![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in Featured Articles.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed as soon as possible.
The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the succession box. Taking the first item as an example, the "Family information" succession box (using {{ S-fam}}) is the only difference that I found between the two. If you're satisfied with the appearance in the new rendering (it makes the box be wider and collapsed), then you're done. If you're not, then the "table" (most navboxes and infoboxes are tables underneath) needs to be changed.
This second list is "misnested tags". See
mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. I know this table looks intimidating, but the second column gives you a hint about what to look for (for example, cite means something related to ref tags; spans are usually hidden in infobox programming). The highlighting for the first link indicates that the problem for that article is in the infobox. The most common problem in an infobox is parameter values that are multiple lines/paragraphs (because the template wraps much of the content in span tags, which aren't allowed to go across multiple paragraphs). This problem is probably due to the use of {{
plainlist}}.
Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once.
For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 03:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Johanna Strodt (WMDE) ( talk) has posted this note at WP:VPT, and I think it will interest FAC regulars even more:
Referencing multiple sections of the same work in an article is currently cumbersome. Editors have asked for an easier way to do this for more than ten years. In 2013 and 2015 a wish to change this made it into Wikimedia Germany’s Technical Wishlist and it was wish #24 in the international Community Wishlist survey 2015.
WMDE’s Technical Wishes team conceptualized an idea how the problem could be solved: A generic solution that can be used for any refinement, such as pages, chapters, verses etc., and that could be used as a voluntary option, not forcing the users who don’t want to change their working mode to use it.
In order to find out if we can start working on this solution, we’re inviting editors from all wikis to have a look at it and tell us what they think in a feedback round from May 14th to May 27th. Thanks to everyone who participates and helps spreading the word!
-- Thank you.
Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I had a question about the classification of these two articles, which are very similar topics (they both describe the construction of major building complexes in New York City). These articles are classified differently on the main Featured Articles page. Construction of Rockefeller Center is classified as an "art and architecture" article, but Construction of the World Trade Center is an "engineering and technology" article. Should one of these articles be classified differently? -- epicgenius ( talk) 16:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE LET ME EDIT THIS PAGE, I CAN MAKE IT LIKE A HISTORY BOOK. H3wo1 ( talk) 21:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#The lead date-range vs. full dates thing might be of interest. Giant Snowman 11:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I make a summary, to make the page only content featured articles page. Nhatminh01 ( talk) 10:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Divide:
Agriculture, food, and drink
Agriculture, food, and drink
Art and architecture
Art and architecture
Engineering and technology
Computing and engineering ·
Transport
Geography and places
Geography ·
Places
History
World history ·
Royalty, nobility, and heraldry
Language and literature
Language and literature
Media and drama
Film ·
Television ·
Media and drama
Natural sciences
Biology and medicine ·
Chemistry and materials science ·
Earth sciences ·
Physics and astronomy
Philosophy and religion
Philosophy and religion
Social sciences and society
Culture, sociology, and psychology ·
Education ·
Economics and business ·
Law ·
Politics and government
Sports and recreation
Sports and recreation ·
Miscellaneous
but the number of it must be update in {{ FA number}}
Nhatminh01 ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have been adding comments on the talk pages of articles, some better classed including FA, concerning "External links". Sometimes things can "creep in", and incremental edits can produce a longer list than desirable, but some articles have over 15 "External links" and over 20 "Further reading" sections. I have only been focusing on articles containing "more" than 4 links but certainly those articles with an enormous amount of overlinking like 15 t 25. I haven't looked but if this is not addressed as a criteria during class assessment it needs to be. If it is then things have just drifted along and a good reason to check back in. Otr500 ( talk) 20:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a page listing FA's that have maintenance tags on them? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs for a RFC that is of interest to this project. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.156.83.16 ( talk) 09:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles that may concern editors of this project. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed an excess of British-themed articles have made it to the front page in the featured articles section. Its like a regular thing, beyond what is due to their population. I'm wondering if some of this is just because there is some tendency for British editors to work on British-related articles to get them up to featured article standards, or if not that, then its a kind of deliberate promotional coordination. - Inowen ( nlfte) 04:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a big controversy regarding Brie and Rotten Tomatoes going on right now. It's actually been going on for a couple weeks. Anyways, the article is not FA level without coverage of this issue. And, it's about to be featured on the main page the same day that her movie Captain Marvel comes out. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this link will work out correctly, but this is the most coverage from RSs that Brie has received outside of getting the Captain Marvel job. If the most or second most coverage ever isn't relevant, then you're just using your personal opinion. https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWlqOW9iVGpZQU1FZkJRQlNiWE85dy1LQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is it the rule that an FA nominator must wait at least fourteen days after their previous FA nomination closes before nominating another FA? Векочел ( talk) 20:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Conversation moved to user talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi all, I'm hoping you can help. I have never passed an article through the FA nomination process, however, I would like to do so in the near future. I have a couple of GAs under my belt (specifically articles such as the 2018 World Snooker Championship, and the 2018 UK Championship. However, as there aren't any current FA articles on snooker tournaments (to my knowledge anyway). What I don't want to do is nominate an article without a good grasp of what issues might arise, but reading the criteria seems quite open-ended. Could someone let me know if there are obvious things that I would have issues with in an FA nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
|
So, mmm... why has the Seattle Sounders appeared on the front page twice? I mean I'm a fan of the team, but I thought every article only received the front page treatment once. Praemonitus ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
2019 redefinition of SI base units ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What do we have to do to make this the TFA on 20 May 2019? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Will deadlinks hurt an article from becoming FA? I'm working on a level 4 vital article and noticed deadlinks I can't seem to find archives for it. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 05:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
