Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

Passing thoughts on date relevance

Disclaimer: I have no FAs to my name, very little experience in TFA (though I have at one time or another been active on three other Main Page sections), and am wary of rocking the boat too much in an area I have minimal involvement in.

Modesty over. I notice that the current TFA is 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix. A fine Formula One article, worthy of being read any day of the year, but I can't help thinking that last Sunday would have been the optimum day for featuring it (to coincide with the 2013 edition). It may be that another article was specifically chosen for an anniversary on the 28th (I haven't checked, but if so that of course takes priority), but where this is not the case, perhaps the date relevance criteria should be taken a little bit more liberally? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Harold Davidson was nominated at WP:TFAR for 28th July as that's the day on which he was attacked by a lion, which isn't a bad date connection. The 2008 Hungarian GP was nominated at WP:TFAR for the 5th anniversary of the race; nobody (including me) noticed the date of the 2013 event. Bencherlite^Talk 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The week of George?

Is there something called the week of George, since all the TFA's that are scheduled between the 25th and 29th of October are biographies that starts with some variety of the name George? If this is just an coincidence, wouldn't it be better to spread these TFA's out a little? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it's not a complete coincidence that we have a number of Georges in a row. Two of them (Georges Bizet and George Herriman) were suggested at WP:TFAR, and some comments started about the near-identical first name (e.g. "possibly minus a couple points for having too many Georges in one week", "nice article and it'll be nice not to have a George or a beard!", so I decided to run with this idea and find a few more George-related articles to demonstrate the variety of featured articles. So over five days you have a French classical composer, an Australian airforce commander, an American Pentecostal minister, an American cartoonist and a female British novelist. I could have kept going (search for "George" at WP:FANMP to see what other articles could have been used) but something else was nominated for 30th October and 5 days of biographical articles on the trot, albeit it from a range of topic areas, is probably enough. Over the years (before and during my time as TFA selector), TFA has set up these little asides for a bit of variety (and to see who's paying attention) - Raul scheduled several articles in a row with the same initial letter on at least one occasion, and earlier this year we had a few articles in a row with "Eagle" in the title. Does that explain things to your satisfaction? Bencherlite^Talk 13:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Helps me. I find it kind of funny that Giorgi just got elected in Georgia, too. 1.202.44.32 (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it time to revisit the protection status of the article featured on the main page?

Some discussions recently have led me to ponder this - do people really think we get editors from tinkering with the main page? Is the potential benefit of this worth the risk of visitors finding a vandalised page? How often is there a beneficial edit to a mainpage featured article (or any featured article for that matter) from an IP?

Keep as is (i.e. default is unprotected, with certain pages protected for varying reasons)

