Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 10

TFA reruns

I have deep concerns over the now active re-run process.

• It by-passes and essentially makes redundant the FAR process, with decisions made in an unilateral manner that resembles 2007 era GA
• Notifications are exceedingly local; on the article talk page, or to editors that might still be around. Having been involved with around four of these in the last week, I'm not seeing any centralised discussion.
• The process pressurises editors to look back rather than forwards.
• The nominations are often made without even a cursory audit, again as if FAR had no purpose.[1].
• My suspicion is that this will end in distaster, with a 10 year old unaudited page making it to main page, with gross copyvio or BLP violations. My on the ground experience so far has been to be dismissed with "oh sorry, will endevour to do better next time",[2] which I find wholly unconvincing.
• This is an Irish solution to an Irish problem, in that it compromises a major issue (auditing article integrity) to quickly solve a relatively minor problem (feeding the main page). Sorry if I'm late to the party on this, but its becoming time consuming. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything Ceoil says. Victoriaearle has made the same point above. Oxygen (promoted 2008) was a TFA rerun the other day, and the medical part of it relied on a source from 1968. Luckily it wasn't wrong (that I'm aware of) because what it said was very basic, but did the coordinators check it? Also, I thought the consent of the original author(s) was required. I'm seeing people being notified, not asked. Or did I misunderstand what we had agreed? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to who the coordinators actually are. I had a long and unsatisfactory conversation with Mike Christie this afternoon after he "made" Saturn (last reviewed in 2007) an upcoming TFA.[3] His last comment, after I proposed a vote of no confidence, was to mentioned that in fact he had resigned a few weeks earlier. This is a point of concern as to the credibility of the process. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dank, could you let us know who the current TFA coordinators are, and who is on the mailing list that chose/ratified the recent candidates? There's a lot of concern that the review processes are not holding up—that we're choosing quantity over quality. There's a sense in which there's now a COI between TFA and FAC. If we're lowering FA standards to accommodate TFA, we need to discuss it openly so that nominators and reviewers know what's expected. The current situation is causing disputes. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging Iridescent. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@SarahSV, I withdrew from everything FA related when the rerun policy was introduced. I still have some of the pages watchlisted so occasionally comment as an outside observer, as I've done above, but it's not for me to tell a project with which I have no more involvement how I think they should be organizing themselves. I still firmly believe that once the implications of the rerun policy become clear—especially given the comment below that the TFA delegates will now be disregarding the requirement for TFA nominators to consult with the article's main editors—you'll see a further evaporation of what goodwill FAC/TFA has left among the editor base. ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec with Sarah): A couple of links that are relevant, and then a couple of comments.

• My resignation -- effective from the end of scheduling October, which I'm doing now. Ceoil, sorry I wasn't clear in my post to you -- I was posting from my phone and didn't make that point clearly. I am still a TFA coordinator, but will cease to be one when I've scheduled October 31, so my choices of TFA and TFA reruns were done with my coordinator hat on, not in any unofficial capacity.
• The RfC on reruns, and a discussion about scheduling without the primary author's consent. Sarah, I don't think either of these said that a TFA couldn't be scheduled without prior consent from the FA nominator(s). Personally I don't nominate articles by people who I know have indicated a dislike of being on the main page without checking with them first, which I rarely do -- Battle of Hastings is the only recent one I can think of. I don't think there's a formal requirement that TFA coordinators abide by that, though it maybe that we all do individually anyway.

I can't speak for the other coordinators, but I don't believe it is reasonable to ask the TFA coordinators to verify that an article is completely in compliance with the FA criteria; that would be much too time-consuming. There are some simple things we have time to check -- tags, missing cites, obvious bad sources, dead links -- but unless TFA becomes a form of FAR I don't think more can be done by individual coordinators. However, Ceoil is right to say I was careless with Saturn; it had a cultural section that should have been snipped, and Jim fixed a couple of dead links and a bad source.

One other point worth making is that these comments don't only relate to reruns -- there are plenty of FAs older than five years that have never been on the main page. Dweller's page that lists old FAs, which tracks ones that have decayed to the point they can't be TFA, is a useful resource for TFA coordinators, but if an article has not been assessed there then there's no difference for a TFA coordinator between picking an old rerun and an old TFA that has never run; they have similar risks. So if we're going to change the TFA process with respect to quality checking, we should consider regular TFAs as well as reruns to be in scope.

I'm going to go ahead and finish scheduling October this evening or tomorrow, just to get it done, so that I can continue to comment on this thread as a regular editor, and not as a coordinator any more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike, you still used your resignation as a got-ya. Re I don't believe it is reasonable to ask the TFA coordinators to verify that an article is completely in compliance with the FA criteria; that would be much too time-consuming - exactly. And yet this is in effect what happened with Saturn, little to no verification. It was by fiat, which goes against the grain of FAC in several ways. I know this is just one example (that cropped up in my watchlist today, I have others), but it indicates the legislative weaknesses. Ceoil (talk)

Replying to the ping and everything above. It seems to me the one question that trumps every other question is: is there enough dissatisfaction with the TFA process to warrant an RfC on that? If so, then my job is to listen to the community and follow their advice. There's an odd assumption that most or all the kinds of vetting that are being talked about here are brand-new and controversial, and hopefully that would be discussed in the RfC. Of course, I can't make any decisions on my own, I need to at least confer with the TFA coords, and I won't know who the TFA coords are until the process above, which started more than two weeks ago with Mike's announcement, wraps up. Anyone who hasn't commented yet on Wehwalt and Ealdgyth can help move things along by commenting above. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dan, I appreciate all that, but answering Sarah's question might be a nice start. Im not impressed by Mikes attempt to bribe me into silence with scheduling an article of mine on my talk.[4] That is distracting for several reasons, and we seem to have lost focus on the original point of this thread - TFA reruns create all sorts of divisive problems, as outlined. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Since Ceoil suggests my comment was an attempted bribe, I'd like to point to this, from over a week ago, which is when the decision was made. I posted the note to his talk page because of this previous similar misunderstanding. I was trying to avoid a similar situation, but was unable to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike whatever the sequence, you dangled fruit and you know it. For shame. Dunno what this was intended to convey[5]. Oh I forgot, Dan doesn't answer questions. I'm left cold by this display from TFA, shocked, truth be told. FAC should disengage itself, least there is more editor attrition. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dank, can you tell us who is on the mailing list that you consulted about the TFA coordinators? Perhaps we do need some kind of RfA, but in the meantime we need to talk about FA quality. I'm seeing real deterioration at the review stage. I'm wondering whether there has been discussion about lowering FA standards to increase the number of TFAs. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help with answers in any way I can, after we have new coords and people have settled (at least roughly) on where the discussion will be and what it will be about. This is getting too confrontational to handle it any other way. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

So no I wont answer in other words. I'm not reassured by "I have to consult with my supervisor", and can we please refocus on legitimate concerns Ceoil (talk)

Dank, the membership of the ArbCom mailing list is public, as is membership of the functionaries mailing list. We can't have a situation where the people controlling featured content are running a private list with a secret membership, and only they get to choose who else to appoint. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's been no discussion of or attempt to lower FAC standards, and I've always resisted any such suggestion that's been brought up (generally by newer users) on the FAC/TFA talk pages. One of the reasons I supported TFA re-runs was to help ensure that we didn't have pressure to make FAC easier in order to have a healthy supply of TFA candidates; the other reason was to try to encourage maintenance of older FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ian, thank you, that's very encouraging to hear. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 1 - by-passes and essentially makes redundant the FAR process

@Ceoil: or anyone else who shares the view -- please could you explain how it is that WP:FAR has been "made redundant" because some featured articles can appear on the main page a second time more than five years after they first did so? MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

[6]. I dont see how *one* person, acting alone, can designate a 5 (in this case 10) year old article as up to current standards, which in this instance was not, without review. Apart from the fiat aspect, which we are seeing,and the scant possibility of oversight, it goes against the principal of consensus, AND...standards rise. Again, this unfettered grandfathering was how GA operated pre-reform. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Further there is the matter of precedence; a recent main page re-appearance could be used to "bullet proof" the article against later raised legitimate concerns, serving as de facto approval by the FAC community, later introduced gross copyvio or BLP violations not with standing. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I may be missing something here. Is it not the case that the TFA process chooses featured articles that have not been featured before, anywhere between 0 and many years old, without carrying out any detailed review as to how they compare with current standards? And that this approach has been standard for some years now? MPS1992 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You are seeing the process as how it was agreed, rather than how it is carried out in practice. Note, we might all now agree on a formula of conduct now, but be dead in 2 years. The foundations are shaky, and *actual* misapplication motivated me to bring this up. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

without carrying out any detailed review as to how they compare with current standards - that's not my approach to TFA. I wouldn't support a main page unless I could later stand over its integrity. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If it has been agreed that this is how the process will be carried out, then such an agreement seems to be a form of consensus. Are you saying that actually the TFA process as carried out for the past several years has been contrary to what was agreed? Or are you saying something else? MPS1992 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(I am still not seeing the connection between any of this and a sudden redundancy of WP:FAR -- could you explain? ) MPS1992 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The FAR process is lead by *consensus*, based on defined criteria, and *community* agreed standards. Articles that were older and written in days precising evolving standards are brought up to standard or demoted. In a formal process, not at the whim of some self described TFA executive, which this iniative encourages. Meanwhile GA acted as a take everybody sub-process, no criteria or substantial discussion required, and articles could be promoted at the whim of a single, unaccountable editor. Its this latter scenario we are re-opening here. See also my "bullet proof" argument above, we all know this is as a very common defence on talk pages. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the missing piece that MPS1992 might not be aware of is that Neptune has had a TFA; the date is noted on the article talk page. It shouldn't go again, particularly if there are problems. This also goes the issue of the batch of questions I posted up-page under the November re-run thread. No one has bothered to answer. The articles will run regardless. In my view, we have an unspoken covenant with FAC - a promoted article runs once on the main page. We have 1000+ that have never run, yet subpar older FAs are being re-run when in fact some should be going straight to FAR. There are at least three or four discussions on my watchlist about the issue. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to agree that certain categories of TFA not be rerun—BLPs and articles with medical content, for example—unless they've been kept up to date. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think in practice we are wary of rerunning BLPs, history of sports clubs and similar articles that can rapidly date unless we are sure that they have been maintained well. That applies, of course, to old FAs run for the first time too. I don't know if that actually needs to be formalised, as long as we are aware of the issue Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the crux of this argument for me is, what is the difference between running Paul Collingwood (promoted in March 2007, never been TFA) and running Harbhajan Singh (promoted March 2007, TFA September 2009). Both articles are in similarly poor states in respect to how they have been updated since their promotions. With some improvements, Collingwood could be run as the TFA and no one would bat an eyelid; this has been happening for years. But if we wanted to run Harbhajan, the suggestion is that this would be improper? I don't understand the distinction. Either all articles over a certain age need to be treated the same, whether they are re-runs or not, or none of them are treated that way. An article being a re-run shouldn't make it subject to stricter rules, in my opinion. Harrias ^talk 06:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The problem lies with running or re-running articles that were written many years ago and that haven't been kept up to date. In the RfC where there was consensus to start re-running, I don't think people realized the implications. I think they were simply saying that re-running should not be disallowed. We may need another RfC to iron out the details. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to the conversation, but the pedant in me feels obliged to point out that Harbhajan Singh is no longer featured, since this FAR last year. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because I'd say that was the better of the two! Harrias ^talk 19:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Question 2 - real deterioration at the review stage

SlimVirgin, please could you give some examples of the real deterioration you are seeing at the review stage, and any evidence that indicates that this is a result of a wish to engage in "lowering FA standards to increase the number of TFAs". MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MPS1992, no examples, and the second issue has been addressed. I'll open a discussion about it at some other point. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I am glad this has been addressed. MPS1992 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