We have subject groupings for FA at WP:FA, but why don't these translate into actual categories? It would be useful to be able to see, at any given point, how many "Art, architecture, and archaeology" FAs there are, for example. Is there another mechanism? Categories seem the most obvious means to do so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Would it be okay to add a subsection on tropical cyclones under meteorology? Most of the links under that heading are tropical cyclones and I think it might be convenient for people browsing this page if the articles on other topics within meteorology are split from the hurricanes. Don't know whether this will break stuff, so not doing this boldly. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Certain it has been asked before, but is there a list of FAs by the date they became a FA? Like what were the 10/50/100 articles to become FA most recently? (I sense the date they appear on the main page has only limited connection to when they became an FA). Thanks in advance for your help/guidance. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I have an article in the GA nominations queue which may be there for some time to come. As the content is quite comprehensive, instead of merely broad, I'm wondering if I have joined the wrong queue. Is it permissible for an article to be nominated for FA and GA concurrently or, if I decide that FA should have priority, should I remove it from the GA list? Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I came looking for examples of featured songs articles, and found a mixed (as considered by type) wall of music related articles. Rather than leave it the way it was, I chose to create subsections for the works, albums, songs and miscellaneous articles, and the music biographies of groups, people and also miscellaneous. The result can be seen at the version pre-reversion. For immediate reference, the structure I proposed is simulated below:
Laser brain doesn't think the changes I made is a sensible information architecture nor are the label semantics precise
(revert edit summary), and I'd like to have a chat about it with the aim of subsectioning the listed music articles.
I think the structure and section naming I created is perfectly fine for both semantics and to disambiguate the sections (i.e. and e.g. "Miscellaneous music" as opposed to just "Miscellaneous" and "Music biographies of groups" instead of "Biographies of groups"), but am more than happy to discuss possible improvements with an aim to a better organised and more user friendly list.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
14:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
18:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
22:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Done What do you think?
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
14:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey is donfizzy,really appreciate. Donfizzy87 ( talk) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Is great Victor Baruch ( talk) 13:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I've updated a featured article to reflect more recent research, but the same article has been translated and is featured in multiple other languages, many of which I do not speak. Is there any good way to tip off the other languages to update their featured articles? HLHJ ( talk) 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, starting off the list of suggstions, can you feature the South American tapir or Baird's tapir (tomorrow) please? 2601:206:8101:2F0:F5:9807:10BF:ED07 ( talk) 01:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes Victor Baruch ( talk) 13:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Im just start still learning how to edit the page. How to edit im always block. Thanks Palata752 ( talk) 10:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Greetings,
does Wikipedia:Featured articles/sandbox this page still serve a purpose? It spuriously appears in WhatLinksHere for FA articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes It does Victor Baruch ( talk) 13:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, any guide? How to edit? Do i need to removed some content or just add words? Palata752 ( talk) 11:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers.
Sdkb (
talk)
22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently some volcanoes - such as Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) - are in the "Geology and geophysics" section whereas others - such as Ubinas and Wōdejebato - are in the "Geography and places" section. What is the correct section? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
See discussion at WT:TFA
|
---|
Preliminary:
Here I suggest to speedy make
Virus
|
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Today's featured article#Proposal to re-run virus-related TFAs during Coronavirus pandemic SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought it would be useful to draw your attention to the discussion and conclusion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #RfC on table captions. We've previously accepted the lack of a caption for a table where the table was placed immediately below a heading that would duplicate the caption. However, the RfC rejects that now that we have a template {{ sronly}} that can encapsulate text that we wish to be rendered by a 'screen reader only'.
It is probably best to encourage editors to comply with the requirement for data tables to have captions for now, but eventually, it ought to be a requirement for Featured articles. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
FAC Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please? Factfanatic1 ( talk) 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, we are working on content translation of English featured articles to Dutch for Dutch Wikipedia. I want to include a list with all featured articles on English Wikipedia for our translators to choose from, and this petscan query tells me there are 3126 articles that have the featured article template on English Wikipedia, however on this page I read that there are 5801 featured articles. Can you please help me figure out the difference? Thanks! MichellevL (WMNL) ( talk) 14:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I see that Sega, which was promoted to FA at the end of May this year, was categorized as a Video games article on the WP:FA list of featured articles. Given that in this case the company is a multinational corporation with their hands in movies and film, toys, arcade center operations, as well as the development of arcade and video games, I feel it would make more sense to be classified under Business, economics, and finance under the Companies subheader. Would anyone object to this? Red Phoenix talk 01:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I would like to start the FA process for Ksour Essef cuirass but I don't know at all how it works. Could someone help me ? Thanks -- Schweiz41 ( talk) 09:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Brilliant prose. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Brilliant prose until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (
talk)
10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that "featured articles" very often focus on various Christian clergymen throughout history. You don't have to take my word for it, a quick review of the history of Wikipedia's featured articles will reveal that a Christian clergyman was the subject of a new featured article in the months of April, May, June, July, and August. I have yet to see any featured articles (or at least for a very long time) on notable rabbis or leaders/ philosophers of other modern, significant, non-Christian religions. I'm not claiming an intentional bias here. Indeed, the way Wikipedia works with its multiple editors from the general public, I'd think the idea of intentional bias to be highly unlikely. Still, in the interest of balance, it would be nice to see other, non-Christian religious leaders from history occasionally featured.
