Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 12

src: jech.bmj.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 12

10 years warning

Anyone interested in getting the status of Wikipedia to FA and then become the leading article today for the 10th anniversary on January 15, 2011? There is not much time, but I think if a group of good editors work hard for this, we can make it happen. Even if it is not Wikipedia artile, we should find some other relevant articles for the birthday. Remember (speak) 18:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Raul has explained that this is one of several articles that will never be a TFA; In addition, we have a policy that has not had a self-reference article on the main page (that's why Simple Review is unceremoniously pulled out of DYK when it ever creeps in.)., -a, colorful 19:08, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Even for the 10th anniversary. I felt like it was a reasonable day to be on the main page. OK. Raul, is this still your view? Remember (speak) 19:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as TFA, no. I think it will confuse everyone. We did need something special for the day. I will see... wacky wacey w/wont <19 font color = "gray"> wace 19: 27, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

No time. Realistically, the scope article will take weeks to rewrite and polish, then there's the review process, and I'll anticipate the crazy FAC. - Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I've tried. Remember (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Other ideas

So I did some poking around to try and find out if any other suitable FA currently exists for 10 years anniversay. Unfortunately, everything I have has its disadvantages. Here's what I found. Remember (talk) 15:00, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Truth - This seems like a good way to honor the 10th anniversary and shows that we do not take ourselves too seriously. Unfortunately, it's already on the main page once, but I think it's going to be excluded.

EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica - It's been an FA, but it's been on the main page before. It was back in 2007 so maybe an exception can be made in this case. Not sure if it will be seen as an insult to Britinica though.

The Guardian of Education - well, the name is good, but it really has nothing to do with wikipedia or encyclopaedia, but as I said, I like the name. It's also already in the main page.

Anekantavada - the philosophical idea that the idea that truth and reality are perceived differently from different perspectives, and that none of the views is complete truth. But already in the main page.

The Age of Reason - again, I like the title name, but it's already displayed on the main page.

The philosophy of mind - rather related but also already on the main page.

Mind? Remember (talk) 15:00, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Each instance you provide has become a TFA, and therefore is not eligible; we never run any item anywhere from the main page twice, and this is certainly not an important enough event to guarantee an exception; In addition to the few hundred people involved in Wikipedia itself, no one in the wider world would know or care about this birthday. (Anyway, a bit weak, Wikipedia gradually gradually from Bomis, and has no such "start date." If every date has a claim as its 10th anniversary, it is March 9, 2000 - when Nupedia is aired - and birthday that has passed.) Ã, -Ã, colorful 20:17, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia was officially launched January 15, 2001. A little under a month until that date. What is Raul's objection to using Wikipedia as TFA? Sincerely, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:37, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Multicolour, it's clear you and I are different. I think you think that the ten-year anniversary of the official launch date is a less important event and therefore does not deserve special recognition in any way on the main page, while I feel that this is an important event. for wikipedia and we should try to celebrate it in a fun way by acknowledging some FA associated with the project in some way on the main page. I doubt there's anything we can do to bridge this gap, but I assume if someone comes with an FA that has not been shown on the main page before, you will not mind, right? I would also prefer to have an FA that is not already on the main page before that has relevance to this project, but I am not sure it will be possible. If that is the case, I would rather do something important to wikipedia than just have a random video game character that was respected that day. Remember (speak) 22:24, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Where is it written that TFA can never repeat? I honestly can not find it. DC T o C 04:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I do not think I've seen it in writing either. I know the featured images can be displayed on the main page multiple times. If we discuss an already TFA article, I would suggest The Million Dollar Homepage and PowerBook 100 as an idea. wacky wace 16:56, 21 December 2010 ( UTC)

Under "Adding Request" at the top of the project page, first sentence.-- Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas?