New TFA coordinator

Submitted for your approval: Wehwalt. Duh, right? He sits comfortably atop the list of top Featured Article nominators, he's the very model of a modern Wikipedian, and he has tons of experience as a FAC reviewer and at the TFA requests page. Some Wikipedians become more distant from the community over time, but not Wehwalt; there's not a hard edge on him, and he's generous with his time, at FAC and elsewhere, toward newbies and old hands alike. I hope you guys will join us in giving him a warm welcome; all the FA coords need your support to keep things running smoothly. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Welcome, Wehwalt! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Welcome, Wehwalt! Victoriaearle (tk) 20:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Good choice, now with Wehwalt preoccupied, the rest of us can catch up on his FA count *wik wink*! FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• A very good choice -- Wehwalt demonstrated his interest in and knowledge of the process by calculating/correcting TFAR points back in the day, and his FA contributions speak for themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Dank and Wehwalt, I'm sorry, but I have a concern about this. Not a concern about Wehwalt, but about how the coordinators are chosen. I'd like to see Ealdgyth or Victoriaearle offered the chance, for example. I have no idea whether they'd be interested, and others may have their own ideas, but I'm not keen on how this is decided behind the scenes by people who were themselves chosen that way. Wehwalt, again, this is an objection to how this was handled, not to you. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is Wikipedia, so of course this method rubs against the grain a bit. There have been persuasive arguments in both directions in the past, and I respect that. There's a whole fascinating discussion underlying this about the substantial differences between the "normal editing" approach to Wikipedia vs. the norms of article reviewing communities ... and I'd be happy to get into that, but first, let's see if we can deal with the problem of the moment by the simplest, least confrontational method: Ealdgyth, are you interested in being a TFA coord? (I'm pretty sure Victoriaearle is not, I was just exchanging email with her today.) Are there any other suggestions for possible coords? And it seems to me there's an implied question here about sexism, which is also an important question, and one that should be tackled head-on through community discussion from time to time. But let's get through the process of choosing a new coord first. (Note that WT:FAC and WT:GAN were pinged at the start of this process of losing and gaining a coord, and I'm hoping people who are interested in the process are still watching this page.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Would there be a problem in potentially having more than one new coordinator (both Wehwalt and Ealdgyth)? FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Big sigh. In the many years I've edited here I've had a fast rule not to send email, but Dank made a nice comment to me on a user page a couple of days ago, I didn't acknowledge it, and decided to do so in email. I also shared private information for my reasons about not acknowledging and for my recent absence (which hasn't been because of burn out but for health reasons). Now that's it's been mentioned that I sent a single email, and this has come up, I feel I should publish what I wrote for the sake of transparency (though it's information I'd very much not want to have on a public website). I do have some concerns in regards to resource allocation with re-runs that I mentioned peripherally, instead of starting a great big discussion here. As far as TFA coord, of course it's something I'd be interested in. I very much doubt I can take it on, because of real life issues, which honestly makes me sad, but it's always nice to be recognized, so thanks to Sarah for doing so (and, no Dank I didn't know about this until moments ago). Wehwalt is a fine choice, someone I can wholeheartedly support, but I think that the way coordinators are chosen is a valid point and one that needs some discussion. I don't see this as an issue of sexism, fwiw, but rather of which editors can do the job, regardless of ... well ... so I don't think sexism should have been mentioned as though it's something terrible. It's very real on Wikipedia. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• There are several issues for me. One is that we're now re-running TFAs, which led to a discussion in which the current coordinators agreed not to rerun any without the nominator's consent. So we need to know for every new coordinator that they will agree to that. Second, it really is a concern that in however many years of having TFA, we haven't had a single female coordinator. Third, it doesn't sit well with me at all that this is decided behind the scenes by ... someone. We don't even know who was involved. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not adverse to serving, but would like it if we explored the issues brought up here first before committing completely. Mainly, because I think it's a good idea to discuss them and get things straightened out for the future. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, I trust I didn't reveal any confidences, and it's so good to see you back. "as though it's something terrible" ... you lost me, who said it's terrible? There's a long list of topics, including all the -isms, that we should be (and have been, I think) completely open to talking about whenever people raise the issues. Sexism, conscious and un-, is very real on and off Wikipedia, and very worth talking about. Jim has limited internet access for a few days, I think he's off bird-watching, and of course I need to ask him, but personally, I have no objection to 4 TFA coords, and no objection to Ealdgyth. Again, to try to move this as quickly as possible to a resolution that works for everyone: is there anyone else who would like to be considered as a TFA coord? The fewer the options we're considering, the easier this is going to be. To answer one question raised: Wehwalt was chosen the same way all the FA coords have been chosen ... the TFA coords (in this case) considered the question of who was best for the job. Wehwalt was at the top of all 3 lists (Jim's, Mike's, and mine). Then we emailed all the FA coords (except DrKay, who I understand doesn't like to be contacted about these things). Two of them replied enthusiastically, and the other two didn't express a preference, which I'm pretty sure (from experience) meant that they were on board ... they're not the kind of people who don't speak up if they have something to say. I am very proud of the way this selection process worked and has worked in the past ... there's no hint of favoritism or any other -ism that I can see ... but that's perhaps a digression. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I'm glad that you're interested. Dank, several people have been concerned about the selection process for years. I spoke up this time only because we face particular challenges now, including the quality v quantity problem, and we need transparency and open debate about them. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope we can get an outcome here that works for you and everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• As SarahSV says above this is an objection to how this was handled, not to you, but even if you don't want to go through the whole ritual of elections there must be a better mechanism for selecting this position than a papal conclave followed by a "take it or leave it" fake-vote in which anyone who actually does raise any objection will be tarred-and-feathered for the next year. The irony of the person who was probably the single most vocal critic of smoke-filled-room processes at FAC/TFA, being handed a role by means of apostolic succession from Raul and Sandy, is not lost on me. (Why do we even need to maintain Raul's 13-year-old system in which only the Chosen Few get to make scheduling decisions, anyway? Every other element of the Main Page—even the much-derided DYK—manages to survive without multiple layers of bureaucracy. There's a case to be made for preserving coordinator positions at FAC itself to prevent the kind of back-scratching and log-rolling that plagues GAC and to ensure all nominations are treated fairly, but to claim that TFA is an article reviewing community when the only function it has is to pluck 365 entries per year from WP:FANMP is stretching things to breaking point.) ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Iridescent, this is not Raul's system. The "apostolic succession from Raul and Sandy" (to the extent that generalization is correct) did, in fact, end quite a few years ago when one person put forward a slate of TFA coordinators for which there was no consensus, and that was that. What has resulted is ... call it what you wish ... cabalism, nepotism, despotism, mediocrity, cookie-cutter, whatever ... anything but the "succession" process used when FA had a director. A process guaranteed to end where it has, with the selection of an editor who decried and despised the very process when it functioned better than it is functioning today. But does it even matter? Who reads the main page anyway? TFA coord seems like a fine place to put Wehwalt's skills to good use; he has years of experience writing formulaic articles, and TFA selection is all done by formula now, there is no room for judgment or allowance for once in a decade opportunities. And there is no meaning to any article being an FA, with a defunct FAR and hundreds of FAs on the books that aren't. Since Wehwalt helped bring that about, he should be well rewarded by having to pick the bones to try to find something to feature daily. (Remember to appoint a "however" person to review Wehwalt's blurbs ... his articles used to contain dozens of unnecessary uses of the word.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Usually when an article I have written has been selected I have been asked to edit (or contribute) the blurb. I'm very fond of "however" myself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Did this Raul fellow that you all are talking about, schedule the Grace Sherwood article for the main page with all of its problems? Not exactly a glowing record, if so. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• The FA process relies entirely on its editor base and time those editors are willing to tithe to Wikipedia. Any process that's divisive can and will drive away editors (it happened in 2012). I agree completely with Iridescent's comment directly above and with SarahSV's earlier comment. That's not saying anything against either editor who has been chosen, and who I believe have been unnecessarily placed in an awkward and uncomfortable position), but rather that the process is broken/wrong, use whichever words fit. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Adding: I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm reluctant to take some of our best FA writers and reviewers away from what they do best. We need them to be producing new content, as they have been at an extremely impressive rate for these many years. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm back now, and just for completeness I'd like to say that I am happy with the suggestion to have two more TFAs, and those suggested seem excellent choices Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• The TFA coordinator system works better than any of the proposed alternatives. DYK in partticular could benefit from adopting it so that there are guaranteed to be admins to promote the articles, as opposed to it running off the rails every month or so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Rebooting

Okay, let's try this again ...

Submitted for your approval, for our 3rd and 4th TFA coords: Wehwalt (see above) and Ealdgyth (see WP:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth from January ... 250 to 0!). Both have the enthusiastic support of the Featured Article coordinators. All comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we have both? Having more coordinators would take the load off each, no? Seems burning out is a realistic problem with this duty. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Added "for our 3rd and 4th TFA coords". - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - both seem worthy of the task. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support both Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support both --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - Excellent choices both. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Make it so. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support both Both are excellent and level-headed editors with a strong record at FAC, so are well placed to take on this role. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support both. Hopefully they know what they are taking on. Ceoil (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Of course. Have worked with both of them during FA review processes, and have no concerns at all. I do think we can do better with the process, but this doesn't have to be difficult at all: all we need to do is to have interested folks submit their names, and then have an open poll: as many other projects and processes here do. If Ealdgyth is indeed our first female coordinator, well, it's about time, and congratulations. Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support both. Both experienced, thoughtful, and careful. MPS1992 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

For info

I will be scheduling the last nine days of October instead of Mike, who has indicated that he does not want to complete his final month. I can't say that I'm totally surprised given the failure of some editors to assume good faith when posting on his talk page. Groundless accusations don't exactly oil the wheels here. I'm genuinely sorry to see Mike depart in such a way. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jimfbleak I'll bite in regards to assuming good faith. Last week I experienced a breach of trust and breaking of faith that's frankly hard to swallow, when I privately disclosed information a TFA coord. There were reasons for doing so that aren't necessary to explain at the moment; I took the risk and bear the responsibility. That said, for many years my worst nightmare is that in taking the risk of disclosure, the information might be used to judge my abilities to perform - whether at work, or here, or in any other areas of my life - which is exactly what happened here. Please excuse me if this in an inappropriate response but I am deeply angry. Going forward, either you or one of the other TFA coords needs to disclose the names on the mailing. Furthermore, was the information I shared discussed on the mailing list? And, what is the process to replace a TFA coordinator? Victoriaearle (tk) 15:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You lost me. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I thought the only information I disclosed was that I didn't think you wanted to be a TFA coord, based on a conversation we had that very day ... and I was forced to disclose that when Sarah suggested you as a TFA coord without checking with you first to see if you wanted to be one. That's a very unfair position to put anyone in, and to have people discussing how worthy you were as a candidate, when you hadnt even asked for the job, could have caused all sorts of problems and bad feelings. It's not acceptable to nominate people for a job like this without checking with them first. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, Dank, don't place what you did at my door. I suggested the names of two editors who might be interested and added that I had no idea whether they would be: "I'd like to see Ealdgyth or Victoriaearle offered the chance, for example. I have no idea whether they'd be interested, and others may have their own ideas ..." I didn't regard that as a nomination. You replied that Victoria wouldn't be interested based on a recent email discussion she'd had with you. But that was for her to decide, and mentioning the email wasn't appropriate. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As you (VE & SV) can presumably tell from my comments throughout this page I'm no fan of the way TFA is currently administered or of the self-appointing politburo currently running it, but "breach of trust" is rather harsh; yes, it's not appropriate to be disclosing the contents of private emails, but the information Dank actually disclosed was minimal at most. The whole of Dank's comment as it relates to VE was I'm pretty sure Victoriaearle is not [interested in being a coordinator], I was just exchanging email with her today., and I don't see how that could really be considered an inappropriate disclosure—all he's disclosing is that when the Super Secret Mailing List were suggesting names of people worthy to join the Cabal, he felt you wouldn't be interested. If you have a long memory for wiki-bureaucracy, you may recall Risker (I think) making a similar comment about my omission from the proposed Illuminati during the WP:ACPD debacle. I don't consider it a leak, just an explanation that they weren't intentionally snubbing you in not proposing your name. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, whatever. But to set the record straight, for the nth time, the wasn't an email conversation. Nor, in my book, is it ok to mention emails received. Nor is it ok to make decisions for others. Ever. Am I prickly. You betcha, I am. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, there are three issues. First, Victoria has explained that as a rule she doesn't email many editors, and so was suprised to see Dank write as though he was in regular contact with her ("I was just exchanging email with her today.") Second, it undermimed her by substituting Dank's opinion for her own, as though she's a child. I had pinged her, so she would have seen my comment and was able to respond herself. Third, the lack of process is troubling. We don't have an FA or TFA director, and when Raul left we decided not to have one again, so transparency would be appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my word "nominate" was inaccurate. "Sarah suggested you as a TFA coord without checking with you first to see if you wanted to be one" was completely accurate. I leave it to others to decide whether this violated community norms. I didn't bring it up to target you; I brought it up because it was essential for people to understand what I did. By my understanding of community norms, I wasn't allowed to defend Victoriaearle, I was required to; I was the only person, AFAIK, who had access to the information (apart from Victoria) that she wasn't interested; I had no knowledge of when if ever she would be checking this page (she's "retired", per her talk page); I had the certain knowledge that many Wikipedians aren't very careful with what they say about people, particularly if they think that person is being considered for some position of respect on Wikipedia; and I didn't know how Victoriaearle would respond to people discussing her qualifications without her permission or knowledge, but I suspected she would not be happy. Whenever we get an actual discussion about changes you'd like to see, I have no objection to this episode being thrown into the pile for people to decide if some action needs to be taken. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dank, I'm really surprised that you're trying to blame me for this. You had to "defend" her against my suggestion? I'm sorry but that's nonsense. I'm going to leave it there because this is pointless. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dank - what you've written is a blatant falsehood. I could not have told you whether I was interested because I'd not seen the proposal when I sent the email to you. You continue to make assumptions that are wrong and hurtful. Please stop. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In other words, because I divulged to you that I'm a cancer survivor and have been ill (thus an extended absence) in reply repeated "welcome back" messages, being "considered for some position of respect on Wikipedia" is problematic? Victoriaearle (tk) 17:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. Ealdgyth and Victoria were two obvious editors to consider. Both are experienced FA writers and reviewers. Ealdgyth's source reviews are excellent, and there's no one better able to get to the heart of why an article is a problem than Victoria. It was an added bonus that they're women; it was bizarre that, in all the years of having TFA, we've had no women coords.

