![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
Sorry, the more I think about it, the more I do think combining psychology and philosophy is artificial...and will cause more headaches when we do other articles - eg personality disorders, drug abuse - there are a stack of articles we could squabble about whether med or psychol. Ditto some religion and philosophy. There are very few I think where one would ponder an article fitting into psychology or philosophy. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandy is right, and I shouldn't have even bothered giving a reasoned argument for my choice of category combination/split. There as many ways of categorising FAs as there are editors, and nearly as many arguments with at least some merit. We currently have a system (I believe) where the FA director or his delegates decide the categories and which articles go in which. In the past, where there's been a dispute, an official external category system has been used to arbitrate. But this is an aspect of WP that pure democracy isn't helpful: it wastes too much time discussing the petty when we could be writing articles. We have three bright and wise people in charge, and for as long as they maintain the respect of Wikipedians, we should respect their decisions. Colin° Talk 08:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a note - although I haven't read the above discussion too deeply, I agree with proposals to put psych into health and medicine. I am so-so on putting philosophy with religion and mysticism - it's not a perfect fit, but it's not terrible either. There aren't enough for Philosophy to stand as its own category, IMO. Raul654 ( talk) 08:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope our choices aren't complete consensus OR autocracy. That leaves out a rather obvious functional alternative. Pure consensus can easily slow, arduous, and an idealistic failure. Avoidance of those problems is why people vote. But usually there is a hearing of argument pro and con, which I thought was what we were doing. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 08:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for quick resolution (updated final thoughts) I agree with Colin - we spend our time better by working on article content. Arguments about the "structure of knowledge" are clearly not easily resolved without agreeing to a number of presuppositions, and we haven't. So, I propose, instead:
RATIONALE: The core issue here should not be "how to categorize". All categorizations done prior to a knowledge search will fail early and often (something well known by those with training in Library Science). The solution in classic categorization systems is to cross-classify, so that one can look lots of places and find the same information. This is an improvement, but still has serious failures, and is time costly (not a real solution for the FA page, Sandy tells us.) In more modern times, we have been using keyword search systems, then full text search. Those do about as well as we can hope, and can obviously be used on the FA page as well (the full-text search solution).
The real issue is usability, not proper classification. If what is being looked for cannot be found, the page fails - it's not usable by ordinary readers. If we seek to maximize usability, we'll solve the problem more quickly and with less effort. For that, I think using full-text search is a pretty good solution. BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE TO DO IT.
Offer. I don't want to tread on anyone's turf, but if there is no overt objection to my idea, I would be happy to make the first effort to adjust the FA main page as I have suggested. But I do need sense that this is wanted before I invest the time/effort. Now...back to working on my pet article. Tom Cloyd ( talk)
{{editsemiprotected}} remove the extra vertical bar character in the |Bayern class battleship link 173.24.230.108 ( talk) 17:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
David Lindsey, Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles, First Monday, Volume 15, Number 4 - 5 April 2010.
Somewhat critical, but valid enough to discuss. I don't think that the argument about people supporting because of lenght holds merit (although frankly I haven't been active around FACs much in the past year or two... but I hope the process has not deteriorated that much). On the other hand, the argument about the need to include more experts is certainly indisputable. But the problem is the same as in the past - how to convince experts to write/review content for us? The article's author, while suggesting it should be "easy" to overcome, unfortunately, does not offer any practical suggestions. If one reads between the lines, he may be suggesting that we submit articles to review just like journals do, but I have a feeling that despite some changes, and more favorable attitude towards Wikipedia in academia, our rejection rate (academics not caring to review articles for Wikipedia) would be very high, much higher then for any journal. Still... liked the Wikipedia:Academic peer review, but it never got off. Maybe we could revitalize it? Any other suggestions?
PS. On another note, it would be interesting if the author would post the reviews publicly, so we could improve the articles based on them. Will anybody contact him? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That archaeology articles have been bundled with art and architecture has bothered me for some time, but until now there's not been nearly enough to create a separate category. By now, however, we're up to at least seven clear-cut archaeology articles (only two less than "Food and drink"):
There are a further six that could also possibly go into the same category.
The strongest argument, though, is that archaeology as a reasonably well-defined topic of its own that is quite far removed from both art and architecture. It's far, far closer related to both "Culture and society" and "History" and it seems to have stuck with the arts on account of some historically distant administrative fluke. There's naturally always room for a broad range of articles within a single FA category, but cramming in Mary Rose together with Triptych, May–June 1973 and IG Farben Building seems overly contrived to me.
