Featured articles discussion archives:
|
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
It looks like a mess now with the two jumbled together, I think a split to Sport and Computer and Videogames would be best-- Atirage 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is a mess and they need to be split-- Serge222 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree, there should be a separate "computer and video games" section. I don't understand why they (c&vg + sports) are in the same section in the first place. Sport is not the same as video or computer games. Otvaltak 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add ka:ვიკიპედია:რჩეული სტატიები to the iw list. - user:Alsandro 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find the answer to this question- If I nominate a GA for FA status and its nomination fails does the article keep its GA status? Regards, Signature brendel 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
On one movie article I'm editing, I have several reliable references to the web and DVD. There are also book references, but they were added by someone else. I know that specific phrases in the article can be referenced with the books, but past editors did not have the hindsight to use inline citations. I don't own the books and I'm not going to buy them solely for Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if not inline citing the books will be a problem for the article's GA and FA noms. However, I've also noticed that several featured film articles, such as Casablanca, have books in their references but do not inline cite some of them. Thanks. - Dark Kubrick 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The Lord of the Rings , Middle-earth both these FA articles contain images and maps that are stored on Commons and are subject to copyright, these have been nominated for deletion. Should these articles be sent to FARC Gnangarra 09:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Articles are ordered by first letter (see Special:Allpages). The alphabetization in the list is inconsistent, either going by the technical convention I just noted, or by last name for bio articles. Which shall it be, then? -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it can be a little confusing that biographies of people are listed in their field of work. I think it would be easier if there was a special section called biographies in which all biographies of people could be put. There can be several examples of people who could qualify for more than one category - for exeample is J.R.R. Tolkien listed in Literature but he could easily have been put in Language and Linguistics.
Shouldn't Gregorian chant be listed under the Music category rather than Religion and mysticism? It's much more an article on music history than religion. The comparable article on religion would be Roman Rite. Peirigill 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Can those reviewing featured article candidates try and watch out for consistent presentation of information? I have done an extremely brief review of 5 featured article that were promoted in July. See part of the way down the talk page comment here. One of the problems I noticed in these articles, and elsewhere, is that information sometimes appears in an infobox and nowhere else. Similarly, information is sometimes presented in the lead section and nowhere else. It would seem logical to have the infobox and lead section (which are summaries of information from the main article) be based on the article, rather than bringing in new information, so the idea should be to check the infobox and lead section to see if they are synchronised with the main text of the article. ie. All information in these summary-style sections should appear in the main body of the article.
The main point of my review was to see whether the referencing style for the lead sections is inconsistent. The review and results were:
A dartboard selection of 5 from the 53 articles promoted to featured status in July 2006 ( Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2006), accessed in the afternoon of 20/08/2006 - I'll provide version links later if needed:
More comments available here.
Also, out of curiosity, does anyone who follow the FAC process have an idea how many get references added to their lead sections during the FAC process, or is the general attitude that it is OK for a lead section not to have any references (this was my view up until I starting asking around, and it seems there are different views on this). Carcharoth 15:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Angkor Wat and Mosque are currently found under the Religion heading. Quite properly they might also be located under the Art, Architecture and Archaeology heading. Is there any reason they can't be located under both headings as they are equally applicable?
Also, Isn't it time we separated Art, Architecture and archaeology into separate headings?-- Mcginnly | Natter 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And Kitsch should definitely be in Art' not Culture and Society.
Separating video games from board games and keeping board games with sports makes little sense. The new category should be called Games and toys. FA Sudoku and former FA Lego were under Sports and games and neither fit under these new category names. Medvedenko 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Greasysteve13 08:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Does every FA get a little star at the top? I don't see one on the globular cluster page, so I wondered if it was only for articles when they show up on the front page? — RJH ( talk) 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I cleaned up the mess. And it is a mess, because there are some blanked talk pages and stuff like that. Oh, and people adding the star to stubs too.. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does the been on main page script in my monobook not work anymore? Rlevse 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The article "Cannabis rescheduling in the United States" doesn't exist. The article Cannabis rescheduling in the United States/Picture options does exist, but definitely doesn't warrant a bronze star.
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not allowed to play with the Featured articles.
Hey Could u please help me with my assignment An essay 5-6 (excluding cover page, bibliography, table of contents)
Data distribution paradigms of
-SPSD
-SPMD
-MPSD
-MPMD
Text book doesn’t information but use common and discuss
-Involvement of DP an TP
-Potential examples of how each may be used
-Advantages and disadvantages where applicable
-How information is distributed
Per this discussion at WP:GAC, the text saying that a list of references are required, and "where appropriate, complemented by inline citations" is ambiguous. Does this mean
The issue is the interpretation of "where". Gimmetrow 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That is the common practice, and should be encouraged, but is it required by the criteria? Gimmetrow 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
So, in summary, it is theoretically possible for an article to be great (FA) with zero inline citations (ALoan:16:20), but this would be unusual in practice (Kirill:16:39, 14:49)? Gimmetrow 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In talking to various people over time, I've learned that the only people who really understand what goes into a Featured Article are people involved with the FAC process in some way, or are pretty serious Wikipedia editors and just inevitably are familiar with FAC even if they don't participate there. I think that most editors, if they even know FAC exists, believe that FAC is a pretty casual process where articles without any glaring POV are promoted, usually because people think the topic is cool or important and so on (witness all the hopeless nominations of articles along these lines). On the dreaded Wikipedia Review, I was amused to find that supposedly informed critics of Wikipedia seriously believed that Raul simply once a day picked a random article he liked, without any community input, and that's how an article made it to the main page.
What I'm getting at is that most readers and observers seem to think the FA selection process is a lot more random and undescriminating than it actually is. And this undervalues FAs, if so many people have the perception that they're just random non-stub articles. I think if people realized how much scrutiny goes into selecting an FA, how it truly is one of the most difficult (and possibly rewarding) tasks you can try on Wikipedia, that there'd be a lot more appreciation for them.
