaches. I call that a success. Raul654 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want "***k the Millenium" on the front page. DrKiernan (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"People didn't care about Cannibal holocaust because they are a lot less sensitive to violence than sex." I really try to understand this rationale, but I honestly fail to! Ther is no no way I can espouse it. First things first! Shouldn't we first form our own sense and criteria about what means "sensitivity"? What is "sensitivity" for us the Wikipedians, and then for the "others". Raul, objectively, what is worse for a child serfing in the net, to read an article spread with violence in terms of both content and images or an article about a pornstar with no offensive picture material, and, as far as I remember and now read quickly, a very careful vocabulary?! Therefore, the comparison and the outcome you describe (publishing a "violent" article, not publishing a "porn?" aricle) is nothing but a "success case"! I would say quite the opposite!

And the fact that "you didn't get any headaches" does not mean that you took the correct decision. You are chosen for this position in order to successfully handle "headaches"! For me, I repeat, the basic criterion is the strictly encyclopedic treatment of the article's topic. I wouldn't have any problem to see a pornstar article in the main page, if its topic is encyclpedically treated in a "professional" (you understand how I use the term) way, and if there is no offensive material (e.g. sexual intercourse pictures, bizarre descriptions of sexual scenes etc.). IMO the article you say that is in an "unofficial forbidden list" fulfils the above criteria, and there is no reason to be in any such "list".--Yannismarou (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been called "prudish" and "old-fashioned," but I see no valid reason why the Jenna Jameson article shouldn't be featured on the main page. Based on prior instances, I doubt that this would be any more controversial than a video game article, a Pokémon character article, or any of a multitude of articles on subjects regarded by some as not academic/intellectual enough simply because they pertain to popular culture (and I couldn't disagree more, of course).
I would say, Mark, that your "a lot less sensitive to violence than sex" argument is strongly influenced by American cultural bias. Go to the UK and try to broadcast a film containing topless women and ninjas swinging nunchucks, and see what gets censored.
But even if the Jenna Jameson article were to generate more controversy than usual, so what? Do we really want to send the message that we seek to avoid controversy (let alone because it would inconvenience our featured article director) and allow this to affect our (or his) editorial decisions? Do we really want to tell the contributors who brought the Jenna Jameson article up to featured status that their hard work was less valuable to the project than others' because some people disapprove of the article's subject? I hope that the answer to both questions is a resounding "no."
I realize that there are (and will continue to be) too many featured articles for all of them to appear on the main page, but knowing that this one has been blacklisted bothers me a great deal. —David Levy 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are but a few who wouldn't mind a porn star on the main page. What about the 14.5 million or so who visit the main page on a daily basis. I'm sure more than a handful would object, including myself, and their reasons for objection would far outweigh your reasonings. The damage to this encyclopedia's reputation would be irreversible. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The reputation of the encyclopedia would be furhter reinforced, if the readers see that even a mainstream-pornstar biography topic is treated in an encyclopedic way, in a way that even this article can reach a high-level quality in Wikipedian hands. And, although you say that your reasoning "would far outweigh" other reasonings, I see no reasonings of yours! And "irreversible" don't you think is a bit strong term?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And note that, as David Levy says that he "has been called "prudish" and "old-fashioned,"" I would also not qualify myself as a "progressive" or anything similar; probably the opposite!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Cricket, what is your reasoning? That you dislike pornography? I do too, but that has absolutely no bearing on the article's quality or our mission as an encyclopedia. As Yannismarou noted, this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the degree of professionalism with which we're capable of covering such a topic.

And yes, this is an area in which I'm extremely conservative. I disapprove of pornography, but I wouldn't be remotely offended if this article were to appear on the main page (because I approve of high-quality encyclopedia articles on all notable subjects). —David Levy 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)