So why were they overlooked on this private (all male?) mailing list. This is a big problem. We need an open process, so that (among other things) we can check for diversity and fairness. And when it was left to me to suggest their names, one of them was immediately ruled out by Dank, who now says he had to "defend" her against my suggestion, because he knew best. But she might have welcomed the chance if she'd been allowed to speak for herself. So: please open things up. Tell us who is on this list, and let's start creating a process for how future coords are chosen. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to correct one thing I said that's inaccurate, then I'll stop. I wasn't required to speak up myself, but my understanding of community norms is that I was either supposed to say something myself, or to contact Victoriaearle immediately. Perhaps I should have contacted her, but no one who knows me would make the assumption that my motivations were anything different than what I've said. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since I was initially pinged here by Victoriaearle, I'll attempt to answer her questions. "Mailing list" is a bit overstating the reality. I email the other TFA coordinators for a variety of reasons, for example to check whether my proposed list for the next month has any obvious flaws, or to discuss proposals that we might want to bring here. It's pointless bringing a suggestion here, such as a reruns policy, if, as the people who have to work the policy, we can't agree among ourselves. Dan has said nothing regarding you beyond what he has said here, and he's not shared your email, if that was your concern. I imagine the process to remove a TFA coordinator would start with a proposal here, although, speaking only for myself, if I felt that there was real discontent, I'd just walk without waiting for a formal proposal, just as Mike has done in the face of the accusation made on his talk page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: is the gender of participants important, in your opinion? MPS1992 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Seems this process is melting before our eyes. Could the drama be toned down a notch, please? FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just so. Some appear to be 100% committed to making the worst possible interpretation of every possible intention. MPS1992 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, Dank, Mike Christie, I'd like to explain my thinking re: the point I made above about diversity and fairness.

Dank wrote: "the TFA coords (in this case) considered the question of who was best for the job. Wehwalt was at the top of all 3 lists (Jim's, Mike's, and mine). Then we emailed all the FA coords (except DrKay, who I understand doesn't like to be contacted about these things). Two of them replied enthusiastically, and the other two didn't express a preference ..."

Were any women on those three lists, and if not, did any of you wonder whether that should be fixed? It's important to go out in search of female candidates, because they're less likely to suggest themselves. When Mike said he was going to resign, male editors who were interested in taking his place would be significantly more likely than female editors to let that be known. Similarly, when Dank wrote that he was pretty sure Victoria wasn't interested, a male editor would be much more likely to say "actually, yes I am" than a female editor.

So the hurdles for finding women coords are significant: (a) we have far fewer female than male editors; (b) the TFA coords have always been male; (c) they're deciding who replaces them behind the scenes; and (d) men are more likely to ask to be considered when they see a vacancy. That's why we have to be pro-active and set up a process that's fair to everyone. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Answering only for myself, I can say that I suggested four editors: one female, and one male; I don't know the gender of the other two. It didn't occur to me that it was a good idea to specifically look for a female coordinator, but I see the worth of the argument (and I think Ealdgyth is an excellent choice). I was somewhat reticent to get involved in discussions about who might succeed me since my resignation meant I wouldn't be working with anybody new. I regard email as privileged communication unless all parties agree to disclosure, so I'd rather not say anything about anyone else's email, but have no problem with disclosing my own comments. As Jim says above, emails between the coordinators are quite mundane. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thanks for explaining, I appreciate that. Re: your point about it not occurring to you to look for women specifically, imagine how it would feel if, for over 13 years, every TFA coord had been a woman. And that they chose other women for all vacancies, and presented them as a fait accompli for others to ratify, so that people felt awkward about objecting. That would cry out for an explanation. But when men do it, it's invisible because we're all so used to it. Granted, there are more men on the site, but there are quite a few women involved in featured content. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; I am very much in favour of making sure that all our processes include women -- I think there are clear benefits to diversity, and I'm very happy to support the goal of more inclusion of women in Wikipedia processes in general, and Ealdgyth's candidacy for TFA coordinator in particular. If I'd thought about this before I came up with the names I suggested, I would have made sure to include at least one woman in the list; I'm glad to be able to say that even though that thought didn't occur to me, I suggested at least one woman, and perhaps three. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're in favour. The way to make sure we have diversity is to concentrate on the fairness of the process, and make sure there are no more behind-the-scenes appointments. Also, would it make sense to set up a subpage for the coordinators, rather than doing things by email? It could be one that only you post to. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm no longer a TFA coordinator. My resignation was effective from the end of scheduling October, and since the topic Ceoil raised above related to my credibility and my competence to be a coordinator, and I only had nine days left to schedule, I asked Jim to step in for me. I felt that any discussion of whether I should or shouldn't have scheduled a particular article for those nine days would distract from the discussion about the process, which seemed more important. Yes, I support fairness and openness in general. I would have to think hard about whether there are reasons for having emails for some discussions. I used to work at a company that was 100% employee owned, and after some debate we agreed that HR discussions were not expected to be transparent; there are some topics that are not beneficial to discuss in public. I'd want to hear the case made on both sides before deciding. But I would agree that where at all possible, openness is best. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I support any reasonable attempt to widen diversity, and as elsewhere on Wikipedia, I would like as much as is reasonable to be publicly visible. I'm not prepared to commit to only posting on Wikipedia, rather than email, either in my role as a TFA coordinator, or as an admin elsewhere. It can make the whole process more cumbersome if, say, we discussed rerun policy with no initial suggestion from the TFA coords, and sensitive material cannot be handled in that way. Also, I think that Mike's experience, and to a lesser extent some of the comments on this page, have shown how quickly the tone can degenerate in these discussions. I won't subscribe to public posting only. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

TFARP

We currently have this message at TFAR, although it's clear that it's not always being used.

Check TFAR nominations for dead links, which is linked to the Checklink tool {{User:Dispenser/Checklinks/config|interval=weekly|generator=bold}}

In the light of some recent dubious TFARP nominations, I'd like to suggest adding the following related request to the TFARP instructions (colour just for clarity here).

Before nominating here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns.

If this is acceptable to use at TFARP, would it also be better to use it as part of the TFAR instructions? It's perhaps more emphatic than the current link to the Checklink tool there.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections in two weeks, I'll go ahead with this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

New low

Today's FA, 2005 Azores subtropical storm, seems to be a new low in this process (pun intentional). It's a "nameable storm" that didn't actually get a name and so comes across as a parody or April Fool. It's obviously not Wikipedia's best work and just about any GA going through DYK would have been as good or better. For example, there's the Ethiopian highland hare today and John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, which I read with interest the other day. As TFA is the flagship for the entire project, some discussion is appropriate. Having such articles presented as our finest work is not good for morale and so something needs to be done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear whether your quarrel is with FAC for promoting it or with TFA for choosing it. Can you clarify?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Going through it, I must agree with your assessment. To answer Wehwalt, this article seems to have slipped past the cracks at every step... it doesn't even appear to be notable enough to warrant an article, much less deserving of being classified a Featured Article! The whole thing is a puffed up version of a subsection split from Hurricane Vince. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• There's been a flurry of hurricanes lately and Storm Brian has just blown in where I am – some high winds which did get a name but which don't have a separate article. FYI, here's a good real-time display of the world's winds. My impression is that it's always windy like this somewhere in world. Andrew D. (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 420

Hey guys,

Can you please bypass Highway 420 for now? I was hoping we could use it as on April 20th, just to be different! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The current plan is to do so, but I'm hoping that Balfour Declaration will pass FAC in time, so have been holding off making the change until we're closer to the deadline in the interests of only making changes once, not twice. I do strongly suggest you add the article to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending so folks know that there is a potential date connection of interest. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW Interstate 96 is scheduled for November 21 (and that one does have a date connection), so it may also be too close. --Rschen7754 18:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Reruns?

I noticed that there are no reruns among the last forty or fifty TFAs scheduled; are reruns temporarily on hold, perhaps because of the recent threads on this page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

December 25 is a rerun. It has been scheduled.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Recently featured

The "Recently featured ..." line has either been discontinued, forgotten, or put off, starting January 1 (I don't care which). Art LaPella (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7? Release the bot! - Dank (push to talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Which job are we talking about? Some (but not all) the jobs failed, and I cannot restart them until I return. But I can run then on request, so I have been running three of them each day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The one that adds the recentlist to the bottom of all TFAs. (I see that a lot of bots have been sputtering lately, don't know what that's about.) Thanks for this bot btw. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Sexist claptrap"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@WP:TFA coordinators I appreciate that the choice of TFA is a difficult one, and it should not be for any editor to block an article from appearing without good reason, but given I have been accused of producing "sexist claptrap" for the Josephine Butler article, and the article threatened with TFR just so an editor can get their own way, I would appreciate it if you think twice about running any of "my" articles as TFA. If you decide to run one of them anyway, then so be it and I will not demur, but my preference is for them not to be run: it just isn't worth the grief, I'm afraid. – SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The article attracted the interest of 35k readers, yesterday alone, thousands more to come the following three days. A few only had objections, a few only vandalised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm scheduling January, and it would be helpful for me to know if your request applies to co-written articles too, and whether your co-nominator concurs. I'm thinking in particular of Elizabeth David Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I've said, if you want to pick one of "my" articles, I (or any other editor) shouldn't have a veto and I will not demur if the choice is to chose one. My co-nominator for ED was Tim riley, and I don't know what his view is on TFAs. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Like the upper-class Victorian brides of legend, I close my eyes, lie back and think of England. I can't say I enjoy the aftermath when an article I've taken to FA is on the front page. There are occasionally some drive-by edits that are helpful, but mostly it's a case of waiting a day or two and then getting the shovel out and clearing up after the Lord Mayor's Show. (The above ping has led me to investigate, and I must say I am surprised and disappointed that an editor whom, like Cassianto, I have greatly admired in the past has taken such an unpleasantly combative stance but I shall pursue that matter in a more appropriate forum.) To address the present point, although I groan when I see an FA I've worked on featuring on the front page, I shouldn't wish to stop it happening. Tim riley talk 22:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, gawd!! .... SchroCat commenting here instead of the threads that led to this. I've created a few women's hall of fame lists, and a few years ago an editor really got a hair up their nose about women getting such recognition. Something along the lines of such recognition being silly, and men not getting their own halls of fame, somehow forgetting about sports halls of fame, Superbowl trophies, and whatnot. And then they tried to bait me on it at my RFA. You gotta do what you gotta do ... and I hope what you feel you gotta do, is keep up your good work. And some others feel that what they gotta do, is hang to the rear on everything and complain after the work is done and the article is on the main page. It's no fun putting up with such comments, but just keep on ... you know ... cranking out the quality. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Maile66. There are times I wonder why I bother doing these things sometimes. – SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, SchroCat, Tim riley I haven't quite started scheduling January yet, but I think we are all aware that there are too few TFAs about women, so I'm inclined to run ED unless I can't fit her in for other reasons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this. After a long discussion and a lot of other people's input, consensus was that this was "sexist claptrap". The article has now been changed but this should serve as a warning against complacency and a wake-up call to more carefully scrutinise material for basic article quality before it goes on the main page. In particular, "It's passed a peer review" should never be accepted as an answer to queries about serious MoS breaches. --John (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the consensus was that the name should be changed, not that it was "sexist claptrap", your hyperbole notwithstanding. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

