![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I carved this out of the Biology and Medicine section. SandyGeorgia reverted it because (and it seems only because) I had not discussed it on the talk page and he had some difficulty with edit conflicts. I don't really think I need to discuss things on talk pages before I act. This is certainly a new rule I haven't heard about. I think the change was sensible, I gave the reason, and I think that SandyGeorgia should put the page back in the state it was. In future she should say what's actually wrong with changes in substance, not the rigamarole of following what she'd like to see on talk pages. I expect she'll have some objection or other though. Wik idea 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing still isn't clear to me, because it you separate Flora and fauna, then the cat name Biology and medicine is misleading, unless Flora and fauna are a sub-cat, which we don't want. If we instead separate only Medicine, and leave everything else under a cat named Biology, we have some other division issues (which goes where). Which is better ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Current total is 169; split yields 134 Biology, 35 Health and medicine.
(outdent) - ugh, I think leaving and then nagging the rest of us to stop writing biology FAs...no wait....'aaaargh!!! Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
<Moved to WT:FAC#Lead sections, take two.> SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with the director of featured articles and his assistants? Doesn't having ranks and titles go against the whole wiki community model? I kind of understand why we need sysops to outrank the rest of us, but for featured articles, why can't we just use consensus like everywhere else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.55 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, April 12, 2008
Please can you add simple:Wikipedia:Very good articles?
Well done on the page, and thanks very much, Drum guy ( talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be renamed to "Literature, theater and comics", for the section contains articles about comics as well. Also the section "Media" should be renamed to "Movies, radio and television", since books, booklets, pamphlets, brochures, magazines are also media (this is just the draft, for media terms, organizations and journalism are related to media as well. If some of articles about them are FAs, then the section "Movies, radio and television" does not fit them. Maybe a new section called "Media studies and journalism" can solve this problem......)-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Kozuch has been using AWB and in the process moving the featured article template to above the categories. I asked him about it and he told me that that's the default setting in AWB. I seem to recall being told that the featured template should be last in the article. Does it matter? Mike Christie (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy and Psychology are about as different as Biology and Physics. In fact more different, because Biology and Physics are both sciences, whilst Philosophy is a world less scientific than Psychology. Why on earth are these bundled together in the Featured Article categories? Most philosophers know hardly any psychology, and vice versa. Many people who study philosophy never even touch on psychology, and vice versa. What is going on here? Can we separate these two disciplines please? -- Aquillyne-- ( talk)
This is an interesting discussion however it appears archaic. The fact is that both Philosophy and Psychology are, these days, significantly large and disparate subjects. Both now also have a significant number of pages on Wikipedia. And it's simply ridiculous to bundle them together: I almost guarantee that no Psychology page will link to a Philosophy page, and vice versa, except in a very trivial way. No university has a Psychology and Philosophy department combined. Let's face it, the subjects are distinct. Parapsychology, on account of being "para", does not instantaneously become Philosophy. This is an awful misunderstanding of what Philosophy is in the first place, which we ought not to associate with Wikipedia. Parapsychology is still Psychology, or otherwise it needs to go where articles on horoscopes and clairvoyants go. Nevertheless, there is no point is spoiling the categorisation system just to make space for Parapsychology. For the most part, Psychology and Philosophy are still entirely separate, even if this small area does represent an overlap. Chemistry and Biology overlap all the time, but I don't see those being put together. As a Philosophy student myself, I reiterate: I absolutely object to my subject being bundled in with Psychology — not because I don't like it, but because it's just simply got nothing to do with what I study. -- Aquillyne-- ( talk)
There is certainly an argument to be made for putting philosophy and psychology together as disciplines. Psychology grew out of the philosophy of mind, and most of the founders of psychology were also either philosophers or are philosophically important. There is also the issue of Hume and Nietzsche, who considered themselves as much psychologists as philosophers (and who were also historians in their own right). It is also specious to argue that the two disciplines will not have links between the two in Wikipedia. Cognitive science/cognitive psychology is more philosophically relevant now than ever, as is moral psychology.