I'm not sure what the solution is, exactly. Maybe modifying some existing pages about FAs, maybe including a link from the main page to something about how FAs are actually chosen would be a good way to dispel people's common misconceptions. But however we do it, I think that if people realized FAs are a lot more than just random articles Raul happens to enjoy, I think people'd have a lot more respect for the process and for Wikipedia in general. -- W.marsh 13:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed the bias in the articles that are chosen in the Literature and Media sections? There are 6 featured articles that are directly related to Star Wars, and many others that are also related to Science Fiction. Isn't this limiting the scope of the featured articles category? Isn't it a little unsettling that 6 star wars articles made it in, and not one on William Shakespeare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkBirdDuke ( talk • contribs)
Teh this sucks man why cant we all get along. As for the point I think we could increase the variety of the featured articles as some subjects are more abudant than others...Doesn't exactly need to be william shakespear though
I've come to the position, in a roundabout way, that the policy tag ({{ Policy}}) ought to be applied at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. I'll guess something like this has been raised before, so someone can point out any previous consensus. But I actually think it's needed now after some thoughts and posting regarding GA, our other, IMHO, very flawed content analysis procedure.
I posted last night that if someone/some rule from GA suggests that X must be done on article, the demand can be safely ignored because GA does not produce policy (unless the demand agrees with policy, in which case the GA demand is redundant). For example, I have removed the failed GA tags in the past because they're ugly, and IMO articles haven't passed or failed anything with GA, given how haphazard that process is; I felt I was within the bounds of IAR doing so. But then what if someone argued for removing an FA tag? I realize people don't generally violate the FA procedure, but if one of the FA pages had the tag (WIAFA makes the most sense) this would become de jure. Further, this would clearly demonstrate that FA is the superior content process on Wiki. Marskell 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that the FA category for Psychology is underpopulated (that topic area gets hit with too many speculative edits), but why are some of the FAs listed there not in Biology and medicine? Asperger syndrome (AS), for example, is not a psychology topic: it falls in the medical realms of neurology or psychiatry. Psychologists may treat persons with AS, just as they treat persons without AS, for the effects of living with the condition. The word psychology is mentioned once in the article, anecdotally in quotes. How/where do we go about developing consensus for fixing this categorization? Is this only an artefact on Featured Articles, or is this occurring elsewhere in Wiki? I hate to bring up the inferior example of Good Articles, but they have correctly included Tourette syndrome (also a neurology or psychiatry medical topic) in Biology and medicine, rather than Psychology. The situation is similar for AS; can we fix that here? Sandy 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
BUMP. Sandy ( Talk) 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is splitting a mighty fine hair, but I can live with it. Raul654 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Another issue is the value in having a category with only three articles, without mentioning that both Schizophrenia and Autism need to be reviewed, and don't meet current FA criteria. Sandy ( Talk) 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hullad MoradabadiHullad Moradabadi
Date of Birth : 29.05.1942 Birth Place : Gujrawala (Pakistan) Name : Susheel Kumar Chadha Education : B.S.C,M.A Pen Name : Hullad Moradabadi and in serious writing in the name of “Sabr”. From 1962 on Hindi Kavya Manch.
I just added the following to Wiki space. The idea is a list to encourage regular FA writing. I had thought of listing the proposal somewhere, but then thought no harm in just adding it. Sigs on the list most welcome. Marskell 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The Egyptian Center for Culture & Art (ECCA) was founded in 2003 to record and promote traditional music in Egypt. Traditional Egyptian music is increasingly in danger of being relegated to the status of an exotic and de-contextualised tourist curiosity or to a place on the shelves of academic archives far from the daily lives of its dwindling practitioners. ECCA aims to document, renew and present traditional music in Egypt as a vibrant and renewable resource, a multi-layered point of reference to the cultural richness of Egyptian music and arts. ECCA further encourages efforts to return the music to the critical role it has played in the daily life and imagination of the Egyptian people, to counter the trend to isolate it from its original communities and to share this rich resource with the world community. A number of strategies activities support these aims:
1-to systematically record, document and archive current practice so as to make it available to scholars, musicians and to an increasingly broad-based audience. ECCA's commitment to high technical standards of documentation, whether photographic, film or audio recordings facilitates the distribution of material beyond local audiences to television stations, festivals and photo exhibitions.
2-to promote an audio aesthetic that respects the integrity of the instruments and voices, an alternative to the aesthetic that imposes echo, reverb and other effects dominating the popular market.
3-to provide increased and diverse performance possibilities for its practitioners, thereby expanding the audience for this tradition, renewing the lively performer-audience relationship and increasing performers' opportunties for financial sustainability.
3-to organise encounters among a range of performing artists (musicians, poets, dancers, storytellers), as well as sound, video and light technicians involved in the performing arts, bringing them together in the context of workshops, rehearsals, facilitating their participation in festivals or just socialising. Makan offers these artists and technicians the basic and necessary infrastructure, together with an ambiance and spirit that can inspire the creation of new forms and traditions as a strategy for self-sustainability.
4-to expand its already substantial network of contacts in order to further cooperation and the establishment of partnerships with a wide range of cultural organisations and scholarly institutions from all over the world.
The value of cultural diversity to the human community, like the value of biological diversity to continued life on this planet cannot be underestimated. As the world shrinks, dominant ideologies, religions and cultural expressions overwhelm the margins and we lose essential elements of the creative process-our appreciation of difference, our freedom to choose, to experiment and to dream of alternatives. ECCA will continue to build on its activities and strategies to promote creative dialogue among people and cultures with special focus on Mediterranean and African people and to encourage perception of these traditions as important and critical to the human community.