Peter Isotalo 10:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection might be of interest to the folks here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. As people here tend to have an interest in the MoS, there's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a streamlining project. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch ( W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Just in case your watchlist seems hyperactive today: the featured articles are all being move-protected. This means that they cannot be moved to another title except by administrators. The main purpose is to ensure that they are not moved to an inappropriate title whilst they enjoy their day in the sun on the main page; however, move vandalism comes in waves and has affected FAs in the past, so this is also preventative in that way too. I don't think there's much question that the overwhelming majority of featured articles are at the correct title; they wouldn't have survived the FAC process with such an elementary problem. Nonetheless, should it be appropriate to move any FA to a new title, it can be done by any administrator who believes that a case has been put forward to do so. It will also prevent good-faith but misguided attempts to move a FA to another title.
The move protection does not in any way affect the editing protection status of the articles; those few that are fully- or semi-protected remain so, while the vast majority remain open for anyone to edit. Full disclosure: I am leaving this message because I made some inquiries when my own watchlist suddenly had a whole pile of excellent articles at the top. Risker ( talk) 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request that International Space Station be moved from its current category, Physics and Astronomy, and be moved into Engineering and Technology. The article deals with the spacecraft itself, a feat of engineering, and the station crews carry out experiments in a wide variety of areas, not just physics and astronomy. Colds7ream ( talk) 15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. It makes sense to me to put it with the Shuttle-Mir Program, but, as something that is orbiting the earth, it also makes sense to keep it in the Physics-Astronomy bucket with Hubble Telescope. Karanacs ( talk) 12:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Colds7ream - it belongs in engineering. Raul654 ( talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal at WT:ASSESS that is somewhat related to the issue of the FA star (and the desire for a GA icon). It looks at a broader issue by focusing more on helping readers understand our assessment system, rather than just focusing on recognizing quality content. Feedback, positive or negative, is strongly encouraged. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Please make this work again. It's broken and it would be the best browser homepage. Regular random article is a little too random to be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.56 ( talk) 19:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I just had this come up on my watchlist [3]
Its by an anon IP so thought it best to check with yourselves before changing it back :¬)
thanks... Chaosdruid ( talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why, but there seems to be an error in the math that is being done. When it says that there are currently x amount of articles and x amount of featured articles. Therefore 1 in 1130 are featured. The math doesn't add up. Doing simple division, it's 1 in 1140. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery and Stanford Memorial Church are both actively functioning religious structures that are listed under Architecture. St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao was put in Religion. When I moved it to Architecture, it was reverted. Can I get some consensus here? The article is about a neo-Romanesque cathedral. Either St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery and Stanford Memorial Church need to be moved, or St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao does. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(1)See WP:TPO. (2) I never said anything was set in stone. I did say that you're confusing the issue (which you did not respond to). (3) I note that you chose not to answer most of the points I made in my response. (4) Respectfully, it isn't up to Raul or Karanacs. Its up to the Wikipedia community, which is why we're talking here on a community talk page, and inviting comment from all comers. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been editing here for less than a year and when I first started I had no idea how to identify a featured article. In my opinion, a featured article should have more than a little star on the top right it. I don't think Wikipedia is a bad source but a a portion of people, including academics, do because of the editing liberty. I think a different label with the star would seperate the article better. Is there a reason for current star? My apologies if this was covered in a past discussion but I was reluctant to look through 7 years of posts. Thanks. -- NortyNort ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I only have a question. An user an me have a little edit war on the article Manos: The Hands of Fate. The thing is that it is a former featured article, but before its nomination to FA, it was listed as a good article. Then it was demoted from its FA status. As far as I can understand the article still being a Good Article, because it never was nominated for a reassessement and I am wondering if the article is or not a GA. Thank you. Tbhotch Talk C. 