If this suggestion is better left on another editorial page, please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1023:4515:3975:6C9D:D737:E58C ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
It seems that featured articles pre-2006 or so had considerably weaker requirements than they do now. As such, a lot of old featured articles got reassessed and delisted over time. From a noob's perspective (i.e. mine), it looked like the article was originally of very high quality, but that over time, it had gotten significantly worse for some reason, when in fact it probably hadn't. Thus, I'd take a look at the older (featured) versions of the article and try to include material from there.
I guess if you think about it, you would come to the conclusion that this is bogus. Unless there is a lot of new information about a topic, there would be no reason for the edits to simply be reverted to the older version. Then one would conclude that the delisting was about applying stricter requirements (or perhaps identifying fallacies in the original nomination/listing).
Still, I feel it would be prudent to mention this history in the description of what a featured article is. Or, if not there, document this trend somewhere (though I don't know where). Sincerely, Ovinus ( talk) 05:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think that the categorization of numismatics under economics and finance is not correct. I think it would go better under the history section. From my personal experience, I know that most colleges usually have numismatics taught and studied by those in the history department rather than the school of economics. ~ HAL 333( [1]) 01:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I was really quite shocked to see today's featured article, Oxenfree. It may be a well-known product, but the language, even if it doesn't stray into contravention of the NPOV rule (and I think it does), is certainly unacceptably flowery. I spend much of my time deleting spam from the encyclopedia and it's disappointing to see this not only slipping through the net but being held up as an example of a good article! Deb ( talk) 08:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
"Influenced by classic teen films and coming-of-age shows, the developers wanted to create a story-driven game without cutscenes, allowing players to freely roam the environment. Oxenfree's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with bright, geometric, and digital ones." Deb ( talk) 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
STEM articles are extremely underrepresented in WP:FA, and of the few that do exist, many are about products or services. I propose a review of high-importance articles in STEM to determine exactly what must be done in order for them to meet the featured article criteria, make appropriate edits, and award them featured article status as soon as possible, without delay. AP295 ( talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be easiest to start with STEM articles that were featured articles but lost that status at some point. (Looks like many former featured articles are also either biographical or otherwise of a non-technical nature) I'm concerned that
WP:FA does not present a well-balanced view of human knowledge. If this talk page is not the place for such a proposal, please direct me to the appropriate venue.
AP295 (
talk)
17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd imagine one problem with these might be that they often need continuous updates as I have found out to my annoyance. Beyond that point, the only articles that can become FAs are these that someone has written to the WP:WIAFA criteria. Thus the recurrent advice that folks who think a certain topic is unrepresented among FAs to write articles on that certain topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
And I believe there must be a coordinated effort. Many scientific articles seem to become overly long and disjointed, with so many editors working independently. As a starting point, I think these three articles are all vital for basic scientific literacy and deserve very serious attention: Mean, Function (mathematics), Set (mathematics). My time is limited and I cannot improve them alone, but I would like to be part of such an effort. How can we organize this? AP295 ( talk) 19:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Since WT:MATH seems to be the appropriate place to discuss this, I'll remove the RfC tag from this section and put it in the section I made there. I've also edited my question somewhat and I'm categorizing the new RfC under science, so please leave this section where it is here so we can start fresh now that I've determined how to proceed. AP295 ( talk) 15:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
By "denoting", it could be adding an icon
/
next to the athelete's article. By grouping, it could be a bold subheading using a semicolon code
;
(Badminton). The reason is: when wikipedians are working to improve an sports biography article to FA standard, they want to find an existing FA of the same sport as a model - but they would get lost in the sea of (cricket) sports biography listed in
WP:FA and spend a good half and hour to find out. --
love.wh
11:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if any experienced music editors at FA can leave some comments on the Dior (song) peer review? Aoba47, a very experienced music editor, left some amazing comments that helped the article immensely. I would really appreciate it if anyone like them could help the article for it to be FA level. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 03:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
When a FA is demoted it doesn't seem generally to become a good article. None of Wikipedia:Former featured articles, Wikipedia:Featured article review or Wikipedia:Former featured articles mention this but in cases like Westgate-on-Sea it seem they the are stripped altogether rather than being downgraded. This should probably be clarified since it seems odd that an article that was formerly a FA would not still be a GA even if it no longer qualifies as being a FA. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@ DrKay, Nikkimaria, and Gog the Mild:, the page shows 5,907 FAs, but Template:FA number shows 5,906. The number was correct a few days ago, when I last checked for WP:FAS. I can't tell what was missed, because in the interim, SarahSV did a reorganization of the Sports section, so a compare diff can't detect the problem. I don't know how to address this, but suspect that DrKay does. Did all new FAs see the tally incremented, all delisted FAs see a decrease, or was something dropped when SV did the reorg? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Just had 2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship promoted. We have a section for snooker (I've been steadily adding to over the years), do you think we could change it to say "snooker and cue sports", or similar? I do plan on adding other articles for cue sports over time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The FA page has an overwhelming amount of issues. In general, there are too many huge undefined lists of articles (beginning of music, history, law, video games sections, for example) that offer no navigational ability for any readers. These problems are exacerbated when compared to Wikipedia:Featured lists, which carefully displays all the featured lists in an extremely readable format. I would strongly advocate for their collapsed list format as well...
This is just short list of observations. I'm willing to do a lot of organizing myself, but I suspect I'm going to need consensus for a lot of these things. Aza24 ( talk) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons in regards to the icon for featured content.