Ahmed El Maghraby, Director
ECCA "Makan"
1, Saad Zagloul st.11461 - El Dawawin, Cairo, Egypt
Tel: +2 02 7920 878
email: makan@egyptmusic.org
website: www.egyptmusic.org
I like the mini FA star for those identified as such to know that one is reading the best of Wikipedia. I also suggest that for featured articles, in lieu of the regular navy blue hyperlinks, gold coloured hyperlinks to be added. This will create some interest for a reader to click and read WP's best articles as gold is the colour for the finest and is similar to the gold (or brownish gold) colour given to an FA star. But it should be automatic as manually tagging takes too much work. Someone can work on those lines. Idleguy 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Could some authority look at this music Wiki article to assess it for potential Feature Article endorsement? It concerns India's most prolific film composer. I think it is in solid shape: objective, concise, covers the necessary issues of the subject enyclopaedically, contains rigorous referencing consisting of credible sources that include academic journal article, theses and published books.
Would appreciate an FA administrator taking a look at this Wiki. Cheers. Splashprince 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone could add that one featured article a day is added - this is an essential, if obvious, part of featured articles. I don't know how to put it there myself. -Slash-
Do motorcycling or automotive articles come under this system, and if so, can someone say where? Seasalt 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Any suggestions on what to do with this? Clearly neither of the subarticles are FA worthy (no citations to speak of, and poorly organized/formatted). Any objections to just removing it from the list? -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap - they destroyed the article. I'd recommend a revert all the way back to the last version before it was mutilated. Raul654 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I note that Apollo 8 is listed under "Physics and Astronomy" rather than under "Engineering" with the Saturn V article. Does anyone else agree that this is problematic? If it is, is there a procedure by which we can move it, or do we just do it? MLilburne 07:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Where would articles on crime go?-- Lucy-marie 10:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is Pepper in Food, while the three Saffron articles are in Biology and medicine? Confused, Sandy ( Talk) 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved W. S. Gilbert from Music to Literature. Gilbert was a playwright (some of his works were with collaborators who wrote music). Shouldn't there be a separate heading for Theatre and Drama that would include everything from Opera to Ibsen that is performed on a stage? -- Ssilvers 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel really comfortable with the fact that species such as Albatross and Albertosaurus are put under the same header as AIDS and Asperger Syndrome. Can't we put all species and biological events/theories/etc. under one header (including virusses and bacteria which can cause diseases and syndromes) and all medicine related articles under one header (this would include the syndromes and diseases, caused by these virusses and bacteria). For instance: HIV and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (it they would have FA status) would be in the biology category, while AIDS and tuberculosis would be in the medicine category. Sijo Ripa 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that featured articles are voted for and that they must meet a certain criteria of professionalism, but how are featured articles chosen? What I mean is in what time period are they chosen in (example: a week, a month) and how many are chosen in said time period? Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.126.44 ( talk • contribs) .
Where did the star go?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.240.161 ( talk • contribs)
I don't know if this has been said before, but why the featured article on the main page is not protected from vandals IPs? I mean, it's quite amusing that people here nominate article and put it to main page. Then people always vandalize it and other people revert back. Sometimes information is even lost. Then if the vandalism is very tough editing will be blocked. Why not to do this before putting it to mainpage? There shouldn't necessarily be even the tag but just don't let IPs edit the article on that day.
Why not? -- Pudeo ( Talk) 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The page on Tongo (Star Trek) has a little feature article star. But it's....well, shit.
I sincerely doubt it's a featured article so how come it's got the star? How do I remove it? Simondrake 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought i'd point out that in the tan box at the top of the FA page, it says that one in 1290 articles are featured, but ehn calculated with the current #s it is actually 1 in every 1317. I do not know how to change this, but if somebody could. that would be great. ~ThePedro
-- Meno25 04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This article, which I nominated, has just been promoted and I think it's in the wrong category. Lunney is an engineer and thus fits better into "Engineering and Technology" than into "Physics and Astronomy". Am I allowed to just move the article myself, or should I leave it to someone else to do? MLilburne 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Given we are now well over the 1000 articles stage, all the categories are beginning to look somewhat crowded. Would it be a good idea to split them down into more specific categories? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed... With over 25 articles (and counting: WikiProject Tropical cyclones just rocks), there are more hurricane articles alone than the total articles in some entire categories combined. A Tropical Cyclone category would be a bit more specific than the norm, but with the quality and quantity of the articles involved, it would be entirely appropriate. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, for people who are using classic skin, there is no hint that an article is a featured one, because the little star in the right upper edge is not visible. Is ist possible to fix that? -- Nina 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Charles Atangana should be moved from the "History" section to "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry". Either that or "Politics and government". Either would be less generic than "History", I think. Any comments or objections? — BrianSmithson 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
We claim that there are 1183 featured articles out of (at moment) 1514222 articles. This means that ratio is 1/1280, but 1/1270 is claimed on the project page. The calculation is done using {{formatnum: {{rounddown|{{#expr: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}} / 1183}}|-1}} }}, so I am quite amazed that this wrong result comes out. -- gala.martin ( what?) 09:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
How is the main page picture selected from within the featured article? I'm a contributer of an upcoming FA, and I'd like to ensure that the picture on the main page inspires readers to read the whole article. Is there a way to tag the desired picture? Appraiser 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone direct me to a Featured article here that is considered among the shortest of the lot? I need to get an idea of what the lower bound for length is. I think Dayuan is one. Any others? Thank you. AppleJuggler 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Dev920 and TKD, really appreciate your rapid responses and explanation regarding comprehensiveness. I was wondering if the shortness of an article I'm working on would be an impediment for the attainment of FA. Thanks. With regards, AppleJuggler 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Number of FAs mentioned as well as total number of articles, please!, I have created {{ FA number}} to allow an FA counter on the Main Page. In order to allow one-stop updating, I have replaced occurrences of the number here with the transcluded template. Thanks, Banyan Tree 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A request for a bot that will count the number of items on the page and put the result in the template has been made at Wikipedia:Bot requests#featured article counter. I've added my own idea for a vandal spoofing feature. Any thoughts on that or the idea in general are welcome. - Banyan Tree 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not like this template. It is more work when removing FAs. Joelito ( talk) 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Jmax- has completed his initial coding. See User:Jmax-bot/FACounter for the initial run. He has started Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Jmax-bot to receive sanction to run the bot. There is a discussion section there for questions and comments. Also, he has requested that he be provided with additional members of the whitelist, which automatically includes all admins. I assume that Sandy would be an uncontroversial addition, but what other non-admin regulars should be added? Thanks, Banyan Tree 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the bot is up and running. I see that Joelr31 just removed two items, and the bot caught the change and updated the count without a problem. Note that it is also counting FFAs as well. - Banyan Tree 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The vexed issue of date-links occasionally takes up space in the FAC room. I'm trying to gather support for an attempt to have the developers create a parallel syntax that allows dates to be autoformatted without being linked, while retaining the current system. We hope that this will have a number of benefits for the project, including a reduction in conflict.
