Template talk:FAC-instructions

Proposed change to the instructions #1

Current instruction:

"You may want to list the article for Peer review first."

Proposed change:

"Nominate an article only if you are reasonably confident that it is already featured-article quality — or very close to it; if you want feedback on how to improve an article to featured-article quality, or simply to check whether the article is suitable for nomination, you are encouraged to list the article on Wikipedia:Peer review."

Rationale for change:

FAC exists to identify articles which are of the highest quality, not to generate articles of the highest quality. Of course, there will often be problems identified, typically minor issues, which are fixed, but that's a secondary process. Occasionally, pages are entirely rewritten after a stint on FAC — e.g. PaX — this is (of course) a good thing, but this is not the primary purpose of this page. Nominators should be encouraged to "think twice", and maybe run the articles through Peer Review, not as an obligatory requirement, but to double-check if they have any doubts about the quality. This change should discourage nominations where the article clearly isn't up to scratch. — Matt 00:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I really think we ought to link to peer review. It needs all the support it can get, and it was just refactored to resemble FAC (there's talk of even creating a template-based system like that on VfD to accomodate the possible numerous requests). We really need to dissuade people from making frivolous nominations on FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposed change to the instructions #2

Proposed addition:

* Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates — candidates for removal from Featured Article status

Rationale:

The removal page could do with more visibility, and a link from FAC is logical, because the evaluation is essentially the same. — Matt 00:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to advertise the removal candidates page for now because the rules there are still ill-defined and not troll restistant at all. For the time being, I have commitments elsewhere on Wikipedia so I don't have time to sit down and hash out good rules. →Raul654 05:21, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies

I just got through with a major refactoring of the archived nominations, so I decided to attack the instructions next. Apologies if my being bold was a little too bold — revert where necessary, of course. • Benc • 14:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion from a FAC newbie

I wanted to nominate an article. I went to Featured article candidates whereupon I read the instruction that are included in this template.

I then edited the page to add the article that I wanted to nominate.

I did it wrong and Mirv got huffy because he had to fix my mistake.

Now, I read instructions. What I did not anticipate is that lower down (below the table of contents in the "Nominated Articles" section) is the following:

Add new nominations by placing {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article. From there, click on the "featured article candidate" link. Then, place ===[name of nominated article]=== at the top. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/[name of nominated article]}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page.

Those instructions need to be integrated into these instructions. Furthermore, these instruction say, "After nominating an article, you may add this notice to its talk page: {{fac}}" which is not consistent with the instructions above which instruct you to place the {{fac}} as the first step to nomination.

Finally, the instructions should give some guidance for people to look in the archives for prior nominations of a page to discern if it has been nominated before and if it has if the objections have been corrected. I would recommend the following text for that purpose (I tried to add something similar but User:Raul654 apparently didn't like it and ripped it out):

When nominating an article it's always a good idea to check for previous nominations and check if the objections noted then have been addressed.

Also why are these instructions in a template instead of just being on the page, that doesn't make any sense.

Those are my two cents. Kevin Rector 01:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

You make a valid point. I wrote the FAC instructions (in particular, I pruned them from the 3 page long monstrosity they used to be to the current template version). The bolded instructions were added later, and I haven't yet had the opportunity to integrate them. I'll make it a point to do so soon. →Raul654 02:09, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to do so, but I'm sure you can fix it up a little. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Instructions are currently somewhat obscure. Several antecedents are confused (and confusing). these could be much better and in not much more space, either. I'll revisit in a couple of days to see whether there's any consensus on this, and if so, I'll have at it. ww 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Standards have "nothing to do with the FAC"

This seems like an incredibly short sighted statement. I had included an extremely short community standards section which, in its entirety, stated, "Please adhere to applicable community standards and conventions of writing and layout." Raul654 decided to revert my edit, presumably believing that conventions of signatures, adding comments verticly, using UTC, etc., etc., etc. don't apply. Pencil Pusher 22:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is pure instruction creep. We don't need these kinds of garbage tips - signing your comments with ~~~~ is something you are expected to do, it's not a helpful hint to pick up sometime down the road. If you don't know about these things, then read the new user tutorial. We are not going to add a tutorial to every template and set of instructions. →Raul654 22:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, what is garbage is promoting a byzantine system where people do not immediately know how to contribute. If you are already providing instructions to someone, then it only makes sense to provide them with a link to the full set of instructions. People do not simply learn how to post by osmosis. Why is someone "expected" to know how to sign their name, but not "expected" to know how to add a nomination or how to object or support a nomination. Think about your target audience. Edit: your little addition "we are not going to..." did not go unnoticed. You may be an admin, but that does not enable you to speak for the community. If you abuse your admin status by insinuating that your opinion is shared by all, I can almost guarantee your status will not last very long.Pencil Pusher 23:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where on earth are the threats coming from? I can see both sides of the argument and think I'll side with Raul on this one. violet/riga (t) 23:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most new users don't go to FAC as their first action. By the time editors become familiar with behind-the-scenes work, they already know to sign their names and such. On the other hand, nominating instructions are very specialized and only apply to this one area of Wikipedia, so it's quite safe to presume unfamiliarity with them. Also, Raul does have authority in this area, as he is the Featured Articles director. --Slowking Man 08:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either your audience knows "If you approve of an article, write "Support" followed by your reasons" or it doesn't. Either you audience knows "To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it" or it doesn't. If your audience doesn't know it, then you need to be helpful and attempt to further clarify. Hiding behind "experinced people should know..." is elitism and, frankly, inapposite to the purpose of instructions. Either make the page off limits to everyone but admins, or make the page accessible to everyone. Hell, at the very least place a banner across the top of the page that states, "this section should only be used by editors who have become familiar with behind-the-scenes work." The passive-aggressive mid-point of "these pages are only accessible to those who have braved their way through the labyrith of wikipedia" should not be an option. You either believe your audience should be restricted or you believe your audience should be open. Stand by your convictions, whatever they are. But I see the admins already circling their wagons. Passive agressiveness has apparently won the day. Pencil Pusher 09:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) . P.S. yes, those 12 words were a huge step towards opening up the audience and being inclusive instead of exclusive. Unfortunatley, that is apparently not the intent.

Proposed more user-friendly text

Nomination procedure

1. Check the featured article criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating.
2. Place {{fac}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Save that page.
3. You will then see a box with a "leave comments" link. Click on that link.
4. (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1
5. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top and then write underneath it your reason(s) for nominating the article. Save that page.
6. Finally, click "edit" on this page and place {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of nominees. Make sure to add the name of the nominated article. Save this page.

Issues concerning the instructions

I'm concerned that "at least five days" sends the wrong signal; a lot longer is required for most candidates, particularly those that have substandard prose. The process of copy-editing typically takes a lot longer than five days, and I'm not happy with longer periods being explicitly at the discretion of the Director, as much as I think he does a good job.

I'd be less concerned if the wording were less cut-and-dried: perhaps just "... typically takes between five and fourteen days" is simple and flexible.