However, it is quite correct that the two have grown into separate disciplines. Galileo, after all, was important to the founding of modern philosophy, but we don't insist on grouping either astronomy or mechanics with philosophy. And there is no controversy over placing Hume and Nietzsche firmly within the category of "philosophy" these days. Finally, the parapsychology issue seems strange to me. Where does it go? Under psychology, of course! Just as pseudophilosophy would go under philosophy. Postmodern Beatnik ( talk) 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [I agree with this comment about article placement! -- Aquillyne-- ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
I forgot to deal with the number of articles issue, so I'll just respond to my own comment here. On the one hand, we don't have a pressing space limitation; it wouldn't be a problem to have a heading for psychology with only two articles under it, though it might be a little embarrassing for those in WikiProject Psychology. On the other hand, I can see why one might want to keep philosophy and psychology together until the latter has enough articles to fill out a substantive section of its own. Postmodern Beatnik ( talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I say no to bundling Psych with Phil. They are not really as alike at all in the final analysis. This bundling is more a result of popular impressions. Wouldn't it make more sense to bundle Math and Phil? They are both study of abstractions. Furthermore Math is significantly different than other natural sciences. Philosophy should stand on its own. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Reactive attachment disorder is a psychiatric disorder. If you consider psychiatry to be medicine, then it could be considered a medical disorder. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. Reactive attachment disorder is a diagnostic category of both the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Parapsychology is not consider Psychology in the professional sense, despite its name. It is not taught in academic psychology nor considered by the American Psychological Association as a sub discipline. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The FAC categorization system makes no sense. Asperger syndrome is categorized under Health and medicine. This despite the fact that Asperger syndrome is described in its own article as an Autism spectrum disorder which, in turn, is described in its own article as a "spectrum of psychological conditions". This is wikilinked to Autism spectrum which also is described in its article as "a spectrum of psychological conditions". Reactive attachment disorder, can also be described as a psychological condition, so it is just as much a "medical condition" as Asperger syndrome. However, it is inconsistently categorized under Psychology along with Parapsychology which is not considered Psychology in the 20th century. Consult the Psychology template which lists the major divisions of Psychology.
In the 20th century, Psychology and Psychiatry are separate disciplines but deal with very similar and overlapping subject matter. Psychologists and psychiatrists work together closely in treatment and research settings. I propose that there be a category in FAC for Psychology and Psychiatry where Asperger syndrome, Reactive attachment disorder, and other psychiatric/psychological conditions and diagnostic categories of the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association would be placed. Other scientifically based articles on psychology and psychiatry could go here.
I think there is a damaging misunderstanding of the current discipline of Psychology. Psychiatry is also not accorded recognition of its true status. Confusing Psychology with Philosophy, as well as with almost any wacko theory having to do with human behaviour, whether scientifically supported or not, has made it impossible for Psychology to produce reputable articles for Wikipedia. As has been pointed all, all scientific disciplines stemmed from Philosophy.
Throwing Parapsychology under Psychology, on the basis (I guess) that it has the word Psychology in it, has the effect, along with the general misunderstanding of academic and professional psychology, of demoralizing the entire Psychology project. We have enough trouble trying to protect articles on the discipline of Psychology from wacko theories, feel-good pop psychology marketers selling books and treatment packages, and plain writers of OR. It is extremely difficult to write and maintain a decent article on Psychology because "authorities" such as FAC are not informed as to what Psychology is. People who monitor the few respectable Psychology articles on Wikipedia are constantly reverting trash, because Psychology is considered a grab bag category that contains almost anything anyone wants to categorize as such.
According Psychology and Psychiatry a separate category representing their true status would help in remedying this situation, and reduce the confusion with Philosophy. As it is now, FAC categories perpetuate the confusion.
Thank you for considering this problem. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I just thought that these sections may expand a lot eventually, so i was just wondering if anyone would object if i moved the sections to their own pages and transcluded them here? Same thing for WP:GA there? Simply south ( talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy. This is a really, really bad idea for the reasons she has described. Raul654 ( talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, i withdraw. (And i've fixed the archives above if that is okay with the correct version i was trying to do) Simply south ( talk) 21:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Whilst i am quickly here, this is what it looks like.
. Simply south ( talk) 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
<Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Ownership likely in Featured Articles>. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the " Paleolithic diet" belongs in the "Biology and medicine" section, more than in the "Food and drink" section. Just my opinion. -- 70.53.141.111 ( talk) 11:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's clearly more related to food (a specific category) than biology (a general category). Raul654 ( talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So, I'm assuming that the " Ketogenic diet" will also go in the "food and drink" category when it gets featured... -- 198.103.167.20 ( talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with above comments, and stand by my original comments - the paleolithic diet is should clearly go in the more specific subject (food) than health. As far as the ketogenic diet, I appreciate that its purpose is medically oriented, but I still have to say that it more specifically belongs in food than medicine. Raul654 ( talk) 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(Redacted from Sandy and Marskell's talk pages)
I was roaming around thinking about our FA list (after debating on GA talk) and noticed your sandbox proposing splitting Biology. I think the split is inevitable, as the section continues to grow. But I think it should be Tree of Life, not Flora and Fauna. "Vegetables and animals" is actually archaic, even if people still think of "two kingdoms". Tree of Life is more inclusive.