Pbrks (
talk)
23:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles displays 7,300+ FA:
The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has a summary table for article assessments that have been done by WikiProjects:
|
That is a difference of about 1,400 as of now. Why is it not matching ? Yug (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey all! I was wondering what the best examples of some FA-level non-fiction science books are? I've been looking through the list and it's hard to find something like what i'm looking for. I really just want to know what the standard is for such a book article at FA-level, what sections are routinely used, things like that. If we take an article like T. Rex and the Crater of Doom that I made a while back, other than expanding the lede, what else is missing that I should be looking into? (Obviously, Good level submission first, but I was just curious). Silver seren C 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Wonder if this should be moved from "Art" to "Architecture and archaeology". Ceoil ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Golden Sun now links to the series of the games (which is a GA), not the first video game (Golden Sun (Video Game)) in the series (which is a FA). They were switched in 2019 as per the discussion on the talk page on the series.
A featured article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). Therapyisgood ( talk) 01:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2.
Dege31 (
talk)
23:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I see Whitehawk Camp is in archaeology but Knap Hill is in geography; I don't know which is better but I think they should be in the same section. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there an automatic way to generate an alphabetical list of all current featured articles? Does such a list already exist somewhere on Wikipedia? Or would it have to be done manually? Thank you! Ganesha811 ( talk) 15:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, if the current article is featured in another language, a star will appear next to the corresponding entry in the Languages list in the sidebar to let you know. - I believe a different colored star appears if the article is a GA in a different language. See, for instance, the grey star next to the Chinese language link at Battle of Marais des Cygnes. Should we consider making a wording change here? Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
At WP:GA there is a counter set up to total how many are in each section. Would it be possible to set up something similar here? Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I previewed removing the asterix before each article title, and that really messes up the formatting. I also tried replacing the wikcode from the Good article page by creating Template:Featured Article subsection, which is based on Template:Featured List subsection. I replaced “{{#invoke:Good Articles|subsection|}}” with "{{Featured Article subsection|}}", and it worked beautifully for the first 3,668 articles before it gave me a Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size alert and hid the remaining 2,355 articles (everything after "Physics and astronomy"). I tried to get around that by creating Template:Featured Article subsection2 and using that from "Politics and government" through "Warfare", but that didn't help at all.
In short, I think that if we want to automatically calculate the number of FAs in each section, we may have to live with the somewhat unsightly dots and dashes between articles. I'm copying User:PresN from the Featured list project to ask for ideas, seeing as the featured list project automatically calculates the number of list in each section with "{{Featured List subsection|}}". There are currently 3,873 featured lists, so I'm not sure why there isn't an issue with Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. AmericanLemming ( talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
"postexpandincludesize":{"value":1375072,"limit":2097152}
, so, 1.3 million out of 2 million, a pretty big gap. The problem seems to be {{
FA/BeenOnMainPage}} - y'all have 5200 calls to it on the page, and WP:FL doesn't use a similar template to track that. If I strip out those template calls, the FA page drops to "postexpandincludesize":{"value":884087,"limit":2097152}}
, or 800,000, far away from the limit. (WPFL has way more little subsection counters, so it makes sense that we're higher there). I don't know enough about what parts of templates are expensive to know if there's any edits possible to the Featured Article subsection template to make it cheaper, but if not, then you won't be able to use it and have 5000 calls to FA/BeenOnMainPage. --
Pres
N
05:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It is AWESOME to see all of you working to address this issue, as the Word to Excel manipulations I had to do in the past to come up with the numbers was quite time consuming as HF has now discovered! This is the kind of leadership and taking the bull by the horns I knew we would see from HF, following on the same from Mike Christie, where we can actually have data-based discussions. :) :) I agree that whatever can be done to make the numbers appear could take precedence over other formatting issues. I love the idea of switching to "NotBeenOnMainPage", to shorten the overall effect, but if that is done, please remember to fix the green tool that displays the "been on main page", eg at User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Why was Space Shuttle Challenger disaster placed in History, rather than Engineering and technology? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Can someone tell me the correct process to nominate an article for deselection as an FPA. Thanks. Today's Jaguar article has a misleading over-saturated poor quality image in the infobox which a group of editors voted to keep in preference to one of my Commons FPs. Majority voting is fine, but their decison devalues the article in my opinion. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 16:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I see the rugby section now only contains two articles, and this isn't an area in which articles have been promoted recently. I propose that this small section be merged into the miscellaneous for sports and recreation, much how our one Wimbledon article is there, or our one basketball article is there. Hog Farm Talk 05:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Currently the category Category:Featured articles as 6,042 members, while this page states that there are 6,035 FAs. ( t · c) buidhe 10:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've developed a way to determine when the error crept in - the internet archive wayback machine archives the category page, so I can compare the counts on the two pages. Matches up at this point in late August. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: I realize that I’m commenting on this issue after it's been resolved, but it occurred to me that we have an easy, automated way to detect this sort of discrepancy in the GA project. There is a page called Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches, which uses a bot called gambot to automatically look for these kinds of discrepancies. The bot was created by User:GreenC back in April 2019; they are still an active editor, so they might be able to repurpose it for the Featured article project. AmericanLemming ( talk) 02:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
To AmericanLemming for seeing the problem and the idea for a solution; to Hog Farm for grabbing the bull by the horns and running with it; and to GreenC for setting up fambot to create the report at Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches that will save all of us many hours of searching for that missing or extra star populating the Featured article categories. Thank you for the speedy solution to a problem spanning more than a decade. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:48, 8 December 2021 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in Featured Articles.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed as soon as possible.