There's an opportunity to reduce instruction creep by getting rid of the advice against nominating more than one candidate at once. Is it necessary to explicate this? The shorter and simpler, the better. Tony 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the five day remark, Tony, just to 'trial' it, and mentioned it on the featured article talk page, where a lengthy discussion is going on. Sorry I didn't mention it here. I initially phrased it in terms of the minimum amount of time in the interest of a providing sort of "fair warning" to anyone who might show up late, but I'd be fine with your version, too, if you think that works better. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I added the bit about the discretion of the director only because it appears to be how things work at present. Am I wrong? I was under the impression that only the director can 'close' the discussion and promote or archive the article, which I interpreted as determining the length of the debate (by ending it). Perhaps I could be more clear. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I see this has been reverted altogether. It doesn't totally surprise me, but I really don't see the harm in adding an extra sentence-worth of clarification of how things presently work either. Brevity is a good thing, but isn't it important that people know how long a discussion generally lasts, so interested parties don't miss it entirely? Or that discussions are closed by the FA director, and not just anyone who feels like it? I don't see this as just "unnecessary expansion" -- this information isn't explictly stated anywhere in Wikipedia namespace. If not here, where can it be added?Lee Bailey^(talk) 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Raul likes to keep the instructions concise; I can see his reasoning. And nominators can easily see how long candidates cook for by looking down the page at the nomination dates. Perhaps discuss on this page if you wish? Tony 06:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conciseness is good, but it seems like a concern that should be secondary to clarity. Yes, it's possible a new editor might scroll down, read a few sample discussions, look at the dates, and guess the general length of discussion based on the premise that discussions that are no longer active would be moved somewhere else -- or they might not. But this is such a small addition, it seems backwards to worry about "instruction creep" -- how can we worry about the instructions going unread because they've become unwieldy when the de-facto position is to explain very little, and trust the new editor to do the work of figuring it out? I hate to go on and on about this, but I really can't get past the idea that the rules of a vital process should be explained somewhere, and this seems like the most obvious place for it. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 06:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the current wording ("sufficient time"" "enough time") does the job adequately - it is an elastic concept, starting at around 5 days and extending on rare cases for up to two or three weeks - but I think it would be worth adding a concise mention of Raul654's role to the blurb on WP:FAC, like there is on WP:FA WP:TFA. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a reference to Raul's role on WP:FA? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:TFA not WP:FA. Slip of the keyboard. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto e/sufficient/enough/ ... God, I am not doing very well today am I... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And yes, I do think mention of Raul's title there is a good thing. With regards to amount of time though? Looking at WP:FAC I see the remark about how "if enough time passes" with objections still outstanding, the article will be archived. "Enough time" is flexible, but it's also somewhat subjective. I'm not married to my wording, but you say the "enough time" remark conveys "an elastic concept, starting at around 5 days and extending on rare cases for up to two or three weeks" -- what's the harm in just saying that much? Why leave the door open for people to be put out that they didn't get their definition of "enough time", when the process does in fact have a definition of "enough time" and that definition is, between five days and a couple of weeks, generally? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not so hot on listing specific timetables (or dithering on about how the timetables are flexible and liable to change to adapt to changing circumstance), I agree that Raul's role as Featured Article Director should be mentioned here. Does anybody disagree with that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't, obviously, since I tried to add the same information before and was reverted. :) But I haven't heard an argument so far that's specifically against adding that part, so I'd say, go ahead and draft something you can live with and see how it goes. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "enough time" means nothing, and begs too many questions, among which is "in whose opinion?". If the Director's, say so explicitly; otherwise it's better to avoid mention of time altogether—then we'll all be better off, because the instructions will be shorter and free of fuzz. I don't mind a mention of Raul at TFA, but it should be kept to a minimum, IMV (why is "ratified" necessary?). Tony 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "enough time" is what was on the page when I got here. Raul has stated on his talk page (and probably in other places) that a minimum of five days is his "rule of thumb", which is where I'm getting the number from. The way the process presently works, the length of time a specific discussion last is at the director's discretion, although he generally works within certain informal parameters (which aren't written down anywhere either) -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I done it

It was me that reverted the addition. Sorry, Lee. I did find the addition redundant, and I can also see it easily attracting further increasingly fine-grained qualification, as "enough time" just simply doesn't in practice translate as from five to 20 days. For instance, I and others have removed many nominations after half an hour or whatever, per "not a snowball's chance in hell". Raul doesn't do that AFAIK, but he has upheld such actions. (Or, yikes, perhaps he's simply never noticed? O_o). I've seen a nomination removed (and Featured) after less than four days. And I've seen nominations camping on FAC for a month or longer, at Raul's discretion. How much of that messy reality do we want the instructions to cover in order to to make sure the nominator of a stub doesn't point to the top of the page and claim that s/he has a right to stay for five days because the instructions say so? Wikilawyering is best avoided by giving no figure, IMO.

I'm sorry, it's no fun being reverted, but the thing is, there tends always to be a stronger impulse to add than to subtract, as formulated in Bishonen's Law: Any instructions that aren't actively and heartlessly trimmed every so often will increase in length by 89% every 5 1/2 months. Instructions have an inherent principle of growth. With the FAC template, it's recently been especially about users adding their favorite Featured article criterion to the instructions (keep in mind that these are instructions for how to nominate a FAC, not for how to write one): "Make sure someone has copyedited the article before you nominate it," "...that the article has references," ...that the lead paragraph is of adequate length". I think each of the criteria may well have been added to the nomination instructions at some time. And yet I bet nobody at all wants them all in there! Bishonen | talk 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

To address what Bish was saying about removing noms early or leaving them a long time - yes, I see every edit on the FAC (remember, Raul sees all) and since none of them have given me reason to comment, I have not done so. I have myself removed a few prior to the 5 day rule of thumb -- I promoted a tiny handful (3 or 4) on the 4th day, and a few other times I have removed noms early. So the 5 day thing isn't set in stone, but it does apply in all but a few cases. Raul654 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're not promoted without the resolution of reasonable objections to substandard prose. I'm concerned about this time thing, because nominators typically can't fix the prose of their articles rapidly, and because such a high proportion of FACs don't satisfy 2a by any stretch of the imagination. Tony 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talkpage: [Might you like to]...respond to my talkpage post about other people than Raul removing nominations, and Raul saying it's not a problem, since you've just edited the FAC instruction template in a way to presumably put paid to such disgraceful goings-on? (Or at least definitely in a way to encourage the likes of HW to put up a fight every time it happens.) User:Bishonen 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

That wasn't my intended meaning, and indeed I still think that is Raul "responsible" in some sense for snowballs closed by others -- he has the final say, I think -- but I agree that the wording I used does present a problem and further opportunities for Wikilawyering. I'll self-rv, anyway. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, no apology necessary; not a problem. I mentioned before I was fairly expecting the line to be reverted, and I didn't mean that in a cynical way. I just meant that I'd be surprised if after so much discussion after the fine-tuning of this text, I was able to add to it on the first try. That said, I don't think this should be discussion-over. I got the "five day minimum" idea from a comment made by Raul -- if it's not always the case, it's not always the case. But if it's up to the discretion of Raul (and others? I can't believe I'm spending this much time reasearching to make my point that the process should be easier to understand and I still don't fully understand it -- what does that say?) then, is there a reason we can't say who's discretion it's left up to? It's obviously not left up to any random editor involved in a discussion who wants more time to make a point. For example, if an article went to featured while objections still existed (it happens) an editor who delisted that article from WP:FA and pending further discussion would be quite throughly scolded. Yes, I've seen editors petition for more time on Raul's talk page, but that only further begs the question. It's not enough to say "it's a flexible process, it's a flexible amount of time" if only certain editors have the power to promote articles or archive discussions, since those are the mechanisms by which the length of time for a discussion is set.