Just a note, in case I miss you or Raul splitting it. Marskell ( talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Above, a brief conversation on something that has come up before. Any comments? Sandy wants to wait until Bio hits 200, but I don't see why we don't just get it over with and split the section. What format? Marskell ( talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Old mockups in my sandbox, not sure either of them agree with Raul's split, so let's figure it out and get on with it. If we split according to Raul's plan, what do we call them? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Updated mockup at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Mockup to split WP:FA Biology and medicine; it it's OK per Tim and Tim, I'll move it in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how we're still unable to gain consensus on adding a GA symbol to the top right corner of articles, and considering that several users aren't too crazy about any type of rating symbols in articles, perhaps we should revisit the topic of adding the 'FA star' to the top right corner of articles as well. Should we continue to add this symbol to articles? Or should we discontinue the practice, and focus more on actually improving the quality of articles instead? Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there any Featured articles that are about holidays? Which category would they be sorted under? I'm talking about holidays such as Independence Day, Canada Day, etc. I'm looking for one as a basis for one that I'd like to work on. Gary King ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have any FA on Zoos ? I was about to start an article on Nagpur Zoo and wanted guidelines from some FA. Couldn't find any so confirming... -- gppande «talk» 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there any (former or current) FAs related to classical music, such as composers (i.e. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven), musical compositions ( Ninth Symphony), musical styles ( Baroque music, Romantic music), etc.? Gary King ( talk) 06:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(cross-posting to several noticeboards)
We've had a considerable amount of discussion discussing the merits and drawbacks of the current assessment scale, and it has resulted in two proposals. The first consists of moving the {{ A-Class}} assessment level below {{ GA-Class}}; the other is the addition of a new {{ C-Class}} scale between {{ B-Class}} and {{ Start-Class}}. We'd like the community to voice its opinion about these proposals here. Thanks, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 06:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I just noted that Max Weber is listed here under "Business, economics and finance." In that he is a, if not the, founder of the discipline of Sociology (along with Emile Durkheim), can I suggest he is transferred toute suite to "Culture and society"? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No objections here. Raul654 ( talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
i know some people are going to object to the idea of this, and some people are going to want to delete this page. BUT, i couldn't find a chat room for Wikipedia, so i made this, so people can post messages, questions, answers to questions, or just chat. so, if there IS a chat room on Wikipedia, please let me know about it. oh, by the way, my names itssnowing. (please don't make fun of me)
why isn't there a twister page? i looked for information about twisters, and it just took me to a tornadoes page. why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itssnowing ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
you made what ? please post a link to the page. Machete97 ( talk) 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
which of the following is true
1) an article of good status is assessed and it it agreed that it should be featured, and it then joins a waiting list of such articles and is featured on the main page on a certain day, and it recieves FA status (and the star) AFTER being featured on the main page
2) same as above but the status is granted after assesment, and it never need be featured on the main page, and there is list of featured articles nominated for "todays featured article"
Machete97 ( talk) 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks for clearing that up. I knew it didnt have to be "good" status to go to featured - but i read on the assesments page that it is rarely anything else. Machete97 ( talk) 18:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if this subject has been broached before. I couldn't quite make myself search through all of those archives. I hadn't realized until "my" FA hit the front page what a vandal magnet the featured article becomes. I realize that in most circumstances we don't pre-emptively protect pages but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to make an exception to that rule for the daily featured article. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking over the featured articles list and it seems odd to me that things like Halo: Contact Harvest and Halo Graphic Novel are featured. I understand that part of the function of the featured articles list is to provide trivia, but selections like this seem insignificant and mundane, and even seem to provide evidence of a (for lack of a better term) "nerd bias". What really has been the impact of Halo's spinoff properties? It seems to me that the game is really the only thing worth featuring, because it has a definite place in a discussion of important video games-- but what is the place of Halo: Contact Harvest in the realm of serious literature, or even serious science fiction? Even if the articles were extremely well-written or well-formatted is that really worth giving them a feature? What's the value of singling out articles only interesting to Halo con attendees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettycooleh ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that The Penelopiad (promoted today) is the first article created through WP:AfC to become featured ( Category:FA-Class AFC articles). See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Featured Content Drive. — maclean 03:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get an article about a newspaper up to at least GA quality, and ultimately FA (if poss) - but am finding it hard to find any inspiration from similar FA quality articles. Could you suggest any newspaper ones please, as I want to see what format they use and try and follow that. Cheers!-- seahamlass 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are contents not listed by categories like the good articles? ( Halgin ( talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)).
In the seond paragraph, first sentence, It says "At present, there are 2,117 featured articles, of a total of 2,437,547 articles on Wikipedia." Shouldn't it be "At present, there are 2,117 featured articles, of a toal 2,437,547 pages on Wikipedia." since some pages are lists or photos, etc. Annoyomous24 ( talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm bringing this up here because it's the best place: I've created two shortcuts to Tony's guide to satisfying criterion 1a: WP:1A and WP:1a. This should ease navigation for both reviewers and writers. Thanks! Sceptre ( talk) 10:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Where it says Wiki's editors, the link is to Wikipedia:Wikipedian which redirects to Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Call it OCD if you will, but could someone fix this link? 60.234.161.83 ( talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it OK to bring an article straight to FA, therefore bypassing the GA process? I am working on a newspaper article which has had a thorough peer review, but seems to be hanging around on the GA nom board.-- seahamlass 10:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In the source of the featured article template, there is an extra </div> that can cause coding difficulties for the 2008 main page redesign proposal. It would be helpful to add a < div > before the main text of the feature article template. Example: [2] ChyranandChloe ( talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. It seems to have crept in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2006 (where it was later removed), but has been in almost every TFA blurb I checked after that. But yes, ideally, every page should be self-contained with balancing open and close html tags. Gimmetrow 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So that's what it is ... Gimme, there's a related message on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the talk page of the article in question that this article ever was put through FAC. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N. Coincidently like the owner of Wikipedia and the board of directors he has appointed to make sure that the A*M*E*R*IC*A*N W*A*Y is the Wikipedia way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtildas ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not find that any particular guidelines are necessary for the alphabetisation of entries on the directory, but some attention should be paid to the subject nevertheless. I have just found half a dozen discrepancies in the Media section ( diff); arguably, it is amongst the most complicated (and perhaps the most complex one), but still, it kind of bothers me.