The discussion, draft request text, and list of supporters are here. Tony 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Some/many? featured articles seem to be vandalism magnets. See 'Iranian peoples' for example. Instead of wasting all kinds of time with vandalism reverts, would it be better to give featured articles semi-protected status for, say a week, starting when they are featured and before the vandalism starts. And do this automatically, given the history of such time-wasting vandalism--not spending effort or which articles should be so protected, just do all of them. Featured articles deserve no less. Hmains 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that the ratio of Feature Articles with every article on English Wikipedia in increasing. About 6 months ago, 1 in 1400 articles was an FA. Now it's 1 in 1270. Good work Wikipedians! Gizza Chat © 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there somewhere within this project which lists the newest additions of featured articles by name as they are added by month? I want to accumulate a specific topic of FA articles for a project's newsletter. Also is there a similar statistics list for Good Articles as well? -- Nehrams2020 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If Areas of mathematics improved sufficiently, would it be eligible for Featured Article status, or would it be better suited for Featured List status? Tompw ( talk) 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Does it seem that when an article gets featured, its gets vandalized more and more?-- ParalysedBeaver 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Template:Featured topic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- this newly created project is adding a big "constellation of stars" graphic on the main article space page of many FAs in contravention of the "no metadata on main article space" rule. please comment at the TFD discussion. 195.114.94.194 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very impressed at the rate at which articles are becoming features in the last two months. Keep up the great work. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of moving Brabham (a Formula One racing team) from 'Engineering and Technology' to 'Sports and Games'. While there is a fair chunk of tech-y stuff in the article, I suggest that the majority of visitors will be looking for it in the sporting context, not the engineering one. Cheers. 4u1e 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has a tag indicating it is a former featured article. The tag was placed on the talk page June 29, 2005, but a search of FAC, FARC and featured articles does not show it even being nominated, much less ever being made a Feature. Could somebody please show me where it was ever listed? Otherwise I will delete the tag. Thanks. Jeffpw 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Found it - this is why keeping up with the talk page templates makes me crazy when people screw up the capitalization: Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/archive/March_to_July_2004 Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/same-sex marriage. Now to figure out how to fix that in the templates on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just me but I find the layout of the Good article page far more user friendly. Maybe this page should have same layout. Buc 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And, please don't do this, either; there is no comparison between the FA and GA processes, and articlespace templates are controversial. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Call all FA writers interested in LGBT issues! The LGBT studies WikiProject has a high number of copyeditors and Wikifaeries, but we're quite short of FA writers. If anyone out there is interested in raising some LGBT articles, you are heartily invited to join the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
DNA is in Chemistry, but DNA repair is in Biology and medicine. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that we used to semi-protect anything that shows up on main page? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose we change the default featured color from the current orange(#FFF7E6), to the blue now used in most top level pages. E.g. this demo diff.
Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Color. Thanks :) — Quiddity 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've sometimes seen the complaint that FAs are often about very obscure subjects, while many more important articles are badly-written. I think I've found at least one cause of this: Talk:Long Island Rail Road#Big article. Whenever any article gets too good, it gets split up. -- NE2 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if it seems minor, I think its peculiar to not have any plants among the featured articles. Theres gottta be a plant type which demands high encyclopedic recognition. I couldn't even find one in the 'good' articles. Mmcknight4 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I was scanning down through the sections, and when I got to the "Culture and society" section, the name David Helvarg leaped out at me. Granted, that section is something of a catch-all, but there's got to be a better place for David Helvarg. He's primarily known as a journalist, so the ideal place would be the "Journalism" section -- but, ooops, there is no such section, because... well, there's only ONE other FA article about journalism. How on earth can it be that there is such a paucity of excellent articles about journalism & journalists??? This is amazing. Just Helvarg and one newspaper (the Philadelphia Inquirer) made the cut -- but not a single war correspondent (unless you count Helvarg's short stint in Central America).
Okay, so the next option I looked at for David Helvarg was the "Media" section. But after a careful look at all of those many articles, it became clear that the section is mis-named. With two exceptions (the aforementioned Philadelphia Inquirer, and Triumph of the Will), every single article is about entertainment. In common parlance, "media" is generally understood to include the news media, not merely entertainment media.
