Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cassianto (talk | contribs) at 08:33, 20 June 2014 (→Calm after the storm...well, sort of!: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ever wondered who chooses which article is going to be "Today's Featured Article" (TFA) on the main page? Well – with the assistance of the community at the TFA requests page – that'd be me as "TFA coordinator". If you have a query about a TFA that has already been picked, please ask away; if you have a query about a TFA that you'd like to be picked, or the TFA selection process, I'll do my best to help. I have limited time and ability to edit Misplaced Pages at weekends, so for anything urgent that's TFA-related you'll need to go somewhere else, such as WT:TFAR or WP:ANI.

WP:TFLS

I just saw your comments at the TFL submissions page, and they reflect the biggest weakness in the process right now. We simply don't have anybody reviewing the blurbs or related lists, and after a while I just have to pick lists to run or we won't have a twice-weekly TFL. I try to do what I can to fix issues that I see, but there's only so much one editor can do and problems are bound to creep in with the current approach. The list you mentioned on WT:TFL a while back is evidence of that. If you or any of your talk page followers want to help out, I'd be thankful for any assistance that can be provided, from TFL reviews to writing an occasional blurb. It's hard for me to fault Neelix when nobody else before him was writing many blurbs, and I do have other areas of interest here that suck up my editing time, from article maintenance and improvements to occasional big projects and even the odd attempt at an impossible FAR save. That probably isn't helping matters, but it's the way I'm wired. Anyway, I wanted to say that I understand your concerns and hope that more people become active at TFL, though I'm not holding my breath given site-wide trends. I'll say something to Neelix at TFLS as soon as I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You have my deep sympathy, as I am in the equivalent position to you and although TFAR is more active than TFLS, I still end up choosing about 55% of the TFAs completely off my own bat, without even the luxury of a uncommented-upon nomination! You are to be commended for your hard work at TFLS - it is a thankless task, so I proffer my thanks to you! That there are so few major issues at TFL is due to your hard work and also that of Neelix, of course, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved.

TFAR has always had a rule that nominations should be no more than a month in advance, but it has a "pending" list WP:TFARP where dated-related suggestions can be left for the following year. TFARP is non-binding on anyone but at least allows someone to put down a marker that such-and-such a list might be good for next December, and acts as a polite request to people not to nominate/select it before then. I wonder whether either or both points would help.

Having a turnover of nominations is a good thing, I think - if a couple of slots are effectively out of action for months because they're for dates much later in the year, or even next year, then activity slows and the opportunity for people to nominate/comment reduces. I've resisted suggestions that TFAR should allow nominations two months in advance for precisely this reason.

Putting a "congratulations on your FA - how about TFA?" note – {{FA congrats}} – does bring in new suggestions particularly for recent FAs. Would that be something worth doing for FLC?

Would you like me to add a note to the TFA messages about TFLS? Would you like to call for volunteers at WT:TFAR?

Best wishes, Bencherlite 20:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of TFARP in theory, but it requires nominators to get the word out about date-relevant lists. Do we at TFL have enough interested editors for that? I'm not sure. One or two of the future lists are probably going to be scheduled soon, just to get them out of the way. Maybe a TFL pending page that lists approved future blurbs could be a way to go; it's impractical for TFA, but a twice-weekly process probably can get away with it. The note looks like it has some potential, and I might bring that up at FLC/TFL once my current work clears up. Finally, I'd love for a TFLS message to be posted at TFA. There is some crossover in the processes, and even attracting one regular reviewer would be an improvement over the current situation. Perhaps we'll even learn a new trick or two to improve the quality of lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agree about attracting at least one regular reviewer... too many nominations are being closed for a lack of activity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Lil' help

Greetings, user Bencherlite. Some time ago you proved helpful in an edit war involving the article on the German Battleship Bismarck. Even though the ultimate consensus there (following your involvement) was to accept some form of the edit I had originally been trying to make I ended up just walking away because the whole thing had become too frustrating...as I have basically in every single similar situation I've found myself in here as they have come up.

After while one just ends up walking away, not just from conflicts but Misplaced Pages. Six years and nearly 17,000 edits in I'd rather not, but am stymied again and ask you for your help. Please see the edits to the Packard V-1650 article and Talk page.

Please also note that contrary to his most recent post at Talk user BilCat did not take the discussion there, resisted engaging there, has ignored repeated indications the content at question has been edited since it was initially excised and relocated, and resorted to derisive edit summaries at the article page prior.

Thanks in advance. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikiuser100, sorry not to reply earlier - I'll try and have a look later. Bencherlite 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FAR

Hello again. We're making some nice progress in addressing the issues that you rightly brought up when you started the FAR. I'm not going to say it's fully ready for you to have another look at it yet, but it's getting there. It still needs a copy-edit run-through, the lead could stand to be expanded, and I haven't yet checked for dead links. However, the article looks quite a bit better than it did when the FAR started. Is it okay if I ping you when I feel the article is ready for a deeper inspection? Keep in mind that I don't regularly work on soccer/football articles, so there might be issues that I'm not factoring in because I lack strong familiarity with how similar pages are supposed to be structured. You're probably more in tune with that than I am. I'd better go now, because England just shanked a corner kick and I don't want you to think I'm jinxing your country's team. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 23:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008, no rush on the FAR as far as I'm concerned, although your continuing ability to jinx English football is more of a worry... Bencherlite 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, jazz albums aren't really my thing but I'll try and have a look at the article even if I don't comment at the FAC. Bencherlite 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Calm after the storm...well, sort of!

Marie escaped with relative ease from the trolls, vagabonds, and filthy vandals on yesterday's main page. In contrast to my other FA's, she had a lot less attention, but received more constructive edits and praise especially from people like John and Profhum, for which I am truly humbled. Let's be honest, if John thinks the article is good, then I must be doing something right! Who knows, maybe I am warming to TFA once again. Hope your well! Cassianto 11:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, excellent stuff and glad to hear it. Of course, there was a quasi-complaint that it was good to see a woman on the main page but it was the wrong type of woman ("unfortunately today you have a female entertainer who was sexy which is pretty trite... most women in the mainstream limelight are attractive or sexy." You can't win in this game... Bencherlite 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my lord, the things people complain about! Maybe this would have satisfied her instead, then again... Cassianto 08:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)