1. Vandalism is reverted quickly, and unwanted stylistic changes are easily fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
2. no evidence has been presented that the current system doesn't work. We can always institute protection on a case-by-case basis as needed, but I find no reason to protect all main page articles before it is clear there is a problem.--Jayron32 23:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
3. per Jayron32. I have done the occasional reverts as far as my time permits, in order to keep it generally unprotected, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Please don't use pending protection here. That's worse than protecting the article as it will make people think that is how Wikipedia works. As always, we should protect once it's clear there is a problem. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
5. This is the way wikipedia works. We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit unless the article has been deemed good enough or is in the public eye. If problems develop with an article, then short-term protect it by all means. But let's not throw out the entire spirit of wikipedia to save the vandal fighters a few reverts. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Per Jayron32 and Tazerdadog. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
7. I was in favor of PC1 until I read Hobit's comment: we definitely don't want to be giving the wrong impression here. I may support PC1 if an elegant way to let newbies know it is not the natural order of things is proposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
8. I'm here because the highest number of votes right now is for the pending changes option, and I dislike pending changes. Is there a problem with TFA vandalism? You bet there is. Is PC ever a good answer for anything? I still believe not. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Vandalism gets reverted extremely quickly (if not subtle). It hasn't been shown that the current system does not work. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
10. I think the benefits of having TFA as a gateway for new editors far outweigh the extra work. wctaiwan (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
11. FAs need less protection than other articles because their status ensures that they are closely watched. And they are not so wonderful that they can't be improved. Looking at the current FA, I reckon the first paragraph would benefit from some copy editing. Warden (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
12. Until someone draws up some actual statistics showing that this is a problem, and that vandalism goes unreverted, this is the better option. Away from the main page, vandalism can remain unreverted for hours. I was surprised recently to see that our article on the Whitehall Cenotaph remained in this vandalised state for two hours on 11 November. Does vandalism on a main page TFA ever last for more than a few minutes, and is even that too long? Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
13. This is a bad idea for two reasons: it actively breaks the way people would expect Wikipedia to work, and it's a good example of not broken / don't fix. Now, if strong actual (non-anecdotal) evidence emerges to show that there is a real problem, I'd reconsider, but this doesn't look to be one of those cases. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
14. No evidence the current system is not broken. The FA is not necessary the most viewed page, improvements are always needed and in my view vandalism quickly reverted. Also oppose Pending Changes, which would lock out the editors who took the page to FAC/TFA. Edgepedia (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
15. Per Crisco. Legoktm (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
16. PC is a great idea, but it's much more useful for pages that don't get substantial amounts of attention. When lots of people are paying attention to an article, vandalism gets removed more quickly. It's rare that any vandalism will last more than a few minutes (at worst) with TFA. I've seen and fixed plenty of errors (grammar/syntax/spelling/etc.) in TFAs, and we really shouldn't prevent new users from being able to fix such pages. Protection should never be applied to TFAs (except of course for move protection), except as a way of stopping vandalism in progress. 2001:18E8:2:11BD:4C05:6D67:59C0:2182 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

    Oops, I forgot that I was logged out. Please don't disrupt the page history by requesting a revdel, because I don't mind the IP address being visible; it's not my own address, anyway. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

17. Protection should always be used as a response to issues, not as a default state. Resolute 17:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And the issue we are responding to is constant vandalism on Today's Featured article all the time. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes

1. Let's be honest, if an article goes on the main page as the featured article, it is going to be vandalized on 95% of occasions at least. However, pre-emptively semi-protecting or full-protecting goes against the way Wikipedia is supposed to be run. Pending Changes, however, is perfect for this particular role (even if I don't rate it generally); good edits can be allowed, regardless of who made them, whilst the obvious vandalism gets nowhere near the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, per WP:PROTECT#When to apply pending changes protection, pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