There is also the matter of formatting standardisation in that section (regarding italics), but the problem is not as pronounced. Waltham, The Duke of 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The current grouping of archeology with art and architecture is not very useful. I think we should either create a separate category or move the topic in under "History". For example, how about renaming the latter to "History and archaeology"?
Peter Isotalo 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed this template has stars to show which are FA/L. Just wondering why since no other template seems to do this should all templates be like that? Buc ( talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that subcategories would really help to find interesting articles and see in which fields few or many excellent articles have been written. I have categorised the Biology section:
Amphibians: Ant · · Chrysiridia rhipheus · Cochineal · · · · Birds: American Black Vulture · American Goldfinch· · Andean Condor · · · · Bird · Blackbird · · Cattle Egret · Chiffchaff· · Common Raven · Elfin-woods Warbler · Emperor Penguin · · · House Martin · · King Vulture · · Northern Pintail · · Peregrine Falcon · · Red-backed Fairy-wren · Red-billed Chough · Red-tailed Black Cockatoo · Red-winged Fairy-wren · · Song Thrush · Splendid Fairy-wren · Superb Fairy-wren · Tawny Owl · Turkey Vulture · Variegated Fairy-wren · White-winged Fairy-wren · Cell structures: Action potential · · · · · Exosome complex · RNA interference · · Dinosaurs: Acrocanthosaurus · Albertosaurus · Allosaurus · · Compsognathus · Daspletosaurus · Deinonychus · · · Gorgosaurus · Iguanodon · Lambeosaurus · Majungasaurus · Massospondylus · Parasaurolophus · Psittacosaurus · · Styracosaurus · Tarbosaurus · Thescelosaurus · · · · Extinct species: Ediacara biota · Fauna: · · Fish: · · Fungi: Amanita ocreata · · Gyromitra esculenta · History: · · History of biology · History of evolutionary thought · Introduction to evolution · Mammals: · · · · Domestic sheep · Elk · · Giant Otter · · Hippopotamus · · · · · Javan Rhinoceros · · · · · Pygmy Hippopotamus · · · Sei Whale · · Sumatran Rhinoceros · · Thoroughbred · Thylacine · · Microorganisms: Archaea · Introduction to viruses · · People: · · · · · Alfred Russel Wallace · Plants: · · Banksia epica · Banksia ericifolia · · Banksia spinulosa · Banksia telmatiaea · Ficus aurea · Pinguicula moranensis · Verbascum thapsus · Reptiles: · Hawksbill turtle · Komodo dragon
· · · · · Arthropods:-- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 11:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the WP:GA page is a wreck to both read and maintain, and the FA page is simpler and easier to follow by design. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
New section under Featured —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecotech inbox ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there consensus for David's sudden move? I've checked the discussion linked in the edit summary, and there didn't seem to be a consensus for it. Plus, the conversation is from January. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say it, but I think this kind of strategy actually works. As I said there, I think that two merged GAs should be no more viable for FA together than they are apart, as they'd still be just as well researched and referenced. And yet it appears (at least, according to Judgesurreal777) that they are - rst20xx ( talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sure they do good work, but yet another hurricane on the front page with yet another "eye of the huricane" satalite shot image. BORING. How about taking on some other weather phenomenon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.39 ( talk) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This article looks a little odd listed under chemistry and mineralogy. Perhaps health and medicine would be better? -- Itub ( talk) 09:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been some lively discussion here - Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations#Cas Liber and Vampire: on the application of criteria for Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Please make your feelings known here so we can establish consensus. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
considering the 7th anniversary does not strike me as especially noteworthy from a numerological standpoint (unlike 50 years, 100 years etc)... it seems we are at a point where every anniversary will get the same reverent treatment (FA and featured pic)... we don't do this for Pearl Harbor every year so is there a particular reason we do it for 9/11? Like are we planning on waiting 60-odd years before we stop (to continue the PH comparison)? Every five years or every ten years makes some sense to me, but every single year seems a little, well, morbid at this point. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 08:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Attribution for images which are links to anywhere other than the image description page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I carved this out of the Biology and Medicine section. SandyGeorgia reverted it because (and it seems only because) I had not discussed it on the talk page and he had some difficulty with edit conflicts. I don't really think I need to discuss things on talk pages before I act. This is certainly a new rule I haven't heard about. I think the change was sensible, I gave the reason, and I think that SandyGeorgia should put the page back in the state it was. In future she should say what's actually wrong with changes in substance, not the rigamarole of following what she'd like to see on talk pages. I expect she'll have some objection or other though. Wik idea 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing still isn't clear to me, because it you separate Flora and fauna, then the cat name Biology and medicine is misleading, unless Flora and fauna are a sub-cat, which we don't want. If we instead separate only Medicine, and leave everything else under a cat named Biology, we have some other division issues (which goes where). Which is better ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Current total is 169; split yields 134 Biology, 35 Health and medicine.