so does anyone have any other ideas for the 10 year anniversary? Unless we break the rules and display the article twice, there is no other idea. Remember (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend running the best articles on the most important subject we can find, just to show what Wikipedia can do.-- Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

ok. Any suggestions on what to expect? Remember (speak) 03:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to advise. But of course people can see the list and see what they consider the most important of the FA who have not TFA.-- Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at new promotions, what about Speed ​​of light? The basic concept is good, well written or will not exist and is symbolic in a way... - Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Another idea to run for a birthday that has varying degrees of symbolism or satire about Wikipedia/information/the encyclopedia: The Magic Story, Sweet Tracks, Takes Us Together, Definition of the Planet, or Gang Press. None of this has anything to do with Wikipedia at all, the titles just seem provoked. --SkotyWA ^T _C 03:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we run the current 10 FAs that are already on the main page, selected to highlight the WP range: history, geography, science, biography, music, popular culture, etc. The code can be used to generate a random view of 10 (as done with Obama-McCain 2TFA days), and the TFA box can have additional sentences that say what's happening today. I know this violates two "rules" (no repetition, only 1 TFA per day) but 10th birthday seems a good time for IAR. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:28, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! I'll look through WP: FA to find some important articles, but I think, if this is what we're going to do, Earth is definitely the one I want to include. wace 18:42, January 4, 2011 ( UTC)

Well, maybe it should be cleaned up with Raul, who might have a view on that question. Most likely it is. - Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

I really like this idea, but I agree with Wehwalt that we need to check with Raul to see what he is comfortable doing. Remember (speak) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Composing a completely different home page for a day or two is an interesting idea. I recommend deleting everything except featured content (save TFP, TFA; delete: ITN, DYK, OTD, twin projects, language).

Some ideas for selecting TFA with some unusual features: Oral articles [1], geographic coordinates [2], can even issue feature topics [3], Night of the Living Dead and links to full movies, FA about or displaying Featured Images, comments about getting FA [4], collaborative effort [5]. - Dispenser 22:40, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Placing the top seeded topic on the main page is actually a great idea... it will highlight the power of Wikipedia. EdÃ, ^{[talk] [great titan]} 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- You know, what we can do on the 10th anniversary is removing the superior article altogether and leaving instead messages that talk about the process of leading articles, startups, highlights over the years, etc., and summarize the brief description by leaving links to the category of featured articles and to the prior articles category to invite people to see what we have done in the last 10 years. For images to be used in such descriptions, we can find one of the speech balloons or install a Wikipe-tan photo. In this way, we can include all the articles featured over the years - including those who have held an FA grade assessment but no longer - that will give a richer look to what we have had over the years. As an additional note, we can do theoretically do the same for all parts except the current part of the incident. Spoken for consideration, TomStar81 (Speech) 23:04, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea but wondering if it's too short to set up such a quality essay. There should be a peage for the reader to go behind the description. - Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

What about the letters from Raul (and Sandy?) about the most unusual flagship article? It would be better if the public heard from someone other than Jimbo. The reason I fabricate strange features is that most of our readers 1) come to our site through Google, 2) unaware that we are a user community, and 3) unaware that there are tasks besides editing and writing. - Dispenser 07:30, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

There is no Wikipe-tan, period. Raul will not search for it, I will not, and our user base will probably rebel: P wehwalt, there is no Featured Content Dispute about the history of the FA process some time ago? Why do not we do it, add the necessary updates, and see if it will work? EdÃ, ^{[talk] [great titan]} 09:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the delivery. --SkotyWA ^T _C 16:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What about things like this (obviously with five different articles, not all the same)? wacky wace 17:59, January 10, 2011 ( UTC)

The discussion here is very interesting, but I want more opinions. I started a thread in Talk: Main_Page # 10th_Anniversary_FA. Raul654 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 12

Happy using...