As for the "inherent principle of instruction growth", the problem I'm having is that I running up against this argument that it's bad to let instructions grow unwieldy because then people won't read them, and that it's better to let people observe the process and organically get a feel for it. I ask you, which is asking more from the casual, who simply wants to "vote" in one particular discussion he cares about, and get back to editing articles? Between reading a few extra sentences on a page a person is already looking at, and doing independent research, what's more likely to happen? And if that's not the concern, what is? We're not making new rules, just documenting the process as-is. If the process is flexible on some points, and therefore should not be the subject of wikilawyering, let's describe the extent of that flexibility. If not here, then somewhere. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm throughly confused. Can people other than Raul close FAC discussions or not? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are cases where it's ok. When a bad faith nomination (like the good old Thug Ride nom) is posted, or in other unusual circumstances, an experienced FA participant might remove it, and if Raul doesn't object, the action is presumably officially endorsed.

To address your other question: does a person need to know the behind-the-scenes mechanics of FAC to participate? When I made my first nomination, I didn't even know there was such a person as the FA director. Didn't interfere with my ability to participate. The instructions on the top of the page tell you all you need to know to get involved as a nominator or participant; the ability of non-FA-director editors to remove nominations in certain cases (for instance) isn't going to be very useful for a newbie; why make them bother with reading it. If someone really needs to know, they can ask on the FAC talk page, where response time is generally quite quick. Alternatively, somebody could write up an unofficial guide to how the FAC process runs, and we could link to that from WP:WIAFA, which all nominators should be reading anyway. --Robth^Talk 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, sorry this is such a long reply. I agree it's not always vital for a new editor to know all of the details of of the process before getting involved. I still think the approximate length of time, and who determines that, is something an editor should know. Specifically, I don't see the length-of-time thing as as much of a concern for the nominator (who is required to babysit the whole process due so they can attempt to address objections) as it is to the potential supporter or objector. One example would be a person being aware of a nom they have strong feelings about, but not getting involved until the next day/after work/etc, only to find the discussion has already closed; a more frustrating example would be the case of article that's promoted over objections which came late in the discussion. I believe this is what caused Jayzel to become so upset with the process -- Hurricane Katrina was promoted over his objections and he was unfamiliar with the closing mechanism for these debates, so he felt shut out of the process. Given that the openness of Wikipedia is the reason a lot of editors are here in the first place, I don't think it's possible to overestimate how bad that feels, even if the feeling is based on misunderstanding.

With regards to the more technical stuff, in my lowly opinion, there's a seperate reason for detailing that. Right now, there's a smallish group of editors who are very involved with the FA process, and very familiar with how it works. But FA affects the entire community. Featured articles are prominantly displayed on the main page for readers to see. They strongly influence our credibility, and they strongly influence the standards that editors write to, often moreso than the writing to the manual of style, for better or worse. It really is everyone's concern what the FaC process looks like, and since Wikipedia is "governed" by consensus building, the only "right" thing to do, in my opinion, is make a good-faith effort to let anyone interested in the process have easy access to an explanation of the procedure. I realize Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, or in rulemaking, etc. But consensus can't really exist without all interested parties within the community being involved, and there's no way of knowing that's the case without making an effort to communicate the "rules" of the process.

This is just my take. I could be wrong, but it's an argument I haven't really had a satisfactory response to, so forgive me if this is one of those things that everyone understands but me. Seriously, my first experience with this process was unspeakably frustrating, and caused me need a break from Wikipedia while I considered walking away from the project. A few weeks later, I saw another editor essenially self-destructing over the same problem, and I felt I needed to say something. Jayzel has now apparently left Wikipedia. I realize he violated a number of rules on his way out the door, but at one point, he appears to have been a productive editor. That's a bummer, because to me it seemed somewhat preventable. If an unoffical essay linked from the featured criteria is the best we can do, I'll take it, but I continue to think the cost vs. benefit of adding it on the FAC page is worth giving consideration to. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 07:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To respond to these in order. The first point: although it is possible that someone might (1) notice that an article they have serious problems with is on FAC, (2) take the time right then to read the FAC instructions, (3) decide not to comment right then, (4) miss out on the commenting period (unlikely if there were any other active objections on the table), and (5) find that no one else had raised their concern, it strikes me as a rather unlikely scenario. (Jayzel's problem, by the way, was not about time, but rather about the fact that an article was promoted over several objections that had been disputed on the page.) If we're going to put something in to address that scenario, there'll be plenty of equally serious concerns that also need to be addressed, and so the instructions start growing. By the time you got everything in, the instructions would be so long that no one would read them at all.

Turning to openness: I quite strongly agree that we should be open in the sense of providing enough information for a newcomer to the FA process to participate effectively. I'm not terribly concerned, however, with providing an exhaustive explanation of the process for people who don't want to get involved in it. You're right that FAC has a large influence in determining style choices; if someone is concerned about the way that influence is being exerted, we should make it very easy for them to get involved in the process and have their say. If they find, through participation, that they don't think the process works properly, it will be easy for them to start a discussion, in which they will presumably be able to contribute more productively for having been involved. Openness in the sense of making sure everyone can participate strikes me as a worthy goal. Openness in the sense of making sure everyone can start a debate about the mechanisms of the process without first experiencing it is not a particular concern of mine (correct me if I'm misunderstanding your point here). And we should certainly never, by expanding the instructions past the point of easy readability, sacrifice the former for the latter. --Robth^Talk 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not so much making sure that people who haven't had much experience in the process are able to start a debate about it. The problem is, without written rules, "the process" is an invisible thing. In the case of an article where a relatively small number of people are making edits through discussion and trial and error, one sort of built in failsafe in that procedure is that the article itself serves as "advertising" to the larger community as to what that small group is up to: anyone can see it, find problems with it, and decide they want to look into it further (in many cases reading the article's talk page and related links before jumping into the fray). The lack of any detailed outline as to the "rules" of the FAC process means that there's no such "advertising" of what's going on to the larger community. People who just pass though the FAC process in their way to doing other things in Wikipedia are likely to assume it works the way other things do in Wikipedia, when honestly, it's a very different process. With such flexible standards also, those same "just passing through" editors are unlikely to get the full picture as to how things work. The point is that if we have a system that works all of the time, that's great, but if we have a system that works, say, 80% of the time, in a discussion about the effectiveness of the system, at any given time, only a small number of editors are going to have a clue about that 20%. Meanwhile, if we just wrote down the way things were being done, most editors would have the ability to see that flaw, and it wouldn't take an exceptional effort for that flaw to be addressed. Fear of a long list of rules in my opinion is trivial compared the danger of the rules being variously executed, variously interpreted, and everyone agreeing that the process mostly-works because a small consensus says so. If the process mostly-works, for heaven's sake, let's just get together and figure out the "mostly" rather than leaving it this free-floating x-factor so that everyone can pretend to agree. This "if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" attitude is contrary to general Wikipedian ideal that things should be editable, and that everything can be improved.

Back on the practical side of things, as far as being clear so people can participate goes: the example I gave was just an example. I didn't want to go to far into postulating every possible scenario where not knowing how long a discussion will last can lead to reduced participation, decreased quality of debate, and general feelings of being shut out of a process which can end abruptly at the hands of a third-party not involved in the discussion. It probably would have been better if I avoided the specific example altogether and appealed to common sense; you've said you agree it's important to provide enough information for the newcomer to know how to participate effectively; I am only insisting that part of knowing how to participate effectively is knowing when to participate. That seems non-controversial to me. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While the ultimate decision method in the FAC process is not immediately apparent, the basic mechanism of the process is, and the product is too. The second of these is more important. If FAC was rejecting good articles and accepting bad ones, there would be substantial outcry over it. Part of the point here is that FAC works very well; valid objections get addressed or become grounds for failing, frivolous ones get ignored, good articles get promoted, and people generally engage in discussion rather than just voting. This isn't a case of the process, as you said, "mostly-working"; I can't think of a case in which I've seen a complaint more serious than disagreement over a judgement call, and that would happen under any system (we're always going need someone making judgement calls).