   I'm aware of that, but there's a clear difference here; Pending Changes fully maintains the "allow anyone to edit" ethos, whilst also preventing obviously unhelpful things from appearing in articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Support - allows all the inevitable rubbish to be filtered, while keeping the article in good shape and potentially allowing anyone to edit. At the moment when one of the FAs I've worked on gets scheduled for TFA my reaction is "sigh...here we go again..." Simon Burchell (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Now that I understand what "Pending Changes" means (I had to look it up – I've added a link so that other ignoramuses are not likewise confused), I'm inclined to support this option on the pragmatic grounds that it stands a minimal chance of being accepted, whereas I don't think that semi or full protection ever will be. It will be a small help; my instincts are entirely with Ealdgyth's as expressed below. Incidentally, my invariable rule, when an article I have toiled over is TFA, is to avoid it like the plague for its 24 hours of glory, then quietly clean up when the tumult and shouting has died. This way, my blood pressure remains fairly normal, and I have time to consider the added edits and to discuss them, if necessary, with their perpetrators editors. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support PC1 - People can still edit but vandalism won't be visible. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - This seems to be the best of both worlds option. Keep protected from vandalism while allowing edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. A needed change. Everyking (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - maintaining the integrity of our content while it is featured in a high traffic location is an important process, but we must maintain our goals. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Support PC2 to prevent vandalism, which will occur in spades, from being visible. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
9. TFA is very nearly paradoxical. Wikipedia is the site anybody can edit, and our showcased pieces should exemplify how well that model works. On the other hand, our showcased articles are also pretty much complete, having been scrutinized for accuracy and quality of presentation. Is the TFA an example of a "complete" entry—which, theoretically, could be fully protected when on the main page—or just a sample of the wiki model, which favors no protection at all? I think it's a combination of both. Somewhere along the lines, WP's mission shifted (or should have, anyway) from proposing a social experiment to creating a respected, high-quality base of information, though obviously our goals will always comprise some mixture of both ideologies. In that sense, I think implementing PC on all TFAs is extremely prudent in that it conveys a sense of academic rigor while still upholding the traditional "anyone can edit" theory. Certainly vandalism linked from the main page, even if for a few seconds, needs to become a thing of the past. I like to think we've matured beyond that. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Support PC1 because it allows people to contribute, but makes sure no vandalism with turn up on the FA. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - on one hand, we don't want the first rticle a newcomer sees (after seeing that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit) be a page which (s)he can't. On the other hand, we don't want this article to be vandalized, either. With PC, the vandalism is less visible, but anyone can still edit the article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu
12. Support. To quote myself: 'Think about it: when people tell you they don't like Wikipedia, do they say, "There was one time I couldn't edit an article so I never used it again"? Of course not. They say, "Any idiot can edit it so I don't trust it." Because, on their first visit to Wikipedia, they clicked on the featured article and saw nothing but a page full of "suck my dick" or "Jimbo is a pedophile" written a thousand times. We lose more potential editors when that happens than we ever will by semi-protecting an article for a day.' This seems like a fair compromise. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
13. Support - Today's featured article is probably the most prominent article on Wikipedia. It is the article that readers first see when looking at the home page. It's our first impression. This has its ups and downs. On the upside: It showcases an article which the community has agreed is one of the best. Today's featured article is the first place where aspiring editors can go to offer good-faith edits. Unfortunately, editors who aren't here to help the encyclopedia target this page first. In my eyes, vandalism is so inevitable on TFA articles that preemptive protection—just for one day—is necessary. However, one of our goals is to attract more good faith contributors. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia 'that anyone can edit'. It doesn't make sense to completely lock up our best pages and prevent them from being free and open. Pending changes is the option in the middle: it allows editors who wish to truly contribute to do so, but protects the encyclopedia from anonymous or non-confirmed vandalism. Sure, vandalism is easily spotted and reverted, but pending changes allows reviewers to revert those bad edits before they appear on the page we call our best. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
14. This strikes me as the best compromise between putting on our best face for the readers while still allowing editors an opportunity to improve TFAs if they see a weakness. We would substantially lower the risk of vandalism appearing in what readers see, and the article will still be open to editing. If we're going to have pending changes, this seems like a logical use for it. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
15. Support PC1 Vandalism won't appear, yet IPs can still edit if they find a weakness. buffbills7701 12:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
16. Support, great idea, logical and sensible. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
17. Support definitely the best option. --LT910001 (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
18. Support a good compromise between allowing new or curious users to edit the page, and exposing readers to (persistent) vandalism. TheGrappler (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection

1. I'd really like for some of those folks who are saying that the current system works fine would actually have to deal with a large number of TFAs. Every additional one that you have to deal with just burns you out a bit more. It's a cumulative effect... you stop being interested in dealing with the crap. Is it really THAT important that idiots can change things on an article ... is the principle of "let's let anyone screw up an article because it proves we allow anyone to edit" worth telling the people who create your high quality content that their time and effort isn't really worth much because they obviously have nothing better to do than deal with vandalism and people who know nothing about the subject blovating at length? Because that's what you're telling me ... that my time isn't important at all... that I should spend my time dealing with the Randy from Boises or schoolchildren instead of creating more content. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