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia:Featured Articles be a Featured Article since it lists every single Featured Article on Wikipedia. It just seems weird that it's not a featured article I'm just saying.-- Nascarking ( talk) 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but should The Volcano (British Columbia) and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) be listed in the section Geography and places insted of Geology, geophysices and meteorology? These two volcanoes are mountains, and mountains are a geographical feature. Just wanted to point this out because I see other featured volcanoes like Loihi, Loa, del Ruiz, St. Helens and Tambora are listed in the Geography and places section insted of the geology, geophysics and meteorology one. BT ( talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought someone forgot to protect the main page when I saw the picture for today's featured article. -- mboverload @ 01:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for a featured article of a town with less than 5000 inhabitants, to use as a model. Could anyone help me find some? Cheers, Randomblue ( talk) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfC for an FA which contains a list of victim names in hide/show format (hidden by default). Comments welcome. Crum375 ( talk) 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The Smashing Pumpkins is listed as a featured article, but it's articlehistory doesn't show where it was promoted. After a little digging, I found it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Smashing Pumpkins, with an earlier failed nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Smashing Pumpkins/archive1. Not sure if the successful nomination ought to be moved to /archive2 or if the articlehistory ought to be updated manually, please advise. Skomorokh 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Per this, does anyone have any opinion where Charles Domery ought to be listed? My gut instinct is either History (where Tarrare is currently listed) or Health & Medicine—to me, it's primarily an article about a sufferer from an eating disorder/digestive disorder. I can see cases for Culture & Society (where it's currently listed), Food & Drink, and even MILHIST, as well. – iridescent 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This may have been discussed in the past, but why aren't there subsections (along the lines of those at WP:GA)? For example the Media section is incredibly long, and if one might be interested in searching for an article in that section, it will be incredibly difficult to do that. Is there an disadvantage of having subsections at WP:FA? Nergaal ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The page at WT:FTC seemed dead, hence just commenting here. Is there any reason why nominations at WP:FTC are lying there for so long? Is any one promoting them? — Legolas (talk2me) 12:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I know one can look at particular dates ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article) to find the associated feature date of an article one is interested in, but when coming across an article bearing a gold star in its corner, it's a shame that it doesn't also inform the reader of the exact date is was featured. (I assume that's been discussed before?)
16:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.251.43 ( talk)
Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but is there any specific reason why hard spaces are not used in the Featured articles list? I find it rather odd that middle dots should appear at the beginning of lines, and it seems to me that the dots ought to always appear right after the last word of an article title/link, so that one can easily tell whether such a title at the end of a line appears whole or is divided between lines. At Good articles, as well as in navboxes all around Wikipedia, the lack of a bullet or dash at a line's end suggests such division, and I find that readability on this page suffers from the lack of this distinction. Waltham, The Duke of 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Blah 8 · Blah 11
· Blah 16
Back in April, User:NuclearWarfare began using Twinkle to apply move protection to all featured articles. I'm not sure how far he got, but the process was stopped after a few objections were raised, largely (as I recall) because the use of Twinkle meant that existing protection settings (for example, pre-existing semi-protection) were overridden. I'm not starting an RfC or anything like that, but I'd just like to seek some input on whether FAs should be move protected (only move protected) by default.
Feel free to add to the list of pros and cons. All comments are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I hit a snag when alphabeticizing Art, Literature, Media, Video gaming, and a few others. Copying this from User talk:DGG. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
DGG, could you help me understand how libraries alphabeticize book titles? Over time, WP:FA gets out of alpha order due to article name changes; in trying to correct that, I'm discovering my ignorance.