I'm not too familiar with the nomination process, and I realize there's a special event coming to be acknowledged with the right TFA, but I'm seeing a request for TFA recent suggestions on the Main Talk page page so I'm only offering the use of the only FA article that I made up to this point: Rufus Was Judy at Carnegie Hall . If formatting is required, I can find time for it immediately. Nothing very special or noteworthy about the article as far as the date is concerned, but if you need advice I offer one! Ã, :) - Other Believers _{( Talk )} 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You must submit it on the project page. Is there a specific date you want to run? I will be happy to draw up a description for you, that you can cut and paste and use for your nomination.-- Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up! No custom date requests. I will take a closer look at the nomination process. - other Believer _{( Talk )} 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

src: interferencearchive.org

Everyone should install User: Anomie/linkclassifier.js

Hello, all. Just stop by to suggest that the editors install the above script onto their corresponding Monobook/Vector skins. What this does is highlight links to redirecting pages, pages to delete and disambiguation pages by changing the color of links displayed from the standard blue. The latter is the most useful, it identifies where the links do not go to the intended target and must be fixed before boarding in the Main Page. I sometimes catch this showing up on the main page and have to submit a correction in WP: ERROR, this will help the shortcut process. I would suggest this to all editors involved in the FA content process and the Main Page. Regards. Zunaid 08:10, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Australia Day...

Now what we have that is not in the main page that can not be denied is aussie.... Silverchair, Powderfinger.... Telopea speciosissima ... any bankia (there are some).... one of the currawong, Ã, Â · Black-tailed Red Cockatoo, Ã, Â · Kakatua Ã, Â · Willie Wagtail Ã, Â · Black Cockatoo with yellow tail... Raul, if you watch, just choose something Aussie. I do not know what looks most aussie for O/S editor... Casliber (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 13:45, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if I agree there should be a themed article to a country on national day... every year, every country speaks English. BTW, I hope Raul will save Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 for the funeral of either Whitlam or Fraser. First - Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, or maybe get a King-Byng Affair up to FA and press Raul to another double TFA on the anniversary of the signing of the Statute of Westminster. Ã, :) Resolute 02:38, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

• If necessary, there is no social or ethnic politics. Invasion Day is a politicized statement in Australia. But wikis are not supposed to commemorate citizenship. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 01:44, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

No bio article is political... can try to have something more topical for next year. Casliber (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• if it really should be Australian-themed, which of course I strive for, physical geography, flora or fauna would be better. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 03:02, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

• it does not have to be really anything, but usually the 4th of July has a US theme. Cas has just asked if Raul will choose a topic that has an Australian theme but because the nature of the mentioned topic has no date related claims to get a chance to ask for the main page, some of the articles highlight it where more than two years ago. Wikipedia rely solely on vlunteers I do not see anything wrong with anyone requesting a date that nationally means to have articles relevant to the country, whether March 14, July 4, January 26. Gnangarra 03:23, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

src: interferencearchive.org

After the article has become a Featured Article, can it become FA again? !?

After the article has become a Featured Article can never be FA again?!? Even years later? That's crazy. Who decides this? Why should they decide? Why is such information so impossible to find before you have trouble editing and posting nominations? - Eric CableÃ, | Ã, Discussion 19:42, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the instruction is "The article should not be displayed as a Selected Articles Today". It's hardly "impossible to find". And no, there is no possibility that this policy will change. iridescent 19:59, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Raul and I also answered on Eric's talk page, FWIW, where he posted the same question. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:01, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the rules, but when it comes to Wikipeida, "never say never". I am not at all against the rule if there is a special situation, but I do not see the 100th anniversary of the birth of a former president being special. Firmly 21:34, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

It happened with Barack Obama, but in that case the article has changed dramatically (first shown in 2004, then with John McCain on Election Day 2008.) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:58, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Alberta

Although I am not opposed to articles about my home province displayed on the homepage, I should note that articles related to Alberta are scheduled to appear twice in a row, on February 10 & amp; 11. 117Avenue (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

MAOR CANADACRUFT. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

PS - in all seriousness, I do it deliberately because I find it funny, but I do not really think of Albertosaurus as a Canadian in any meaningful way. Raul654 (talk) 21:03, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to raise a mill for some of Diefenbaker's articles again, then. Already thinking of doing one on his legal career... (though he is from Saskatchewan) - Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite funny :) 117Avenue (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I suggest anything, but I just feel like I'm linking some selected articles randomly selected here. Prince Albert Victor, Duke Clarence and Avondale, Albert Bridge, London, Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield, Tropical Storm Alberto (2006). --Noren (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Temple temple temple