   Let me just offer my sympathies Ealdgyth, and observe that the pain you feel is the result of facing the Boxer mentality, that creates significant wear and tear on the diligent editors by perpetuating the "suffer and keep the website running" attitude. Of course no one is forced to be Boxer on Wikipedia - but are they not? Do you not feel a duty to keep the website in good shape? You do. I used to do. But after a while listening to the chorus of "we can just fight them off" becomes too much, you just walk off, only to be followed by a group of WP:ER people leaving you images of high cholesterol items. The reality is that the Boxer mentality of "all problems can be solved if we all work harder" permeates the fabric of Wikipedia. But with 4 million pages, this is not 2006 any more. But there will be no point in arguing the point. So I will just offer my sympathies to you here (with an equestrian backdrop), and will not even bother to support any decision. The outcome of this Rfc is already predetermined: "let us all just work harder". Well, good luck. Scholarly comments (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Main page articles get a high amount of traffic, and we should try and keep them clear of vandalism. Yes - there are editors who work hard to revert such vandalism, but why not just save people the hassle? Since all the pages we're talking about have been judged as FA they're unlikely to need much improvement, so I don't think it's harmful for us to ban IPs from editing them. If they really have a concern, they can always raise it on the talk page. I think it's a bit ridiculous for people to worry about "going against the ethos of wikipedia" or whatever - it's only for one day. And we have lots of articles that IPs aren't allowed to edit anyway... --Loeba (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

   So now please let me ask the obvious question: what is the ethos of Wikipedia that you refer to in any case? Is the ethos to "present correct information" or to "let people change information"? The purpose of letting people change information is to correct errors, or enhance shortcomings when they see them. By that token let me offer a maxim:

   If an article is not good enough to stay stable for 24 hours, for Heaven's sake do not put it on the main page".

   Is that not straightforward? The assumption that the ethos of Wikipedia is a perpetual bump car game is no ethos for an encyclopedia, but for an amusement arcade. If it is good enough to go on the main page, it should be good enough to be protected to stay stable for 24 hours. Now, please do accept my apologies for getting upset here. I give up. I just set my account password to random and walked off. Good luck. Scholarly comments (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

   Erm...I was referring to the "ethos" that wikipedia be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which is what sets it apart from any other. But I'm pretty sure that we're in agreement: a featured article should be entirely accurate and comprehensive, so the need for people to edit it is minimal. The "ethos" becomes negligible. --Loeba (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

3. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. I can accept that there are exceptions to every rule. I would actually prefer that these TFAs are fully protected for two days, so we have absolutely no nonsense. Here, we're talking about our main page – one of the most heavily-visited pages on the planet. Let's just take away even the chance of excitement for those thrill-seekers who mess with our TFA just because we've always said they should be able to. Why should they be able to 365:24/7? A full lock-down for two days is going to stabilise the content and cure many more problems that it could possibly cause.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Niels Bohr got 28,000 hits - a low figure probably due to it being a holiday of some sort in the US. There were 70 edits from 50 editors, and the only enduring result was two changes of capitalisation. Two admins were kept busy reverting over the 24 hour period. A lock down of the TFA is in order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
6. I'd prefer full protection while on the main page, but I know there's no chance of that ever happening. Eric Corbett 20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - A logical step that prevents vandalism and saves editor time. Should have been done years ago. Jusdafax 20:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Strong support --The main page is fully protected, this seems like a logical continuation of that. While some may argue this is preemptive protection, we have, in fact learned that just telling people not to vandalize doesn't work, we have to implement some preventive measures given that things prominently featured on the main page will get vandalized. It would save a lot of time that is currently spent reverting vandalism to TFA. Jinkinson talk to me 02:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
9. net positive any of these proposals has strong pro's and con's. This is the least bad solution. Dlohcierekim 13:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Support, excellent proposal, sound and reasonable. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