How very sad to see a once respected editor reduced to making such a false and offensive comment. Sad, and very disheartening. Tim riley talk 12:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You mean SchroCat? It's maybe best not to personalise this, as the main perpetrators have already been embarrassed enough, including yourself. Better to move on and try to do better next time round. --John (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

He obviousy doesn't mean me, John. And if you're trying not to personalise things, perhaps your surprise appearances at articles I've worked on, or am working on, could come to an end? I'm certanly not embarrassed by the article, or the choice of words used, but perhaps you find your continual hyerbole embarrassing? And if people should try and do better next time, perhaps you should brush up on your methods of interaction with others and try and improve that - including dropping the stick on a thread that was last commented on two months before you thought to try and stir it up again. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll bear your suggestions on people skills in mind. On this occasion my "stirring it up" led to a good outcome; I'm very proud of that and would certainly do so again if I saw another such abuse. Let's hope not, eh? --John (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia

I'm a bit concerned about this running on 6 February. It really isn't our best work. --John (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, do please remove it from the sequence. John is determined to disrupt the article, and I don't think he intends to stop. DrKay (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to see the opinions of other editors on this. I’d also like concrete suggestions on what would replace it IF it’s decided to replace it. I am making a concerted effort to run female biographies so I’m going to be interested in female replacements. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

side note, I’m out of town until this evening so I can’t change anything until then at the earliest. I’d also like to avoid any nastiness..so let’s stick to discussing article merits, not othe editors and avoid hyperbole, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a list at talk. I will try to finish it tonight. I think working together DrKay and I can get it looking ok for the day after tomorrow. It really wasn't though. --John (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be ok. Thanks for taking my suggestions on board rather than dragging us to RfC or FAR. --John (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Compiling some advice on TFA blurbs in my userspace

I'd like to start posting a short list of diffs at User:Dank/Blurbs from edits that I (and many others) have made over the years on TFA blurbs. The best way to figure out what the point of this exercise is would be to wait for the diffs to show up and see if you think they're helpful ... but I'm not going to post anything without first pinging the relevant FAC nominators, to see if they have any thoughts on or objections to the specific diffs, and that's going to take at least a week. I'm not interested in discussing MOS requirements, or what specific words and phrases do or don't mean, or what article leads should or shouldn't cover ... even in my FAC reviews, I don't talk much about those things. But there's a general subject, you might call it "bureaucratic" writing, that I think we don't handle very well at FAC. People throw around words like "awkward" or "flabby" or "wordy" when they see something they don't like ... and that's not a good way to explain what problem you're seeing, or how to fix it. There are a lot of Wikipedians who have written brilliantly on how to identify these kinds of problems, and there are a bunch of books you can read on the subject if you're interested. (If I had to pick one, I'd recommend Pinker's The Sense of Style.) I want to write up some advice, with diffs, that covers FAC standards reasonable well and doesn't take too long to read. The point I want to stress is that these issues are often framed in terms of embarrassing mistakes, when in fact there's nothing to be embarrassed about ... these kinds of "mistakes" are ubiquitous in academic writing and in the sources that Wikipedians are reading. It's hard to say more without examples.

I've wanted to start this project for a long time, but I always knew that this was something I could do once and only once. If this were an ongoing project, then writers might feel nervous that some edit they're making to an article lead or a TFA blurb might show up some day as an example of "bad writing". So, I've come up with a list of diffs that make the points I want to make, I'll ask for permission once, I'll write it up, and then I'll move on. I've been getting more involved in science writing lately, and that's filling up my brain with a lot of half-remembered schoolwork, and it's pushing other things out of my head. I'm already starting to forget some of the things I've learned about prose writing at FAC. This is a good time for me to say whatever it is I want to say, before I move on to doing more writing. I don't want to give the impression that this is a one-man show ... edits to User:Dank/Blurbs will be welcome, but I'm not going to move it out of userspace or try to make it anything official (mainly because I don't have time, but also because I think it would be a bad idea). Any thoughts or questions so far? - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me, and you don't have to ask if you want to take examples from the two you improved for me in 2018. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. The TFA blurb is an unusual form on Wikipedia, as it involves writing to a limited word count. This is something common in journalism and academic writing, but not on Wikipedia, where size doesn't matter much. Usually the starting point is the article lead, but MOS:LEAD requires only that the lead has four paragraphs. This has the unintended consequence that editors write a lead of appropriate length, and then divide it into four paragraphs. That leaves us with leads that are too long to become blurbs. The usual technique then is to remove blocks of less important text. When that fails, we tighten the prose. (NB: You might like User:EEng#Principle of Some Astonishment) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good description of the main goal, Hawkeye; I want to show how that happens (and there's no reason we can't change how things are done). But along the way, I also want to shed some light on "bureaucratese" ... how to identify it and how to get rid of it. For instance, I changed the TFA blurb on Jan 4, 2016, from "Hogun ... [became] the unit's commanding officer. He participated in the battles of ..." to "Hogun ... command[ed] the unit in the battles of ...". The second version is a more common, and in some sense a more natural, way to say or write this idea. There are plenty of people who say and write it the first way, including people who write the sources that Wikipedians use for articles. But writing scholars generally believe that the world is full of bad influences on language, in the form of people who give blatantly bad advice, and one common (but completely wrong) piece of advice is that you can always improve your writing by chopping it up. It's impossible to know for sure, but the first version looks like it might have been the result of someone chopping the second version up into two sentences. (Or, more likely, the writer of this sentence was simply following what he had learned from reading other people's writing ... writing that may have been subject to bad influences.) For another thing, the world is full of self-serving bureaucracies (including academia, at times). One habit of bureaucratic writing is using bland words that convey as little information as possible ... that's a good strategy when you're writing defensively and you don't want anyone to be able to pin you down on what you're saying, but it's the opposite of good communication. "participated" is one of a long list of words that some bureaucrats love; it says nothing at all about what you were doing, only that you were there.

Again, in this project, I'm not taking on MOS or word usage or subject matter ... I'm only concerned with trying to help people with one problem (but it's a really big problem): the bad-writing viruses that worm their way into our heads, the memes that are promoted by officious know-nothings, or by people who write in self-serving ways that hide information rather than conveying information. I'm going to give it a try, anyway, and anyone else who wants to take on this challenge is welcome to join in. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for April 1

@WP:TFA coordinators The author (User:Harrison49) hasn't edited for over a year so there's no point asking them, and I'm not going to nominate at TFAR without an article author's consent, but can I suggest scheduling RAF Uxbridge for April 1? That date will be the centenary of the foundation of the Royal Air Force, and Uxbridge is the only specifically RAF article at WP:FANMP; it was one of the original bases transferred to the RAF on its creation, so the date has significance for the specific topic as well as for the broader category. The comedians are already gearing up for their annual demand that TFA join in their yuk-yuks, so whatever you schedule it would make sense to schedule sooner rather than later. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Iri. I remember being happy with the way Uxbridge turned out at FAC. It's Jim's month to schedule. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've pencilled it in for April 1 since that slot is currently vacant. February is a bit early to actually schedule April, even for me, so it will be a couple of weeks before I leap into action. Ping Dank for info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

When TFA has joined in the madness, the results have rarely been as good as expected. I would suggest we conduct business as usual. If something really great (really) is presented, we will be swept away by the storm of enthusiasm, I suppose, so something like that can take care of itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Last night's TFA edits

This hasn't happened before in my 3+ years at TFA: last night, one editor made roughly 55 changes to TFA blurbs in a few edits: roughly 7 to March 4, 19 to March 8, 18 to March 10 and 11 to March 13. I don't think admin intervention is appropriate (yet), but because this will cause some stress for all the people who watch these pages and believe that things should be done a certain way, something appropriate needs to be done. I'm guessing people won't be happy with most of the changes (and some changes have already been reverted), but if anyone else likes one or more changes, then of course we should talk about that. The blurbs don't have to be perfect or done just one way ... but there are more constraints than people generally realize. I propose that we either keep all the pages as-is, or revert all of them to the version before last night's edits, and post a notice at the top of each of those pages, and here, inviting editors to look at the diff and to feel free to register their approval of any of those 55 changes. I also propose that, after a week (or 3 days, in the case of the March 4 one), any changes that no one else has spoken up in favor of will be reverted, if they're still on the blurb page at that time. Questions? Suggestions? I'll post a pointer to this discussion at WT:FAC, and I've been talking with the editor ... do we need other pings or pointers? - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, who reverted the pointer I posted at WT:FAC. My guess is some FA editors will want to have a say one way or the other, but I won't press the issue. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Now the pointer is back up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors often make minor changes to Dank's blurbs, but normally they relate to FAs they have written themselves or are very minor formatting or grammatical tweaks, not wholesale changes like this. Although the editor's contributions appear to be in good faith, I think there is more at issue here than Dan states. The four TFA coordinators were appointed by the community to do a specific job, and it's reasonable to assume that, on the whole, we will be allowed to get on with it, subject to any community input here or at WPTFAR. I don't think it's fair to Dan for people not appointed by the community to make wholesale changes without discussion either here, with Dan, or with the FA authors. the logical progression would be for people to just change the day's TFA if they don't like what Ealdgyth, Wehwalt or I have selected. Revert to Dan should be the default position for multiple changes made without discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, sorry Dank - absolute misclick: apologies. I have literally no idea how I did that. "Dropped cornet on mouse" is as likely as anything ... senility, clicking in the wrong screen? .. this was completely unintended. Sorry and thanks DBaK (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Heh, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, reverted 13 March (+ added one minor edit of my own to the pic caption). Most of the changes were just minor tweaks, but also a funny one adding "so called" in front of the title? Manelolo (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators Hi all. I apologise for making so many changes without consultation; I hadn’t realised it would be an issue. I had started to notice TFA blurbs on the front page recently that I had thought read oddly and thought I would try and help out. I will comment here in future. Please feel free to revert any of my edits as you see fit. Again, my apologies. Thank you. — Hugh (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I offered the option to keep them all or revert them all for now ... either amounts to the same thing, we'll still need people to assess the edits and decide which ones they like. But if you're on board with a wholesale revert, for the moment, I think that will put less stress on the system, and I'll go make those reverts. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank. I would of course be fine with keeping any changes. To explain my actions: I mostly do copy-editing on Wikipedia, and have begun to enjoy it a lot recently. My intention in these cases was to render the blurbs in such a way that they accurately and fully summarise the article at hand, with the idea that perhaps more people would click through to the full article and keep reading. To this point I would argue that describing TFA blurbs as a summary of the lead section only (as the guide previously did; I believe you’ve now removed that restriction) is too limiting. I can see why that limitation is there, but in the case of, for example, the Miriam Makeba blurb, you have to dig in to the article, as it were, to find out Belafonte was not just someone she sang with on occasion, but her mentor, and someone who helped her move to the US (and doubtless helped her career along). I believe these kinds of interesting facts should not be only in the article, but ought to be represented in some way in the TFA blurb, given that this may be the only time for a long while that a given article might be featured in such a way.

Manelolo Hi. Regarding my edit to the Winter War blurb, I believe it is legitimate to describe that was as “so-called”; examples: On March 12th 1940 the peace agreement between the Soviet Union and Finland was signed and the so-called "Winter War" was at an end. (BBC); This article briefly discusses the destruction of Finnish museums in the Second World War during the so-called Winter War of 1939–40. (ResearchGate), and this article at JSTOR. Again, please revert if you feel my edits extend the character count too far, or for any other reason. I suppose for simplicity’s sake you could remove “so-called”, but I would go as far as to argue it should be in the intro proper. — Hugh (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but that could be added to almost every article with differing viewpoints. So-called WW2 (since it's the Great Patriotic War in Russian historiography) etc. By an overwhelming account, it's the Winter War in Western historiography (f.ex. Google Books search) and the differing names are opened up in a note just after the title. I mean, a valid point, but kinda redundant, and no one at FA review brought it up. Manelolo (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I largely reverted; my three diffs are March 4, March 8, and March 10, and Manelolo's revert is at March 13. Again ... this is too much for me to handle by myself, this needs to be a community effort. For the next week, everyone is welcome to assess those diffs and decide if you prefer Hugh's version, on any of those changes. Please let us know if so ... we don't bite, really, and we enjoy hearing a range of opinions. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Copying this from the March 4 TFA blurb's talk page:

Hi again, @Dank:. Thanks for your edits. I would like to request two further changes to what you currently have. I would remove genres including.