The Temple of Eshmun, The Temple at Thatch, and the Temple of Israel are scheduled on consecutive days, so regular readers can see the repetition just by looking at the main page. Many articles starting with L in December are one thing, but I really do not think all words should be repeated like this. A. Parrot (talk) 03:42, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you want from this page? I do not think that TFARÃ! Choose an order like that; with no suggestions (and this page has not been active in the past month or so), Raul has to take it himself, and a little "spot the sequence" will not hurt anyone. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:05, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Raul has done a number of such short strides since about November. I do not see any damage to them. - Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed the pattern and found it strange, mainly because it did not seem to connect to anything (ie Month of the National Temple!). But why is every attention brought to the attention of the Wikipedia community seem to be filled with the attitude of "if you do not like it, you should do X"? Wikipedia may be largely populated by technology enthusiasts, but it is still an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Rather than trying to get everyone to learn more about Wikipedia, why not try to make Wikipedia more accessible to everyone? That is. how do people even get to this page? In addition to searching, the fastest way I can tell is to open the 'Discussions' tab on the Home Page (tabs that some people do not know), find the Home page toolbox, and find the appropriate links for the suggestions. If there is a faster way, I do not know about it and I may not be the only one. Maybe that's the reason there's not much activity here yet. Why is this page not linked at the bottom of the Featured Articles section? And if there's a better place to put this criticism, I'm sorry, but it's not clear. Warthomp (talk) 23:27, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I do not know, I quite like to see small thematic equations in unrelated articles. This example reminds me a bit of a question from Round Britain Quiz ! However, the TFAR page is linked from the General Articles and Articles page of Today's Option, so it can be fairly easy to find for editors that are related to the process. Bob talk 00:00, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just what I said... it's a closed loop. The only people who know how to find pages to engage in the process are the people who are already involved in the process. Does not that seem like a problem to the general editors? Warthomp (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Every few days, there's a new discussion about the conversation: The main page on some aspects of the leading article of the day. It's not like they're hard to find - I counted 3 as I write this. [1] [2] [3]. Anyone who pays regular attention to the page should have no trouble determining where to go and who to talk to about the FA-related things. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's your page. It seems to me that a reactive system: waiting for someone to question the FA, connecting them to this page, hoping others see it, is not as efficient as trying to make people aware previous questions arise. Just my feedback, take it or leave it. Warthomp (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier if the feature was recently linked instead of the blunt archive: "Recently displayed: Articles 1 - Articles 1 - Articles 1 \ n Emails - More featured articles...". I myself am looking for a TFA list of months on the front page and a blogger using a Wayback Machine instead. - Dispenser 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to reply to, but I think it would be a mistake to add links on the front page, as I suspect it will lead to many good meanings, but nominations without results from non-FA articles. You know such a thing: "today is Valentine's Day, so why not a featured article today?" Etc. There is a link from the talk talk page, the TFA page and the FAC page, so I imagine if anyone is bothered, it's not hard to find it. Bob talk 00:40, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I am amused by this and do not see any harm. Unfortunately Temple University, Temple (anatomy), and Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom are not FA. --Noren (talk) 21:21, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

February 24, 2011

This date sees the 300th anniversary of the premiere, in London, Handel opera Rinaldo . The Rinaldo article is currently starting class, but I have done to try to expand and improve it so it may be a feature before that date and reach the front page on its terentenary. The time is short, and there is no guarantee that I can achieve this, but if I can get the article to the FAC around February 10th, there is a chance. In any case, can this date be held, at least until it is clear that Rinaldo will not work? Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I see that despite my notes, two editors have since installed an alternative TFA nomination for February 24th. I have no prior rights or override this date, and maybe their claim for it is better than me - who knows? - but it would be polite to let me know, remember I destroyed my ball on behalf of Rinaldo against the fast pacing clock. I am not yet in a position to perform counternomination, for the reasons given above, but maybe Raul will refrain from allocating dates until Rinaldo has had a chance at FAC. but I'll wait and see. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to know if they do not read the note here. I know I have not seen it until now. I think I have to withdraw my "non-specific" request because if Raul puts it on the main page before February 24th, you will also get negative points for other operas that are within close range. I'm not interested to see my photos on the main page now - I just see the empty slots. - Andy Walsh (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine they do not see my notes. Personally, I always glance at the list of potential future demand when I consider a date. It is kind of you to consider pulling your own opera request, but this is only necessary until we know Rinaldo destiny. Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not an article?