1. Support In the three articles that I've had that appeared on the mainpage, most of the edits were removing and replacing oxford commas or vandalism. I've never seen a substantial edit. If there's a substantial edit, they can always mention it on the talk page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Better safe than sorry. This saves a whole lot of trouble and prevents a whole lot of problems. It's only temporary, so why not? As the editor above says, there's always the Talk page if something is major -- which for a FA article should not be the case. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Not even sure which category I fit in yet....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• This is another perennial proposal. Among the reasons that protecting TFA's have failed to gain consensus in the past have included: TFAs are suppose to help promote Wikipedia to new users by featuring a daily article that "anyone can edit", the TFA is usually always watched by many editors to revert obvious vandalism, per WP:PPOL articles are not preemptively protected before vandalism occurs, and the article can be cleaned-up or reverted once it falls of the main page. See also WP:MPFAP and Wikipedia:For and Against TFA protection. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, was aware that it was perennial, just wondering on whether the benefits/headaches are tilting again in favour of some form of protection. We also have a Pending Changes option, though I find PC of very limited use only, if at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My comment was only meant for others, who might not be aware that all these issues were discussed before, and a summary of the previous arguments, for and against, have been complied on those pages I cited. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(belatedly) aaah ok, yeah good point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'd go with Pending Changes, to be honest. Semi-protection and full-protection by default simply aren't helpful; PC for the day should do the job in most cases. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd be more in tune with PC if it wasn't a kludge of a system that's hard to understand and counterintuitive. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