As for writing down the process to allow people to identify flaws, if something was wrong enough with how this page works that someone could identify it just by reading a description, one would think that one of the hundreds of people who have passed through this page would have noticed it earlier. In any event, I think we're being too abstract here; what goes on on this page is quite simple. People discuss articles, to see whether they should be featured; the director, using common sense, determines what the result of the discussion is. In certain cases, the director or another editor may take action in some way to ensure that the page keeps running smoothly. The instructions at the top of the page lay out how to participate; everything else is just to make sure that the discussion process runs smoothly, and that the result of the discussion gets implemented. It doesn't lend itself to detailed written description, but can be judged by the results; which, in my mind, is how it should be judged in the first place.

To be a little less abstract, however, what would you like to see added to the top of the page? I still think the time of discussion thing is a little too specific to add to the instructions, especially given how complex it would be to describe it properly, as demonstrated above; I really don't think people are being inconvenienced, even in the general way you describe above, by not knowing how long discussions run (at least, I've never seen evidence of it happening, and I'm not a big fan of expanding the instructions to preempt a theoretical problem). --Robth^Talk 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see your logic with regards to the "product" of the FAC process being visible in terms of actual promotions. However, while I agree that the process does do a good job, I disagree with the assumption that there would be a huge outcry if the process had problems so serious that they'd be noticeable if a set of rule were written down. First, the 80% example I used above would still apply: if most of the promotions were still excellent, and most editors don't follow every single promotion, problems with the process would still effectively remain "hidden" from the general community. I think speaking of "problems so obvious they'd be noticable just from reading a description" misses my point a bit -- describing a process often makes smaller, more subtle issues a lot more obvious. It doesn't take a major deficiency in the system for that to be the case. What my problem boils down to, I think, is that as the process exists now --with "rules" more or less in effect but not recorded -- resists change. I'm finding this a difficult position to argue because, honestly, the FAC process is doing a good job most of the time, and many of the editor I've spoken with about this seem to feel that's good enough -- end of story. Meanwhile, I continue to think it's inherently problematic to have a process that resists change to this degree. This not the same a process that is completely transparent and non-resistant to change yet rarely changes much because it's stable. The latter is a sign of true consensus; the former is not. Incidentally, your point about the necessity judgement calls draws to light a point where we seeminly have a difference of opinion. I have said many times that I think Raul does a great job as director, and I'll say it again -- FAC is greatly in his debt. On the flip side of things, the amount of discretion he seems to have in determining the significance of objections is fairly significant; to my knowledge, "actionability" has never been very strictly defined, and occasionally "actionable" objections are thrown out for being minor; also, "brilliant prose" and "stability" have been controversial in the past. While I'm sure some of the disagreements about these things have been petty, I don't think there's reason to disregard it all as "unavoidable". Judgement calls on the part of the person closing the discussion may always be required for some things (since determining that there is a "consensus" can be controversial in and of itself) but just by talking these things through and coming up with a few mutually-agreed upon guidelines, we could take some of the guesswork out of it. At the minimum, we'd piss fewer people off; in the best case scenario, we'd be able to simplify the difficult decision making a bit and open to process up to other admins to get involved in closing out debates, taking some of the workload off of Raul. I think it that decreasing the emphasis on judgements being made by a single individual can only result in a process that's closer to Wikipedia's philosophy of openness and "government" only by consensus.

None of this in particular has anything to do with what I'd like to see written on this page, since I consider it fair it enough to want to keep the instructions short and practical on one page, even if I'd prefer a detailed page to exist somewhere else. If you look in the edit history of this page, I tried an edit out here once before, which is one sentence, that I'd still like to see on this page. I would need to be tweaked, since it's now my understanding that the "five days minimum thing" is not "hard" miminum at all, but I still feel giving some indication of how long something will be debated is as necessary as marking polling places during an election, at least for controversial nominations. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

I think this is a very important recommendation.

• FAC currently is dominated by a small clique of users; this has to change.
• New users waste a lot of time posting unsuitable FAC's when they don't look at other FAC's first.
• Wikipedia is all about encouraging participation. If anyoone can edit, anyone can review.
• There's always more work than there are people.

Discussion welcome. --Ideogram 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In a word, baloney. People do what they want to do. You say above that "anyone can review". Yes, and anyone can nominate, whether or not they feel like reviewing. Don't confuse "encouraging participation" with requiring participation (or with saying that you "should do it first", which will be read and interpreted as a requirement). I've yet to see a proposal designed to filter out new users submitting unsuitable FACs that wouldn't also filter out new users submitting good FACs. If you want to encourage people to review FAC's, make that task more appealing; don't make the already intimidating task of preparing and nominating an article more onerous. --Robth^Talk 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

At Mediation Cabal we had good experiences with encouraging applicants to volunteer to mediate another case, reasoning via the Categorical Imperative. Clearly if every applicant mediates a case for someone else, the work done will automatically scale with the workload.

At WP:GAC there is the sentence "When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review." I presume they added this for similar reasons.

Perhaps the wording is not the best, but I think we should be able to give people the idea that reviewing FAC's is easy and fun and (most important) serves their self-interest, without making the FAC process itself seem intimidating or onerous. --Ideogram 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly necessary. It doesn't really add much to these instructions, which are already longer than I'd like. Raul654 06:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not here, but how can we plant the idea? Is it desirable to? --Ideogram 14:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have one third of the instructions telling people to respond positively to criticism? --Ideogram 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Bishonen, Raul654, and Robth. Sandy (Talk) 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As do I. Tony 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bishonen: Your recent re-ordering and rationalising of the instructions are most welcome. Tony 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Very glad to hear it, Tony. Bishonen's Law ("someone has to keep trimming") tends to morph into "delete the whole thing" if unchecked (rip, slash, tear, grrr, more more more, feeding frenzy, blank blank, munch munch), so I'm stopping now. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Let me ask everyone again, is it better to encourage wider participation in FAC or to let it remain dominated by a small clique? --Ideogram 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for everyone, but I stopped beating my wife last year. Enough about me, though...