Since birthday I was wondering if there might be days on the moon for non-FA like FL/FT/FS. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

March 24, 2011

My first attempt at TFA number, so bear with me. :) I want to nominate Joseph Barbera whose 100th birthday is on March 24, 2011. This article seems to get 10 points total:

• 2 points: Promoted 2 years or more ago (29 September 2008)
• 6 points: Centennial Warning (birthday)
• 2 points: Many closed. (cartoon artist, director, producer, etc.)

I have posted articles on Wikipedia: articles/requests/waiting lists today, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done. Any help will be greatly appreciated! Dreadstar ? 17:46, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is good, but subject to Wehwalt who follows the points closer. This paragraph in the instructions applies to a nomination of five or more points:

• History shows that articles with five or more points are almost never replaced. Thus, you have to wait for up to 20 days or less before nominating such articles, to avoid tying the slots for long periods of time, and to allow other articles their chance, so you can place them on the page any time after March 4th. Sandy Georgia (Speak) 17:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, that's good information; I will do that! Dreadstar ? 18:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Rule 2 of the Nonspecific article

I find myself having trouble with rule 2 of "non-specific date articles"; after reading it 3 times and meditating on it, I think I have the ultimate essence. I suggest to rewrite from:

For the purpose of similarity and representation of the main page, the article will be considered nominated for the first seven days without a scheduled TFA, with a fixed point (they will not change) on the first date of the period. If the Director does not schedule the proposed article within this timeframe, it will be considered rejected, and may be replaced with an eligible article, regardless of points. This can also be removed because the majority of votes are against (with at least five votes) 48 hours after the nomination.

untuk

The article's targeted date is the first seven days without the scheduled article after its nomination. Points based on the similarity and representation of the main page are counted as if the article target is the first unscheduled day. If the article is not selected as TFA on an unscheduled seventh day, it will be considered rejected and may be replaced with an eligible article, regardless of points. It can also be removed because it has a majority (by at least five) votes against 48 hours after the nomination.

Is that a clearer presentation of the idea behind rule 2? Jappalang (talk) 00:54, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Just fine with me.-- Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, because there is no conflict for this, Ã, Done . [4] Jappalang (talk) 01:07, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Attention to the FL discussion

Create a proposal to place a Featured List on the main page. Sandy Georgia (Speak) 17:09, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

International Women's Day

If the German women's national football team falls on the low points, some possible replacements for March 8 include: Olivia Manning, Maria: or, The Wrong of Woman, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, and Gwen Stefani. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani will be 4 points. 2 to be promoted over 2 years ago, and 2 for the much discussed. I believe it is the highest number of points from the listed articles. --SkotyWA ^T _C 03:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice from England will also score 4 points in the same way as Gwen Stefani. However, if sports related articles are desirable, may I suggest Masako Katsura, Sandra Morgan, or Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's street contest over the German women's squad. --SkotyWA ^T _C 04:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I initially chose the German women's national soccer team was because it was an article about "women" rather than a single woman (though this was not really an important distinction), and it just happened to be the first FA I found which can be used for holidays. I'm sure Masako Katsura appeared on the main page recently, but other suggestions sounded good. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

On the theme of "not a certain person", I think Maria is a good idea. Shimgray | talk | 19:40, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I also like Maria - I'm not sure of the points, but it seems necessary for Kaldari to revoke her nomination and add Maria herself, if Maria has to run. The football team can be easily scheduled later, perhaps with plenty of support. Smallbones (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there proper rules or etiquette to modify other people's nominations? I think it is clear that Kaldari just wants to nominate an article that includes a woman or group of women for today and not too attached to the nominated one. We have identified two (Gwen Stefani and Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom) who have a higher number of points, but it seems that Mary: or, The Wrong of Woman is the preferred choice. Considering I planned to nominate a football related article (football) for March 19 and that the German women's national soccer team has minus 2 points because a football article runs on February 15, I think the change would be appropriate. I like adjusting the nom, but I do not want to step on foot. --SkotyWA ^T _{C 10:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)}