So Luke....you wanna place a vote in teh PC segment above? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've notified Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, since this means making a change to the policy. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• There also may be an issue with applying pending changes protection to TFAs. Per WP:PCPP and WP:PC, pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate. Some TFA's do in fact generate lots of traffic and edits. This was a problem that we found in the various pending changes trials: pending changes was ineffective to articles that received high editing rates. They instead resulted in a significant backlog at Special:PendingChanges. In addition. the speed at which reviewers were checking each page revision (and going through the review process) could not keep up with all the IPs and non-autoconfirmed users making various edits. And the way PC works, a registered user's subsequent edits do not normally become visible until all the previous IP and non-autoconfirmed edits are accepted,. Thus in the end, consensus was made that it was much easier to just apply semi-protection to high-traffic pages, since that was effectively happening anyway with all these pending changes backlogs. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• The current situation means that we are serving vandalized articles at least some of the time. Pending changes is burdensome and one more wearying task that eats up resources that would be better spent elsewhere. As an alternative, why not link from the Main page to a fully protected copy of the TFA, with a hatnote with a link to the actual article. New edits to the actual article could be monitored/pending while the TFA was active. Most vandals would want to see their work to immediately appear linked from the Main page, and there would be less incentive for them to go down another level and vandalize an actual article. As fewer vandals would target actual articles, as their changes wouldn't be highlighted from the Main page, there should be fewer edits to patrol. Is there something onerous that I'm missing that would prevent trying something along this line? • Astynax ^talk 19:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this or how workable it would be, but it's actually a pretty interesting idea. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I like this much (much) better than the various forms of protection being discussed. Hobit (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'd strongly support this motion, but I get the feeling it may get vetoed by the WMF or something like that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• That's a pretty good idea, Astynax. Were you thinking the protected copy of the TFA would be in project space? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of handling it that way. The only thing that had occurred to me to address the issue of a duplicate page title was to add something to the copy's title in the mainspace (e.g., the locked copy might be Featured: William Burges and the William Burges article would remain unlocked or pending changes). After the TFA, the copy's title could be turned into a redirect back to the article, to preserve any outside links made to it during the TFA. Perhaps that is too clunky, however. My reasoning was simply that vandals and PoV-pushers tend to go after the most visible spaces and much less likely to bother going after the article itself. Putting up a protected copy would also impact the boost that TFA makes on the hit count for a featured article, but I believe the vast majority of editors would be unconcerned with that bit of vanity. should TFA linking to a fully protected copy reduce vandalism. • Astynax ^talk 00:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea too. I couldn't think why Lukeno94 would think the WMF might veto it, but now I think of it the page view thing is one reason. Maybe send all those who click on the "read more" link to the mainspace article which would be protected, but when you click "edit" you are directed to an edit version of a copy of the article (and a prominent notice tells you that you are not editing the actual article). Effectively, page views would remain the same, but edits would get directed to a sandbox. The problem with this, and similar proposals, is that someone may read the protected version, and go to make edits to the 'editable' copy of the article, only to find that someone else has already edited it and the two versions are out of sync. Essentially the same problems that pending changes runs into. It might be workable, though. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, must say I am not keen on forking a page into two copies. Why not just use Pending Changes, which is what this sort of is..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to cut down on the number of edits that must be vetted, and in some cases the amount of article-related knowledge required of reviewers (some vandals do like to introduce nonsense that may not be immediately obvious to people unfamiliar with a subject). An article that has gone through the FA process, and then another look-through and cleanup prior to TFA should be presentable as-is. The idea is not creation of a fork, but rather a temporary mirror of the TFA article. The only addition would be a hatnote with a link to the editable article. The TFA vandals I've noticed have overwhelmingly focused on getting their markup posted in the highly visible article linked from the mainpage. Few of these have bothered to attack articles before or after the TFA, nor have they vandalized related articles prominently linked within the TFA. • Astynax ^talk 20:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Before recommending any change, I'd like statistics on how serious is the issue of vandalism: how many articles are vandalised, how often they're vandalised, how long we're serving vandalised pages for, how much time is spent fixing this. I generally think that before coming up with a controversial proposal, people should make some kind of effort to quantify how much of a problem there actually is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) you're right - I highly doubt any vandalism gets through unreverted after a day on the mainpage, but quantifying the reverts, and then figuring out what people think is reasonable/unreasonable use of time could be interesting. I suspect we'd not find consensus....but should be done I guess....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The analysis from December 2008 is here. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The 2006 and 2008 studies showed that the average article sends about 2-3 hours of the day in a vandalised state, although due to caching the vandalised version may be viewable longer. While most vandals go with "suck my cock" and the like, some like to insert nonsense. Usually this is just fiddling with dates and figures to make them wrong; these changes take longer to fix. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@DrKiernan, that's a great study - would you have time to repeat it this time round? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Where should the new data (User:DrKiernan/sandbox) be posted? DrKiernan (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd put it at Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles/December 2013 Main Page FA analysis and make sure there were crosslinks on all pages. I think this sort of material is essential to reference in future. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It should also refer back to the earlier studies. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Mainpage date}}

Template:Mainpage date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No it hasn't. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 4. Bencherlite^Talk 01:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. My bad. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If anyone wants a good case for page protection for TFAs...

So, my article Samuel Merrill Woodbridge is TFA today. Wasn't long after the calendar came to 11 December...and it wasn't an IP user, it was a named account (‎Marshavoc) that decided to not only vandalize the Woodbridge article but the related New Brunswick Theological Seminary and Reformed Church in America articles. Sure, it was reverted--but there's no serious reason to have to put up with this bullshit. On TFA day Wikipedia isn't the encyclopedia anyone can edit--because in several years I've never seen a case where an article was drastically improved beyond a few overlooked misspelled words or missing commas--TFA day makes Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can vandalize thanks to consensus to not make a decision on the matter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, I must thank Taylor Trescott and Mark Arsten for their vigilance and fixing Marshavoc's misguided efforts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Update...TFA day is only half over...and now 1/3 of the article's entire edit history is devoted to repairing today's vandalism. Yay page protection! Wait. Further thanks to EricEnfermero, HMSSolent and George8211 for fixing some of the vandalism efforts in the last few hours. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)