The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the succession box. Taking the first item as an example, the "Family information" succession box (using {{ S-fam}}) is the only difference that I found between the two. If you're satisfied with the appearance in the new rendering (it makes the box be wider and collapsed), then you're done. If you're not, then the "table" (most navboxes and infoboxes are tables underneath) needs to be changed.
This second list is "misnested tags". See
mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. I know this table looks intimidating, but the second column gives you a hint about what to look for (for example, cite means something related to ref tags; spans are usually hidden in infobox programming). The highlighting for the first link indicates that the problem for that article is in the infobox. The most common problem in an infobox is parameter values that are multiple lines/paragraphs (because the template wraps much of the content in span tags, which aren't allowed to go across multiple paragraphs). This problem is probably due to the use of {{
plainlist}}.
Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once.
For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 03:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Johanna Strodt (WMDE) ( talk) has posted this note at WP:VPT, and I think it will interest FAC regulars even more:
Referencing multiple sections of the same work in an article is currently cumbersome. Editors have asked for an easier way to do this for more than ten years. In 2013 and 2015 a wish to change this made it into Wikimedia Germany’s Technical Wishlist and it was wish #24 in the international Community Wishlist survey 2015.
WMDE’s Technical Wishes team conceptualized an idea how the problem could be solved: A generic solution that can be used for any refinement, such as pages, chapters, verses etc., and that could be used as a voluntary option, not forcing the users who don’t want to change their working mode to use it.
In order to find out if we can start working on this solution, we’re inviting editors from all wikis to have a look at it and tell us what they think in a feedback round from May 14th to May 27th. Thanks to everyone who participates and helps spreading the word!
-- Thank you.
Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I had a question about the classification of these two articles, which are very similar topics (they both describe the construction of major building complexes in New York City). These articles are classified differently on the main Featured Articles page. Construction of Rockefeller Center is classified as an "art and architecture" article, but Construction of the World Trade Center is an "engineering and technology" article. Should one of these articles be classified differently? -- epicgenius ( talk) 16:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE LET ME EDIT THIS PAGE, I CAN MAKE IT LIKE A HISTORY BOOK. H3wo1 ( talk) 21:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#The lead date-range vs. full dates thing might be of interest. Giant Snowman 11:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I make a summary, to make the page only content featured articles page. Nhatminh01 ( talk) 10:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Divide:
Agriculture, food, and drink
Agriculture, food, and drink
Art and architecture
Art and architecture
Engineering and technology
Computing and engineering ·
Transport
Geography and places
Geography ·
Places
History
World history ·
Royalty, nobility, and heraldry
Language and literature
Language and literature
Media and drama
Film ·
Television ·
Media and drama
Natural sciences
Biology and medicine ·
Chemistry and materials science ·
Earth sciences ·
Physics and astronomy
Philosophy and religion
Philosophy and religion
Social sciences and society
Culture, sociology, and psychology ·
Education ·
Economics and business ·
Law ·
Politics and government
Sports and recreation
Sports and recreation ·
Miscellaneous
but the number of it must be update in {{ FA number}}
Nhatminh01 ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have been adding comments on the talk pages of articles, some better classed including FA, concerning "External links". Sometimes things can "creep in", and incremental edits can produce a longer list than desirable, but some articles have over 15 "External links" and over 20 "Further reading" sections. I have only been focusing on articles containing "more" than 4 links but certainly those articles with an enormous amount of overlinking like 15 t 25. I haven't looked but if this is not addressed as a criteria during class assessment it needs to be. If it is then things have just drifted along and a good reason to check back in. Otr500 ( talk) 20:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a page listing FA's that have maintenance tags on them? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs for a RFC that is of interest to this project. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.156.83.16 ( talk) 09:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles that may concern editors of this project. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed an excess of British-themed articles have made it to the front page in the featured articles section. Its like a regular thing, beyond what is due to their population. I'm wondering if some of this is just because there is some tendency for British editors to work on British-related articles to get them up to featured article standards, or if not that, then its a kind of deliberate promotional coordination. - Inowen ( nlfte) 04:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a big controversy regarding Brie and Rotten Tomatoes going on right now. It's actually been going on for a couple weeks. Anyways, the article is not FA level without coverage of this issue. And, it's about to be featured on the main page the same day that her movie Captain Marvel comes out. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this link will work out correctly, but this is the most coverage from RSs that Brie has received outside of getting the Captain Marvel job. If the most or second most coverage ever isn't relevant, then you're just using your personal opinion. https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWlqOW9iVGpZQU1FZkJRQlNiWE85dy1LQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is it the rule that an FA nominator must wait at least fourteen days after their previous FA nomination closes before nominating another FA? Векочел ( talk) 20:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Conversation moved to user talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi all, I'm hoping you can help. I have never passed an article through the FA nomination process, however, I would like to do so in the near future. I have a couple of GAs under my belt (specifically articles such as the 2018 World Snooker Championship, and the 2018 UK Championship. However, as there aren't any current FA articles on snooker tournaments (to my knowledge anyway). What I don't want to do is nominate an article without a good grasp of what issues might arise, but reading the criteria seems quite open-ended. Could someone let me know if there are obvious things that I would have issues with in an FA nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
|
So, mmm... why has the Seattle Sounders appeared on the front page twice? I mean I'm a fan of the team, but I thought every article only received the front page treatment once. Praemonitus ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
2019 redefinition of SI base units ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What do we have to do to make this the TFA on 20 May 2019? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Will deadlinks hurt an article from becoming FA? I'm working on a level 4 vital article and noticed deadlinks I can't seem to find archives for it. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 05:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