So I hereby propose that the "Media" section be renamed "Entertainment" or possibly "Entertainment Media". (The two exceptions can be moved elsewhere.) Meanwhile, if anybody has a suggestion re David Helvarg (or journalism articles, for that matter), please run it up the flagpole. Cgingold 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I found the GA list of articles and the FA list of articles but I cannot find the A-class list which is supposed to be in the middle. Can someone point out the list and the candidates page, please? 650l2520 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Also GA is not offical Buc 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Featured articles discussion archives:
|
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
It looks like a mess now with the two jumbled together, I think a split to Sport and Computer and Videogames would be best-- Atirage 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is a mess and they need to be split-- Serge222 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree, there should be a separate "computer and video games" section. I don't understand why they (c&vg + sports) are in the same section in the first place. Sport is not the same as video or computer games. Otvaltak 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add ka:ვიკიპედია:რჩეული სტატიები to the iw list. - user:Alsandro 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find the answer to this question- If I nominate a GA for FA status and its nomination fails does the article keep its GA status? Regards, Signature brendel 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
On one movie article I'm editing, I have several reliable references to the web and DVD. There are also book references, but they were added by someone else. I know that specific phrases in the article can be referenced with the books, but past editors did not have the hindsight to use inline citations. I don't own the books and I'm not going to buy them solely for Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if not inline citing the books will be a problem for the article's GA and FA noms. However, I've also noticed that several featured film articles, such as Casablanca, have books in their references but do not inline cite some of them. Thanks. - Dark Kubrick 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The Lord of the Rings , Middle-earth both these FA articles contain images and maps that are stored on Commons and are subject to copyright, these have been nominated for deletion. Should these articles be sent to FARC Gnangarra 09:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Articles are ordered by first letter (see Special:Allpages). The alphabetization in the list is inconsistent, either going by the technical convention I just noted, or by last name for bio articles. Which shall it be, then? -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it can be a little confusing that biographies of people are listed in their field of work. I think it would be easier if there was a special section called biographies in which all biographies of people could be put. There can be several examples of people who could qualify for more than one category - for exeample is J.R.R. Tolkien listed in Literature but he could easily have been put in Language and Linguistics.
Shouldn't Gregorian chant be listed under the Music category rather than Religion and mysticism? It's much more an article on music history than religion. The comparable article on religion would be Roman Rite. Peirigill 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Can those reviewing featured article candidates try and watch out for consistent presentation of information? I have done an extremely brief review of 5 featured article that were promoted in July. See part of the way down the talk page comment here. One of the problems I noticed in these articles, and elsewhere, is that information sometimes appears in an infobox and nowhere else. Similarly, information is sometimes presented in the lead section and nowhere else. It would seem logical to have the infobox and lead section (which are summaries of information from the main article) be based on the article, rather than bringing in new information, so the idea should be to check the infobox and lead section to see if they are synchronised with the main text of the article. ie. All information in these summary-style sections should appear in the main body of the article.
The main point of my review was to see whether the referencing style for the lead sections is inconsistent. The review and results were:
A dartboard selection of 5 from the 53 articles promoted to featured status in July 2006 ( Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2006), accessed in the afternoon of 20/08/2006 - I'll provide version links later if needed:
More comments available here.
Also, out of curiosity, does anyone who follow the FAC process have an idea how many get references added to their lead sections during the FAC process, or is the general attitude that it is OK for a lead section not to have any references (this was my view up until I starting asking around, and it seems there are different views on this). Carcharoth 15:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Angkor Wat and Mosque are currently found under the Religion heading. Quite properly they might also be located under the Art, Architecture and Archaeology heading. Is there any reason they can't be located under both headings as they are equally applicable?
Also, Isn't it time we separated Art, Architecture and archaeology into separate headings?-- Mcginnly | Natter 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And Kitsch should definitely be in Art' not Culture and Society.
Separating video games from board games and keeping board games with sports makes little sense. The new category should be called Games and toys. FA Sudoku and former FA Lego were under Sports and games and neither fit under these new category names. Medvedenko 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Greasysteve13 08:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Does every FA get a little star at the top? I don't see one on the globular cluster page, so I wondered if it was only for articles when they show up on the front page? — RJH ( talk) 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I cleaned up the mess. And it is a mess, because there are some blanked talk pages and stuff like that. Oh, and people adding the star to stubs too.. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does the been on main page script in my monobook not work anymore? Rlevse 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The article "Cannabis rescheduling in the United States" doesn't exist. The article Cannabis rescheduling in the United States/Picture options does exist, but definitely doesn't warrant a bronze star.
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not allowed to play with the Featured articles.
Hey Could u please help me with my assignment An essay 5-6 (excluding cover page, bibliography, table of contents)
Data distribution paradigms of
-SPSD
-SPMD
-MPSD
-MPMD
Text book doesn’t information but use common and discuss
-Involvement of DP an TP
-Potential examples of how each may be used
-Advantages and disadvantages where applicable
-How information is distributed
Per this discussion at WP:GAC, the text saying that a list of references are required, and "where appropriate, complemented by inline citations" is ambiguous. Does this mean
The issue is the interpretation of "where". Gimmetrow 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That is the common practice, and should be encouraged, but is it required by the criteria? Gimmetrow 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
So, in summary, it is theoretically possible for an article to be great (FA) with zero inline citations (ALoan:16:20), but this would be unusual in practice (Kirill:16:39, 14:49)? Gimmetrow 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In talking to various people over time, I've learned that the only people who really understand what goes into a Featured Article are people involved with the FAC process in some way, or are pretty serious Wikipedia editors and just inevitably are familiar with FAC even if they don't participate there. I think that most editors, if they even know FAC exists, believe that FAC is a pretty casual process where articles without any glaring POV are promoted, usually because people think the topic is cool or important and so on (witness all the hopeless nominations of articles along these lines). On the dreaded Wikipedia Review, I was amused to find that supposedly informed critics of Wikipedia seriously believed that Raul simply once a day picked a random article he liked, without any community input, and that's how an article made it to the main page.
What I'm getting at is that most readers and observers seem to think the FA selection process is a lot more random and undescriminating than it actually is. And this undervalues FAs, if so many people have the perception that they're just random non-stub articles. I think if people realized how much scrutiny goes into selecting an FA, how it truly is one of the most difficult (and possibly rewarding) tasks you can try on Wikipedia, that there'd be a lot more appreciation for them.