I agree that there might be some value to the instruction you want to add. The same could be said, however, of dozens of other tidbits of advice, and if we added them all soon the instructions would be so long that no one would read them (this happened back in the dark days of yore, before Raul aggressively trimmed everything, or so I've been told). Keeping the instructions at a readable length requires drawing the line somewhere, and I don't see that the case for this particular item is any stronger than that for any number of other snippets that we could, but don't, include. --Robth^Talk 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not the question I asked. I already said above that it may be possible to achieve this without adding this here. First I want to ask whether this is a valuable goal; then I can ask how it can be achieved. --Ideogram 10:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My objection to your question was that it was phrased as a false dichotomy, with the assumption that FAC is currently dominated by a small clique. Looking down the page right now, I see a great variety of commentators on the different nominations, and every time I have brought an article here I have had a different set of reviewers. I think that increasing the number of active FAC reviewers is always a good thing, but I don't think that there is any particular crisis in that regard at the moment--FAC is not being dominated by a clique. I did see that you have a nom which had not been receiving much attention, which would certainly have called the issue of low manpower to your attention. It can be tough for technical articles to get reviews; I reviewed it as best I could, given that the subject is miles outside of my area of knowledge, and hopefully it will pick up other comments soon. In any event, though, I don't think that changes to this template are an appropriate way to address levels of reviewer participation at this moment, so the main FAC talk page would probably be a better place for any discussion you'd like to have on this (and participation in a discussion would probably be much wider--not many people have this page on their watchlists. --Robth^Talk 17:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll do that. --Ideogram 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-nomination instructions

The instructions say that a self-nomination should be noted as such in the nomination. I suggest we eliminate this; I suspect it dates from a time when the candidacy process was more an up/down vote, and a declaration made it clear you were nominating your own work. Now I think the great majority of FACs are self-noms, and those that aren't get a good workout by the nominator by the time they succeed. FA reviewers probably assume most or all FACs are self-noms, anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, who cares. I'd love to advise users not to lead nominations with claims as to excellence or that the nomination already meets all of the criteria. Reviewers just ignore this, it clutters the page, and is usually nonsense. Makes the process look a little amateurish.

BTW, can any of the instructions for nomination be streamlined now that we have partial automation. Pity they're so elaborate. Tony (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but we still need to remind significant contributors to indicate such when supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I cut the sentence from the nomination paragraph, but left in the comment about supporting. Mike Christie (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good form?

Is it considered bad form to edit an article you have commented on in the FAC? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. The purpose of FAC is to improve the article. Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason for nominating

Tony, I agree that we need to keep this stripped down, but the change you made now leaves the instructions saying that the nominator should sign below the pre-loaded title, implying that they should write nothing. I think that's incorrect enough to need fixing, even if the old text had redundancies. Mike Christie (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. Fixed, I hope. Tony (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It'll work for me. It says to just write "Nominator" and sign. I will continue to add links to other FAs that I think make worthwhile comparisons, at least while I work on obscure topics; I assume that additional notes like this are not discouraged, simply not required by the instructions. Mike Christie (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I included the plural option (Nominator or Nominators) to cover co-nominations. Yes, this removes the requirement, not the option. I've acted boldly, presuming that the change is acceptable to all. The "why I nominated this" texts have always seem fatuous or redundant to me. Occasionally there's need to say something substantive, but saying that a nomination has passed GA, or has improved markedly, is immaterial. Tony (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't working. We're now getting tons of nominate and support, and I have to check the articlestats to find out if this is an independent support, or a support from a self-nom. Puts the burden on me to sort it out, rather than having the nominator specify when it's a self-nom. Makes my job harder. I'd like to go back to some version of the earlier wording, where self-noms are identified, and the "nominated by" line isn't useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I wonder why we need to know whether a nomination is self-nominated or otherwise. How does it affect the process? Tony (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there's some confusion from some nominators, who present "tallies", saying an article should be promoted. In the "olden days", the nominator wasn't always an author (nominating for others was a tradition), so if the nominator entered "support", it carried as much weight as any other (independent) support. If I have to promote on a slim margin, an independent nominator/support could matter, so it could help to sort out those that are self noms. And that nominator line doesn't really help; editors almost all continue to enter their "reason" for nominating. What I really need to know is self noms, rather than the "nominated by" since that's in their sig, and that is turning in to "nominate and support". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Got it. OK, what about this, for Point 5:

Below the preloaded title, write Nominator, or Self-nominator if you are the sole or a major contributor to the article. Do not write a reason for nominating unless there is a particular reason for doing so. Sign with ~~~~, and save the page. If there is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination. A nominator's support is taken into consideration by default, and should thus not be explicitly stated; a self-nominator should not declare support.

Currently, it's this:

Below the preloaded title, write Nominator or Nominators, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. If there is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination.

Tony (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better, but I'd like to shorten it (too much of the instructions don't get read anyway). How about something like this (link to article stats, and don't tell them so strongly not to do something, and the last sentence isn't necessary as long as self-noms are identified):

Below the preloaded title, write Nominator, or Self-nominator if you are the sole or a major contributor to the article. A reason for nominating is not needed. A self-nominator need not declare support. If there is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination. Sign with ~~~~, and save the page.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Tony (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Would you like to do the honors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, but please check the minor change I made (didn't see why only self-nominators should be told that declaring support is unnecessary). Tony (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Change of wording to reflect how FAC actually works

This is the current wording:

I'm going to bold changed portions, to make review easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

“ For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the FA director, currently Raul654, determines whether there is consensus. (References in these instructions to "the director" include Raul654's nominated delegates.) If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. ”

Here was the proposed wording:

“ For a nominated article to be promoted to FA status, it must meet the criteria. The FA director, currently Raul654, determines whether the criteria are met based upon his review of the article. In doing so, he takes into account explanations made in the discussion that relate to how the article does or does not meet those criteria, as well as edits made to address objections. (References in these instructions to "the director" include Raul654's nominated delegates.) If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. ”

In reference to the change that was reverted, the idea is to clarify that decisions on article promotions are based on the merits, rather than on consensus. Indeed, the consensus can be 49-1 against promotion and the article can still be promoted if it meets the criteria. Similarly, the consensus can be 50-0 for promotion, and the article can still be denied promotion, if it doesn't meet the criteria. There are several reasons why it's good to make this clear:

• So that people aren't tempted to use votestacking or sockpuppetry to affect the results
• So people don't freak out if someone makes unjustified objections, or doesn't strike out objections that are no longer applicable (as long as a response is made adequately explaining why the objection should not affect the result, then everything is okay)
• So that people understand what is going on if a decision goes against the consensus
• For the general benefits of focusing people's attention on the criteria rather than on the consensus. People should voice opinions on FAC not so much to persuade others of why they should vote to feature or not to feature an article based on personal opinion, but to explain how it meets the criteria, or point out things that need to be corrected in order for it to meet the criteria.

For further commentary, please see Wikipedia:VPP#Consensus. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'm not comfortable with several aspects of the change. First, we weren't even consulted :-) Second, the changes completely obliterated the reviewer role; why don't Raul and I just promote on our own then and bypass reviewers entirely :-)? Third, instructions won't prevent votestacking. Fourth, I disagree with the removal of the wording on "consensus for promotion". To avoid split discussions; shall we keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#FAC instructions changed, or is it moving to here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Might as well move it here. It is true, though, that the reviewers' input is basically advisory, rather than controlling, is it not? Raul654 can regard as inactionable comments that have no relation to the criteria, or that are ill-founded. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(Double edit conflict) :I'm not convinced the change you want is good. It's true the FA director can overrule a "vote", for several possible reasons, but that's not a reason to eliminate references to consensus, which is after all the desired outcome. Also, can you give any examples of problems in FACs that this addresses? (post ec): I suggest having the discussion here, or at WT:FAC, where most of the people who know the process well will see it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's here, let's keep it here; I hate split discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the proposed wording; in my view, I'm a judge of consensus except in instances such as invalid opposes, vote-stacking, canvassing, insufficient review, a few other things, and I don't promote without consensus. I don't want to make any change that minimizes the reviewer role. But I'll hold on further comment until after Raul and others weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

that sock account has been blocked, so you'll have to wait for him to move onto the next one. regards Section31. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording of one paragraph to describe more accurately the process as it actually occurs. Tony (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

recent edit (2)

