Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:40, 26 December 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 13.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:TFAR

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

High importance FA's that have yet to be featured at TFA

Views (K) Links Product Title

511 82 41902 Brad Pitt

373 106 39538 Elvis Presley

448 84 37632 Angelina Jolie

359 86 30874 Madonna (entertainer)

229 119 27251 Olympic Games

263 95 24985 Richard Nixon

267 86 22962 FC Barcelona

238 76 18088 Liverpool F.C.

272 60 16320 David Bowie

380 38 14440 Guy Fawkes

318 42 13356 The Notorious B.I.G.

365 31 11315 2012 phenomenon

216 40 8640 Jenna Jameson

267 32 8544 CM Punk

169 50 8450 Gwen Stefani

122 54 6588 Manhattan Project

142 41 5822 Tool (band)

75 68 5100 Titan (moon)

133 37 4921 Tourette syndrome

117 42 4914 Roger Waters

121 39 4719 Final Fantasy

184 25 4600 Firefly (TV series)

69 65 4485 General relativity

109 38 4142 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

64 56 3584 Aston Villa F.C.

43 79 3397 Rutherford B. Hayes

64 52 3328 John, King of England

39 80 3120 Chester A. Arthur

84 37 3108 Pixies

70 44 3080 Bart Simpson

155 19 2945 Guy Fawkes Night

41 70 2870 Kuiper belt

89 29 2581 Maggie Gyllenhaal

72 35 2520 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia

54 46 2484 Windsor Castle

91 26 2366 Final Fantasy XIII

71 33 2343 Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)

43 53 2279 George II of Great Britain

62 35 2170 The Kinks

35 60 2100 Common Raven

68 30 2040 The Mummy (1999 film)

55 36 1980 Ernest Shackleton

56 34 1904 Audioslave

40 46 1840 Scotland national football team

66 26 1716 Amazing Grace

60 27 1620 Nick Drake

52 29 1508 Messiah (Handel)

19 79 1501 Common Blackbird

32 45 1440 Richard II of England

35 40 1400 Columbia River

29 48 1392 Mauna Kea

32 42 1344 The Simpsons Movie

69 19 1311 Australian Cattle Dog

42 30 1260 Kid A

24 51 1224 Greater Manchester

20 59 1180 Georges Bizet

39 29 1131 In Rainbows

46 24 1104 Omaha Beach

45 24 1080 Halo 3

24 44 1056 Anfield

79 13 1027 Hanged, drawn and quartered

38 27 1026 By the Way

35 29 1015 Bill Russell

32 29 928 Final Fantasy VIII

32 29 928 Final Fantasy VIII

38 24 912 Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

38 24 912 Zodiac (film)

32 28 896 John A. Macdonald

29 30 870 The Final Cut (album)

47 17 799 Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

21 36 756 Battle of Moscow

32 23 736 Kingdom Hearts II

52 14 728 Ico

40 18 720 Connie Talbot

34 21 714 Halo 2

35 20 700 Steve Bruce

25 28 700 Covent Garden

29 24 696 Nancy Cartwright

33 21 693 Resident Evil 2

25 27 675 Age of Mythology

23 28 644 Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings

29 22 638 George B. McClellan

49 13 637 Slow loris

25 25 625 Turkey Vulture

26 24 624 Final Fantasy IX

25 24 600 S.H.E

26 23 598 Final Fantasy XI

22 27 594 Planets beyond Neptune

45 13 585 Limbo (video_game)

64 9 576 Donner Party

36 16 576 Animaniacs

19 30 570 Loggerhead sea turtle

46 12 552 Rumours

23 24 552 Star Trek: First Contact

60 9 540 Only Fools and Horses

25 21 525 Mumia Abu-Jamal

40 13 520 Austin Nichols

32 16 512 Carnivàle

39 13 507 Nancy Drew

19 26 494 Stephen Crane

27 18 486 Dreadnought

44 11 484 Master Chief (Halo)

22 22 484 Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

22 21 462 American Airlines Flight 77

23 20 460 School Rumble

35 13 455 Battle of Vimy Ridge

30 15 450 The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

24 18 432 Appaloosa

31 13 403 Under the Bridge

21 19 399 Sideshow Bob

28 14 392 Surrender of Japan

20 19 380 Barton Fink

20 19 380 Halo Wars

21 17 357 Australian Defense Force

22 14 308 Jarome Iginla

22 13 286 Loveless (album)

