Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 2

message: Just a thank you from me for putting History of the Netherlands on this page, just when I started to worry about none of the pages I created or substantially edited being on it. It was my first major page, if I recall correctly, back in March (maybe April) 2001. Andre Engels 13:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: I liked Dan´s idea of a new design, and i like his experiment in Wikipedia:Brilliant prose/temp. What about implementing it?? Muriel 14:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That design obviously looks quite a lot like the main page. Worth bearing in mind then that there is a revived movement afoot to redesign the main page - may be the redesigned featured articles should like the redesigned main page? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a bad idea to have a page mimic the main page so closely. It can be confusing to the eye. As for the name, it was changed three weeks ago from Brillant Prose. I liked the old name better, but this name (Featured Articles) will do. I'd rather not keep changing the name. Kingturtle 17:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When the new Main page is installed (see Main Page/Test) the similarity issue with the Main page will be not be an issue. Bevo 15:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A new name, what about a new face??

message: Should articles from the "Technology" section such as Hubble Space Telescope, nuclear weapon, and spacecraft propulsion be cross-listed under "Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics"?  --zandperl 17:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-listing

message: I removed this article after there was a clear lack of concensus to keep it. It has now been reinstated. I clearly object. What is the prescice policy on removing articles from the featured articles list? At the moment it seems an admin can make it arbitrarilly. Sam Spade 03:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no precise policy.  I'd suggest Wikipedia:Featured policy as a place to the policies so they are spelled out and consistent accross both FP and FA. Gentgeen 17:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Libertarian socialism]] 

message: A poll at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Should this page combine with Featured Pictures Candidates? (poll) seeks to determine if the two featured candidates pages should be merged.  Please go vote. Gentgeen 17:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining candidates poll

message: According to the process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, an articles are nominated, and then if approved, they are moved to the section Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Recently added to Featured articles.  I see that there is an article: bioinformatics, which is listed as being recently added, but is not on the actual list of articles, there is also an article, DNA that is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Articles nominated for removal, that hasn't been removed from here.  Is this simply an oversight, or am I confused about the process? --Lexor|Talk 08:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about process 

message: I'm not particularly fond of bolding articles that have been featured. It's not readily obvious what it means, and it's very distracting. If you want to find out which ones have been featured, you can check the archive. →Raul654 04:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
: It is explained at the top. Plus, it makes choosing a new feature easier. — Timwi 06:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding articles

message: I think that Deus Ex is an excellent Wikipedia article. There are many things I know well and love, but rarely have I ever seen such a good synopsis of something. It is not long-winded but does not abbreviate too much either, clear and concise, and it has many handy links that I found useful, even ones, like UNATCO, created purely for the page itself. I would like to nominate this for a featured article- however, it does have spoilers, so probably isn't good to read for someone planning to play it. Does this present a problem? Aerothorn 03:22, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Hi.  :)  I've copied your nomination and placed it on the candidates page, other people will read the article and comment on whether they think it's good enough to be featured: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Deus Ex.  That's the place to nominate any other great articles you come across.  :)  fabiform | talk 03:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. Sorry, I'm new at this. 216.186.63.41 18:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deus Ex Nomination

message: What is the process to decide which article should be on the front page? any vote? How could Greek mythology end up there in its current form? Thanks. olivier 13:00, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
:At the moment, User:Raul654 picks a suitable candidate each day from the featured articles. Barring Raul disappearing, or posting something widely considered unsuitable, this is likely to continue - David Gerard 23:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Front page featured article

message: "At present, there are 389 Featured Articles, out of a total of 354282 articles on the Wikipedia." I thought there were over a million articles on Wikipedia now! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1 million is across all language versions, the 354000 is for the English edition only.Graham 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  One million articles? 

message: On 29 January of this year, the article Representative peer was promoted to Featured Article Status after receiving the necessary votes. I later removed the article, which had by then been merged with another article (Peerage), itself of featured status. (There was no formal removal vote; in fact, no one even requested the removal.) Now, however, the article representative peer has become its own article again. Its content is the same as that prior to removal, with a few minor grammatical changes. As the only reason the article was removed was its merger with another article, and because this reason no longer exists, I have re-added representative peer to the list of featured articles. I hope there are no objections. -- Emsworth 01:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of an article

message: Ah, what happened? It's blank. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George III of the United Kingdom]] 

message: 66.167.139.105 10:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 175 article excerpt is lame 

message: I'd argue that presuppositional apologetics should be categorized under religion and beliefs rather than philosophy, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it (well, not enough to make a unilateral change).  Anyone else have a comment?  Or am I making too much of the categories? Jwrosenzweig 23:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article placement