"this method should be used sparingly because it affects FAC archives"

Sandy, your addition makes me wonder how it affects the archives, and just what I'm costing you or others in extra work by capping (therefore whether I should cap at all). Could you explicate here so we might consider expanding it just a little? Tony (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a recent discussion about that here. Essentially, the FAC archives only load a certain number of transclusions. The most recent archives reached this limit, and since caps count towards the limit, it is helpful to only cap when really necessary. Gary King (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ack. I don't want to spell it all out in our instructions, so don't know how to best solve this. We can't have too many caps, or the transcluded limit is passed in archives, and we basically lose file info from our archives (unless I go back and edit a bunch of FACs to remove caps). The bottom line is that caps should be used sparingly and only on very long resolved commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, then can we spell that much out ("caps should be used sparingly and only on very long resolved commentary")? Otherwise, it leaves you wondering whether you should feel guilty about doing it at all. A nominator asked me to cap the other day on my talk page, a request I ingored, since I don't cap. Tony (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we did spell it out (lenghty, resolved), so please fix :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to the template

Hi there,

A suggestion for a change to the template, maybe add that you shouldn't use {{Done-t}} or {{Not done-t}} either as I didn't know this when I nommed it for FAC, and got a shouting from Sandy ;)

The Helpful One ^Review 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Read fully

This page currently says:

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

I would hope reviewers read an article fully before supporting, but I'm unclear why we think an article has to be fully read to Oppose. A reviewer can spot check an article for problems in prose, citation, etc. and find sufficient reason to oppose without reading the entire article. This instruction places an undue burden on reviewers, and I'm not sure why or when it was added. I suggest we drop the "or oppose". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I never much liked this requirement, and would be very pleased to see it go. I appreciate that some nominators might find fault with reviews based on only part of their hard work, but the bare fact is that it's usually quite easy to come to a conclusion by reading just the lead or taking a spot-check or two throughout, at least as far as the quality of writing is concerned. Tony (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also be pleased to see a requirement that reviewers specify which criteria they are basing their oppose or support on. Simply writing "Support" would be a lie for me, since I almost never look at a nomination from the perspective of all of the criteria. I'm happy to write "Support", at least as far as 1a is concerned. Tony (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That creates a different dilemma, for example, when prose is supported but the article is based on non-reliable sources or has POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely you don't need to read the whole article to oppose. I was unaware this language had been inserted. Marskell (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked history and it's been there since 2005. Who knew. I always followed an algorithm where I read the top of the article, the bottom of the article, a spot check of the middle, posted any fixes needed, opposed if issues were significant or if fixes weren't addressed within a few days, and read the article fully once nominators had clearly engaged with the fixes needed and before supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is possible to determine that a proposed article is not yet ready for FA status by scanning it (not reading it fully). However, reading the article fully makes it possible to clearly identify what needs to be done to help the article achieve FA status; a reviewer's "oppose" comment should contain positive comments to help fix what's wrong and do what is needed. Since the goal is to get more articles to FA status, those sorts of comments are helpful and desirable. I support the stated requirement. Truthanado (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At best, it's not enforceable; at worst, it could be deterring reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable request with some value, and as you pointed out for your own reviews, not everyone follows it. It's been there for 3 years ... is there any evidence that people are not reviewing because of it? Let me say that I only occasionally review articles because it is something I am not that good at, not because I am supposed to read the whole article, which by the way, I do when I make review comments. Truthanado (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear that you need to have read it all to support but not to oppose. You can oppose without pointing out every detail wrong with the article. I support the proposed change. Trebor (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and the current insistence militates against specialisation by reviewers, which is an essential aspect of the process. Tony (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony how about adding something back in to this line (I hope people who Support are fully reading):

• To support a nomination, write *Support, followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like this?

*To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.

Tony (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I leapt in and did it; cogent objections are welcome. Tony (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Trebor (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: I would like to suggest that if opposers are opposing based on content issues, they need to be asked to read the entire article. It has happened a lot at RCC that opposers see only part of the article and oppose outright stating that we have omitted facts that are actually in the history section or elsewhere. Savidan made this error as well as others. I think it would be helpful to nominators to somehow ask reviewers to read the entire article but perhaps not make it a requirement. NancyHeise ^talk 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the template

Hi, Shannon1. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your change to the template. Maybe all the negatives are confusing me? I'm not in the business of deleting your change, but, since you say it's important, it seems a shame that people may be failing to get it. Could you explain, please? Bishonen | talk 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

Bish, I'm pretty sure it relates to the many (many!) discussions at Karanacs' and my talk, that we have to archive noms that have been up for three weeks or so without gaining support. That's already covered in the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But... but... [hopelessly ] Oh well. I must be coming down with flu or stupidity or something. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

'Zilla got your tongue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it was about having to archive unsupported noms, but being able to reinsert them without having to wait for the 2 week period. As far as I could see that is not covered anywhere else in the instructions. 189.105.6.140 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well it would be good if Shannon1 clarified the confusion. (The 2-week wait is general.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text change

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, embolden headings).

Can we move this paragraph to the end, under "Nominating instructions" or "Supporting and opposing"? It's much less important. In my opinion the first box (the blue one) should be more general and user-friendly, explaining the process itself, and then the technical information should go in the second box. Just a thought. —Designate (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 18:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Template:FAC-instructions → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/instructions – There's no reason for this to be in the template namespace. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support, wiktionary:fac does not mention "Featured article candidates". GregKaye 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see no valid reason. This template has served us well for years, "if it ain't broke don't try to fix it". Graham Beards (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I kind of fail to see the point. This is a long-standing page. What does it matter if it's in the template namespace or not? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GermanJoe. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unproductive use of times. This can be transcluded elsewhere, and has been, so it functions perfectly as a template. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Response to all of the above: The purpose of the template namespace is templates, i.e. code that is reused. This is not a template, it's just a one-page transclusion of content to keep the top of that one page "cleaner". It's entirely routine, and sensible, for such things to be subpages of the pages they belong to. We move these things all the time. The above appears to be indistinguishable from WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. It took more time to write the "unproductive use of time" post than it would have taken to move the page and change a few characters in the page transcluding the pseudo-template. If I'd just moved it manually without bothering with RM, I doubt anyone would have even noticed. These objections are of the I-don't-care-or-want-to-be-bothered character. But it won't be any bother.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - As with The ed17, I'm not sure I see the point. Help me understand why this matters? Is it just general curation of the template space or is there some technical reason why it needs to move? Looking in Category:Wikipedia featured content templates, I see that most of the pages supporting Featured Content processes are in the template space, even if they are used only once. I admit I'm not an expert on templates and transclusion, so I'd want to understand any implications of moving things out of template space. I do appreciate your opening an RM rather than moving it unilaterally. --Laser brain (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just general curating, no technical reason. I'm not sure there could be a technical reason; you can transclude stuff from anywhere. As for the FC "templates", there's no reason for those to be in template namespace either. We've been doing maintenance like this since at least when the userboxes were moved out of template space years ago, and probably sooner (before my time).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. SMcCandlish, thanks for the explanation. I'm not going to oppose because I can't see that any harm would result from the move, but I can't quite bring myself to support, because to be honest I don't see any benefit from it either. Some forms of housekeeping leave things in better shape for subsequent editors, but I don't see anything changing for good or ill with this move. I'll let others who feel more strongly about this support or oppose. I'm commenting, rather than just keeping quiet, really just to say that I'd rather not see more such proposed moves in situations like this -- we've spent a few minutes of various productive Wikipedians' time on this (and I'm including SMcCandlish in that), and I don't think the encyclopedia will be better off however this discussion is resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would argue that having things in their correct place is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Beyond that, cleaning up template space may prevent future non-templates from being created there. I wouldn't worry about how others choose to spend their time, that should be of no concern to anyone else. PC78 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Right. This is part of many editors' general template namespace cleanup efforts here and there. I'm unaware of anyone spending any serious time on it, much less focusing on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom; not a template, just like other transcluded subpages which are not in templatespace. -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. No harm in a bit of housekeeping, don't really understand why some people are making a fuss. Don't forget others like Template:FLC-instructions. PC78 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:FAC, WP:FAR and WP:FLC store their old review pages in a subpage-structure directly under the respective main page. Putting instructions together with review pages is ambiguous and could be confusing for a bot (a page named Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/instructions could also be an old FAC-nomination pre-2009). The current setup "as is" in a clearly defined and maintained area has worked for the last 11 years - without any tangible benefit of a move it shouldn't be changed. GermanJoe (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence that any bot would actually be confused? The tangible benefit of cleaning up the template space is to have templates in it, not random stuff from all over WP that aren't templates. We have distinct namespaces for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support because the template namespace doesn't make sense for this and because we already do this on some pages. The example that came to my mind was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header, which contains the "instructions" for RFD, and I'm sure there are others. Tavix | Talk  16:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update tool link