23 12 276 Supernatural (season 1)

20 13 260 Roberto Luongo

20 12 240 Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

21 11 231 Disintegration (The Cure album)

21 11 231 Sebastian Shaw (actor)

21 11 231 Texas Tech University

22 9 198 Supernatural (season 2)

30 6 180 Superman in film

37 2 74 Myles Standish

20 3 60 Morgan dollar

32 1 32 The Apprentice (UK TV series)

26 0,1 2,6 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettrig (talk • contribs)

Mmmm, very interesting. I suspect that many editors could produce completely different lists of their top 100 FAs which have not featured on the main page. It all depends on what each individual considers to be "high importance". Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just making a guess here but he is probably going by the 'high importance' parameter in WikiProject banners. Ed  09:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A spotcheck of several of these shows that the project importance rating does not figure, it may be mid or low for many of these examples. Perhaps it is to do with the "Product" obtained by multiplying the number of views per month by the number of interwiki links. In any case the list appears to be highly subjective. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that list shows FAs that don't need to be featured on the main page - judging by the page views readers have no problem finding them. Yomangani 10:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not write that headline. I do agree with it though. Enormous numbers of pageviews show that these articles are of interest. The number of interwikilinks are much fewer, but still, in most cases they are much higher than the number of votes on typical items here. Each such wikilink represents at least one peer wikipedian who thought this was an important subject. In short: The votes are already in. Although the pagevies are already very high, the overlap with main page viewers is most probably rather low, can safely be assumed to be random. --Ettrig (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I link to articles when they're relevant, not when they're ready for TFA... so really, it's not a vote. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 12:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear signal that this is what they think is important in a Misplaced Pages. Someone wrote the article on the other side. But I think the pageviews are more important because of the enormous numbers. The lowest figures here correspond to a rate of more than 200,000 per year. Huge crowds have told us what they think is important to them. Who are we to say they should have something else? --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, huge crowds have told us that they can already find what they want without the articles needing exposure on the main page. If the intersection of the main page views and the views of these articles can "safely be assumed to be random" then the people viewing the main page and the viewers of these articles aren't necessarily the same audience and therefore we shouldn't assume the preferences of these viewers are the preferences of the main page viewers. Basically, these figures alone show only that these articles get a lot of views and have a lot of wikilinks. Yomangani 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I (re)wrote it, sorry. The meaning I saw was highly-viewed articles, articles that are of more importance to be featured than Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895), but may or may not make it onto WP:VA. Buggie111 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So we should have popular culture articles, predominantly biographies, about topics people are very familiar with, dominating TFA? I much prefer the current system. I'm far more likely to be interested in a TFA about a subject I'm not familiar with. The current system gives us a lovely esoteric mix and encourages editors to edit and readers to broaden horizons. Spiced with a good helping of popular culture. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller. TFAR is for editors who would like to see an article featured on a specific day as opposed to a randomly selected one when it eventually gets to shine on the front page, because it shines more for whatever reason (usually as the result of an anniversary). This usually results in a few requests a month, with the vast majority being picked by Raul or Dabomb from the rest of the available selections. This arbitrary definition of importance isn't really a necessary list for TFAR. If people want to see an article they worked hard on featured on a specific day that has some importance to the subject, then this is the venue to let Raul and Dabomb know. Articles that are fairly generic in regards to date importance can be featured on any day; it makes no difference to the quality of the main page or TFA. The beauty of Misplaced Pages is that everything has the potential to become featured if enough work is put into it; whether that be Bart Simpson or Saturn, to a species of lemur or a U2 song. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't put too much weight on the links (do they include template ones?), but high views are important. I also see at least one article (Toutette's Syndrome) where the main editor doesn't want it to be TFA. But what should we do with the other 20-odd with over 100K views, given the generally accepted lower rate of such articles passing FAC these days? Feature them all over a short period or hoard them up? Such articles are also more likely to have deteriorated since promotion, through the usual wear & tear of WP. The list (or at least the views part) is interesting, & I hope Raul will take it into account into his selection process for days with nothing fixed by the process here. I don't find much weight in the "well people can find it anyway argument". Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One point that hasn't yet been raised is that, of course, every article is only ever featured on the main page once (the one time that was an exception, with Barack Obama being run for the second time in conjunction with the McCain article on the day of the US federal election, I believe Raul made it clear that it was a one-off event that would not be repeated). If these top 100 articles are featured in, say, the next 200 days*, that means we've run all of our highest-importance articles (by these criteria). Where then are we left? Right back where we are now, but with much fewer high-importance articles to run at later dates.