I'm not sure what the solution is, exactly. Maybe modifying some existing pages about FAs, maybe including a link from the main page to something about how FAs are actually chosen would be a good way to dispel people's common misconceptions. But however we do it, I think that if people realized FAs are a lot more than just random articles Raul happens to enjoy, I think people'd have a lot more respect for the process and for Wikipedia in general. -- W.marsh 13:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed the bias in the articles that are chosen in the Literature and Media sections? There are 6 featured articles that are directly related to Star Wars, and many others that are also related to Science Fiction. Isn't this limiting the scope of the featured articles category? Isn't it a little unsettling that 6 star wars articles made it in, and not one on William Shakespeare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkBirdDuke ( talk • contribs)
Teh this sucks man why cant we all get along. As for the point I think we could increase the variety of the featured articles as some subjects are more abudant than others...Doesn't exactly need to be william shakespear though
I've come to the position, in a roundabout way, that the policy tag ({{ Policy}}) ought to be applied at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. I'll guess something like this has been raised before, so someone can point out any previous consensus. But I actually think it's needed now after some thoughts and posting regarding GA, our other, IMHO, very flawed content analysis procedure.
I posted last night that if someone/some rule from GA suggests that X must be done on article, the demand can be safely ignored because GA does not produce policy (unless the demand agrees with policy, in which case the GA demand is redundant). For example, I have removed the failed GA tags in the past because they're ugly, and IMO articles haven't passed or failed anything with GA, given how haphazard that process is; I felt I was within the bounds of IAR doing so. But then what if someone argued for removing an FA tag? I realize people don't generally violate the FA procedure, but if one of the FA pages had the tag (WIAFA makes the most sense) this would become de jure. Further, this would clearly demonstrate that FA is the superior content process on Wiki. Marskell 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that the FA category for Psychology is underpopulated (that topic area gets hit with too many speculative edits), but why are some of the FAs listed there not in Biology and medicine? Asperger syndrome (AS), for example, is not a psychology topic: it falls in the medical realms of neurology or psychiatry. Psychologists may treat persons with AS, just as they treat persons without AS, for the effects of living with the condition. The word psychology is mentioned once in the article, anecdotally in quotes. How/where do we go about developing consensus for fixing this categorization? Is this only an artefact on Featured Articles, or is this occurring elsewhere in Wiki? I hate to bring up the inferior example of Good Articles, but they have correctly included Tourette syndrome (also a neurology or psychiatry medical topic) in Biology and medicine, rather than Psychology. The situation is similar for AS; can we fix that here? Sandy 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
BUMP. Sandy ( Talk) 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is splitting a mighty fine hair, but I can live with it. Raul654 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Another issue is the value in having a category with only three articles, without mentioning that both Schizophrenia and Autism need to be reviewed, and don't meet current FA criteria. Sandy ( Talk) 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hullad MoradabadiHullad Moradabadi
Date of Birth : 29.05.1942 Birth Place : Gujrawala (Pakistan) Name : Susheel Kumar Chadha Education : B.S.C,M.A Pen Name : Hullad Moradabadi and in serious writing in the name of “Sabr”. From 1962 on Hindi Kavya Manch.
I just added the following to Wiki space. The idea is a list to encourage regular FA writing. I had thought of listing the proposal somewhere, but then thought no harm in just adding it. Sigs on the list most welcome. Marskell 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The Egyptian Center for Culture & Art (ECCA) was founded in 2003 to record and promote traditional music in Egypt. Traditional Egyptian music is increasingly in danger of being relegated to the status of an exotic and de-contextualised tourist curiosity or to a place on the shelves of academic archives far from the daily lives of its dwindling practitioners. ECCA aims to document, renew and present traditional music in Egypt as a vibrant and renewable resource, a multi-layered point of reference to the cultural richness of Egyptian music and arts. ECCA further encourages efforts to return the music to the critical role it has played in the daily life and imagination of the Egyptian people, to counter the trend to isolate it from its original communities and to share this rich resource with the world community. A number of strategies activities support these aims:
1-to systematically record, document and archive current practice so as to make it available to scholars, musicians and to an increasingly broad-based audience. ECCA's commitment to high technical standards of documentation, whether photographic, film or audio recordings facilitates the distribution of material beyond local audiences to television stations, festivals and photo exhibitions.
2-to promote an audio aesthetic that respects the integrity of the instruments and voices, an alternative to the aesthetic that imposes echo, reverb and other effects dominating the popular market.
3-to provide increased and diverse performance possibilities for its practitioners, thereby expanding the audience for this tradition, renewing the lively performer-audience relationship and increasing performers' opportunties for financial sustainability.
3-to organise encounters among a range of performing artists (musicians, poets, dancers, storytellers), as well as sound, video and light technicians involved in the performing arts, bringing them together in the context of workshops, rehearsals, facilitating their participation in festivals or just socialising. Makan offers these artists and technicians the basic and necessary infrastructure, together with an ambiance and spirit that can inspire the creation of new forms and traditions as a strategy for self-sustainability.
4-to expand its already substantial network of contacts in order to further cooperation and the establishment of partnerships with a wide range of cultural organisations and scholarly institutions from all over the world.
The value of cultural diversity to the human community, like the value of biological diversity to continued life on this planet cannot be underestimated. As the world shrinks, dominant ideologies, religions and cultural expressions overwhelm the margins and we lose essential elements of the creative process-our appreciation of difference, our freedom to choose, to experiment and to dream of alternatives. ECCA will continue to build on its activities and strategies to promote creative dialogue among people and cultures with special focus on Mediterranean and African people and to encourage perception of these traditions as important and critical to the human community.