You can not change other people's nominations just because you think he will not mind unless he really says he will not mind. You can make your own nomination, according to the rules, and change the next one to be replaced, if the article has enough points.-- Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I will support Maria . SlimVirgin ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

With all the wrong or missing media presses in these days on women and Wikipedia, I suspect that Mary may be a better choice, at least in terms of feeding this alleged media representation gender issues. Sandy Georgia (Speak) 17:23, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

I made an original nomination. Please continue and replace with Maria . Due to the release of MediaWiki 1.17, I'm a bit busy right now, otherwise I'll replace it myself. Thank you! Kaldari (talk) 18:04, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Closing comments for the discussion page archive... In following up Kaldari's comments, I transfer the nomination to Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman based on input from this discussion. Then received 8 supporting votes and is scheduled to appear on March 8, International Women's Day. Thanks for all your feedback. --SkotyWA ^T _C 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Many cover

How do I know how many languages ​​have the article version? - TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP: CHICAGO/WP: FOUR) 06:02, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Calculate the interwiki, either in the sidebar at the bottom left of the article, or in edit mode at the bottom of the article near the category. Bencherlite ^Talk 06:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.-- TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP: CHICAGO/WP: FOUR) 19:57, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

This man is a strange measurement for the main page eligibility. CM Punk has 28 interwiki easily escaped and twice more than the inauguration of Barack Obama and Millennium Park, the second largest tourist attraction in Chicago. - TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP: CHICAGO/WP: FOUR) 00:09, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

It was one of a number of suggestions made, and it was one that appealed to Raul. At least it can be measured objectively. Not every plus/minus should measure the same.-- Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

SlimVirgin, I mean this with respect, but can you say what exactly are you accusing me of?

I have rewritten an article about Russell Miller's Hubbard biography and added an academic resource in a number of related articles such as Fair Game (Scientology) and Scientology Security Checklist. I have done a work block that increases the source in the LRH article and should not surprise anyone I plan to rewrite. Also it should not surprise anyone that I am watching that article and take serious time to review the new version as soon as it appears. I was impressed with the quality, relieved that I could concentrate on another article, but - forgive this weakness - disappointed that I would lose the glory of the wiki. Helatrobus uses the Talk article to invite other editors to retrieve it for review, and is a new editor, I think, unfamiliar with the WP review process. I will not send the article to FAC if I do not believe it as part of a professional-quality job. If I think I can do it better, you can bet I will rewrite it.

Editors with a very varied perspective on the subject agree that the article is neutral and well written. Does Wikipedia punish those who bring quality professionals to the contentious areas, because we do not know their true identities? That looks really awesome. I have my own theory of why a highly skilled writer will throw articles into Wikipedia. I keep it for myself because they are irrelevant to 1) whether the article is of professional quality, and 2) whether it is included on the main page on 13 March. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:58, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- actually I do not think you can block L. Ron Hubbard's article from the front page because for one more editing from a month ago because you are suspicious of the editor and have no other complaints about editing. While we at the Scientology page appreciate your concerns, Scientology is one of the most studied parts of the Wikipid, and so far the editors in that section have no problem with editing. You are welcome to browse the logs of forbidden and restricted users covering all issues that have been done by the Scientology section since May 2009 and see if you can find similar editing patterns (required for sockpuppet investigations) or make a s/he claim to be a sole purpose account with agenda to arbcom.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:06, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Um, or Helatrobus can only answer SV questions about previous accounts. To be honest, if this is just a simple misunderstanding, a little truth can fix it. Good faith goes both ways. Why rambling on about this? You say that Scientology is "one of the most studied parts" but we jumped to put this article, which has a complete reset almost 1 month ago by a new editor, on the main page. SV does a good job by raising the warning flag based on some dubious facts he's digging instead of getting clear answers to some simple questions, the answer is "trust me" or "I do not have to answer." If nothing is hidden, just answer the question. --SkotyWA ^T _C 4: 3, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it came to this. As a member of the community, SV or anyone can ask whatever they want. However, they can not force the question to be answered or the exact consequences. Raul is the only person who might do that. The free editor is, of course, to vote up or down on the community recommendations in TFA/R. I will add that there are no major reports on the mass conversion of people reading the article, even though they reported thirst for Coca Cola.-- Wehwalt (speaking ) 04:11, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of urgency about it all. I do not like the IMHO organization idea of ​​dubiously placing the material on the front page - even if the material itself is of FA quality. Especially if some fairly simple questions are not answered directly. Smallbones (talk) 05:10, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