You have:

Makeba moved to the United States, where her career flourished, and released several albums and songs, including the hit "Pata Pata" (1967).

This no longer makes grammatical sense. I would split (…flourished. She released…) rather than recast. Doing so, it would then flow better to start the next sentence with Makeba and Belafonte.

Lastly, I would reinstate the hyphen in civil-rights activist, as it is a compound modifier. Makeba was not a ‘civil’ person who was an activist for nebulous ‘rights’; she was an activist for civil rights. Thanks — Hugh (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators Thank you all, and once again my apologies for intruding. I have to say I didn’t realise such a small team were caretakers of TFA. If it’s okay, I would like to start discussions on Talk pages for each scheduled TFA where I think (significant) changes might make the prose better. Is there another place I should do this rather than the individual pages? I will go and familiarise myself with the TFAR process, now that I understand how the whole system works. Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts, anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The talk pages of the daily pages seem a good place for discussion about substantive changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As a measly contributor, I am totally okay with any grammar/prose tweak; in fact would rather let others finalise it. :-) But substance/tone changes to be first discussed on talk, of course (since these are FAs where the lede has most likely been through a lot of scrutiny already)! Manelolo (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I added one more pointer to this discussion, at WT:ERRORS. Hugh, if you've got other changes you want, please add a link here to wherever you're suggesting the changes, so that everyone can have a look over the next week. But be aware that 55 changes is probably already past most people's limit for what they're willing to cover at one time ... you might want to slow down, for better results. After everyone else has had their say, I promise I'll take a close look and see what I can do to help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I won’t directly edit any more blurbs, but would like to leave my suggestions on the Talk pages, if that’s OK. I’m not trying to create work for anyone: I would merely be interested in making suggestions. It’s no skin off my back if none of them are implemented. I have to say I can’t quite work out why you count the number of changes within an edit—all that needs to happen is for someone to read over the whole blurb after it’s been modified and check that no errors of fact or odd links have been introduced. Copyediting is not like solving mathematical problems. Wikipedia is riddled with poor prose, and I’m surprised that there isn’t a larger team making sure that font-page material reads well. Would it be worth my posting a link to this discussion at the WP:GCE, perhaps? — Hugh (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. The GOCE is welcome in any FAC or TFA discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The coordinators are ultimately responsible for what goes on the main page. So we need to be able to manage how main page blurbs are made and modified, while still keeping an open and inclusive process. It's us that the mob will come after if something untoward happens. Asking that larger changes be discussed helps us keep up. An ill-placed "so-called" on a political or scientific matter could cause a firestorm.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Update needed

@WP:TFA coordinators MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-TFA is old. 92.54.160.18 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, since that page lists the TFA coords, I've changed the names to the current roster, and I've added that page name to User:Dank/TFA#Pages to update when the TFA coord list changes. But when non-admins try to edit today's TFA, they don't see that page, they see a message about cascade protection. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's the page that non-admins see when they try to edit the TFA blurb, which is how I found it. 92.54.160.18 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I just got Johnboddie's computer and tried to edit the TFA. The page you're talking about didn't come up for me; I get a message about cascade protection. - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

[7] gives me

Extended content

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons: This page is part of the Today's featured article (TFA) section for the Main Page and so is protected from editing while it is on the Main Page (and for 24 hours beforehand) because of its prominence. If you want to correct an error in, or improve the wording of, the TFA summary, please (a) make any necessary changes to the article first and then (b) leave a message, including if possible your suggested changes, at Main Page errors. Changing the article first helps to ensure that any alterations to the summary on the Main Page have consensus. Please do not leave comments, complaints or suggestions for improvement on the talk page here, because they are unlikely to be seen promptly, whereas the "Main Page errors" section is regularly checked by administrators, who can make any necessary alterations to the summary. General comments about the article itself should be left on the article's talk page; comments about the TFA process should be left at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. The selection of the TFA is made by the TFA coordinators (Ealdgyth, Wehwalt, Jimfbleak and Dank). You can make new requests or comment on current requests at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article for full guidelines. Thank you. This page is transcluded in multiple cascade-protected pages, and can be edited only by administrators. Why is the page protected? Cascading protection is used to prevent vandalism to particularly visible pages, such as the Main Page and a few very highly used templates. This page is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option: Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow Wikipedia:Main Page/1 Wikipedia:Main Page/2 Wikipedia:Main Page/3 Wikipedia:Main Page/4 Wikipedia:Main Page/5 Main Page Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page/2 Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page/3 Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page/4 Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page/5 What can I do? Discuss this page with others. For move-protected pages, see requested moves. Request that the page's protection level be reduced. Find out more about how to get started editing Wikipedia. If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions. An administrator may then make the change on your behalf. Please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed. Submit an edit request Group notice Attention Please be careful when editing the today's featured article section. Do not add images unless you have personally vetted them for appropriateness and copyright concerns, and if you are adding an image to a protected template, remember to protect the image before saving the template. Minor text amendments are fine, but remember that the main page defers to the articles – information not supported by the article should not be added. If a change is likely to be controversial, defer on it until consensus can be established. After editing the today's featured article page, please purge it. You can view and copy the source of this page: Ferugliotherium was a mammal of the Late Cretaceous, around 70 million years ago. The genus was first described in 1986 but misidentified as a member of Multituberculata, an extinct group of rodent-like mammals, on the basis of a single tooth, a low-crowned molar. It is thought to have had a small body mass, about 70 g (2.5 oz), and may have eaten insects and plant material. Its remains have been found in two geological formations of present-day southern Argentina, where it is part of a mammal fauna that includes the sudamericid Gondwanatherium and a variety of dryolestoids. The upper and lower incisors were long and rodent-like, with enamel on only one side of the crown. A fragment of the lower jaw shows that the tooth socket of the lower incisor was very long. Although Ferugliotherium had much lower-crowned teeth than the sudamericids, they shared the same backward jaw movement during chewing and essentially similar patterns in their incisors and on the chewing surface of their molar-like teeth, with small enamel prisms. (Full article...) Recently featured: Thomas Riley Marshall Winter War Family Trade Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help) : Template:TFAFULL (view source) (protected) Template:TFAfooter (view source) (protected) Template:TFArecentlist (view source) (protected) Return to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 15, 2018. Categories: Wikipedia Today's featured article Navigation menu Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inProject pageTalkReadEditView historySearch

MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist/Archive_3#"Protection_for_future_and_archived_TFA_blurbs_and_names" suggests that non-autoconfirmed (not non-admins) see this when trying to edit the TFA blurb. 92.54.160.18 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. My guess is that only IPs (and probably non-autoconfirmed) see that page, since Johnboddie didn't see it. Sorry for jumping to a conclusion. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blurb note

Most TFA blurbs have been around 1000 or 1100 characters, with a few around 1150 or 1175. I've been working on April blurbs, and they're clumping around 1000. I can't say yet whether this is a trend (though it might be). I've got an obligation to the Main Page folks not to jerk them around on length ... they have to make adjustments to WP:ITN or WP:DYK if the TFA blurb runs long or short. Since most of them are around 1000 this month, I should really try to get all of them in that general range, say from 950 to 1100. Any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you need to make the TFA blurbs that length so that... the headers of the DYK and OTD sections align? Boy the main page is poorly (or antiquatedly) coded, if that's the reason! — Hugh (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally, the headers don't align, but I need to avoid doing anything that feels to the other participants like they're getting jerked around, like they need to make instant adjustments based on what TFA is doing that day. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

WT:Today's featured article/April 22, 2018

There's a lot of editing going on with the TFA blurb (Gloucestershire Regiment), and there's some discussion. Feel free to jump in with comments or edits, and after everyone's had their say, I'll take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Things have settled down now, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC for 13 March TFA

Hey! FYI, an RFC has been opened at Talk:Winter_War#rfc_AD71249 concerning citations in the lede of 13 March. Manelolo (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on any changes in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm actually uneasy about running this as TFA given that questions have been raised about NPOV and the fact that there's an ugly "X said, y said” sentence in the lead backed up by nine citations that apparently can't be changed. This is not currently our best work to showcase on the Main Page. John (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to have a discussion somewhere concerning that. See what people think.—Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It relates to the point above in a way. If an article is so contentious politically that it absolutely needs to have nine citations supporting an awkward "X said, y said” sentence in the lead (and I understand how these things can happen), then it absolutely cannot also be an FA or run on the main page until the situation is resolved. I'm slightly disappointed that this article made it through FAC (recently too) and then TFA with such a glaring problem. --John (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

My preliminary view is that co-ordinators should not lightly question the judgment of two community processes, which both FAC and TFA/R are. I'm reluctant to pull it down on that basis, and with only one editor concerned. Not that I discount John's views, but the RFC isn't exactly resulting in pitchforks and torches.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Props to the coordinators here, and +1 to Wehwalt's post above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 420 TFA for June 20, 2018

@WP:TFA coordinators - I'm trying to pull Ontario Highway 420 from being the TFA for June 20, 2018, but have gotten no response from Wehwalt or Bencherlite. I'm hoping to have this listed on April 20, 2019. I have placed this on the future TFA list. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see a ping, but may have overlooked it. Are you OK with Ontario Highway 61 running?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was lost in all the shuffle! @Imzadi1979:: I see you want to do one in July and late September. August 18 is the 101st anniversary of Ontario Highway 61, which isn't a big hooplah. I'll let you lay out your plans so the random choices don't effect them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to run a road on June 20. I'm indifferent as to which one.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The one suggested frequency was approximately one highway article per month, Floydian, so I don't see that being an issue.

OK, as long as that all works then go ahead with ON 61 - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela Centenary?

@WP:TFA coordinators

There seems to have been something of a mix-up regarding the TfA for 18 July 2018 (i.e. tomorrow). At the moment, Messier 87 is scheduled to appear as TfA, but for many months now Nelson Mandela was scheduled to appear on this date. Originally, the FA-rated Mandela article was destined to appear on 18 July 2017, which would have been 99 years since his birth, but when I pointed out that 18 July 2018 (his centenary) would have been far more appropriate, this was agreed, and on 19 July 2017 the Columbia River article instead appeared as TfA. The Nelson Mandela article has therefore never appeared as a TfA. Somehow, Mandela has been overlooked and Messier 87 put in its place. Might I suggest that we make a last minute substitution and replace Messier 87 with Nelson Mandela? I appreciate that it is a bit last minute but I doubt that anyone will disagree with the fact that the Mandela centenary is a lot more important than the fact that a rocket was launched on this date in 1967 which revealed more about the Mellier 87 galaxy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MBO, I've just emailed Jim (it's his month). - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If anyone needs help putting together a blurb very quickly, I'll be around online for the next few hours. More than happy to lend a hand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

As for a blurb, how about the following:

Nelson Mandela (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary and political leader. A Xhosa, in the 1940s he joined the African National Congress (ANC) party and campaigned against the white-only government's system of apartheid, a form of racial segregation that privileged whites. An African nationalist and socialist, in 1961 he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe, which led a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government. He was arrested in 1962, convicted of conspiring to overthrow the state, and imprisoned for 27 years. Released in 1990 amid growing ethnic strife and violence, he became leader of the ANC and helped negotiate an end to apartheid with President F. W. de Klerk. In the country's first multi-racial election, in 1994, he was elected President of South Africa. His administration stressed racial reconciliation and measures to alleviate poverty. He retired in 1999 to focus on philanthropic causes. Controversial throughout much of his life, in South Africa he is widely regarded as the "Father of the Nation".