*Of course I recognize that such a scenario is extremely unlikely. But if hypothetically Raul and Dabomb do draw almost exclusively from this list for every date on which there is no specific feature request, it will become exhausted quite quickly. If we run the highest viewed and linked articles now, we will have none to feature a couple of years from now, meaning that every TFA would be for an article judged to be 'unimportant' by these criteria. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm responsible for two and a half of these listed articles: Amazing Grace and Mulholland Drive (film). As "Amazing Grace" is the second most widely used avenue for proselytizing in Christianity and it gets performed about 10 million times a year, there's just no way that topic needs more attention. And unless you're watching Mulholland Dr. while you're reading the article, it's naught but confusion from the bold text at the start to the Rate this page box at the bottom. Donner Party I was tangentially involved in and leave the choice to run it up to the other editors who wrote that one. I would like none of them on the main page. It's not necessary to place them there and unless you've had the honor anxiety ... filler word ... of running an article on the main page of a very highly viewed topic, similar to what To Kill a Mockingbird saw on its main page day, it's an experience that is often not fun; it's the primary reason I will never try to get the Lesbian article to FA. I've told Raul my wishes and he's honored them so far. I'm reiterating it here, as a response to this misguided emphasis on highly viewed topics at TFA. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we are opponents over this issue. But first I want to express my deep respect for and gratitude to you for having created 2,5 of these articles that I consider extremely valuable for Misplaced Pages. (1) I find it difficult to interpret this passage: unless you're watching Mulholland Dr. while you're reading the article, it's naught but confusion. Does it mean that the article is difficult to understand? In that case it should not have the FA stamp. (2) I've told Raul my wishes and he's honored them so far. In my view something hase gone very wrong here. My most likely interpretation is that you are claiming ato have a say over what happens to a Misplaced Pages article and this is being honored by a very influential person in the Misplaced Pages community. This strikes me as contrary to central values in the Misplaced Pages community. (3) misguided adds nothing to the argument. That word just says that it is obvious that you are right. --Ettrig (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, I guess you haven't seen Mulholland Drive...it's an unusual movie to say the least. I'd counter that Moni is being practical about article erosion while on the mainpage and feeling reluctant at the prospect of dealing with it. Much of it is about courtesy to folks who've put in alot of wrk but also might have very practical reasons why a particular point in time is not good for an article to be on the mainpage. There is a discussion on Mary Anning elsewhere that is pertinent and a good example. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My central aim is that writers should be encouraged to write about important topics. If TFA has a discouraging aspect, then that is of course very important to take into account. --Ettrig (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The people who write FAs are telling you that an article appearing on main page is often a disincentive. Personally, I disagree - I've been delighted when some of my FAs have appeared there, but if our paramount aim is encouraging editors to produce FAs, we need a flexible system. Which we have. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not opponents. This is not a game or battle. It's pretty obvious to me that I'm right, and that confidence comes from my experience working in FAs and other high-quality articles. I think the emphasis on putting high-volume articles on the main page is certainly misguided and I have no idea where the energy behind it comes from. It seems completely illogical to me why editors are focusing on this, and I really don't understand why editors who have never written any kind of FA are pushing for it.