Ahmed El Maghraby, Director
ECCA "Makan"
1, Saad Zagloul st.11461 - El Dawawin, Cairo, Egypt
Tel: +2 02 7920 878
email: makan@egyptmusic.org
website: www.egyptmusic.org
I like the mini FA star for those identified as such to know that one is reading the best of Wikipedia. I also suggest that for featured articles, in lieu of the regular navy blue hyperlinks, gold coloured hyperlinks to be added. This will create some interest for a reader to click and read WP's best articles as gold is the colour for the finest and is similar to the gold (or brownish gold) colour given to an FA star. But it should be automatic as manually tagging takes too much work. Someone can work on those lines. Idleguy 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Could some authority look at this music Wiki article to assess it for potential Feature Article endorsement? It concerns India's most prolific film composer. I think it is in solid shape: objective, concise, covers the necessary issues of the subject enyclopaedically, contains rigorous referencing consisting of credible sources that include academic journal article, theses and published books.
Would appreciate an FA administrator taking a look at this Wiki. Cheers. Splashprince 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone could add that one featured article a day is added - this is an essential, if obvious, part of featured articles. I don't know how to put it there myself. -Slash-
Do motorcycling or automotive articles come under this system, and if so, can someone say where? Seasalt 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Any suggestions on what to do with this? Clearly neither of the subarticles are FA worthy (no citations to speak of, and poorly organized/formatted). Any objections to just removing it from the list? -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap - they destroyed the article. I'd recommend a revert all the way back to the last version before it was mutilated. Raul654 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I note that Apollo 8 is listed under "Physics and Astronomy" rather than under "Engineering" with the Saturn V article. Does anyone else agree that this is problematic? If it is, is there a procedure by which we can move it, or do we just do it? MLilburne 07:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Where would articles on crime go?-- Lucy-marie 10:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is Pepper in Food, while the three Saffron articles are in Biology and medicine? Confused, Sandy ( Talk) 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved W. S. Gilbert from Music to Literature. Gilbert was a playwright (some of his works were with collaborators who wrote music). Shouldn't there be a separate heading for Theatre and Drama that would include everything from Opera to Ibsen that is performed on a stage? -- Ssilvers 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel really comfortable with the fact that species such as Albatross and Albertosaurus are put under the same header as AIDS and Asperger Syndrome. Can't we put all species and biological events/theories/etc. under one header (including virusses and bacteria which can cause diseases and syndromes) and all medicine related articles under one header (this would include the syndromes and diseases, caused by these virusses and bacteria). For instance: HIV and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (it they would have FA status) would be in the biology category, while AIDS and tuberculosis would be in the medicine category. Sijo Ripa 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that featured articles are voted for and that they must meet a certain criteria of professionalism, but how are featured articles chosen? What I mean is in what time period are they chosen in (example: a week, a month) and how many are chosen in said time period? Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.126.44 ( talk • contribs) .
Where did the star go?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.240.161 ( talk • contribs)
I don't know if this has been said before, but why the featured article on the main page is not protected from vandals IPs? I mean, it's quite amusing that people here nominate article and put it to main page. Then people always vandalize it and other people revert back. Sometimes information is even lost. Then if the vandalism is very tough editing will be blocked. Why not to do this before putting it to mainpage? There shouldn't necessarily be even the tag but just don't let IPs edit the article on that day.
Why not? -- Pudeo ( Talk) 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The page on Tongo (Star Trek) has a little feature article star. But it's....well, shit.
I sincerely doubt it's a featured article so how come it's got the star? How do I remove it? Simondrake 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought i'd point out that in the tan box at the top of the FA page, it says that one in 1290 articles are featured, but ehn calculated with the current #s it is actually 1 in every 1317. I do not know how to change this, but if somebody could. that would be great. ~ThePedro
-- Meno25 04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This article, which I nominated, has just been promoted and I think it's in the wrong category. Lunney is an engineer and thus fits better into "Engineering and Technology" than into "Physics and Astronomy". Am I allowed to just move the article myself, or should I leave it to someone else to do? MLilburne 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Given we are now well over the 1000 articles stage, all the categories are beginning to look somewhat crowded. Would it be a good idea to split them down into more specific categories? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed... With over 25 articles (and counting: WikiProject Tropical cyclones just rocks), there are more hurricane articles alone than the total articles in some entire categories combined. A Tropical Cyclone category would be a bit more specific than the norm, but with the quality and quantity of the articles involved, it would be entirely appropriate. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, for people who are using classic skin, there is no hint that an article is a featured one, because the little star in the right upper edge is not visible. Is ist possible to fix that? -- Nina 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Charles Atangana should be moved from the "History" section to "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry". Either that or "Politics and government". Either would be less generic than "History", I think. Any comments or objections? — BrianSmithson 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
We claim that there are 1183 featured articles out of (at moment) 1514222 articles. This means that ratio is 1/1280, but 1/1270 is claimed on the project page. The calculation is done using {{formatnum: {{rounddown|{{#expr: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}} / 1183}}|-1}} }}, so I am quite amazed that this wrong result comes out. -- gala.martin ( what?) 09:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
How is the main page picture selected from within the featured article? I'm a contributer of an upcoming FA, and I'd like to ensure that the picture on the main page inspires readers to read the whole article. Is there a way to tag the desired picture? Appraiser 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone direct me to a Featured article here that is considered among the shortest of the lot? I need to get an idea of what the lower bound for length is. I think Dayuan is one. Any others? Thank you. AppleJuggler 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Dev920 and TKD, really appreciate your rapid responses and explanation regarding comprehensiveness. I was wondering if the shortness of an article I'm working on would be an impediment for the attainment of FA. Thanks. With regards, AppleJuggler 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Number of FAs mentioned as well as total number of articles, please!, I have created {{ FA number}} to allow an FA counter on the Main Page. In order to allow one-stop updating, I have replaced occurrences of the number here with the transcluded template. Thanks, Banyan Tree 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A request for a bot that will count the number of items on the page and put the result in the template has been made at Wikipedia:Bot requests#featured article counter. I've added my own idea for a vandal spoofing feature. Any thoughts on that or the idea in general are welcome. - Banyan Tree 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not like this template. It is more work when removing FAs. Joelito ( talk) 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Jmax- has completed his initial coding. See User:Jmax-bot/FACounter for the initial run. He has started Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Jmax-bot to receive sanction to run the bot. There is a discussion section there for questions and comments. Also, he has requested that he be provided with additional members of the whitelist, which automatically includes all admins. I assume that Sandy would be an uncontroversial addition, but what other non-admin regulars should be added? Thanks, Banyan Tree 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the bot is up and running. I see that Joelr31 just removed two items, and the bot caught the change and updated the count without a problem. Note that it is also counting FFAs as well. - Banyan Tree 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The vexed issue of date-links occasionally takes up space in the FAC room. I'm trying to gather support for an attempt to have the developers create a parallel syntax that allows dates to be autoformatted without being linked, while retaining the current system. We hope that this will have a number of benefits for the project, including a reduction in conflict.