See in particular the Art and Literature sections at WP:FA. Since WP:MSH has us avoid "The" or "An" in article titles, my confusion mostly occurs in books and works of art. The two issues combine iin El Señor Presidente, which is a book with "The" as part of the title; do I put that under "El" (as in "The") or Señor?. What about the Artwork An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, and all of the others beginning with "The"? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that many titles sound really weird in English (and even more so in other languages) without the initial articles. However, it helps find things to have a uniform rule, even if it does sound weird sometimes. The traditional library rules in American libraries are:
Should the strange religious spiel be there? It has been there for a while, it seems, and I hesitate to blitz it, but it looks to me like the contribution of someone who doesn't understand. Tim riley ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It is essentially impossible to find an article in the warfare section. I am estimating there are about 350 entries in there. Of all the sections, it is probably the easiest one to split: either per millennia, or perhaps say before and after the industrial revolution? A few more sections have similar problems. Nergaal ( talk) 03:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts:
Some of the larger categories are becoming hard to browse. To make some of them more readable, I propose creating a Biography sub-category within the larger categories, but that won't aid readability in a couple of the Categories that have few Biographies. I'm hoping to keep the sub-cats as general as possible, and avoid over-segregating the page; hence the Biography sub-cat proposal. We should only propose a different scheme for very large categories that can't be made more readable by separating Biographies. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FA Category as of |
Sep 16, 2010 |
Proposed sub-sections |
---|---|---|
Art, architecture and archaeology | 117 | Biographies |
Biology | 261 | Biology proposal |
Geography and places | 181 | Geography proposal |
Geology, geophysics and meteorology | 129 | No Biographies. Separate meteorology into a separate category, see
User:Nergaal/sandboxFA; at 129, possibly doesn't need division into separate categories. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
History | 189 | Biographies |
Literature and theatre | 161 | Biographies |
Media | 221 | Biographies |
Music | 232 | Biographies |
Physics and astronomy | 98 | Biographies |
Politics and government | 98 | Biographies |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 94 | Biographies |
Sport and recreation | 268 | Biographies |
Transport | 107 | I only see one Biography; since it is only 107 articles, suggest not dividing for now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
Video gaming | 127 | Only 127 articles, not helped with Biography sub-cat suggest not dividing for now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
Warfare | 318 | Biographies |
Please list other proposals for the Categories that aren't easily separated by Biographies below, including a Sandbox link if possible, so Raul can easily evaluate these when he weighs in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If we decide to separate Biographies, should we do so for all Categories (even the smaller ones)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Sandy, for taking the lead on this!! One question - would it make sense to change the contents area to have a link to the bios for each section. For example: · Sport and recreation ( bios) · Transport · Video gaming · Warfare ( bios) That would make it a little easier to identify which categories have this subcat. Karanacs ( talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's been over a week since I started sorting bios; since no one has objected, I'm going to continue that work for the larger categories. I still don't know how to handle Biology; some sandbox proposals would help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm done for now: comments? We still need a sub-cat scheme for Biology. I suggest Flora, Fauna, and Fungi, with anything else not falling into those sub-cats left out at the top of the Biology category. Doing that work is hard for me, as I'm not familiar with the scientific names and would have to check each article to see where they fall. If someone could put that in a user sub-page so I could move it in, I'd be grateful. Also, I may forget the sub-cats when adding new FAs, so I hope others will keep an eye out and move anything I place incorrectly (also, please doublecheck my work-- I may have missed some). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 19 October 2010 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
Sorry, the more I think about it, the more I do think combining psychology and philosophy is artificial...and will cause more headaches when we do other articles - eg personality disorders, drug abuse - there are a stack of articles we could squabble about whether med or psychol. Ditto some religion and philosophy. There are very few I think where one would ponder an article fitting into psychology or philosophy. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandy is right, and I shouldn't have even bothered giving a reasoned argument for my choice of category combination/split. There as many ways of categorising FAs as there are editors, and nearly as many arguments with at least some merit. We currently have a system (I believe) where the FA director or his delegates decide the categories and which articles go in which. In the past, where there's been a dispute, an official external category system has been used to arbitrate. But this is an aspect of WP that pure democracy isn't helpful: it wastes too much time discussing the petty when we could be writing articles. We have three bright and wise people in charge, and for as long as they maintain the respect of Wikipedians, we should respect their decisions. Colin° Talk 08:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a note - although I haven't read the above discussion too deeply, I agree with proposals to put psych into health and medicine. I am so-so on putting philosophy with religion and mysticism - it's not a perfect fit, but it's not terrible either. There aren't enough for Philosophy to stand as its own category, IMO. Raul654 ( talk) 08:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope our choices aren't complete consensus OR autocracy. That leaves out a rather obvious functional alternative. Pure consensus can easily slow, arduous, and an idealistic failure. Avoidance of those problems is why people vote. But usually there is a hearing of argument pro and con, which I thought was what we were doing. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 08:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for quick resolution (updated final thoughts) I agree with Colin - we spend our time better by working on article content. Arguments about the "structure of knowledge" are clearly not easily resolved without agreeing to a number of presuppositions, and we haven't. So, I propose, instead:
RATIONALE: The core issue here should not be "how to categorize". All categorizations done prior to a knowledge search will fail early and often (something well known by those with training in Library Science). The solution in classic categorization systems is to cross-classify, so that one can look lots of places and find the same information. This is an improvement, but still has serious failures, and is time costly (not a real solution for the FA page, Sandy tells us.) In more modern times, we have been using keyword search systems, then full text search. Those do about as well as we can hope, and can obviously be used on the FA page as well (the full-text search solution).