That summarises the FA-rated lede in a manner appropriate for TfA, I believe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: If we don't get a response from User:Jimfbleak in time, is this the sort of emergency situation where we could be WP:BOLD and make the change anyway? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no harm in waiting for Jim to respond, he's around almost every day. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks above to your blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: It'll be 18th July in about an hour (at least by GMT; it is already the 18th of July across the Eastern Hemisphere) and there's been no sign of Jim yet. I fear that unless we act now, this important opportunity—to have this article as our TfA on the centenary of Mandela's birth—will pass us by, which will be a real shame. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators Unless objections are raised soon I am planning on being WP:Bold on this and manually changing the TFA for 18th July myself. I really don't want to upset anyone by going against standard protocol here but time is running out and there do not seem to be any of the TFA folk around at this juncture (I can't blame them for that, it's the middle of the working week after all). The only TFA admin that I have been able to contact, Dank, seems supportive of a switch to Mandela. The Mandela article was pencilled in to be featured on this date for a year now and has only accidentally been replaced by Messier 87 through the misconception that the Mandela article already featured last year (it had not). Mandela's centenary is clearly a very important event and really should be marked in this way. Messer 87, by contrast, can readily be slotted in on any day. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I can't make the change because I'm not an administrator. But I really hope one of you guys is able to get onto this pronto and make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Aha! The fog clears ... the Mandela article was marked as running last year, but it didn't, that's almost certainly the reason Jim didn't run it. Let me me check with Wehwalt and Ealdgyth, but I think we can run this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm making the changes now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you very much Dank! It really would be such a shame were we to miss this opportunity to mark such a big date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This was at least partially, and maybe totally, my screw-up. I'm so glad you caught it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And I've slept though all this in a different time zone! Dank is right, it was marked as having run last year (which admittedly seemed odd giving the upcoming centenary), so I declined the TFAR and didn't schedule it this year. Thanks to Dan for sorting this and removing the maindate from Messier 87. Apologies for my part in this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Scheduling

@WP:TFA coordinators : Nothing has been scheduled since 9 June when all the slots up to 31 July were filled. Now its 25th July and time is running out for 1 August. This seems to be cutting it fine unnecessarily; would a coordinator care to explain the current policy on scheduling? Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I actually have atenative schedule and planned to do the paperwork today. I’m sorry if I’m not scheduling fast enough, but I prefer to let everyone make their requests and stuff. The couple of times I’ve scheduled earlier in the month, I end up having last minute requests..we’re still a week out from 1 August. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Large images at TFA

It was suggested here that we should have a discussion about larger-than-normal images at TFA, such as today's image. Thoughts? Pinging David Levy, Iridescent, @WP:TFA coordinators . I'm also mentioning this at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Also pinging Stephen. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm a fan of bigger images when possible. However, I'm not conversant with all the demands on the main page. So please take what I said as a desire, rather than any sort of !vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Two previous Etty TFAs also had large images. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 23, 2018 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2018. The problem with those images is that without cropping and a larger image, it's impossible to see any detail. It makes perfect sense for a painting topic, especially as Iridescent has put in most of the heavy lifting on formatting. Like Wehwalt, I'd welcome large images as standard unless it's problematic for Dank's blurbs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem for me, or for anyone else that I know of. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly given that I'm the one who originally suggested it, I think "large image, less text" should be the default for any TFA where the reader is more likely to be interested in what the topic looked like than in a text description of it. (Art and architecture are the obvious example, but it could apply equally well to animals, aircraft, videogames on those occasions where we actually have a free-use screenshot, plants and vegetables, biographies when they're on someone with a noteworthy appearance, coins and stamps, foodstuffs…; likewise, for music and biographies we should be far more willing to dispense with the image and instead have a prominent link to a sound/vidoe file of the music being played or the person speaking.)

If anything, we should be having a serious discussion about making the default main page image sizes at minimum the Wikipedia default thumbnail size; the current main page design dates from 2004 when monitors were smaller and lower resolution. (Compare the 150px images at TFA with the size of the images used on the main pages of similar sites like Enciclopedia Libre, Britannica, HistoryWorld, EoE, Scholarpedia…) As far as I'm concerned, the postage-stamp-sized images used on the Main Page aren't just ugly and unhelpful to readers, by forcing an image size in pixels they're a straightforward WP:ACCESS issue (ironically, if TFA were submitted at FAC, it would be quickfailed for using forced image widths and consequently violating MOS:IMGSIZE). People aren't using 400x620 monitors any more, and if we have to keep the TFA, DYK, ITN, TFP, OTD, TFL alphabet soup cluttering the main page, we should be looking to have a TFA section more like that of Basque Wikipedia.

In the specific case that prompted this, the complaint that it "made the main page unbalanced" was based on a misunderstanding of how browsers format columns. Unless every reader is using the same size window of the same browser with the same fonts installed at the same zoom level, everyone will see the columns unbalanced to some degree—as I write this, the TFA is displaying to me three lines longer than ITN next to it. Paging Tony1, Guy Macon and RexxS, who I know have all had thoughts about the matter of image accessibility and the main page in the past. ‑ Iridescent 2 17:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's well past time that we made improvements to the main page. Larger images would be a real bonus for many readers, and I'd be more than happy to see the default image size on main page increased to 220px (or preferably upright=1.0 to respect preferences for those who need even bigger images). It's quite easy to see what the page would look like with 220px images by using most browser's ability to temporarily edit html via the "inspect element" function. Just change width="120" to width="220", and then scale up the height as well. You'll find that it looks fine on mobile view and on any screen bigger than around 1000px wide. There's a worst case at around 820px wide where the text wrapping alongside the image is confined to a thin column, but the present design has exactly the same problem at widths around 640px anyway. Making the images larger has no negative effect on accessibility and plenty of positive impact for the visually challenged like us old folk. Until we can get a proper responsive redesign to main page (probably just before the heat death of the universe), small changes like bigger images would nevertheless be a very welcome improvement with little effort. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there anybody who has trouble with the size of the image at the top of User talk:Guy Macon? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Anybody using a mobile device with a screen resolution of 'Generic WVGA' (480x800) will have a horizontal scroll bar, but otherwise I wouldn't think so. But that image is displayed block, and most images on the main page are floated alongside text. --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The comments above on main page balance are based on a misunderstanding of what needs to be balanced. TFA does not need to be balanced with ITN, but rather TFA + DYK needs to be roughly the same length as ITN + OTD, so that there isn't significant whitesace as the two columns bump into TFP or TFL. The easiest way to achieve this is to remove an ITN item. A large TFA image doesn't actually seem to need significantly less text, so no need for a shorter blurb. Stephen 02:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Larger images would be much better for our readers, I think. But how do they play out on small mobile displays? Tony (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Perfectly well, Tony. Certainly 220px wide (and bigger) images work just as well on mobile displays because on smaller screens the main page in mobile view is reduced to a single column. You can have a look for yourself by selecting 'Mobile view' from the bottom of the main page and changing your browser window width. There are also free emulators like "Ripple" if anybody is interested in testing multiple different mobile views. HTH --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • RexxS, that's good news. I presume even bigger is ok on mobile devices. Tony (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Why pixels?

Why not use Em, Rem, Percent, Ex, Ch, or Viewport Units ( Vw, Vh, Vmin, Vmax )? See Responsive web design. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The <img /> tag is not available in Wikipedia markup. According to WP:Image syntax, the current choice is between using the upright parameter or specifying a size in pixels. Anything else is treated as a caption. It would be nice to incorporate some of the features of responsive design, but this page isn't the place to argue for that. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan

I did ask for consideration in rescheduling U.S. Route 45 in Michigan from August 30 because I'm requesting U.S Route 25 in Michigan for its September anniversary. I never heard anything back on that request. Imzadi 1979 → 21:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

New York State Route

Please pull New York State Route 22 too. I will be taking it to FAR on the 19th. DrKay (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(For those who don't know, DrKay is a FAR coord). I'm happy to make the edits, but that's about 3 hours from now. One of the 3 scheduling coordinators (pinging @WP:TFA coordinators ) will have to okay this and pick an article to run in its place. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh... okay. I'm not really available at the moment - hubby is going to be home within minutes and I generally reserve serious editing for the morning hours when he's at work. Can someone else pull one? And .. as an aside, can we NOT ask for an article to be pulled from TFA a whopping 4 hours before it hits the main page???? This is a bit short notice when the article has been scheduled for over three weeks for the slot. That's why we try to schedule in adavance ... so we're not scrambling to fill the slot at the last minute. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt was planning State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) for September, does that one work for everyone? - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of an overreaction. A few map citations are missing a few pieces of information. I've filled in several pieces based on searches through http://www.worldcat.org/ but because I don't own paper copies of these NY maps from the 1930s and 1940s that aren't indexed online, I can't finish the task. I've pinged the primary authors of the article to have them get involved. Imzadi 1979 → 21:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This is above my pay grade, but we've got a request from a FAR coord who has noticed and tried to fix problems, and an okay from a TFA coord to swap. On top of that, Wehwalt was going to run the New York - Vermont in September anyway, and neither article has a date connection, so if the NY 22 article survives FAR, there's not much harm in swapping the slots for these two highways. I'll substitute the New York - Vermont highway. There's discussion on the article talk page for NY 22 if anyone wants to weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: I'd leave it alone, period. The NY 22 article has had a lot of work recently to bring it up snuff after it was promoted 10 years ago; it's just missing a few citation details. On the other hand, the other article has had no copy editing to polish it to modern expectations, and it has the same map citation issues. Imzadi 1979 → 22:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much. The map details are over my head, so now I'm not comfortable swapping in the NY-VT highway, and now it's too close to Main Page time; it's too late to get opinions on a different article. Kind of in a bind here, DrKay ... thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm just becoming aware of this. I doubt I can get up to speed on the article quality issue in the few minutes remaining before midnight.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: New York State Route 22 has a few incomplete map citations in its footnotes. At the time it was promoted a decade ago, those citations met the existing expectations. I've tagged the incomplete citations previously. Those tags were removed earlier today and have since been restored because they still apply. I've filled in as much missing information as possible from worldcat.org records, but the primary authors of the article will need to do the rest. A lot of work has gone on lately to bring the prose and such up to the level we'd expect in 2018. If you can live with a few "full citation needed" tags, the article is ready for TFA. Otherwise, the article is apparently headed to FAR next Sunday because of a few incomplete footnotes.

It was suggested that State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) run in its place. That article has the same map citation issue, and none of its prose has been copy edited to polish it for TFA. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

One problem with these late requests is that because I'm a Brit the difference in time zone means that I don't even get to see th discussion until I wake in the morning, when it's all over. second time recently, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Stats

Can we get rid of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs since it is broken, or do we want to fix it? Seems like it has been off and on broken for the last four years, but I do not know the history of it. Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How is "today" defined?

In a world with many time zones, how do we define "today"? Can't find this documented anywhere obvious for "today's" featured articles. Kate Sheppard is tomorrow's FA, and tomorrow starts in less than four hours in NZ. New Zealand's news media may well be looking at Wikipedia's main page tomorrow and not seeing her there. Tayste (edits) 08:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Today is defined using UTC time zone Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sad that it's out by 12 hours in this instance then. Tayste (edits) 08:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It was specifically requested for the 19th, but we would have accommodated the 18th or 20th instead had it been requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured topics

Just wondering why Ray Lindwall, which isn't a featured article, is up for TFA? Presumably it's because it's part of the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948 but I don't recall every seeing that before. Is there a rule saying that TFA may be a GA only if it's part of a featured topic? Seems like it would be far better for the topic to be represented by one of its FAs rather than one of its GAs. But perhaps I'm missing something.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Click on the link at the beginning or at the end of the blurb text, and you'll see it goes to Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. The blurb is running on his birthday, so I had to insert the birth and death dates after his name, so it would have looked ugly to bold the entire first line of the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I really dislike easter egg links of that sort myself, but perhaps there's no other way around it given the issues you raise...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, appalling Easter egg link. Shouldn't be allowed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll raise the issue at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but it'd be better to just fix it, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is a discussion about protecting TFAs at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_should_we_automatically_pending-changes_protect_TFAs?. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

not a free image

On Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 24, 2018, there is an image that is marked public domain, but I don't think it is. It comes from the Met museum, which offers a large portion of its images as public domain, but this image is not one of them. Note the text below the image in [8] versus anything from its open-access collection, e.g. [9]. Outriggr (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It also doesn't look like that image appears in the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the intention was a portrait of the artist, since everything related to Bacon is apparently fair-use. Outriggr (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That image was just put in the blurb today ... it was subbed for another one that I'm assuming the writer didn't like. Should we put the previous image back in? - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

yes, ok with swapping back. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thx Ceoil, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC for a featured quality source review process

An RfC that would affect featured articles , about a featured quality source review process, may be of interest to viewers of this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, it's good to see so many people participating there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy in TFA blurbs

