Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/Archive 2

Format change suggested at WP:MFD
At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations there was a suggestion to reformat this list per the following brief excerpt:

The suggested changes are:

1) sort alphabetically by user name rather than by number of nominated articles (but include a count)

2) don't use the star characters but rather directly list the article titles

The table is generated by a bot so it would not be particularly difficult to make either of these changes. If the article names are listed rather than just stars linked to articles, the visual size of the page will be significantly larger (and a different mechanism to indicate former featured articles would need to be used). Note that finding who nominated what article(s) is already fairly easy using the archives at Featured article candidates/Featured log. I don't particularly care for either of these changes but will make them if there's a consensus here. Please comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on (1) (could we not put it in a sortable table so people can choose which view they want?). I'd oppose (2), which would make the page insanely long (it'd be much longer than WP:FA list, both because of the additional white space and the number of FAs with multiple nominators. – iride  scent  19:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Iridescent about making the table sortable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the example above, the table could be sortable. If the table is sortable, then the order question becomes what would the initial sort order would be.  It's nowhere near complete, but a more fleshed out example is WP:WBFPC.  The table there is initially sorted by number of image uploads (which doesn't correspond to any of the sortable columns).  I guess the question is whether anyone would oppose making the initial sort order user name rather than number of nominations (assuming the table is sortable, and the number of noms is a sortable column). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sortable is good. Not too fussed on what original order is as one can clicky any of the parameters to change. Happy with names instead of stars too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal
I don't have this page on watch...well, I do now, but I missed the revival of this. It should be addressed. This list should be reorganized to be a reference, and not what is widely construed as a vanity list. Although some will still see it as a vanity list no matter what, some information could be added to assist other editors who are trying to write FAs.

This is an idea, a proposed change. The info provided below reflects questions I've answered or issues that I have addressed or seen addressed.

PR=Peer review; GA=Good article; Main page=appearance date (No=not yet), number of hits that day. A couple of these have had multiple peer reviews as well. To Kill a Mockingbird had at least 4, I think.

This information would assist potential FA writers with finding editors who have worked on articles similar to one they may be working on. It would assist in helping determine the efficacy of using PR and GA to getting an FA, which may directly correlate to how many FACs the article went through. It would be useful for anyone to note the trends in what kinds of topics get the biggest (or least) main page day hits.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the proposal, Moni. One thing I would say about your chart is that it is a little cluttered, and might benefit from more columns. It would be very helpful, for example, for prospective nominators to be able to sort the table by area to get a descending list of most profilic contributors in a given genre, or by main page featured date to find out the most up-to-date standards for TFA. Another way to combat the noisiness would be to make a line break between different articles. Regards, Skomorokh  16:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, let me state in no uncertain terms that I suck at making tables. I see it's noisy and it should be cleaned up by someone who is good at tables. However, the rearrangement and information provided is the primary point of the posting. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding all this information would make the page insanely long - it's currently long at roughly one line per nominator (currently 1337 nominators). With the proposed arrangement it would be at least one line per nomination, and with multiple nominators that means something in excess of the number of FAs (currently 2601), i.e. at least double.  Aside from the length, most of what you're suggesting adding pertains to the article rather than the user as well.  Since this page is about the users, I think most of what you're suggesting should not go here.  The only item that is specifically about the user is the last edit.  The bot I run obtains this for other pages (e.g. WP:LA) but not in a way that would scale to fetching this for over 1000 users so adding last edit here would not be trivial.  I think it's possible, but I'm not entirely convinced it would that useful. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The table contains removed FAs too, so that would be about 3400  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this second proposal has too much information. I like the first proposal above (with a sortable table, and the addition of a column that lists the names of the articles). Having the names will let someone search for articles similar to what they are working on and easily find editors who can be consulted. If more information is needed about the article (for example, whether the article went through GA or PR), that can be found in the article history. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I like Moni3's idea quite a bit. Don't care if the page is long - CNTRL-F is good for finding wanted tidbits in this case. Happy with the other idea as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rick and Karanacs. Way too much information. Hesperian 05:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to defend my idea. I put it out there and it's up to the community to decide what to do with it. Outriggr's suggestion is a skeletal version. Mine provides what I consider to be the most helpful information as a resource for editors who are interested in writing an FA. So the community needs to decide if this will stay a list in the format it is currently in, or change it to be more of a resource for the community at large.
 * That said, if bots populate article history, I do not see why they could not do the same for this page. My poor table-making skills mask the fact that most of this info could be sortable. The only off-site info in my idea is the number of page hits FAs get on their main page day (which could be its own list page, btw). Most of the editors on this list have one or two FAs so most editors will not need more than one or two lines. I chose myself only because I know my own history (after several edits...) and it shows a variety of FA sections.
 * There are not only three options: keep it as is, make Outriggr's suggestion, or make Moni's suggestion. Make another suggestion; a combination of other formats. Make a new one. Ultimately, we're deciding what this list is for. --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In that spirit I propose a rather different table. Given that the usefulness of this idea is to find editors who have FAs in a particluar field, then the primary column ought to be article name, then editor. To make the size manageable I'd also suggest separate tables for each of the FA topic categories, perhaps accessed from a top-level page. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I could see adding the FA category, and perhaps other nomination related data to the lists like WP:FA2009 (which, BTW, already includes main page date) - but not here. The by-year lists are primarily about the articles, this list is an extract about editors.  IMO, changing this list to be about articles amounts to deleting it and creating a different list.  If anyone would like I could probably work up a sample of what a table from WP:FA2009 might look like with the additional info (although not for a few days). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that was rather the point of suggesting a restructuring of this list was to make it more useful. Making it about articles instead of editors does that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That was certainly the intention behind my suggestion, and yours too I think. Who cares how many FAs an individual editor does or doesn't have? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we just went through a MFD, and there was no consensus to delete this page. There are people who care how many FAs individual editors have and view this page as a friendly competition.  Others view the stars here as some sort of recognition for the work they've done on FAs.  If you want something different, e.g. a compendium of article nomination statistics, feel free to create it or augment other existing pages that are focused on FAs.  Deleting this page by turning it into something entirely different strikes me as a back-door approach to re-open the MFD discussion.  -- Rick Block (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where has idea of deleting the page come from? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. You and Moni3 are suggesting replacing this page with a completely different page with a completely different purpose.  Perhaps this would not technically be deleting this page, but you are suggesting deleting everything except the page name and replacing it with something different (aren't you?) - and, at that point, leaving the name as "Wikipedians by featured article nominations" wouldn't even describe the page very well.  My impression is you're talking about something more like "Featured article nomination information".  Again, I'm not opposed to adding this information somewhere (like the aforementioned by-year FA nomination pages, e.g. WP:FA2009).  But completely changing the nature of this page from a list of users to a list of FAs is effectively deleting this page. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're so in love with the current page then keep it. I was proposing a different, more useful page. I couldn't care less whether the current page is kept or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Block – following the recent MFD outcome there is no mandate for replacing this list with something entirely different. Overcomplicated proposals for change generally mean no change at all, so let's keep things simple. In the MFD I suggested two changes:-
 * Elimination of expired stars from the table: The retention of these stars in perpetuity is one of the main flaws with this table; I assume there is no problem with getting rid of them?
 * Make the primary sort the alphabetical list of nominators rather than no. of nominations: this doesn't seem to present a problem, and others have suggested the same thing. Those who like to keep abreast of the medals table will be able to do so with a simple click.

I don't think replacing stars with names of articles is necessary. Hovering on a star reveals its name. A click on the star links to the article and will readily reveal its subject area, if that is not evident from the name. Why inflate the list monumentally for a marginal advantage? Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Marginal advantage to who? You? Or to an editor looking for someone who has managed to shepherd an article in a particular subject area through FAC? --Malleus Fatuorum 10:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to look for an editor who had shepherded an article on a particular subject through FAC I would go the FA listing and look under the appropriate heading there. I've done it often enough. When I've identified a particular editor I might come here to see what else they've done. It's no great problem. This table has its own usefulness, and I'm interested ways in which it can be improved, while you want to get rid of it, for whatever reason. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it help to extend this RfC to gain an understanding of how many editors think it should change vs. how many should think it should remain as is? I think it would be great to have this page be a resource thinking perhaps Majorly represented the opinions of a few editors. If a majority of others don't agree then that would be helpful to know.  --Moni3 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The basic options are (1) leave it as it is, (2) make various improvements while leaving its main purpose the same, or (3) radically revise the nature and function of the table. Taking (1) or (2) doesn't prevent the creation of a new page if that is what some people want, and they are prepared to do it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if this page changes or remains the same or is deleted. However, why tie the possible usefulness of the new form of the page to the requirement to delete this one?  There's no reason to insist that this particular page morph into that one.  How about just creating the new page as described?  Or at least posting a request at WP:BOTREQ for someone to do so? Mike Christie (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The pages like WP:FA2009 seem to me to be the logical place to include information like what is being asked for here. In addition to being about the articles, these pages have a limited size (one year's worth of nominations).  Making the year's worth of articles a single, sortable, table wouldn't be hard.  Like I've said, main page appearance date is already there.  Adding topic wouldn't be difficult.  Again, if anyone's interested in a mockup I could put one together (although still not for a day or two). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Star duplication?
User:Cuivienen (now Verrai) has received credit twice for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. From some comments above, it seems that it is possible for an editor to be credited twice for an article, and this one has passed two FACs, in the second of which Cuivienen was a nominator. However, he seems to have had nothing to do with the first nomination (per comments there and article history), for which reason I recommend the removal of the second star.

I am not sure whether I ought to notify him about what appears to be a technical error (it sounds too trivial to bother someone about); if there are any doubts about this, I shall leave a note in his talk page. Waltham, The Duke of 06:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem was the earlier nomination was attributed incorrectly in Featured articles promoted in 2005. This edit fixed it there. It will be corrected here the next time the bot runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And corrected it has been. Thank you for your trouble, Mr Block. Waltham, The Duke of 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A little cleanup
Just recording here that I have made a handful of edits to the by-year summary pages to consolidate listings in the case of some user renames.
 * JackLynch       ->    Sam Spade
 * B Touch           ->    FuriousFreddy
 * Jheijmans       ->    Jeronimo
 * Dwindrim       ->    Denni
 * Christopherparham   ->    Christopher Parham
 * Joturner       ->    Tariqabjotu
 * Dark Dragon Flame   ->    Caribbean H.Q.
 * Alex valavanis       ->    Papa November
 * Enceladus       ->    Evil Monkey

These are cases where the user had multiple FAs that were split on the list, under old and new usernames. Maralia (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Stat request
Stars look nice, but can somebody (some bot...) provide numbers such as: number of editors with x article nominated? For example, how many editors nominated one article? Five? Ten? I don't feel like spending an hour counting, but I'd be curious to know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Failed FAs that were promoted again
Looking at the list, I see that the formerly failed FA emu, is listed as an "empty" star, though successfully renominated it again. Fault in the bot? FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit should help. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A few articles have been disambiguated

 * SS Washingtonian (1913)
 * Departures (2008 film)
 * Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album)
 * Mike Jackson (British Army officer)
 * And Pumping lemma should be removed—not sure whether it ever was FA?

,  czar  20:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the obvious disambiguations (see   ).  Pumping lemma was an FA before it was subsequently split into at least two articles now linked from the disambiguation page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/December_2003 .  The content at the time it was approved was this.  This seems sort of irregular - perhaps the talk page for what is now the disambiguation page should mention the FA history.  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks—I left a note on its talk page. I imagine it should be marked as ☆ czar  04:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Former featured articles which were promoted again
I just noticed that some articles which were demoted but later nominated and promoted again show up as hollow stars (such as James K. Polk at the very top). Shouldn't these be made blue again once promoted in the rows of those who nominated the articles again? FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Miscount
's count of my featured article nominations at User_talk:Kees08 do not match the count on this page. Possible bug or something?  Kees08  (Talk)   19:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD not followed
The MfD concluded with a decision to keep this, but that it should be modified in the way proposed, namely that it be put in alphabetical order, and that the stars be replaced with the article titles. This would serve two purposes, both addressing virtually all of the concerns raised about this page, and vastly increasing its utility, since it would be searchable by title and keywords to find active, skilled editors who had worked on featured articles on the subject the searcher wants help with. I find it disturbing that business as usual has continued on this page with no adjustments to it, as if none of the concerns raised were valid and nor were the instructions of the closing admin,. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I just noticed this comment (I have not paid much attention to Wikipedia for the past few years). The closing comments from the MFD suggest implementing the changes - which seems considerably short of "instructions".  In any event, there was a discussion about the suggested changes, above, that sort of fizzled out without any strong consensus for exactly what changes to make.  If anyone is interested, we could try reopening this discussion. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you still want this functionality? I think it would be better the way you described.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The page right now is just weird and unhelpful. These days, we also have sortable tables, so as long as it's sortable by number and sortable by username, that part shouldn't matter much; I don't object to it remaining in count order by default. But the using of a bunch of stars is a WP:ACCESS problem, since a screen reader will either just ignore all that material, or keep saying something like "black star" over and over, depending on configuration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Update my old username to new name
Can my old username listed here -- Dan56 -- be updated to my new name? isento (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My old username listed here -- Black Tusk -- should also be updated. Volcanoguy 01:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Add one
I added the below to the page to denote for the multiple nominators in that FAC, but the bot has removed it. Is there a good way to retain this?
 * Rodney Baggins
 * ★ Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This was fixed some time ago by this edit . -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This was fixed some time ago by this edit . -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Add another
Can Johnbod be given credit for Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele (17 July 2017)...he began as a reviewer but ended up leading a restructure and making significant additions. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done . -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

One that didn't migrate
G'day, one of mine (promoted in July) didn't migrate from WP:FA2021, it was Momčilo Đujić. Not sure why didn't catch it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's fixed now, but the nominators don't seem to be getting parsed reliably. I'll take a look at this sometime soon. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * New FACs seem to have stopped being added to these lists about 5 or 6 weeks ago. I sampled 7 or 8 and none had migrated. Is there a problem. If so, is there anything that can be done to help resolve it? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - the bot that does it all is not running, it stopped on September 29. I queried the bot owner on their talk page, see here. Should be solved soon, I guess. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought it may have been something like that. Thanks for the prompt response. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we do it manually from now one? My latest one also hasn't shown up. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Update username
I'm on this list twice. Once under my old username (Freikorp) and once under my current one. Can the two collections of featured articles be merged under my current username? Or should i just do this manually myself? Thanks in advance. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you do it manually I don't imagine that would cause issues going forward (as the bot would just update to your current one if it's doing that successfully already.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that didn't work unfortunately. The Bot just auto updated it and changed things back to the way it was. I've contacted its operator to ask for help. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The bot regenerates this page daily from the series of by-year pages, e.g. WP:FA2020, WP:FA2019, etc. If you update your name on those pages, the changes will be reflected here. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)