The real issue is usability, not proper classification. If what is being looked for cannot be found, the page fails - it's not usable by ordinary readers. If we seek to maximize usability, we'll solve the problem more quickly and with less effort. For that, I think using full-text search is a pretty good solution. BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE TO DO IT.
Offer. I don't want to tread on anyone's turf, but if there is no overt objection to my idea, I would be happy to make the first effort to adjust the FA main page as I have suggested. But I do need sense that this is wanted before I invest the time/effort. Now...back to working on my pet article. Tom Cloyd ( talk)
{{editsemiprotected}} remove the extra vertical bar character in the |Bayern class battleship link 173.24.230.108 ( talk) 17:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
David Lindsey, Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles, First Monday, Volume 15, Number 4 - 5 April 2010.
Somewhat critical, but valid enough to discuss. I don't think that the argument about people supporting because of lenght holds merit (although frankly I haven't been active around FACs much in the past year or two... but I hope the process has not deteriorated that much). On the other hand, the argument about the need to include more experts is certainly indisputable. But the problem is the same as in the past - how to convince experts to write/review content for us? The article's author, while suggesting it should be "easy" to overcome, unfortunately, does not offer any practical suggestions. If one reads between the lines, he may be suggesting that we submit articles to review just like journals do, but I have a feeling that despite some changes, and more favorable attitude towards Wikipedia in academia, our rejection rate (academics not caring to review articles for Wikipedia) would be very high, much higher then for any journal. Still... liked the Wikipedia:Academic peer review, but it never got off. Maybe we could revitalize it? Any other suggestions?
PS. On another note, it would be interesting if the author would post the reviews publicly, so we could improve the articles based on them. Will anybody contact him? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That archaeology articles have been bundled with art and architecture has bothered me for some time, but until now there's not been nearly enough to create a separate category. By now, however, we're up to at least seven clear-cut archaeology articles (only two less than "Food and drink"):
There are a further six that could also possibly go into the same category.
The strongest argument, though, is that archaeology as a reasonably well-defined topic of its own that is quite far removed from both art and architecture. It's far, far closer related to both "Culture and society" and "History" and it seems to have stuck with the arts on account of some historically distant administrative fluke. There's naturally always room for a broad range of articles within a single FA category, but cramming in Mary Rose together with Triptych, May–June 1973 and IG Farben Building seems overly contrived to me.
Peter Isotalo 10:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection might be of interest to the folks here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. As people here tend to have an interest in the MoS, there's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a streamlining project. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch ( W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Just in case your watchlist seems hyperactive today: the featured articles are all being move-protected. This means that they cannot be moved to another title except by administrators. The main purpose is to ensure that they are not moved to an inappropriate title whilst they enjoy their day in the sun on the main page; however, move vandalism comes in waves and has affected FAs in the past, so this is also preventative in that way too. I don't think there's much question that the overwhelming majority of featured articles are at the correct title; they wouldn't have survived the FAC process with such an elementary problem. Nonetheless, should it be appropriate to move any FA to a new title, it can be done by any administrator who believes that a case has been put forward to do so. It will also prevent good-faith but misguided attempts to move a FA to another title.