I'd like to see if we can get consensus (or at least some discussion) on whether the words in brackets in the following examples add anything useful to the meaning of the text. Although some of the bracketed text can be fine in articles, the standards for Main Page text are different, since space there is limited. (I've obscured the sources of most of these examples by rewriting text and removing links. I don't want anyone to feel targeted by this discussion ... including me, since several of these reflect my own mistakes.) The issues are intended to be slightly different in each case. If this kind of work interests anyone, I have more examples you can look at. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• The empire was weakened in 1282, and finally collapsed [after several more centuries] in 1453.
• The Disgruntled Workers' Union of Baltimore, Maryland, [United States], was founded on April 6, 1907. It was the first American collective bargaining organization ...
• The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was [an above average Atlantic hurricane season] ... Despite the high activity ...
• Baleen whales have been hunted by commercial industries for their meat, blubber, baleen, and oil. [Besides hunting,] they also face threats from marine pollution and ocean acidification.
• [the fact that] the freeway serves no major metropolitan areas
• They were primarily [involved in] fighting insurgents in ...
• Chuckles, the dog [who is the official live animal] mascot for the team, ...
• [in an area that was] behind German lines
• Fred's red macaw is a large [red macaw ...] parrot
• The 1995 Tour of Spain [took place principally in Spain]
• Charles Scott (April 1739 – October 22, 1813) was an [18th-century] American soldier who was elected the fourth governor of Kentucky in 1808. (I just got permission to add that one ... pinging Vanamonde93 and Modest Genius, in case you want to weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

• All of the words in brackets read to me like phrases which could be omitted for brevity, but which many or most of our FA writers (including me) have used frequently. So long as we satisfy the dictates of grammar and accuracy, I do not think we need the extra verbiage we would use to improve flow in a longer passage. Vanamonde (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• I would keep 'United States' (not every reader knows where Baltimore or Maryland are), and shorten the dog example to 'is the'. The other text in square brackets could all be deleted. Given the limited space available on the MP, I recommend the old copyeditor's adage: if it can be deleted without changing the meaning, delete it. Modest Genius ^talk 12:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• I agree in general that our writing should always be concise and efficient. I'm not sure why we need a discussion to establish that; but yes, I support the notion that well written blurbs should be well written. --Jayron32 13:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• In general I agree, but not with all the specific examples. It's not obvious, for instance, to say that the whales are threatened by hunting (plenty of commonly hunted species get by just fine), or that something called "Fred's red macaw" is actually going to be a macaw given how many common names for species don't represent their actual species (the American robin isn't a robin, as an obvious example). Regarding "Baltimore, Maryland, United States", we've been here many times before; you'd be surprised how many people aren't aware of what states are in the US, Canada or UK. (Without looking, could you tell me with certainty which countries Baltistan, Chittagong and Mizoram are in, whether Kangwon Province is in North or South Korea, or where Penghu and Khakassia are? If the answer is "no", you've experienced how editors in Asia—who constitute a sizeable chunk of en-wiki's readership—view the subdivisions of the Anglosphere.) ‑ Iridescent 19:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Baltistan and Chittagong yes, Mizoram no, but perhaps I am not a typical contributor here. MPS1992 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Do the words in brackets in the following examples add anything useful to the meaning of the text? Respectively, no, no, no but would need some re-wording, no, no (but might need minor re-wording), no but would need some re-wording, maybe, no, maybe and existing wording sounds awkward anyway, quite possibly yes, maybe but quite possibly not. Proper rationales if I ever get time. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Those responses are helpful, and I'm planning to run similar questions here about once a quarter. The responses will help me deal with the increasing proportion of requests at ERRORS for these kinds of edits. I had three people asking me about edits I made to remove repetitive text in the November blurbs, and I really didn't have any page that I could point them to that backed me up ... now I do. How about you guys? If you want similar kinds of feedback to support your editing, I'll be happy to host questions and answers in my userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that most of those phrases could probably be eliminated in a TFA blurb, where concision really is essential. Be careful about removing them from the articles, though. Sometimes they're helpful for prose flow or absolute clarity where space isn't so limited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Harry. Personally, I only edit the TFA articles if I become aware that something is just wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

TFA for WWI centenary

@WP:TFA coordinators would it be possible to have World War I as a TFA tomorrow for the 100th anniversary of the Armistice of 11 November 1918? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why it has a bronze star at the top; it's not a featured article, according to the article history. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking for a FAC page but I can't find one. This does look bizarre. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The {{featured article}} template was added in this edit. I've removed it. I am puzzled, however, that the article underwent five or six FARs but does not have an FAC page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I can only think that back in the stone age that the procedure was quite different, perhaps just an experienced editor deciding it's Refreshing brilliant prose? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Back in the old days, FAC didn't exist; anyone could unilaterally tag an article they felt worthy as "brilliant prose". When the nomination system was introduced, a sweep was conducted of all the tagged articles to decide if they'd keep the status, in this case here. (Although "Brilliant prose" evolved into FAC, the criteria were very different; this is the article at the time, note that it's entirely uncited original research.) ‑ Iridescent 09:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators How about one of the following WWI war memorial articles: Tower Hill Memorial, York City War Memorial, Manchester Cenotaph, Devon County War Memorial, Mells War Memorial? All have been promoted reasonably recently and not featured on the main page yet. Would be nice to mark the centenary of the end of the war in some way - Dumelow (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That’s up to Dank, as I’m going to be busy most of the morning, he’d have to be the one to do the honors. @WP:TFA coordinators or another of the cords. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Dank, I'm happy with any of these, if you choose to run one, although the Tower Hill article is the most inclusive and least militaristic of the options Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave this one as is. Tomorrow's MP already has a lot of WW1 content including all DYKs and the POTD. Is there such a thing as remembrance day overload?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Per my comments here, I'm opposed to trying to shoe-horn something in, particularly a British-only topic. Britain's losses in the war were lower than most of the other combatants (the 1,114,914 casualty figure on World War I is misleading as that also includes Canadian, Aus/NZ and South African losses; the actual figure was 744,000 which is still 744,000 too many but considerably lower than the losses suffered by France, Germany, Austria or Russia; Britain also never ran out of food, didn't suffer major public disorder or armed insurrection, and didn't have any combat take place on its soil so didn't have a significant number of civilian deaths compared to the European powers), and we already have enough (justifiable) complaints that the main page is systemically biased towards British and American topics. ‑ Iridescent 14:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The short version is: I'm not responsible for scheduling, but Jim likes Tower Hill (above), and I think Milhist would prefer that to a lemur based on past discussions. I'm available to make substitutions on short notice, which we seem to have here. Iri, my quick sense is that your general point is valid but doesn't override other considerations here ... Tower Hill is a Commonwealth memorial, the Commonwealth had more WWI history than the US did, and this is after all the English-language Wikipedia, even if many of us have put a lot of time into broadening our focus. Any other objections to Tower Hill? I'll ping Milhist. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the scheduled lemur, showing a black-and-white skull is perfect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. This has been discussed to death at other places linked by Iridescent above, and there is no consensus to change it, particularly to a non-WP:WORLDWIDE subject. Leave the lemur in place.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since when does WP:MILHIST have veto power over TFA? Looking at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, at present DYK is leading with the poppy (a British-only symbol, the rest of Europe uses blue flowers in commemorations), and has hooks on British remembrance celebrations, a British general, a British soldier, a Canadian soldier, an engineer working for the Royal Air Force and a UK war memorial, with a sole French article to break the pattern. The main page isn't WP:WikiProject British Empire. ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Milhist has no veto, of course. As the discussion stands right now, I'm not going to take any action, but I'll be monitoring this page all day today. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

As the author of all the war memorial articles being discussed, I have no objection to any of them being run as TFA tomorrow but I can also understand the arguments that it would be shoehorning, since we don't have an FA on a suitably broad WWI subject. It also looks like there's plenty of WWI-themed content on the main page tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

As the last coordinator who has not commented, I don't have any arguments that haven't already been made. I'm inclined to say the original choice should stand, but if there's a strong feeling for a change, I won't stand in the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the nature of remembrance Sunday I think this would be appropriate World War I casualties, the point is remembering the sacrifice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Except it's not a WP:FA, which is a requirement to run in the Today's Featured Article slot. (briefly home... back out shortly) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that one of the proposed war memorial FAs should be run on 11 November. World War I was a worldwide conflict, with recent scholarship focusing on its profound impact on regions previously believed to have had little involvement. I'd suggest that the Tower Hill Memorial article be selected: this memorial commemorates British victims of World War I who died in locations all around the world, and as it also commemorates victims of World War II it reminds us that the peace achieved in 1918 ultimately failed, with the war and the way it ended contributing to an even worse human disaster only 20 years later. Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

An addendum to this (to add some context): over the four years of the centenary (28 July 2014 to 11 November 2018 - though the dates vary for different combatant nations), there were a number of WWI-related articles run at TFA. When time permits, I might try and pull together a full list (and possibly also look at how much DYK and OTD and PotD carried related items). The starting point for TFA appears to be SMS Goeben (TFA for 28 July 2014) and Southern Rhodesia in World War I (TFA for 5 August 2014). In terms of editor-facing materials, there have been two long-running features in the MILHIST newsletter (see November 2018 for examples) that were sustained for the entire four years (which is incredibly impressive - @TomStar81: who wrote those newsletter features). Two years or so ago, I started a directory of WWI content (see here), but failed to maintain it. I may update that at some point to include Main Page content that appeared over the past four years. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. And the scheduling coords are happy to get notice at WP:TFAR and WP:TFAP of any upcoming WWI anniversaries (such as dedication dates for memorials). - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs features a bunch of redlinks. Apparently the relevant sub-pages such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs/July 2018 haven't been created for quite some time. The last that I could find was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs/February 2018. Is this something worth investing effort into? Does someone here know how to quickly and easily create them? Igordebraga created that February 2018 one. Huon (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not exactly easy - you need to copy a previous table and checking the monthly TFAs, copy-paste the results onto the name category, while seeing which category it enters, and country it fits. And that's not entering the other categories - I always also get the views through the dedicated tool (which to make things worse, only accepts 10 articles at a time) to see the impact. But checking the WP:TFA/R history for "How Chosen" and every single talk page for promoted\TFA wait, I usually don't bother. Anyway, I think it's certainly an useful page, as it strips the recent history to easier info. I'll even add the March page. igordebraga ≠ 02:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the how-to guide. I assume some of the steps might be automated, probably with category and country the most difficult. I'll ask at a bot noticeboard. Even having the names and page views would probably help.

Is there a definite list of FA categories into which the FAs should be sorted, or is that more open-ended? Huon (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automated creation of subpages of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs. Comments are welcome on whether such a bot, if it's created, should leave notifications somewhere (e.g. here) to notify humans that a new page exists that may need to be filled out further. Huon (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't my call, I just do blurbs, but I can share a little institutional memory: the last few times the subject came up, we had a couple of people volunteer to help maintain the page, but they didn't follow through ... by the time we noticed, it seemed like a lot of work, and no one wanted to keep the page up. I'm sure all the coords would be happy if a bot correctly maintained some version of that page, but I don't think a bot could maintain all the fields. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the pages were set up to ease finding if similar articles appeared recently. I simply check the archives of the last three months to find out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this backlog in Talk:Main Page/Archive 192#Homepage views. I think these pages are useful. I see Igordebraga has started March and July 2018 (thanks!) but April, May, June (and August onward) are redlinked. There is a list of the monthly pages at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2018. 213.205.240.162 (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi

A user called DePiep keeps attacking the lead summary of Enrico Fermi. Doesn't know anything about the subject. Tried to engage to avail. Can someone please restore the original lead and withdraw this article from the TFA queue. Thank you. [[User:|Hawkeye7]] (discuss) 01:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I am DePiep and I'm fine, and I do know WP:LEDE and I do not like your wording "attacking" for 'edits I don't get' etc etc. Now what is your question? -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @DePiep:, I am MPS1992 and I am also fine and I do also know WP:LEDE. Your edits look like this and I think it would be better if you got consensus for them on the talk page of the article before making changes like this a fourth time in one or two days. MPS1992 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec):As I wrote in Talk:Enrico_Fermi#Long intro: the article intro had flaws. I tried to improve them, wiki-wise. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me "wiki-wise". Do you have consensus on the article talk page for your changes? MPS1992 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing "(ec)" says: "we were editing simultanuously". By definition, I did not reply to your post (sort of essence of (edit conflict)). -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay that TFA will hit the Main Page in less than 48 hours. A few thoughts come to mind ... but John and I are in the middle of doing the January blurbs. Writing blurbs always puts me in a bad mood, because the way to get the best blurb is to bring to mind every complaint someone might have ... so, for 31 blurbs, that's a lot of negativity going through my head, and I generally need a day or two to recover. DePiep, I haven't looked at the editing, but Hawkeye is one of our most experienced writers of lead sections for physicists ... could I ask as a favor that you try one more time to work things out with him? - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 may be a valued editor, but in this case they may overaim. We were improving a lede, (most of the changes Hawkeye7 does *not* oppose). I claim that my statemants re "Enrico Fermi lede is not good enough" can stand. -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I support withdrawal of this article for TFA, per Hawkeye7. Its lede is not FA, since MPS1992 reinstalled the earlier version. -DePiep (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is the version that passed its featured article candidacy. You're welcome to take it to WP:FAR if you feel that something has gone wrong with the lede, at the time or since. MPS1992 (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

As the coordinator scheduling December, I am watching the discussion attentively, but that's about it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I will add that I am very reluctant to bring in another article at this late date, as the article and blurb would not have the amount of scrutiny from the principal author, the coordinators, and the community that we like to see.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It is your call as coordinator, and you're an admin and I'm not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I recently looked at the talk page of the article, and there seems to be consensus there that there is no overwhelming problem with the article lede as it is. MPS1992 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that, and the eyes that have looked at the article, we should let it run. Good to have a Nobel Prize winner on the day the prizes are presented.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw my opposition. It was article-talk anyway, not TFA-level. -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Add noting that the ignorant or wilfully distracting edits by MPS1992 [10] [11] were not helpful at all. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it inevitable that FAs are seen as a subject that has support on the site?