Can the link to vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl (text "significant contributors to the article") be changed to xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo? It's more useful in seeing editor contributions to a specific page, among other reasons. Rhinopias (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

At the top of the template, add {{Redirect|WP:FAC|featured article criteria|WP:FACR}} (or something to the effect). Smtchahal (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done... a separate documentation page (/doc) has been created (which can be edited by anyone) and the Redirect hatnote placed there so as not to conflict with the existing hatnote that is actually a part of this template. Thank you for your suggestion!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Request wording change per discussion at WT:FAC

Please change:

If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

to

If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

per the discussion here. Not many people commented but there was no opposition and one explicit agreement, which I think suffices. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Reflects long-standing practice. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Marking as done. Looks like I kind of ec'd with Ian rose :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Change wording of proscription of templates

Please change:

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages, including graphics such as  Done,  Not done and Example text: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

to

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, !xt, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

per the discussion here. No exact text was agreed to there, but I think this is close to the spirit of the discussion. A named list of acceptable templates seems the easiest way to avoid the recursive expansion problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Laser brain is template protection necessary? Semi-protection would seem to stop the very occasional disruptive edit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I doubt it... reduced to semi. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Drop wording suggesting small graphics like "not done" should be avoided

This is kind of a follow-up on Mike's proposal above, but restricted to the issue of the advice about avoiding the use of graphics. Formally: please make the following change:

−

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as <span class="nowrap">[[File:Yes check.svg|18px|link=|alt=]]''' Done'''</span> and <span class="nowrap">[[File:X mark.svg|18px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done'''</span> slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives.

+

Please do not use templates on FAC nomination pages. Complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives.

The reason in a nutshell, is that I doubt the advice about slow page load time is true, if it ever was, even when that advice was added in 2008. Detailed support for this can be found at WT:FAC#Fast-loading check marks and X marks, in particular, this comment, and I should perhaps import a summary of it here, but the gist of it is, that a hundred such check marks on the page would have no significant impact on load time. That's a testable assertion, and perhaps I'll mock something up to test it. Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, it's not only loadtime. It chops the FAC archives when template transclusion limits are reached; we discovered this years ago, it's serious, and it's real, and it wipes FACs off the FAC archive page. Check the 2008 archives for when we first discovered it, and the explanation then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that hasn't been explained adequately at WT:FAC-- institutional memory inactive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Graphics that are not templates only contribute their own size to the PEIS limit, doubled because they are transcluded from the FAC. I don't imagine even the longest Unicode character is more than a few bytes, so these would not cause the problem that things like {{tq}} cause. {{done}} was excluded because it's a template. I think Mathglot is right to say as they do at WT:FAC that the original "page loading time" problem is not going to be affected by using these characters. Personally I'm used to seeing the FAC page without graphic checkmarks and Xes and like it that way, but I'm not sure there's a usability reason to deny them any more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

And to clarify for Mathglot: Sandy's talking about pages like the ones linked here, which can contain more FACs than the live FAC page, so the PEIS for FAC has to be well under the PEIS limit or those archive pages will fail to load properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

So it's not that mathglot misunderstood the template limits problem in archives, rather because I'm not reading FAC I missed a piece ? If that's the case ... the instructions are now hidden at FAC (for reasons that make no sense, except that they aren't being followed anyway) and are likely causing new participants to miss them, so making more prominent the templates that shouldn't be used, rather than less, would help per the kind of confusion here. The load time problems are more likely related to the page being overburdened by segmentation, subheads, and length, but the template transclusion problem is separate and real. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they're both real problems, and the template issue is not something we can ever get around except by reducing template use. The page load time isn't really related to the template limits -- if you search WT:FAC for a post of mine to Victoria (search for "PEIS") you'll see a link to an example page that shows that. Page load time is just the raw size of the FACs -- I know you would like to see FACs be shorter and quicker, with material moved to the talk page, and although we disagree on aspects of that there's no question but that that would reduce page load time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, just making sure Mathglot had the full picture (who knew I still had this page watchlisted). Not ready yet to go read FAC, and trust your representation. What's not being heard is that some editors would return to review and writing if the page clog/stall would be dealt with, and some editors don't want and never will want to process FACs via nomination viewers or any such script or page that sorts them. They want to review the whole page for the reasons I put on your talk. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I don't yet have the full picture, and am doing the best I can, and learning as I go. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, I've figured out I need to write a guide; I'm not getting any younger, and institutional memory is being lost. I recall reading recently about "onboarding new Coords" and a "new FAC Coordination page", and wondered what became of the detailed instructions and Coord page I moved to a different Coord a decade ago! And on the ArchiveN thread, I'm fairly sure I'm the only who could have filled you in, given the background, walked you through it, as I helped Gimmetrow build all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the test is not ideal and should be improved, because instead of varying only variable (namely size: X-mark image, vs. X-mark character) it also uses the {{not done}} template in the table, so it's varying no-template vs. yes-template, which could cause issues for reasons Mike has explained. Redoing the 100-row table to include the X-mark image file directly, and not via the templat {{not done}}, would be a better A/B test. That said, I don't see a problem from that one test, so far. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what those tests are doing, but can you test whether the number of section headings have an effect? And, when you run these tests, are you accounting for the effect of transclusions within a tranclsusion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to run a test to determine whether adding one hundred "not done" X marks to the latest FAC page slows it down, any. I've only run one test, and it doesn't slow it down. The test could be improved, as noted above, and one test doesn't prove anything. Ideally, one would have to run it numerous times in various conditions. It might still be true that overloading the page with check marks slows it down, but it's not a "slam-dunk" or we would have seen that already, even from one test. As Mike points out, this test doesn't say anything one way or the other about the effects that templates have on the page load time, or whether it cuts off templates lower on the page; that would be a different kind of test. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. A couple of years ago Mike looked at a number of templates and determined that quotation ("tq") templates are the most expensive. Is it possible to run a test with some rows (not necessarily 100) of tq templates containing at least 25 characters? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Victoria. I updated the 100-row table to add a third column, containing 100 {{tq}} templates (rev. 1184687933). Transcluding this in rev. 1184674114 of the FAC test page took 1.582/2.007 seconds, or about 0.1 to 0.3 seconds longer than before, of which 121 milliseconds were due to the 100 added tq templates. Once again, one test is not a proof, and rerunning the same test may well have longer (or shorter) times. It is shown as Test 3 below. Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yea, I don't know if it will make a difference, but current FACs include WAY longer text strings than that ... and Mike explained years ago how those got multiplied ... test with strings of two long sentences in a tq template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot ... But it's important to transclude them within a transcluded FAC. When you first added the new blurb to the top of the Philosophy FAC, you got it directly on the FAC page-- not within the transcluded Philosophy FAC (note the edit when I moved it in). The transclusion within a transclusion matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, see Test 4 below, with longer {{tq}} remarks in the table. The total time of 2.2 seconds includes 0.28 seconds dealing with the {{tq}} templates. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, this interesting. Thanks for running the tests. It looks to me like you have plenty of lipspans but I think that they (& perhaps the rows of graphics) have to added to the actual text of the review that's transcluded from the article talk page to the FAC page. My understanding from years ago was that the transclusions caused some multiples of expansions, which then causes problems. It's also possible, based on your tests, that these problems no longer exist. If you'd like a live sample, I'm willing to volunteer St John Altarpiece (Memling) to be reviewed - it can have some sort of a "test" added to the title - then we can add as many rows of graphics & of lipspans as needed. And, since it's not perfect people can review to add to the test. We've often found that a single long review can cause problems for the page as a whole. Of course the coords would have to agree. But if you think that would be a better test & can explain to them why it would be needed, then let me know & I'll submit the article for review. Victoria (tk) 03:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Mike, have a question about the validity of my test 4 for Sandy's test. I used {{lipspan|2}} to create the "long tq remarks" in col. 3 of the transcluded 100-row test table where I'm trying to burden the transcluding mock FAC page with lots of content to see if it slows down page load. Should I subst the lipspans instead, so the table actually gets huge, or is the transclusion of lipspan good enough? Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Tests