(outdent) - ugh, I think leaving and then nagging the rest of us to stop writing biology FAs...no wait....'aaaargh!!! Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
<Moved to WT:FAC#Lead sections, take two.> SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with the director of featured articles and his assistants? Doesn't having ranks and titles go against the whole wiki community model? I kind of understand why we need sysops to outrank the rest of us, but for featured articles, why can't we just use consensus like everywhere else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.55 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, April 12, 2008
Please can you add simple:Wikipedia:Very good articles?
Well done on the page, and thanks very much, Drum guy ( talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be renamed to "Literature, theater and comics", for the section contains articles about comics as well. Also the section "Media" should be renamed to "Movies, radio and television", since books, booklets, pamphlets, brochures, magazines are also media (this is just the draft, for media terms, organizations and journalism are related to media as well. If some of articles about them are FAs, then the section "Movies, radio and television" does not fit them. Maybe a new section called "Media studies and journalism" can solve this problem......)-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Kozuch has been using AWB and in the process moving the featured article template to above the categories. I asked him about it and he told me that that's the default setting in AWB. I seem to recall being told that the featured template should be last in the article. Does it matter? Mike Christie (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy and Psychology are about as different as Biology and Physics. In fact more different, because Biology and Physics are both sciences, whilst Philosophy is a world less scientific than Psychology. Why on earth are these bundled together in the Featured Article categories? Most philosophers know hardly any psychology, and vice versa. Many people who study philosophy never even touch on psychology, and vice versa. What is going on here? Can we separate these two disciplines please? -- Aquillyne-- ( talk)
This is an interesting discussion however it appears archaic. The fact is that both Philosophy and Psychology are, these days, significantly large and disparate subjects. Both now also have a significant number of pages on Wikipedia. And it's simply ridiculous to bundle them together: I almost guarantee that no Psychology page will link to a Philosophy page, and vice versa, except in a very trivial way. No university has a Psychology and Philosophy department combined. Let's face it, the subjects are distinct. Parapsychology, on account of being "para", does not instantaneously become Philosophy. This is an awful misunderstanding of what Philosophy is in the first place, which we ought not to associate with Wikipedia. Parapsychology is still Psychology, or otherwise it needs to go where articles on horoscopes and clairvoyants go. Nevertheless, there is no point is spoiling the categorisation system just to make space for Parapsychology. For the most part, Psychology and Philosophy are still entirely separate, even if this small area does represent an overlap. Chemistry and Biology overlap all the time, but I don't see those being put together. As a Philosophy student myself, I reiterate: I absolutely object to my subject being bundled in with Psychology — not because I don't like it, but because it's just simply got nothing to do with what I study. -- Aquillyne-- ( talk)
There is certainly an argument to be made for putting philosophy and psychology together as disciplines. Psychology grew out of the philosophy of mind, and most of the founders of psychology were also either philosophers or are philosophically important. There is also the issue of Hume and Nietzsche, who considered themselves as much psychologists as philosophers (and who were also historians in their own right). It is also specious to argue that the two disciplines will not have links between the two in Wikipedia. Cognitive science/cognitive psychology is more philosophically relevant now than ever, as is moral psychology.