We have subject groupings for FA at WP:FA, but why don't these translate into actual categories? It would be useful to be able to see, at any given point, how many "Art, architecture, and archaeology" FAs there are, for example. Is there another mechanism? Categories seem the most obvious means to do so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Would it be okay to add a subsection on tropical cyclones under meteorology? Most of the links under that heading are tropical cyclones and I think it might be convenient for people browsing this page if the articles on other topics within meteorology are split from the hurricanes. Don't know whether this will break stuff, so not doing this boldly. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Certain it has been asked before, but is there a list of FAs by the date they became a FA? Like what were the 10/50/100 articles to become FA most recently? (I sense the date they appear on the main page has only limited connection to when they became an FA). Thanks in advance for your help/guidance. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I have an article in the GA nominations queue which may be there for some time to come. As the content is quite comprehensive, instead of merely broad, I'm wondering if I have joined the wrong queue. Is it permissible for an article to be nominated for FA and GA concurrently or, if I decide that FA should have priority, should I remove it from the GA list? Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I came looking for examples of featured songs articles, and found a mixed (as considered by type) wall of music related articles. Rather than leave it the way it was, I chose to create subsections for the works, albums, songs and miscellaneous articles, and the music biographies of groups, people and also miscellaneous. The result can be seen at the version pre-reversion. For immediate reference, the structure I proposed is simulated below:
Laser brain doesn't think the changes I made is a sensible information architecture nor are the label semantics precise
(revert edit summary), and I'd like to have a chat about it with the aim of subsectioning the listed music articles.
I think the structure and section naming I created is perfectly fine for both semantics and to disambiguate the sections (i.e. and e.g. "Miscellaneous music" as opposed to just "Miscellaneous" and "Music biographies of groups" instead of "Biographies of groups"), but am more than happy to discuss possible improvements with an aim to a better organised and more user friendly list.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
14:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
18:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
22:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Done What do you think?
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
14:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey is donfizzy,really appreciate. Donfizzy87 ( talk) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Is great Victor Baruch ( talk) 13:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I've updated a featured article to reflect more recent research, but the same article has been translated and is featured in multiple other languages, many of which I do not speak. Is there any good way to tip off the other languages to update their featured articles? HLHJ ( talk) 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, starting off the list of suggstions, can you feature the South American tapir or Baird's tapir (tomorrow) please? 2601:206:8101:2F0:F5:9807:10BF:ED07 ( talk) 01:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes Victor Baruch ( talk) 13:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Im just start still learning how to edit the page. How to edit im always block. Thanks Palata752 ( talk) 10:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Greetings,
does Wikipedia:Featured articles/sandbox this page still serve a purpose? It spuriously appears in WhatLinksHere for FA articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes It does Victor Baruch ( talk) 13:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, any guide? How to edit? Do i need to removed some content or just add words? Palata752 ( talk) 11:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers.
Sdkb (
talk)
22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently some volcanoes - such as Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) - are in the "Geology and geophysics" section whereas others - such as Ubinas and Wōdejebato - are in the "Geography and places" section. What is the correct section? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
See discussion at WT:TFA
|
---|
Preliminary:
Here I suggest to speedy make
Virus
|
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Today's featured article#Proposal to re-run virus-related TFAs during Coronavirus pandemic SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought it would be useful to draw your attention to the discussion and conclusion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #RfC on table captions. We've previously accepted the lack of a caption for a table where the table was placed immediately below a heading that would duplicate the caption. However, the RfC rejects that now that we have a template {{ sronly}} that can encapsulate text that we wish to be rendered by a 'screen reader only'.
It is probably best to encourage editors to comply with the requirement for data tables to have captions for now, but eventually, it ought to be a requirement for Featured articles. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
FAC Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please? Factfanatic1 ( talk) 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, we are working on content translation of English featured articles to Dutch for Dutch Wikipedia. I want to include a list with all featured articles on English Wikipedia for our translators to choose from, and this petscan query tells me there are 3126 articles that have the featured article template on English Wikipedia, however on this page I read that there are 5801 featured articles. Can you please help me figure out the difference? Thanks! MichellevL (WMNL) ( talk) 14:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I see that Sega, which was promoted to FA at the end of May this year, was categorized as a Video games article on the WP:FA list of featured articles. Given that in this case the company is a multinational corporation with their hands in movies and film, toys, arcade center operations, as well as the development of arcade and video games, I feel it would make more sense to be classified under Business, economics, and finance under the Companies subheader. Would anyone object to this? Red Phoenix talk 01:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I would like to start the FA process for Ksour Essef cuirass but I don't know at all how it works. Could someone help me ? Thanks -- Schweiz41 ( talk) 09:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Brilliant prose. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Brilliant prose until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (
talk)
10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that "featured articles" very often focus on various Christian clergymen throughout history. You don't have to take my word for it, a quick review of the history of Wikipedia's featured articles will reveal that a Christian clergyman was the subject of a new featured article in the months of April, May, June, July, and August. I have yet to see any featured articles (or at least for a very long time) on notable rabbis or leaders/ philosophers of other modern, significant, non-Christian religions. I'm not claiming an intentional bias here. Indeed, the way Wikipedia works with its multiple editors from the general public, I'd think the idea of intentional bias to be highly unlikely. Still, in the interest of balance, it would be nice to see other, non-Christian religious leaders from history occasionally featured.