The discussion, draft request text, and list of supporters are here. Tony 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Some/many? featured articles seem to be vandalism magnets. See 'Iranian peoples' for example. Instead of wasting all kinds of time with vandalism reverts, would it be better to give featured articles semi-protected status for, say a week, starting when they are featured and before the vandalism starts. And do this automatically, given the history of such time-wasting vandalism--not spending effort or which articles should be so protected, just do all of them. Featured articles deserve no less. Hmains 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that the ratio of Feature Articles with every article on English Wikipedia in increasing. About 6 months ago, 1 in 1400 articles was an FA. Now it's 1 in 1270. Good work Wikipedians! Gizza Chat © 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there somewhere within this project which lists the newest additions of featured articles by name as they are added by month? I want to accumulate a specific topic of FA articles for a project's newsletter. Also is there a similar statistics list for Good Articles as well? -- Nehrams2020 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If Areas of mathematics improved sufficiently, would it be eligible for Featured Article status, or would it be better suited for Featured List status? Tompw ( talk) 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Does it seem that when an article gets featured, its gets vandalized more and more?-- ParalysedBeaver 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Template:Featured topic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- this newly created project is adding a big "constellation of stars" graphic on the main article space page of many FAs in contravention of the "no metadata on main article space" rule. please comment at the TFD discussion. 195.114.94.194 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very impressed at the rate at which articles are becoming features in the last two months. Keep up the great work. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of moving Brabham (a Formula One racing team) from 'Engineering and Technology' to 'Sports and Games'. While there is a fair chunk of tech-y stuff in the article, I suggest that the majority of visitors will be looking for it in the sporting context, not the engineering one. Cheers. 4u1e 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has a tag indicating it is a former featured article. The tag was placed on the talk page June 29, 2005, but a search of FAC, FARC and featured articles does not show it even being nominated, much less ever being made a Feature. Could somebody please show me where it was ever listed? Otherwise I will delete the tag. Thanks. Jeffpw 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Found it - this is why keeping up with the talk page templates makes me crazy when people screw up the capitalization: Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/archive/March_to_July_2004 Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/same-sex marriage. Now to figure out how to fix that in the templates on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just me but I find the layout of the Good article page far more user friendly. Maybe this page should have same layout. Buc 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And, please don't do this, either; there is no comparison between the FA and GA processes, and articlespace templates are controversial. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Call all FA writers interested in LGBT issues! The LGBT studies WikiProject has a high number of copyeditors and Wikifaeries, but we're quite short of FA writers. If anyone out there is interested in raising some LGBT articles, you are heartily invited to join the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
DNA is in Chemistry, but DNA repair is in Biology and medicine. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that we used to semi-protect anything that shows up on main page? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose we change the default featured color from the current orange(#FFF7E6), to the blue now used in most top level pages. E.g. this demo diff.
Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Color. Thanks :) — Quiddity 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've sometimes seen the complaint that FAs are often about very obscure subjects, while many more important articles are badly-written. I think I've found at least one cause of this: Talk:Long Island Rail Road#Big article. Whenever any article gets too good, it gets split up. -- NE2 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if it seems minor, I think its peculiar to not have any plants among the featured articles. Theres gottta be a plant type which demands high encyclopedic recognition. I couldn't even find one in the 'good' articles. Mmcknight4 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I was scanning down through the sections, and when I got to the "Culture and society" section, the name David Helvarg leaped out at me. Granted, that section is something of a catch-all, but there's got to be a better place for David Helvarg. He's primarily known as a journalist, so the ideal place would be the "Journalism" section -- but, ooops, there is no such section, because... well, there's only ONE other FA article about journalism. How on earth can it be that there is such a paucity of excellent articles about journalism & journalists??? This is amazing. Just Helvarg and one newspaper (the Philadelphia Inquirer) made the cut -- but not a single war correspondent (unless you count Helvarg's short stint in Central America).
Okay, so the next option I looked at for David Helvarg was the "Media" section. But after a careful look at all of those many articles, it became clear that the section is mis-named. With two exceptions (the aforementioned Philadelphia Inquirer, and Triumph of the Will), every single article is about entertainment. In common parlance, "media" is generally understood to include the news media, not merely entertainment media.
So I hereby propose that the "Media" section be renamed "Entertainment" or possibly "Entertainment Media". (The two exceptions can be moved elsewhere.) Meanwhile, if anybody has a suggestion re David Helvarg (or journalism articles, for that matter), please run it up the flagpole. Cgingold 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I found the GA list of articles and the FA list of articles but I cannot find the A-class list which is supposed to be in the middle. Can someone point out the list and the candidates page, please? 650l2520 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Also GA is not offical Buc 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)