However, it is quite correct that the two have grown into separate disciplines. Galileo, after all, was important to the founding of modern philosophy, but we don't insist on grouping either astronomy or mechanics with philosophy. And there is no controversy over placing Hume and Nietzsche firmly within the category of "philosophy" these days. Finally, the parapsychology issue seems strange to me. Where does it go? Under psychology, of course! Just as pseudophilosophy would go under philosophy. Postmodern Beatnik ( talk) 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [I agree with this comment about article placement! -- Aquillyne-- ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
I forgot to deal with the number of articles issue, so I'll just respond to my own comment here. On the one hand, we don't have a pressing space limitation; it wouldn't be a problem to have a heading for psychology with only two articles under it, though it might be a little embarrassing for those in WikiProject Psychology. On the other hand, I can see why one might want to keep philosophy and psychology together until the latter has enough articles to fill out a substantive section of its own. Postmodern Beatnik ( talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I say no to bundling Psych with Phil. They are not really as alike at all in the final analysis. This bundling is more a result of popular impressions. Wouldn't it make more sense to bundle Math and Phil? They are both study of abstractions. Furthermore Math is significantly different than other natural sciences. Philosophy should stand on its own. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Reactive attachment disorder is a psychiatric disorder. If you consider psychiatry to be medicine, then it could be considered a medical disorder. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. Reactive attachment disorder is a diagnostic category of both the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Parapsychology is not consider Psychology in the professional sense, despite its name. It is not taught in academic psychology nor considered by the American Psychological Association as a sub discipline. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The FAC categorization system makes no sense. Asperger syndrome is categorized under Health and medicine. This despite the fact that Asperger syndrome is described in its own article as an Autism spectrum disorder which, in turn, is described in its own article as a "spectrum of psychological conditions". This is wikilinked to Autism spectrum which also is described in its article as "a spectrum of psychological conditions". Reactive attachment disorder, can also be described as a psychological condition, so it is just as much a "medical condition" as Asperger syndrome. However, it is inconsistently categorized under Psychology along with Parapsychology which is not considered Psychology in the 20th century. Consult the Psychology template which lists the major divisions of Psychology.
In the 20th century, Psychology and Psychiatry are separate disciplines but deal with very similar and overlapping subject matter. Psychologists and psychiatrists work together closely in treatment and research settings. I propose that there be a category in FAC for Psychology and Psychiatry where Asperger syndrome, Reactive attachment disorder, and other psychiatric/psychological conditions and diagnostic categories of the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association would be placed. Other scientifically based articles on psychology and psychiatry could go here.
I think there is a damaging misunderstanding of the current discipline of Psychology. Psychiatry is also not accorded recognition of its true status. Confusing Psychology with Philosophy, as well as with almost any wacko theory having to do with human behaviour, whether scientifically supported or not, has made it impossible for Psychology to produce reputable articles for Wikipedia. As has been pointed all, all scientific disciplines stemmed from Philosophy.
Throwing Parapsychology under Psychology, on the basis (I guess) that it has the word Psychology in it, has the effect, along with the general misunderstanding of academic and professional psychology, of demoralizing the entire Psychology project. We have enough trouble trying to protect articles on the discipline of Psychology from wacko theories, feel-good pop psychology marketers selling books and treatment packages, and plain writers of OR. It is extremely difficult to write and maintain a decent article on Psychology because "authorities" such as FAC are not informed as to what Psychology is. People who monitor the few respectable Psychology articles on Wikipedia are constantly reverting trash, because Psychology is considered a grab bag category that contains almost anything anyone wants to categorize as such.
According Psychology and Psychiatry a separate category representing their true status would help in remedying this situation, and reduce the confusion with Philosophy. As it is now, FAC categories perpetuate the confusion.
Thank you for considering this problem. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I just thought that these sections may expand a lot eventually, so i was just wondering if anyone would object if i moved the sections to their own pages and transcluded them here? Same thing for WP:GA there? Simply south ( talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy. This is a really, really bad idea for the reasons she has described. Raul654 ( talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, i withdraw. (And i've fixed the archives above if that is okay with the correct version i was trying to do) Simply south ( talk) 21:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Whilst i am quickly here, this is what it looks like.
. Simply south ( talk) 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
<Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Ownership likely in Featured Articles>. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the " Paleolithic diet" belongs in the "Biology and medicine" section, more than in the "Food and drink" section. Just my opinion. -- 70.53.141.111 ( talk) 11:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's clearly more related to food (a specific category) than biology (a general category). Raul654 ( talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So, I'm assuming that the " Ketogenic diet" will also go in the "food and drink" category when it gets featured... -- 198.103.167.20 ( talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with above comments, and stand by my original comments - the paleolithic diet is should clearly go in the more specific subject (food) than health. As far as the ketogenic diet, I appreciate that its purpose is medically oriented, but I still have to say that it more specifically belongs in food than medicine. Raul654 ( talk) 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(Redacted from Sandy and Marskell's talk pages)
I was roaming around thinking about our FA list (after debating on GA talk) and noticed your sandbox proposing splitting Biology. I think the split is inevitable, as the section continues to grow. But I think it should be Tree of Life, not Flora and Fauna. "Vegetables and animals" is actually archaic, even if people still think of "two kingdoms". Tree of Life is more inclusive.