If this suggestion is better left on another editorial page, please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1023:4515:3975:6C9D:D737:E58C ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
It seems that featured articles pre-2006 or so had considerably weaker requirements than they do now. As such, a lot of old featured articles got reassessed and delisted over time. From a noob's perspective (i.e. mine), it looked like the article was originally of very high quality, but that over time, it had gotten significantly worse for some reason, when in fact it probably hadn't. Thus, I'd take a look at the older (featured) versions of the article and try to include material from there.
I guess if you think about it, you would come to the conclusion that this is bogus. Unless there is a lot of new information about a topic, there would be no reason for the edits to simply be reverted to the older version. Then one would conclude that the delisting was about applying stricter requirements (or perhaps identifying fallacies in the original nomination/listing).
Still, I feel it would be prudent to mention this history in the description of what a featured article is. Or, if not there, document this trend somewhere (though I don't know where). Sincerely, Ovinus ( talk) 05:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think that the categorization of numismatics under economics and finance is not correct. I think it would go better under the history section. From my personal experience, I know that most colleges usually have numismatics taught and studied by those in the history department rather than the school of economics. ~ HAL 333( [1]) 01:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I was really quite shocked to see today's featured article, Oxenfree. It may be a well-known product, but the language, even if it doesn't stray into contravention of the NPOV rule (and I think it does), is certainly unacceptably flowery. I spend much of my time deleting spam from the encyclopedia and it's disappointing to see this not only slipping through the net but being held up as an example of a good article! Deb ( talk) 08:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
"Influenced by classic teen films and coming-of-age shows, the developers wanted to create a story-driven game without cutscenes, allowing players to freely roam the environment. Oxenfree's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with bright, geometric, and digital ones." Deb ( talk) 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
STEM articles are extremely underrepresented in WP:FA, and of the few that do exist, many are about products or services. I propose a review of high-importance articles in STEM to determine exactly what must be done in order for them to meet the featured article criteria, make appropriate edits, and award them featured article status as soon as possible, without delay. AP295 ( talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be easiest to start with STEM articles that were featured articles but lost that status at some point. (Looks like many former featured articles are also either biographical or otherwise of a non-technical nature) I'm concerned that
WP:FA does not present a well-balanced view of human knowledge. If this talk page is not the place for such a proposal, please direct me to the appropriate venue.
AP295 (
talk)
17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd imagine one problem with these might be that they often need continuous updates as I have found out to my annoyance. Beyond that point, the only articles that can become FAs are these that someone has written to the WP:WIAFA criteria. Thus the recurrent advice that folks who think a certain topic is unrepresented among FAs to write articles on that certain topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
And I believe there must be a coordinated effort. Many scientific articles seem to become overly long and disjointed, with so many editors working independently. As a starting point, I think these three articles are all vital for basic scientific literacy and deserve very serious attention: Mean, Function (mathematics), Set (mathematics). My time is limited and I cannot improve them alone, but I would like to be part of such an effort. How can we organize this? AP295 ( talk) 19:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Since WT:MATH seems to be the appropriate place to discuss this, I'll remove the RfC tag from this section and put it in the section I made there. I've also edited my question somewhat and I'm categorizing the new RfC under science, so please leave this section where it is here so we can start fresh now that I've determined how to proceed. AP295 ( talk) 15:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
By "denoting", it could be adding an icon
/
next to the athelete's article. By grouping, it could be a bold subheading using a semicolon code
;
(Badminton). The reason is: when wikipedians are working to improve an sports biography article to FA standard, they want to find an existing FA of the same sport as a model - but they would get lost in the sea of (cricket) sports biography listed in
WP:FA and spend a good half and hour to find out. --
love.wh
11:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if any experienced music editors at FA can leave some comments on the Dior (song) peer review? Aoba47, a very experienced music editor, left some amazing comments that helped the article immensely. I would really appreciate it if anyone like them could help the article for it to be FA level. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 03:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
When a FA is demoted it doesn't seem generally to become a good article. None of Wikipedia:Former featured articles, Wikipedia:Featured article review or Wikipedia:Former featured articles mention this but in cases like Westgate-on-Sea it seem they the are stripped altogether rather than being downgraded. This should probably be clarified since it seems odd that an article that was formerly a FA would not still be a GA even if it no longer qualifies as being a FA. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@ DrKay, Nikkimaria, and Gog the Mild:, the page shows 5,907 FAs, but Template:FA number shows 5,906. The number was correct a few days ago, when I last checked for WP:FAS. I can't tell what was missed, because in the interim, SarahSV did a reorganization of the Sports section, so a compare diff can't detect the problem. I don't know how to address this, but suspect that DrKay does. Did all new FAs see the tally incremented, all delisted FAs see a decrease, or was something dropped when SV did the reorg? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Just had 2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship promoted. We have a section for snooker (I've been steadily adding to over the years), do you think we could change it to say "snooker and cue sports", or similar? I do plan on adding other articles for cue sports over time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The FA page has an overwhelming amount of issues. In general, there are too many huge undefined lists of articles (beginning of music, history, law, video games sections, for example) that offer no navigational ability for any readers. These problems are exacerbated when compared to Wikipedia:Featured lists, which carefully displays all the featured lists in an extremely readable format. I would strongly advocate for their collapsed list format as well...
This is just short list of observations. I'm willing to do a lot of organizing myself, but I suspect I'm going to need consensus for a lot of these things. Aza24 ( talk) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons in regards to the icon for featured content.