I haven't done comparisons yet, but the test page is here, and the data is below:

Test 1. NewPP limit report for the test page, including the 100-row test table:

This is a test against rev. 1184674114 of the test page, containing the 100-row test table. NewPP limit report Parsed by mw2421 Cached time: 20231111224702 Cache expiry: 1645981 Reduced expiry: true Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, vary‐revision‐exists, show‐toc] CPU time usage: 1.245 seconds Real time usage: 1.610 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 8372/1000000 Post‐expand include size: 1086921/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 48870/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 32/100 Expensive parser function count: 4/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 25400/5000000 bytes Lua time usage: 0.247/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 20046326/52428800 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 677.907 1 -total 17.97% 121.800 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Philosophy/archive1 16.65% 112.873 3 Template:Blockquote 14.58% 98.827 1 Template:FAC-instructions 12.79% 86.707 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Benty_Grange_hanging_bowl/archive1 11.15% 75.556 1 Template:Lang 9.53% 64.605 3 Template:Cite_book 6.52% 44.201 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eye_(Alexander_McQueen_collection)/archive1 6.09% 41.273 1 Template:FApages 5.62% 38.090 2 Template:GBPConvert

Test 2. NewPP limit report for the test page, without the 100-row test table:

This is a test against rev. 1184671466 of the test page, without the 100-row test table. NewPP limit report Parsed by mw2377 Cached time: 20231111232858 Cache expiry: 1643464 Reduced expiry: true Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, vary‐revision‐exists, show‐toc] CPU time usage: 1.414 seconds Real time usage: 1.830 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 8142/1000000 Post‐expand include size: 1065893/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 48592/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 32/100 Expensive parser function count: 4/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 25074/5000000 bytes Lua time usage: 0.308/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 18771751/52428800 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 803.758 1 -total 18.59% 149.432 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Philosophy/archive1 17.26% 138.705 3 Template:Blockquote 15.36% 123.438 1 Template:FAC-instructions 12.40% 99.703 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Benty_Grange_hanging_bowl/archive1 10.68% 85.862 1 Template:Lang 9.63% 77.402 3 Template:Cite_book 6.00% 48.198 1 Template:FApages 5.79% 46.531 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eye_(Alexander_McQueen_collection)/archive1 5.30% 42.617 1 Template:Navbar -->

Test 3. NewPP limit report for the test page, with the 100-row table, and a {{tq}} template in each row:

This is a test against rev. 1184674114 of the FAC test page, including one {{tq}} template on each row of the test table (rev. 1184687933): <!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw2408 Cached time: 20231112004705 Cache expiry: 1638778 Reduced expiry: true Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, vary‐revision‐exists, show‐toc] CPU time usage: 1.582 seconds Real time usage: 2.007 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 13351/1000000 Post‐expand include size: 1125649/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 56689/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 32/100 Expensive parser function count: 4/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 60050/5000000 bytes Lua time usage: 0.346/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 17243629/52428800 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 915.490 1 -total 14.98% 137.155 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Philosophy/archive1 14.93% 136.702 1 User:Mathglot/sandbox/Test_pages/FAC_page_load_time_proposal 13.92% 127.431 3 Template:Blockquote 13.18% 120.697 100 Template:Tq 12.24% 112.088 1 Template:FAC-instructions 10.77% 98.623 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Benty_Grange_hanging_bowl/archive1 9.46% 86.565 100 Template:Encodefirst 9.44% 86.410 1 Template:Lang 7.93% 72.600 3 Template:Cite_book -->

Test 4. NewPP limit report, with the 100-row table, and a {{tq}} template with a longer remark:

This is a test against rev. 1184674114 of the FAC test page, including one {{tq}} template on each row of the test table, with a long remark in each one (rev. 1184693941): NewPP limit report Parsed by mw2262 Cached time: 20231112012735 Cache expiry: 1636349 Reduced expiry: true Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, show‐toc] CPU time usage: 2.206 seconds Real time usage: 2.649 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 14812/1000000 Post‐expand include size: 2074614/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 312802/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 32/100 Expensive parser function count: 4/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 60050/5000000 bytes Lua time usage: 0.504/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 15332992/52428800 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 1285.678 1 -total 23.62% 303.717 1 User:Mathglot/sandbox/Test_pages/FAC_page_load_time_proposal 21.90% 281.583 100 Template:Tq 18.16% 233.425 100 Template:Encodefirst 14.97% 192.487 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Philosophy/archive1 14.09% 181.140 3 Template:Blockquote 10.54% 135.554 1 Template:FAC-instructions 9.88% 127.058 1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Benty_Grange_hanging_bowl/archive1 9.56% 122.919 100 Template:Trim 8.66% 111.398 1 Template:Lang

Ironically, the version *without* the 100-row test table containing 100 {{not done}} templates, ran slower (1.414, 1.830 seconds) than the version *with* the test table (1.245, 1.610 seconds). No surprise there, all sorts of factors (notably server load) can affect that. But I'd say that while not a proof, it's one quantum of evidence that adding 100 small icons to the table does not adversely affect page load time. Adding a {{tq}} template to each row appeared to slow it by 0.120697" (one eighth second) for one trial). The test is not ideal, as it fails to vary only one variable: the table should be redone to containg X-mark icons, without the template, to get a better A–B comparison. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)