Just a note, in case I miss you or Raul splitting it. Marskell ( talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Above, a brief conversation on something that has come up before. Any comments? Sandy wants to wait until Bio hits 200, but I don't see why we don't just get it over with and split the section. What format? Marskell ( talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Old mockups in my sandbox, not sure either of them agree with Raul's split, so let's figure it out and get on with it. If we split according to Raul's plan, what do we call them? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Updated mockup at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Mockup to split WP:FA Biology and medicine; it it's OK per Tim and Tim, I'll move it in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how we're still unable to gain consensus on adding a GA symbol to the top right corner of articles, and considering that several users aren't too crazy about any type of rating symbols in articles, perhaps we should revisit the topic of adding the 'FA star' to the top right corner of articles as well. Should we continue to add this symbol to articles? Or should we discontinue the practice, and focus more on actually improving the quality of articles instead? Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there any Featured articles that are about holidays? Which category would they be sorted under? I'm talking about holidays such as Independence Day, Canada Day, etc. I'm looking for one as a basis for one that I'd like to work on. Gary King ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have any FA on Zoos ? I was about to start an article on Nagpur Zoo and wanted guidelines from some FA. Couldn't find any so confirming... -- gppande «talk» 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there any (former or current) FAs related to classical music, such as composers (i.e. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven), musical compositions ( Ninth Symphony), musical styles ( Baroque music, Romantic music), etc.? Gary King ( talk) 06:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(cross-posting to several noticeboards)
We've had a considerable amount of discussion discussing the merits and drawbacks of the current assessment scale, and it has resulted in two proposals. The first consists of moving the {{ A-Class}} assessment level below {{ GA-Class}}; the other is the addition of a new {{ C-Class}} scale between {{ B-Class}} and {{ Start-Class}}. We'd like the community to voice its opinion about these proposals here. Thanks, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 06:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I just noted that Max Weber is listed here under "Business, economics and finance." In that he is a, if not the, founder of the discipline of Sociology (along with Emile Durkheim), can I suggest he is transferred toute suite to "Culture and society"? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No objections here. Raul654 ( talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
i know some people are going to object to the idea of this, and some people are going to want to delete this page. BUT, i couldn't find a chat room for Wikipedia, so i made this, so people can post messages, questions, answers to questions, or just chat. so, if there IS a chat room on Wikipedia, please let me know about it. oh, by the way, my names itssnowing. (please don't make fun of me)
why isn't there a twister page? i looked for information about twisters, and it just took me to a tornadoes page. why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itssnowing ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
you made what ? please post a link to the page. Machete97 ( talk) 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
which of the following is true
1) an article of good status is assessed and it it agreed that it should be featured, and it then joins a waiting list of such articles and is featured on the main page on a certain day, and it recieves FA status (and the star) AFTER being featured on the main page
2) same as above but the status is granted after assesment, and it never need be featured on the main page, and there is list of featured articles nominated for "todays featured article"
Machete97 ( talk) 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks for clearing that up. I knew it didnt have to be "good" status to go to featured - but i read on the assesments page that it is rarely anything else. Machete97 ( talk) 18:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if this subject has been broached before. I couldn't quite make myself search through all of those archives. I hadn't realized until "my" FA hit the front page what a vandal magnet the featured article becomes. I realize that in most circumstances we don't pre-emptively protect pages but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to make an exception to that rule for the daily featured article. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking over the featured articles list and it seems odd to me that things like Halo: Contact Harvest and Halo Graphic Novel are featured. I understand that part of the function of the featured articles list is to provide trivia, but selections like this seem insignificant and mundane, and even seem to provide evidence of a (for lack of a better term) "nerd bias". What really has been the impact of Halo's spinoff properties? It seems to me that the game is really the only thing worth featuring, because it has a definite place in a discussion of important video games-- but what is the place of Halo: Contact Harvest in the realm of serious literature, or even serious science fiction? Even if the articles were extremely well-written or well-formatted is that really worth giving them a feature? What's the value of singling out articles only interesting to Halo con attendees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettycooleh ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that The Penelopiad (promoted today) is the first article created through WP:AfC to become featured ( Category:FA-Class AFC articles). See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Featured Content Drive. — maclean 03:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get an article about a newspaper up to at least GA quality, and ultimately FA (if poss) - but am finding it hard to find any inspiration from similar FA quality articles. Could you suggest any newspaper ones please, as I want to see what format they use and try and follow that. Cheers!-- seahamlass 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are contents not listed by categories like the good articles? ( Halgin ( talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)).
In the seond paragraph, first sentence, It says "At present, there are 2,117 featured articles, of a total of 2,437,547 articles on Wikipedia." Shouldn't it be "At present, there are 2,117 featured articles, of a toal 2,437,547 pages on Wikipedia." since some pages are lists or photos, etc. Annoyomous24 ( talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm bringing this up here because it's the best place: I've created two shortcuts to Tony's guide to satisfying criterion 1a: WP:1A and WP:1a. This should ease navigation for both reviewers and writers. Thanks! Sceptre ( talk) 10:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Where it says Wiki's editors, the link is to Wikipedia:Wikipedian which redirects to Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Call it OCD if you will, but could someone fix this link? 60.234.161.83 ( talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it OK to bring an article straight to FA, therefore bypassing the GA process? I am working on a newspaper article which has had a thorough peer review, but seems to be hanging around on the GA nom board.-- seahamlass 10:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In the source of the featured article template, there is an extra </div> that can cause coding difficulties for the 2008 main page redesign proposal. It would be helpful to add a < div > before the main text of the feature article template. Example: [2] ChyranandChloe ( talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. It seems to have crept in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2006 (where it was later removed), but has been in almost every TFA blurb I checked after that. But yes, ideally, every page should be self-contained with balancing open and close html tags. Gimmetrow 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So that's what it is ... Gimme, there's a related message on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the talk page of the article in question that this article ever was put through FAC. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N. Coincidently like the owner of Wikipedia and the board of directors he has appointed to make sure that the A*M*E*R*IC*A*N W*A*Y is the Wikipedia way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtildas ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not find that any particular guidelines are necessary for the alphabetisation of entries on the directory, but some attention should be paid to the subject nevertheless. I have just found half a dozen discrepancies in the Media section ( diff); arguably, it is amongst the most complicated (and perhaps the most complex one), but still, it kind of bothers me.