You have lost me, Smallbones. Organization? - Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

What organization? I am not a member of any organization related to article subject, pro or cons, and I have not written any articles for any third parties - it is entirely a private project. The original version of the article was not very good. I wrote the current version about four weeks in January this year, working offline because I do not like writing in browser windows (I prefer the right word processor). It's entirely on my initiative, and I do not get help from anyone else in writing articles. Nothing else but I read or edited it before I posted it. Helatrobus (talk) 05:40, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- Some are more alive than the so-called "policy" SV. In particular, contributors may not realize that the Church of Scientology has a good reputation for harassing authors (see Operation Freakout for an example). Editing under a pseudonym is a personal security issue. SV read too much in my silence - I just do not want to be drawn into a discussion of identity because it violates my privacy, invites speculation and puts my personal safety in jeopardy. It's really unpleasant to be faced with what is a demand to give up privacy or face no vote on the article.

I do not believe the argument about trust is valid. No need to trust me and I do not ask anyone for trust. Almost every sentence in the article is referenced. Many references are online or easily accessible and can be easily checked. The article has not reached that spot through blind faith. What SV calls "a ton of work to review" has done . It was nominated to display the status of an article by an editor with expertise in the topic field, who checked it in detail and made many changes. A group of independent reviewers has passed the article, after a lengthy review and many other changes, and has stated that it meets all criteria for the flagship status. If you say that you can not trust the article, you also say that you can not trust one of the featured article reviewers or nominees. You basically say that it should not be the main article in the first place, that all the reviewers are wrong and that you do not believe the nominee statement that he "confidently as part of the professional quality." work. "Wehwalt is right - it should be about the content, not the contributor. No content issues have been identified - just satire and vague misunderstandings.

Incidentally, as I rewrote the article it has been read over 100,000 times [5]. That's a lot of Coca-Cola! Helatrobus (talk) 05:40, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire for privacy when writing about this issue. I've written about the LaRouche movement and I've been attacked by them offwiki because of it. But nobody is arguing you do not have to edit, and no one is arguing you can not send the FA. Just a little more to request access to the main page in a situation like this. Are you at least willing to notify the FA director and delegate what your main account is or what it is? Test account SlimVirgin (talk) 06:06, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think this is where I woke up and said "Your Majesty, I object. Consider the fact there is no evidence." It's still a wonderful thing to ask, for no real reason. Only an unexpressed suspicion. If anyone asks that, it should be Raul, and he has to do it in private. SV, you and I and the next person and yes, even the delegates as they participate here form the group that suggests Raul the way he asks, through voting.-- Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Helatrobus implies that he is not a new editor. But if it's wrong, he can clarify it with the director and delegate, or someone else he chooses. The usual thing is to let ArbCom know if a new account is created, especially one that might cross the stream in a contentious article. Test account SlimVirgin (talk) 06:29, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Why do not we let Raul handle it in his own way, then? The delegates do not go into it, these are within FAC or FAR jurisdictions and delegates only perform limited functions associated with it.-- Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I will not comment on whether this should or should not be done (or whether he is or not a sock), but another way around this is Helatrobus can give the previous account name to the trusted admin, which will confirm here that the account was left with a good reputation. I would be willing to do this, if you can trust me. EdÃ, ^{[talk] [great titan]} 07:36, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