The move protection does not in any way affect the editing protection status of the articles; those few that are fully- or semi-protected remain so, while the vast majority remain open for anyone to edit. Full disclosure: I am leaving this message because I made some inquiries when my own watchlist suddenly had a whole pile of excellent articles at the top. Risker ( talk) 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request that International Space Station be moved from its current category, Physics and Astronomy, and be moved into Engineering and Technology. The article deals with the spacecraft itself, a feat of engineering, and the station crews carry out experiments in a wide variety of areas, not just physics and astronomy. Colds7ream ( talk) 15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. It makes sense to me to put it with the Shuttle-Mir Program, but, as something that is orbiting the earth, it also makes sense to keep it in the Physics-Astronomy bucket with Hubble Telescope. Karanacs ( talk) 12:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Colds7ream - it belongs in engineering. Raul654 ( talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal at WT:ASSESS that is somewhat related to the issue of the FA star (and the desire for a GA icon). It looks at a broader issue by focusing more on helping readers understand our assessment system, rather than just focusing on recognizing quality content. Feedback, positive or negative, is strongly encouraged. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Please make this work again. It's broken and it would be the best browser homepage. Regular random article is a little too random to be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.56 ( talk) 19:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I just had this come up on my watchlist [3]
Its by an anon IP so thought it best to check with yourselves before changing it back :¬)
thanks... Chaosdruid ( talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why, but there seems to be an error in the math that is being done. When it says that there are currently x amount of articles and x amount of featured articles. Therefore 1 in 1130 are featured. The math doesn't add up. Doing simple division, it's 1 in 1140. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery and Stanford Memorial Church are both actively functioning religious structures that are listed under Architecture. St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao was put in Religion. When I moved it to Architecture, it was reverted. Can I get some consensus here? The article is about a neo-Romanesque cathedral. Either St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery and Stanford Memorial Church need to be moved, or St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao does. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(1)See WP:TPO. (2) I never said anything was set in stone. I did say that you're confusing the issue (which you did not respond to). (3) I note that you chose not to answer most of the points I made in my response. (4) Respectfully, it isn't up to Raul or Karanacs. Its up to the Wikipedia community, which is why we're talking here on a community talk page, and inviting comment from all comers. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been editing here for less than a year and when I first started I had no idea how to identify a featured article. In my opinion, a featured article should have more than a little star on the top right it. I don't think Wikipedia is a bad source but a a portion of people, including academics, do because of the editing liberty. I think a different label with the star would seperate the article better. Is there a reason for current star? My apologies if this was covered in a past discussion but I was reluctant to look through 7 years of posts. Thanks. -- NortyNort ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I only have a question. An user an me have a little edit war on the article Manos: The Hands of Fate. The thing is that it is a former featured article, but before its nomination to FA, it was listed as a good article. Then it was demoted from its FA status. As far as I can understand the article still being a Good Article, because it never was nominated for a reassessement and I am wondering if the article is or not a GA. Thank you. Tbhotch Talk C. 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia:Featured Articles be a Featured Article since it lists every single Featured Article on Wikipedia. It just seems weird that it's not a featured article I'm just saying.-- Nascarking ( talk) 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but should The Volcano (British Columbia) and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) be listed in the section Geography and places insted of Geology, geophysices and meteorology? These two volcanoes are mountains, and mountains are a geographical feature. Just wanted to point this out because I see other featured volcanoes like Loihi, Loa, del Ruiz, St. Helens and Tambora are listed in the Geography and places section insted of the geology, geophysics and meteorology one. BT ( talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought someone forgot to protect the main page when I saw the picture for today's featured article. -- mboverload @ 01:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for a featured article of a town with less than 5000 inhabitants, to use as a model. Could anyone help me find some? Cheers, Randomblue ( talk) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfC for an FA which contains a list of victim names in hide/show format (hidden by default). Comments welcome. Crum375 ( talk) 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The Smashing Pumpkins is listed as a featured article, but it's articlehistory doesn't show where it was promoted. After a little digging, I found it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Smashing Pumpkins, with an earlier failed nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Smashing Pumpkins/archive1. Not sure if the successful nomination ought to be moved to /archive2 or if the articlehistory ought to be updated manually, please advise. Skomorokh 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Per this, does anyone have any opinion where Charles Domery ought to be listed? My gut instinct is either History (where Tarrare is currently listed) or Health & Medicine—to me, it's primarily an article about a sufferer from an eating disorder/digestive disorder. I can see cases for Culture & Society (where it's currently listed), Food & Drink, and even MILHIST, as well. – iridescent 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This may have been discussed in the past, but why aren't there subsections (along the lines of those at WP:GA)? For example the Media section is incredibly long, and if one might be interested in searching for an article in that section, it will be incredibly difficult to do that. Is there an disadvantage of having subsections at WP:FA? Nergaal ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The page at WT:FTC seemed dead, hence just commenting here. Is there any reason why nominations at WP:FTC are lying there for so long? Is any one promoting them? — Legolas (talk2me) 12:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I know one can look at particular dates ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article) to find the associated feature date of an article one is interested in, but when coming across an article bearing a gold star in its corner, it's a shame that it doesn't also inform the reader of the exact date is was featured. (I assume that's been discussed before?)
16:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.251.43 ( talk)
Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but is there any specific reason why hard spaces are not used in the Featured articles list? I find it rather odd that middle dots should appear at the beginning of lines, and it seems to me that the dots ought to always appear right after the last word of an article title/link, so that one can easily tell whether such a title at the end of a line appears whole or is divided between lines. At Good articles, as well as in navboxes all around Wikipedia, the lack of a bullet or dash at a line's end suggests such division, and I find that readability on this page suffers from the lack of this distinction. Waltham, The Duke of 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Blah 8 · Blah 11
· Blah 16
Back in April, User:NuclearWarfare began using Twinkle to apply move protection to all featured articles. I'm not sure how far he got, but the process was stopped after a few objections were raised, largely (as I recall) because the use of Twinkle meant that existing protection settings (for example, pre-existing semi-protection) were overridden. I'm not starting an RfC or anything like that, but I'd just like to seek some input on whether FAs should be move protected (only move protected) by default.
Feel free to add to the list of pros and cons. All comments are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I hit a snag when alphabeticizing Art, Literature, Media, Video gaming, and a few others. Copying this from User talk:DGG. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
DGG, could you help me understand how libraries alphabeticize book titles? Over time, WP:FA gets out of alpha order due to article name changes; in trying to correct that, I'm discovering my ignorance.
See in particular the Art and Literature sections at WP:FA. Since WP:MSH has us avoid "The" or "An" in article titles, my confusion mostly occurs in books and works of art. The two issues combine iin El Señor Presidente, which is a book with "The" as part of the title; do I put that under "El" (as in "The") or Señor?. What about the Artwork An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, and all of the others beginning with "The"? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that many titles sound really weird in English (and even more so in other languages) without the initial articles. However, it helps find things to have a uniform rule, even if it does sound weird sometimes. The traditional library rules in American libraries are:
Should the strange religious spiel be there? It has been there for a while, it seems, and I hesitate to blitz it, but it looks to me like the contribution of someone who doesn't understand. Tim riley ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It is essentially impossible to find an article in the warfare section. I am estimating there are about 350 entries in there. Of all the sections, it is probably the easiest one to split: either per millennia, or perhaps say before and after the industrial revolution? A few more sections have similar problems. Nergaal ( talk) 03:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts:
Some of the larger categories are becoming hard to browse. To make some of them more readable, I propose creating a Biography sub-category within the larger categories, but that won't aid readability in a couple of the Categories that have few Biographies. I'm hoping to keep the sub-cats as general as possible, and avoid over-segregating the page; hence the Biography sub-cat proposal. We should only propose a different scheme for very large categories that can't be made more readable by separating Biographies. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FA Category as of |
Sep 16, 2010 |
Proposed sub-sections |
---|---|---|
Art, architecture and archaeology | 117 | Biographies |
Biology | 261 | Biology proposal |
Geography and places | 181 | Geography proposal |
Geology, geophysics and meteorology | 129 | No Biographies. Separate meteorology into a separate category, see
User:Nergaal/sandboxFA; at 129, possibly doesn't need division into separate categories. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
History | 189 | Biographies |
Literature and theatre | 161 | Biographies |
Media | 221 | Biographies |
Music | 232 | Biographies |
Physics and astronomy | 98 | Biographies |
Politics and government | 98 | Biographies |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 94 | Biographies |
Sport and recreation | 268 | Biographies |
Transport | 107 | I only see one Biography; since it is only 107 articles, suggest not dividing for now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
Video gaming | 127 | Only 127 articles, not helped with Biography sub-cat suggest not dividing for now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
Warfare | 318 | Biographies |
Please list other proposals for the Categories that aren't easily separated by Biographies below, including a Sandbox link if possible, so Raul can easily evaluate these when he weighs in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If we decide to separate Biographies, should we do so for all Categories (even the smaller ones)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Sandy, for taking the lead on this!! One question - would it make sense to change the contents area to have a link to the bios for each section. For example: · Sport and recreation ( bios) · Transport · Video gaming · Warfare ( bios) That would make it a little easier to identify which categories have this subcat. Karanacs ( talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's been over a week since I started sorting bios; since no one has objected, I'm going to continue that work for the larger categories. I still don't know how to handle Biology; some sandbox proposals would help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm done for now: comments? We still need a sub-cat scheme for Biology. I suggest Flora, Fauna, and Fungi, with anything else not falling into those sub-cats left out at the top of the Biology category. Doing that work is hard for me, as I'm not familiar with the scientific names and would have to check each article to see where they fall. If someone could put that in a user sub-page so I could move it in, I'd be grateful. Also, I may forget the sub-cats when adding new FAs, so I hope others will keep an eye out and move anything I place incorrectly (also, please doublecheck my work-- I may have missed some). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)