There is also the matter of formatting standardisation in that section (regarding italics), but the problem is not as pronounced. Waltham, The Duke of 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The current grouping of archeology with art and architecture is not very useful. I think we should either create a separate category or move the topic in under "History". For example, how about renaming the latter to "History and archaeology"?
Peter Isotalo 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed this template has stars to show which are FA/L. Just wondering why since no other template seems to do this should all templates be like that? Buc ( talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that subcategories would really help to find interesting articles and see in which fields few or many excellent articles have been written. I have categorised the Biology section:
Amphibians: Ant · · Chrysiridia rhipheus · Cochineal · · · · Birds: American Black Vulture · American Goldfinch· · Andean Condor · · · · Bird · Blackbird · · Cattle Egret · Chiffchaff· · Common Raven · Elfin-woods Warbler · Emperor Penguin · · · House Martin · · King Vulture · · Northern Pintail · · Peregrine Falcon · · Red-backed Fairy-wren · Red-billed Chough · Red-tailed Black Cockatoo · Red-winged Fairy-wren · · Song Thrush · Splendid Fairy-wren · Superb Fairy-wren · Tawny Owl · Turkey Vulture · Variegated Fairy-wren · White-winged Fairy-wren · Cell structures: Action potential · · · · · Exosome complex · RNA interference · · Dinosaurs: Acrocanthosaurus · Albertosaurus · Allosaurus · · Compsognathus · Daspletosaurus · Deinonychus · · · Gorgosaurus · Iguanodon · Lambeosaurus · Majungasaurus · Massospondylus · Parasaurolophus · Psittacosaurus · · Styracosaurus · Tarbosaurus · Thescelosaurus · · · · Extinct species: Ediacara biota · Fauna: · · Fish: · · Fungi: Amanita ocreata · · Gyromitra esculenta · History: · · History of biology · History of evolutionary thought · Introduction to evolution · Mammals: · · · · Domestic sheep · Elk · · Giant Otter · · Hippopotamus · · · · · Javan Rhinoceros · · · · · Pygmy Hippopotamus · · · Sei Whale · · Sumatran Rhinoceros · · Thoroughbred · Thylacine · · Microorganisms: Archaea · Introduction to viruses · · People: · · · · · Alfred Russel Wallace · Plants: · · Banksia epica · Banksia ericifolia · · Banksia spinulosa · Banksia telmatiaea · Ficus aurea · Pinguicula moranensis · Verbascum thapsus · Reptiles: · Hawksbill turtle · Komodo dragon
· · · · · Arthropods:-- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 11:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the WP:GA page is a wreck to both read and maintain, and the FA page is simpler and easier to follow by design. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
New section under Featured —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecotech inbox ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there consensus for David's sudden move? I've checked the discussion linked in the edit summary, and there didn't seem to be a consensus for it. Plus, the conversation is from January. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say it, but I think this kind of strategy actually works. As I said there, I think that two merged GAs should be no more viable for FA together than they are apart, as they'd still be just as well researched and referenced. And yet it appears (at least, according to Judgesurreal777) that they are - rst20xx ( talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sure they do good work, but yet another hurricane on the front page with yet another "eye of the huricane" satalite shot image. BORING. How about taking on some other weather phenomenon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.39 ( talk) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This article looks a little odd listed under chemistry and mineralogy. Perhaps health and medicine would be better? -- Itub ( talk) 09:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been some lively discussion here - Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations#Cas Liber and Vampire: on the application of criteria for Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Please make your feelings known here so we can establish consensus. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
considering the 7th anniversary does not strike me as especially noteworthy from a numerological standpoint (unlike 50 years, 100 years etc)... it seems we are at a point where every anniversary will get the same reverent treatment (FA and featured pic)... we don't do this for Pearl Harbor every year so is there a particular reason we do it for 9/11? Like are we planning on waiting 60-odd years before we stop (to continue the PH comparison)? Every five years or every ten years makes some sense to me, but every single year seems a little, well, morbid at this point. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 08:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Attribution for images which are links to anywhere other than the image description page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)