This is the basic issue: high volume articles are very difficult to get to any high quality status because the majority of editors on Misplaced Pages are completely unfamiliar with the amount of work, research, and editing it takes to get an article there, even for minor articles. So many editors work on high-volume articles that it is counterproductive to attempt to improve them. The true problem here is converting the masses of editors who don't work on high quality articles (not high-volume) so that it becomes a much less combative or problematic atmosphere to work. Pushing for high-volume articles on the main page isn't just putting a cart before a horse, it's harnessing a rhino to a sundial and pushing it in any direction other than the one we should be going toward. Every last editor and volunteer on this site should know how to do the most basic stuff to get an article to FA. There should be at least 20 editors discussing and improving high-volume articles in cooperation, each of them using the best sources, discussing how best to present the information, and collaborating on this collaborative encyclopedia. But that doesn't happen. It's just one or two editors on small articles because that's the reality. And if you think I have too much influence over an article appearing on the main page--you're harnessing another rhino to a sundial. You do realize that because I'm the only editor shaping the articles I've written, that I have enormous influence over what goes into them, right? Whether they go on the main page is so not the issue. I'm the only editor shaping information about the topics I've written about because I'm the only editor willing to do any of the work to improve them. I should not nor do I want to have that responsibility. This is back to the real problem here: this site needs to make it abundantly clear that every last editor should be reading sources and discussing content on a meaningful level, not delegating tasks to an overburdened minority. We're taking the lowest amount of work from volunteers because we don't expect anything better of them. This needs to stop and it's not going to if we don't challenge all editors to increase their standards in what they do here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out three problems with your previous entry in this discussion. This answer repeats some of them and does nothing to clear out those problems. Such behaviour makes discussion impossible. --Ettrig (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You and I are not having the same discussion. I'm addressing real problems on Misplaced Pages and you are manufacturing solutions to no problem at all. In that light, this does indeed make constructive dialogue difficult. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In a reference work it should be no surprise that some subjects get searched for more frequently than others. But do people go to the mainpage because they hope that today's topic will be the thing that they were about to search for, or do they go there to read an interesting example of some of Misplaced Pages's best work? I'm rather inclined to think the latter, I wouldn't go so far as to exclude widely read articles from the mainpage, but personally I prefer TFA to be one I would otherwise be unlikely to read. ϢereSpielChequers 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot request

I've filed a request for approval for a bot to keep WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page up to date. See WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 5. Ucucha (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Christmas Day

Just a couple of ideas - Flame Robin or Red-capped Robin. Technically neither of them are related to the European Robin which is generally associated with Christmas (at least in the UK, I don't know whther it is in the US), so there'd be no date points, but it's the only articles I can see at the moment with a loose connection (other than the aforementioned Hankey). I don't have time to write a blurb at the moment, but can do so tonight if people think either of these are worth pursuing. Any thoughts?  An optimist on the run! 09:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments, I've nominated Red-capped Robin.  An optimist on the run! 16:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What counts as a vital article?

For something to count as a 'vital article', does it need to be in the original vital article list, or does the expanded list count? Kaldari (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck? Malleus Fatuorum 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Charming. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously someone "gives a fuck", as you so charmingly put it, otherwise they wouldn't be asking the question. Please don't take out your frustrations on the rest of us.  An optimist on the run! 06:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just don't want to annoy people by counting the points wrong, but I guess I'll annoy people by asking inane questions instead :P Kaldari (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it an inane question, and I'm sorry I don't have an answer for you but I don't use the request page very often. To be honest though, I don't think point scoring is as important as it used to be a couple of years or so back. From what I've seen, there's rarely 5 articles in the date specific queue, so little risk of requests being "bumped".  An optimist on the run! 07:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since our page plainly links here, and not to the expanded page, I don't understand the question. Are you proposing that we change our requirement for additional points to encompass the expanded page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I was simply asking for clarification, since there are 4 levels of vital articles. I take it from your reply that only levels 1-3 are used for the scoring (i.e. not the expanded list). Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests/Archive_10#Vital_articles. That discussion resulted in no consensus to limit what counts as a vital article for TFA points to the top 1000. I would probably take that discussion to imply that the expanded list can be used, but the discussion doesn't really definitively say that the expanded list is the one that is used. I'm also not sure if any more discussion about this has happened since then. Calathan (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The expanded page didn't exist when we first made the rule. I think that including the expanded page as part of the definition of a Vital Article would follow the spirit behind the rule. We should change in the criteria to accommodate. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Long range suggestion

I know it is a bit ahead of schedule - but CS Lewis on the 50th anniversary of his death, as 'the other anniversary' will be all over the place (TV, commemorative newspapers and magazines, rent-a-conspiracy etc). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats almost two years from now, it first need to be FA. and a month before the actual date you can run it on TFA process.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)