I know today's from 2015, but why now? And after the past two years you don't think it's at least inappropriate, if not outright dangerous? Heather's death, among others, wasn't enough? What if it instigates something akin to Kristallnacht? The article so prominent on the front page wouldn't do it under normal circumstances, but a so-called president is urging murder, so isn't this site like an accomplice? I know the process is bureaucratic, all in the name of the encyclopedia, but is that worth lives? TFA won't be directly responsible, but having such a prominent site feature one of 'their' heroes, what do you think would go through a supremacist's mind? Coordinators are at the very least irresponsible. You don't think this is historic because the subject's dead, right? So what if upon seeing it a cult member decides to gratify the fascist tendency and go on a killing spree?

Why let the process grind on after you know the outcome of 2016? All it took for one person with a gun to kill eleven people is the "there might be middle easterns" (in south america, somehow) after which he concluded that it must be Jews and that is that. Now that was one of thousands of lies, this article may be factual but for them it is like a shrine they need to worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.158.69.142 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Moors murders, Suicide of Leelah Alcorn, Jack the Ripper and Voluntary Human Extinction Movement are all also Featured Articles; are you under the impression Wikipedia endorses those as well? We're not going to censor our website to avoid covering those topics with which you personally disagree. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the article that is being complained about here? FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It'll be Benjamin Tillman, who was a thoroughly charmless character even by the standards of the KKK but nonetheless a significant historical figure. I find the IP's hypothesis that white supremacists are motivated by what appears in Wikipedia to be improbable. ‑ Iridescent 21:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Swap December 24 and December 27

I had planned to run Carolwood Pacific Railroad, a TFA/R nomination, on December 24 and Apollo 8, a rerun, on December 27. Because of the significance of having Apollo 8 run on the 50th anniversary of the Christmas Eve Genesis reading from lunar orbit, I've decided to swap the two. If the editors involved with the Carolwood article prefer to have it run next year, the 70th anniversary, that can be accommodated.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Periodic table

WP:ELEM members have been talking about the possibility of nominating Periodic Table for TFA, in light of 2019 being the 150th anniversary of the discovery of the Periodic System by Dmitry Mendeleev, in 1869.

This article appeared as TFA on February 28, 2004, and on January 8, 2018.

Are there any insurmountable issues in running this as a TFA again in light of the UN proclaiming 2019 as the International Year of the Periodic Table, and the iconic status of the table in science? Sandbh (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

we can’t rerun an article within five years of it having run. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But this is the Periodic Table of Elements. There is Darwin, Mendeleev, Einstein, Picasso. Galileo, AlGebrah, Newton. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

They all said that they would be prepared to wait. MPS1992 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

??? They did not wait. They all talked before they could articulate it! My inspiring heroes. And to be clear: the PT is a gigantic discovery. Worth an exception in this TFA. -DePiep (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The TFA cords can’t make an exception here on our own say-so. We’re not dictators. You need to take it to the wider community. I’ll also note that the consensus to allow reruns was not overwhelming so it will probably be a difficult sell, but you never can predict these things. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs (2nd)

Summat has gone wrong here: July 31 appears way down, after September, and all months after July are pushed several columns to the right. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Some helpful people have been filling in the missing archives. Comparing July (which seems to display properly) with August (which does not) there is a need for some "noinclude" and "includeonly" tags. Let me see if I can fix August. 213.205.240.192 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to work. Need to replicate that markup for the other months. 213.205.240.192 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The months are now Bot-generated. See Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automated creation of subpages of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FACBot 5 for details. I have updated the Bot run to cater for this, and have re-generated August through November. It takes the FACBot seven seconds to generate one of these pages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators Coordinators should note that the page for December 2018 will be automatically generated on 7 January 2019. I've given Wikimedia a week to generate the stats. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That is awesome; thanks, Hawkeye7. For extra credit, could your bot fill in the missing pages for May 2018 and June 2018, still redlinked at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2018? Thanks! 213.205.240.192 (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Acronyms/initialisms unnecessary in MP extract

It is a sound principle to replace the often repeated name of an institution in an article by initials that are generally recognised, having been duly introduced on first use. But in a one paragraph extract, that is less justified.

In the FA for tomorrow, the subject studied and taught at the Royal Academy of Music, so in the vast majority of the references to that august foundation, it is rendered as RAM: 12 times in the article itself. But in the Main Page extract there are only two mentions, currently presented as "the Royal Academy of Music (RAM)" and, five sentences later, "at the RAM". I have proposed at WP:ERRORS that it would be stylistically better to have "the Royal Academy of Music" and "the Academy", as only one additional mention of an entity makes the introduction of an initialism rather clunky.

Dank seems to think that this is a matter of principle that needs consent from here, apparently because the extract would replace the articles abbreviation with a word. Frankly, I think it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but he hasn't raised it, so I am. Is there any intrinsic principle at stake in not using an abbreviation in the extract that is in the opening paragraphs of the article? Kevin McE (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a) it's a sledgehammer and b) you save a character by removing the second acronym and the defining instance "(RAM)" in lieu of "Academy". I'd support "Academy". --Izno (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

There's more evidence now than there has been at any time during my four-year tenure that article editors and ERRORS people aren't getting along with each other. (And of course, that puts me in an impossible position.) On the subject of the moment: I remove acronyms like this one from blurbs at least 9 times out of 10. There were several reasons why I left this one in, but it wouldn't bother me at all to remove it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No other comments so far, so I'll change it to "Academy" (knowing that some will insist on "academy", eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Februari

The schedule for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2019 is still empty. Should I start worrying? -DePiep (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the 12th of JANUARY. Give it a bit. I don't schedule my months nearly as early as others, because I found out that if I schedule too early, I get folks who don't request things until later in the month upset. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS#TFA tomorrow

Asking for feedback. It would probably be better to reply at WP:ERRORS, but there may be an issue that people prefer not to comment there ... if so, it's fine to comment here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm always inclined to disregard any complaint made by Kevin McE unless a non-troll editor also raises the same complaint. As far as I can tell, his recent contribution history consists of nothing other than making spurious complaints about the contents of the main page and then having tantrums when they're not acted upon immediately and using his preferred wording exactly. As anyone who has WP:ERRORS watchlisted can confirm, our legitimate readers aren't shy about pointing things out when something is genuinely confusing or inaccurate, but a couple of regulars take pride in competing to see who can waste the most editor time with frivolous complaints. ‑ Iridescent 16:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on this? - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Including the current wording under discussion for context in case it changes:

The railroad, which became operational in 1950, was 2,615 feet (797 m) long and encircled his house. It attracted visitors who rode and occasionally drove the miniature train. In 1953, after a guest was injured in an accident, the railroad was closed to the public. It inspired Disney to include an encircling railroad in the design for Disneyland in Anaheim, California.

I personally can't believe any reader would think this implies that the accident inspired Disney to include a railroad at Disneyland, but agree that if one was being really pedantic about grammar one could argue that the current wording makes this claim. Switching the last two sentences around, so it reads:

The railroad, which became operational in 1950, was 2,615 feet (797 m) long and encircled his house. It attracted visitors who rode and occasionally drove the miniature train. It inspired Disney to include an encircling railroad in the design for Disneyland in Anaheim, California. In 1953, after a guest was injured in an accident, the railroad was closed to the public.

would solve the issue but mean that the blurb is no longer strictly chronological if that's important to you (the accident was in 1953, the Disneyland Railroad at Disneyland opened in 1955 although presumably the blueprints had already been drawn up prior to 1953). Alternatively, changing "It inspired" to "The railroad inspired" would remove any ambiguity, but at the cost of having the word "railroad" appear seven times in a single blurb.

Per my initial comment, unless anyone else complains I'd be strongly inclined to do nothing. Kevin McE thrives on playing this "well, technically this could be ambiguous even though it's obvious to readers what's meant" smartassery game, and every time someone makes an edit in response to his trolling it just encourages him to keep doing it. ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Kevin makes more comments in every other section at ERRORS than he makes in the TFA section, so my take is that whatever happens with Kevin, it's mostly about the other sections, not about TFA, and I don't want to get involved in those fights one way or the other. I think your argument is reasonable that acting in a friendly or encouraging way will be seen as taking sides, and I'll try to keep my reactions low-key and conservative. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Things escalated overnight. Please see WT:Main Page/Errors#TFA again. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent: I believe that if it is worth maintaining a main portal to Wikipedia, it is worth making that page the best it can be, including clarity of expression, good use of English and proper adherence to Wiki policies. If there is a problem with that, please let me know.

More specifically, provide three other examples of my " playing this "well, technically this could be ambiguous even though it's obvious to readers what's meant" smartassery game" upon which I apparently thrive, or withdraw and apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Here, here, pretty much everything here, here, here, here, here, here in the past week; you can find more of the same by picking at random from the 1500 comments you've made at WP:ERRORS (160 of which are in the past 30 days). It surely can't come as a shock to you that you have a reputation as an obsessive crank. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe one of those meets your characterisation. You still haven't explained what the problem with trying to catch what should, as Johnbod points out below, have been filtered out long before things are listed for Main Page inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have appointed yourself as filterer-in-chief, it is you who should be doing it at an earlier stage, say once a hook is approved, when it is pretty certain to be on the main page. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that includes my personal example (first one) though I must say the level of unreasonableness varies greatly. Isn't the real point that the way DYK works, and I expect all the other processes too, means that all these points could and should have been raised, and if necessary addressed, days or even weeks before, at the first stage of the process, without the last minute drama (especially unwelcome over the holiday period). Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

More escalation, this time at WT:ERRORS. Help! - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

As a regular, mostly silent, reader of Talk:Main Page, I would judge that Kevin's comments are valid and helpful more often than not. In the above example, although the supposed ambiguity can be dismissed with a bit of thought, nevertheless the aim of good writing should be to avoid even the momentary ambiguity (which struck me too). Likewise trivial errors in punctuation are worth correcting because they can hinder smooth, effortless parsing of the sentence. I can understand others wishing that the comments had been made earlier in the process, but I would nevertheless urge them to view such error reports as well intentioned. On the other hand, those that make their error reports late should not complain too loudly if sometimes nobody jumps to make the corrections in time. We should all have understanding that these sorts of errors are easy to make and hard to spot in one's own writing; and also that there may be valid differences of opinion about which version reads better. My impression has been that the discussions mostly run smoothly and constructively, which is a tribute to those regularly involved.

A subsidiary point is that if I see that someone has already made an error report, I wouldn't normally add an "I agree" comment below it. So one should not jump to the conclusion that no one agrees with Kevin's error reports. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No offence, but if you don't comment on the matter then nobody is going to assume you support the point. If it worked that way then WP:CONSENSUS would be unworkable because almost any fringe point of view could claim to be supported by hoards of silent bystanders who didn't think they needed to say "I agree". Kevin does sometimes make good suggestions, but I agree with Iridescent that they are rather drowned out by the frivolous matter-of-opinion style points. It does make it difficult to sort the things that make sense from those that shouldn't be actioned.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)