• comments The book "Inside Scientology" has aroused interest in the circle of Anti-Scientology scholarships and NRM. There is no reason to assume the author does the promo work here. The well-known books that come out just have not produced much third party coverage. I researched the entire article twice and did a bit of checking on most of the substance in the article in the FA review. Good material. This guy he's ever been... he's got a Cirt, Coffeepusher Jayen466, and I myself agree that it is NPOV... that's very rare in Scientology topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk/contribs) 17:19, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

I have to completely agree with RA for this one. I can not think of a single edition of this magnitude, making it to the Scientology article without the next big controversy. Can someone make "make everyone in the saintology page agree with something" barnstar and give it to the only qualified candidate in wikipedia history? Coffeepusher (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit break

Perhaps I feel strongly about this because in my first FAC as editor with the greatest number of edits for the article, me and my coach was attacked for POV. The second, in racial incidents, has a rocky FAC. My third, the first FA to the members of the Nazi Party, sailed past him. Go figure, but maybe I feel I've been standing on Helatrobus shoes.

If I get this straight, the idea is this: That's because Helatrobus edited the article L. Ron Hubbard, and brought a controversial article to the FA, he is per se a suspicious character because he is a relatively new editor and compose articles offline. Therefore, an editor without an official position is free to call him or her out to others who have no official position (and an admin does not have a better position than the next person, this is not included in our salary). This article, as he has pointed out, draws 100K plus page views without anyone calling it out on a distortion of facts, the editor no doubt standing in the Scientology area has passed as halal, and it passes the FA if it is uncomfortable, at least unreliable and not some are banging on Laser Brain's door in a huge rage on promotion. We can of course choose up or down in TFA/R (I'm cynical by saying that maybe this discussion started when it became clear the voting would support the article?) But to do more than that is unreasonable erosion in good faith. which is traditionally extended here, and that does not seem to be extended in this case.

I have worked in a number of areas where POV can be changed by word movement, not even delete it. I hope the editors working in the Scientology area can detect it; there is definitely a lot of effort to be a POV on both sides. They say the article is lawful. Helatrobus has been quite involved here, and I can not say that his refusal to discuss socking problems with SV ta is unfounded. After all, privacy aside, SV ta has no official standing, and does not ask this question to help him. He hopes to get information from the contributor's history that may indicate that Helatrobus has indicated a position on the matter in question, or hopes the account is blocked, and beats the placement of this article on the main page, even though what the other two must do can say, after all, SV, will have a position on IP conflict means you can not do an article about the death of a Palestinian child? Just say it. Or should there be a difference in your position?

The point is, we rate the content, not the contributors. The Hubbard article meets all the requirements for TFA, which currently has community support through majority votes, its point value makes it almost impossible to be thrown off the page, and hand it to Raul to take action, if he wants it, as he sees fit. For others to request information because the price of the main page is unwarranted and, excuse me, arrogant. - Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wehwalt here. As someone accused of being a sockpuppet based on my first edit as a registered user, I know it's possible to edit as IP and just observe and gain experience, as well as other website editing experiences (and wikis) can bring here quite easily. Although I can understand SV suspicions, the article has passed the review process and is guaranteed by an editor who knows a lot about Scientology.

WP: CIVIL is one of the five pillars, and for me the best way to become a civilian is to have good faith. Looking at the page, the summary "in short" says " Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the people working on the project try to help, not hurt it. " and " necessary, discuss the editor's actions, but avoid accusing others with dangerous motives without clear evidence. "It seems to me that both are very applicable here. Ruhrfisch _{& gt; & lt; & gt;} Ã, Â ° 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC )

My sole purpose in writing this article is to produce the best possible overview, using high-quality sources, from this important historical figure in time for March 13th. I regret that my actions have produced such controversy here. I have accomplished what I started doing, so I will now withdraw from this discussion and from more general editing so the temperatures here have a chance to go down a bit. Helatrobus (talk) 16:19, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Do not be discouraged! Please. You are accepted as an editor and a contributor, and I also point out that withdrawals can add to the perception that has implied that you are here to get LRH on the main page for malicious purposes, and will lose interest in WP once the mission is over.-- Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia