Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-09/Featured content


 * Maybe mention the announcement of Karanac's resignation?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're going to catch some flak for "respected and neutral editor". What's important is whether people are happy with him as a facilitator for this process at this time, not how great a guy he is. But I don't really want to change the wording to imply that he's temporary, because he's a really good choice IMO ... so I don't have a suggestion for rewording. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NB: Mike Christie; . This is why I someone such as User:Moonriddengirl. Mike's long involved. Alarbus (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's broad agreement he open the RfC, anyway. Especially after TCO crashed and burned on his (sorry TCO).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that's how it's going to go... :
 *  I also know of some fine editors who have abandoned the FA process because of its perceived quirky and arbitrary nature. So, not voting for the sake of it, but voting for the sake of the perceived integrity of the project. —Malleus 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alarbus (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will admit Malleus's position, as expressed in that and other comments in that discussion, has evolved since 2007.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He may no longer hold it, but it's valid; the nut of it. Alarbus (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixin' needed
Ok, there are several problems in what's up so far. 1. The discussions at FAC did not start over, and are not mostly about directorship, succession, and leadership-- they started with the TCO and Ettrig position that only articles with high page views should be eligible to be Featured articles, and from there, the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign emerged.  Unrelated issues are being conflated here. 2. Karanacs resigned in early December, but Raul held off accepting her resignation, possibly hoping that her situation might change, knowing that Ucucha and I could handle the workload. More conflating of unrelated events-- Karanacs resigned well before any of this, although TCO may have been a factor-- see the statement on her talk page. Further, these are not Raul's words: "Raul received an email from her in December with an offer to resignation due to inactivity, but held it in the hope she would be able to return." He made a statement on FAC talk; to write this accurately, use it please. 3. My resignation is also being conflated incorrectly with other issues (I made a statement, pls read it). I had intended to resign also in January, then had to stay on because of Karanacs' resignation, and then realized it would be unfair to the FA community for me to let the RFC run to endorse Raul's leadership, only to announce afterwards that I was resigning. So, I felt it responsible to resign now, but offered to stay on for 30 days so there won't be a workload crunch. Now, those are diffable facts, yet the current version of this piece is leaving the impression that two delegates resigned because of a leadership crisis. Not the case, and the issues that are most affecting the FAC talk page are not about succession, but equally about the (proposed) notion that only high page view articles should be FAs and changes are needed to that effect. Two RFCs (one SNOW) this week have failed to endorse leadership concerns with Raul (not mentioned here?)-- a third is in planning stages. Please, let's get the facts right so that we don't create a biased and faulty impression of what's happening at FAC, which could then bias the pending RFC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I'll try to fix it now, but I ask you you come in after my edit, and check and further edit. Text that looks contentious is probably best omitted. Tony   (talk)  01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony1-- I don't believe I should be editing this any more than I believe the object of the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign should, so I'll add comments here, or inlines, whichever you prefer. Deadline?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to commend The ed17 for the changes made from this draft version with the sun setting on Sandy - she is, after all, not dead and has stated plans to concentrate on medical articles and will still contribute to the FA project. Sandy notes several deficiencies in the current version and I'm sure it can be improved, but I do believe it is worth noting that it has already improved from a version that was much worse than the existing one.  EdChem (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes, it was not the best write-up in the world. There was no intention to make her "seem dead"; it may be ENGVAR, but as far as I see it having the sun set on a career or something doesn't mean the person died. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Crisco, I didn't seek to offend you and I didn't mean to impute an intention to you. The death overtone was my genuine first impression when I saw the draft, which I accept may well be a reflection of my psychology and might be an impression that others did not form.  I noticed that Tony1 liked the choice of imagery, so I know that views will vary.  We all have bad days and can benefit from another editor working on our drafts at times, and I only sought to acknowledge The ed17's contribution in redrafting.  EdChem (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings, I've seen worse responses to that draft. I'll try and steer clear of controversial topics for the next issue. As for Ed's copy... much better indeed (as I've said on his talk page). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think this should have been a separate discussion report, but, meh. The talk page has been blocked off in the usual "cleaning the air" bullshit. Res Mar 22:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh ffs, the US is NOT the default
Yet again, Wikipedia shows its US bias. If the FAC people are doing it, what hope is there for the project as a whole? Of the topics above, all those that are related to a particular area or region have that country/region named in the blurbs on this page, apart from the American ones. No need to say that Boeing is a US company, Bob Dylan is American or the Grammys are American awards, is there? Because we all know that, right? And if we don't we of course will assume it because the US is the default, won't we? The US is not the default setting in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriosuly as an international project, it HAS to start adding US nationality or country information to its articles on US subjects.

Nationality given:

 * Mathew Charles Lamb (Canadian)
 * Typhoon Gay (1992) (Marshall Islands/Japan)
 * Nicky Barr (New Zealand)
 * Titchwell Marsh (Norfolk, England)
 * German battleship Tirpitz
 * HMS New Zealand (1911) (Britain and New Zealand)
 * List of Afghanistan T20I cricketers
 * List of monarchs of East Anglia (England)
 * List of 1964 Winter Olympics medal winners (Austria)

Not given because, hey, it's not necessary because it's American

 * Boeing 767 (nom)
 * Blonde on Blonde
 * Grammy Award for Best Country Collaboration with Vocals

That's 100% we have to give nationalities for non-US topics, and we 100% don't have to for US ones. This isn't the first time I've raised this problem on this page: apparently no-one thinks it's important enough to act on. Of course Americans won't see anything wrong with the status quo: the rest of the Anglophone world does though. 86.134.117.17 (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's this hard and fast. Boeing is a transnational company. Grammy Awards are so well-known everywhere, it hardly seems necessary to clutter with (US). Tony   (talk)  12:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm pretty sure that Dylan has a successful international career. I wouldn't go putting British for Elton John, to be sure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)