Pbrks (
talk)
23:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles displays 7,300+ FA:
The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has a summary table for article assessments that have been done by WikiProjects:
|
That is a difference of about 1,400 as of now. Why is it not matching ? Yug (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey all! I was wondering what the best examples of some FA-level non-fiction science books are? I've been looking through the list and it's hard to find something like what i'm looking for. I really just want to know what the standard is for such a book article at FA-level, what sections are routinely used, things like that. If we take an article like T. Rex and the Crater of Doom that I made a while back, other than expanding the lede, what else is missing that I should be looking into? (Obviously, Good level submission first, but I was just curious). Silver seren C 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Wonder if this should be moved from "Art" to "Architecture and archaeology". Ceoil ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Golden Sun now links to the series of the games (which is a GA), not the first video game (Golden Sun (Video Game)) in the series (which is a FA). They were switched in 2019 as per the discussion on the talk page on the series.
A featured article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). Therapyisgood ( talk) 01:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2.
Dege31 (
talk)
23:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I see Whitehawk Camp is in archaeology but Knap Hill is in geography; I don't know which is better but I think they should be in the same section. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there an automatic way to generate an alphabetical list of all current featured articles? Does such a list already exist somewhere on Wikipedia? Or would it have to be done manually? Thank you! Ganesha811 ( talk) 15:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, if the current article is featured in another language, a star will appear next to the corresponding entry in the Languages list in the sidebar to let you know. - I believe a different colored star appears if the article is a GA in a different language. See, for instance, the grey star next to the Chinese language link at Battle of Marais des Cygnes. Should we consider making a wording change here? Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
At WP:GA there is a counter set up to total how many are in each section. Would it be possible to set up something similar here? Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I previewed removing the asterix before each article title, and that really messes up the formatting. I also tried replacing the wikcode from the Good article page by creating Template:Featured Article subsection, which is based on Template:Featured List subsection. I replaced “{{#invoke:Good Articles|subsection|}}” with "{{Featured Article subsection|}}", and it worked beautifully for the first 3,668 articles before it gave me a Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size alert and hid the remaining 2,355 articles (everything after "Physics and astronomy"). I tried to get around that by creating Template:Featured Article subsection2 and using that from "Politics and government" through "Warfare", but that didn't help at all.
In short, I think that if we want to automatically calculate the number of FAs in each section, we may have to live with the somewhat unsightly dots and dashes between articles. I'm copying User:PresN from the Featured list project to ask for ideas, seeing as the featured list project automatically calculates the number of list in each section with "{{Featured List subsection|}}". There are currently 3,873 featured lists, so I'm not sure why there isn't an issue with Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. AmericanLemming ( talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
"postexpandincludesize":{"value":1375072,"limit":2097152}
, so, 1.3 million out of 2 million, a pretty big gap. The problem seems to be {{
FA/BeenOnMainPage}} - y'all have 5200 calls to it on the page, and WP:FL doesn't use a similar template to track that. If I strip out those template calls, the FA page drops to "postexpandincludesize":{"value":884087,"limit":2097152}}
, or 800,000, far away from the limit. (WPFL has way more little subsection counters, so it makes sense that we're higher there). I don't know enough about what parts of templates are expensive to know if there's any edits possible to the Featured Article subsection template to make it cheaper, but if not, then you won't be able to use it and have 5000 calls to FA/BeenOnMainPage. --
Pres
N
05:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It is AWESOME to see all of you working to address this issue, as the Word to Excel manipulations I had to do in the past to come up with the numbers was quite time consuming as HF has now discovered! This is the kind of leadership and taking the bull by the horns I knew we would see from HF, following on the same from Mike Christie, where we can actually have data-based discussions. :) :) I agree that whatever can be done to make the numbers appear could take precedence over other formatting issues. I love the idea of switching to "NotBeenOnMainPage", to shorten the overall effect, but if that is done, please remember to fix the green tool that displays the "been on main page", eg at User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Why was Space Shuttle Challenger disaster placed in History, rather than Engineering and technology? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Can someone tell me the correct process to nominate an article for deselection as an FPA. Thanks. Today's Jaguar article has a misleading over-saturated poor quality image in the infobox which a group of editors voted to keep in preference to one of my Commons FPs. Majority voting is fine, but their decison devalues the article in my opinion. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 16:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I see the rugby section now only contains two articles, and this isn't an area in which articles have been promoted recently. I propose that this small section be merged into the miscellaneous for sports and recreation, much how our one Wimbledon article is there, or our one basketball article is there. Hog Farm Talk 05:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Currently the category Category:Featured articles as 6,042 members, while this page states that there are 6,035 FAs. ( t · c) buidhe 10:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've developed a way to determine when the error crept in - the internet archive wayback machine archives the category page, so I can compare the counts on the two pages. Matches up at this point in late August. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: I realize that I’m commenting on this issue after it's been resolved, but it occurred to me that we have an easy, automated way to detect this sort of discrepancy in the GA project. There is a page called Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches, which uses a bot called gambot to automatically look for these kinds of discrepancies. The bot was created by User:GreenC back in April 2019; they are still an active editor, so they might be able to repurpose it for the Featured article project. AmericanLemming ( talk) 02:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
To AmericanLemming for seeing the problem and the idea for a solution; to Hog Farm for grabbing the bull by the horns and running with it; and to GreenC for setting up fambot to create the report at Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches that will save all of us many hours of searching for that missing or extra star populating the Featured article categories. Thank you for the speedy solution to a problem spanning more than a decade. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |