Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 3

message: What about making "today's article" about certain things, i.e. AIDS, UN, Homosexuality and so on, fall on it's official day?
:They'd have to become features articles first, and for that someone needs to volunteer to write good versions of the articles. In any case, WP is generally reluctant to cover too many anniversaries or holidays on "Today's Featured Article" as they restrict the number of other articles that get to be showcased on the Main Page. —Cuivienen (Return) 04:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of our homosexuality article, it'd probably take an act of divine intervention -- it's been one of the crappiest articles on wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Raul654 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two cents on the world AIDS day 

message: The Polish and French Wikipedia use the Wikimedal - a more Wikipedish puzzle-piece medal logo for the FA. Maybe we could use it also here instead of the star? Or do you like the star better? Ausir
:I like what we have already! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too!  — mark ✎ 00:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Why not paste this to Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals? – ClockworkSoul 14:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been pasted there, I will provide the link soon to the debate. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The medal

message: I want some way to see at a glance how large each category of articles is.
And also some automated way to find the number of FAs.  
Visiting the FA template gives a slightly inflated view of the total number, b/c some non-article pages have that template tag.  Counting up to 500 every few weeks is a pain.  If everyone who adds to or subtracts from this page updates the count, there will still be occasional errors... the one advantage to having per-section counts is that it is easier to check that each section's count is correct when adding to it.
I'd love to see a clever software solution to this - for isntance, a way to generate a number for a[n invisible] numbered list which shows up in mouseover text.  +sj + 07:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category counts 

message: Hi! Please see: Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article#Current main page featured article warning. Thanks. Hyacinth 03:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page featured article warning request

message: Bath under Geography_and_places was added on 9 April.  When was it nominated? I could not find it in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log.  Also see Wikipedia:Peer review/Bath/archive1 from February. Petersam 21:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath – All featured article candidate discussion is linked to from the talk page of the article. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking further into it, Rad Racer promoted it but didn't place it into the log. I've added it now. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bath

message: I've gone ahead and removed the spoken tags from this article. They are irrelavant  to this listing, so I've gone ahead and removed them. →Raul654 02:46, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
: Would you care to elaborate on why you think they are "irrelevant"? Once about half of the featured articles have been spoken, it will be extremely useful to have the icons in order to decide which one to record next. This is why I added them, and hence I will add them back because I think you have not given any real reasoning why you have removed them. — Timwi 02:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoken tags removed

message: I have a question: I wish to create a category of FA's called "Awards and Decorations." I know there are some decorations stuck under the military and war section (Medal of Honor), chivilary (Order of the Bath) and culture and society  (Hero of Belarus). I was wondering if anyone would have any problems with that? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category 

message: User:Kmill changed:
: That means roughly 1 in 940 articles is listed here.
to
: That means roughly 1 in 940 articles are listed here.
But the first one was correct, wasn't it?  Joe D (t) 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)
:Yep. The number 1 is singular, thus it should be "is listed here." BrianSmithson 5 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
::I disagree. Imagine if it said "Roughly 1% of articles is listed here." "One percent" looks singular, but it's actuall a fraction (1/100), so it's plural. The phrase "1 in 940" is also a fraction. Compare "One half are listed." It's a singular half, sort of, but we use plural for ratios and fractions. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:::I guess if we really had only 940 articles and one was featured the singular would be correct, but we have lots of 940 articles and thus lots of featured articles. Perhaps it would be best to change this sentence to something unambiguously plural (or singular). "That means that for every 940 articles one is listed here." --MarSch 09:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Why was the FAC Vanilla Ninja promoted despite two objections as to the articles overall quality? I'm somewhat distraught by the fact that two such reasonable (and very basic) objections are stubbornly argued against and ultimately ignored instead of simply being amended. Does this have anything to do with the fact that the band isn't extremely renowned? Would Backstreet Boys or Beastie Boys be treated in the same fashion? Do we have lower standards for our music articles?Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 09:18 (UTC)
:I think its a matter of consensus. As the community made it a FA, it is valid for the main page, regardless of whether the US knows of them or not. Its nothing to do with how well known they are. The community decided the two objections weren't sufficiently important to prevent it becoming a FA, and Raul654 had the final say. He decided, again, that the objections had either been met or did not absolutely need to be.
:The objections given were that theres too much information on music videos there, and that theres not enough discussion on their music. Additions (albeit small) were made for the second one. The objections were met. The first objections were deemed, by the community, to not be enough to deny the article FA status. Once articles become featured, they are treated neutrally in selection for a main page appearance. I find your claims of musical notability insufficiently backed up. Hedley 2 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
::I'm very sad to see that you insist on using rhetorical feints such as implying that I'm opposed because of Vanilla Ninja's lacking noteriety. I have never claimed it as a reason to not feature the article and it degrades us both when you try to state otherwise. I'm actually not sure I've seen anyone opposing the article due to obscurity. What a few editors have stated, including me, is that very obscure (sometimes even unacceptably crufty) topics are heavily favored over the coverage of very general topics. I don't think this has anything to do with a sudden rush to combat systemic bias, but rather that Wikipedians seem to have a hard time writing FAs about more general topics like music, physics or geography. There can't possibly be any lack of knowledgable editors, yet none of these three major articles seem to have been even considered as FACs.
::I would really like some outside comments on this and I would certainly like to hear why Raul ignored no fewer than three very amendable objections. Both mine and Monicasdude's objections seem to have been either completely ignored or very unsatisfyingly amended, and why someone couldn't be bothered with creating five stubs for the individual bandmembers as per Themanwithoutapast's objection is completely beyond me.
::Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 16:00 (UTC)
:::There were ten supports to four objections, which is a rough consensus.  One objection was regarding refereces and the objector did not reply to the reasoning given.  One objection (yours) was a matter of opinion regarding content, and that is not really a big reason for it not to be featured.  One is regarding links to band members which is not a criteria for being featured (though I agree that they should be present).  The final one is mainly about a description of the musical style, which is a fair comment but, since so many others are supporting it, I think it's just a minor point (which should be fixed). violet/riga (t) 2 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
::::Further more, linking to band member articles would be a self-references (Maarja Kivi et al redirect to the article), and I amended the minor point is a description of musical style. Hedley 3 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
:::::Since the article has now been nominated for FAC removal, I would like to point out that it's a bit uncouth to speak of "rough consensus" concerning an FAC, since it's been very clearly stated that all actionable objections have to be dealt with, not that a half-assed consensus should be reached. If an FAC can't go by without the nominators and supporters respecting slightly differing opinions on article quality, then why should we call it "the best of Wikipedia"? /Peter Isotalo 10:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vanilla Ninja]] 

message: I've added sub-categories to the music section. I think it improves organisation, and finding the articles users are looking for. More populated categories could maybe do this also. Hedley 3 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
:I've removed this because, to be frank, I don't want subsections here. Some things are hard enough to categorize without further complicating it by adding subcats. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 01:00 (UTC)
::I'm doing most of the FA work on :no:, and it isn't at all hard to use subsections. They also make the page cleaner. Frankly, this FA page is a mess. 130.67.41.231 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music heading 

message: Please take a look. --MarSch 10:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit]] 

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages (WP:FAOL).  It is a project aimed at better highlighting the excellent featured articles in other languages and showing where the English versions are lacking.  It's currently at a discussion stage, so please feel free to make some comments on the talk page.  violet/riga (t) 17:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles in other languages 

message: How about making a template of each section of featured articles. It would allow for easy inclusion of relevant FAs into things like wikiproject pages and user pages. --MarSch 15:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have templatized the math FAs. How do you like it?--MarSch 16:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates 

message: User:Diderot is marking interwiki-links like . Is this a good idea?--Hhielscher 11:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. But, interwiki bots are putting these in unintended positions. For example,  is put at a different place (than the desired position above :sv: link) during lexicographic sorting of the interwiki links. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mark featured interwiki links? 

message: Just having a look at the media category, and I was wondering whether or not it needs dividing into more specific categories, or perhaps will do at some point in the future as more articles are added to it. Currently, it contains 10 television-related articles, 7 film-related, 7 on actors and actresses, 3 on superheroes, plus All your base are belong to us, Blackface and Felix the Cat. I'm aware that there's a fine line between being more specific and simply going overboard with sub-division, but the number of articles on television, film and actors compare with the number of articles in the categories for Chemistry (8 articles), Law (6), Philosophy (6), Education (4), Food and Drink (4) and Psychology (4).
Of course there are some who would make the probably valid point that this is more of a sad reflection on the fact that there are too many people like myself adding articles on things like television rather than more serious, heavyweight subjects, but that's not really a debate for here. As I said, this might perhaps not be so much of an issue now, but I can see the need for separate Film, Television and probably Actors & Actresses categories before too long.
Just a thought, anyway. I don't often offer ideas in the Wikipedia talk namespace, so please be gentle! Angmering 22:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your idea (dividing this page up into subcategories) has been suggested more than once before, and I have opposed it each time for the same reason - (a) it makes overlaps in categories more common, (b) it makes my job adding and maintaing this page) harder, it could make an already very-long TOC much longer, 'etc. →Raul654 22:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarification, I wasn't so much thinking of sub-categories as such, more of splitting up the Media category and creating new 'Television', 'Film' and so forth categories. But I imagine you'd probably take the view that there are already more than enough categories to be getting on with as it is. Angmering 22:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Media category 

message: I'm just wondering why rifles (Krag-Jørgensen, Krag-Petersson and Jarmann M1884) is placed in the technology category, while other weapons is placed under War? It just puzzled me as I browsed the list to look for interesting things to read. WegianWarrior 10:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, a rifle doesn't necessarily imply war, whereas the other weapons listed here (the iowa class battleship, the B-36, and the S-mine) do. →Raul654 01:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Or, to state my case another way - if someone gets Candlestick or wrench up to featured article status, it would be absurd to put them in the war category, even though (as anyone who plays Clue can tell you) they can be used as weapons. →Raul654 01:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sence. Thanks for the explonation. WegianWarrior 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about categories 

message: Crossposted from Template talk:Link FA at Zach Harden's request.
All featured articles and future feature articles at the Vietnamese Wikipedia have been marked with the Sao chọn lọc template, which adds a little star icon in the "namespace icon area" (various namespaces at vi: display icons at the top-right corner of the page). This can be accomplished thusly:
Assuming that the Link FA code has already been added to MediaWiki:Monobook.js, the following code should be added to the script, just below the Link FA code:
 /* Configuration for "star" logo at the top of Featured Articles */
function StarFA() {
   if (document.getElementById("FA")) {
      // Monobook.css will take over styling from here
      document.body.className += " FA";
      // Iterate over all  elements - this loop is optional
      for (var i = 0; a = document.getElementsByTagName("h1")[i]; i++) {
         // Apply a tooltip to the article title, which includes the little star
         if (a.className == "firstHeading") {
            a.title = "This article has gained featured status";
         }
      }
   }
}
addLoadEvent(StarFA);
----
Then, add the following code to MediaWiki:Monobook.css:
 /* Namespace icon area */
h1.firstHeading {
   background-position: bottom right; background-repeat: no-repeat;
}
/* Featured articles */
body.FA h1.firstHeading {
   background-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Featured_article_star.png/16px-Featured_article_star.png');
}
----
Finally, create a template Template:Star FA that contains the following code:
 

And add transclude it into each page:
 
This little logo isn't as intrusive as the meta-template that used to appear at the top of featured articles, but it still makes it easy to figure out if the article is of high quality, without having to load the Talk page.
If you are concerned about any potential impact on page loading time, just exclude or comment out the section marked "optional" in the JavaScript code above. If you enough people find this tip useful, I'll move it to a more widely read Talk page like Wikipedia talk:Featured articles.
You can see what this looks like in action at vi:Đệ nhị thế chiến.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 04:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do use this template, could we use own our FA star? Zach (Sound Off) 06:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now the star that would be shown is this one: . – ABCD✉ 22:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more clear, but ABCD answered my question. Thanks. Zach (Sound Off) 00:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I like this. I'd like it even better if you the icon linked somewhere explaining what it was (configurable from the template page) and if there a general mechanism for adding little icons so that you could have a peer review icon, featured article candidate icon, etc. Lupin|talk|popups 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could do that, too; it's just a matter of setting up the necessary template and code for each icon. However, I don't think we should overuse the icon: some article statuses, such as "failed feature article removal candidate," just aren't that useful to the "average reader." I proposed the featured article icon in particular, because we already have Template:Link FA, and the point was brought up that we make it easier for readers to notice featured articles in other languages than to notice the featured articles themselves. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 06:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article icon on vi: 

message: Looking at some featured articles being on corporations or products, I was thinking if this allows some companies to produce a brilliant page on their company in the form of featured article. For instance XYZ Inc decides that Wikipedia is getting good hits (and increasing) so decides to ask its PR team to create/expand an article on its product or the company itself (assuming the company or the brand in question is fairly popular). I'm sure despite some bias they can come up with an excellent article that doesn't look like an ad. Add in images that they can choose to release into PD or other types and you'd be looking at a FA candidate.
At the very least, they could get free publicity in the form of featured photos and even a featured article since they can abide by all the rules and provides undsiputable sources etc. Of course being a community we would edit it, but I've found that if an article is really brilliant, the basic shape of the article remains the same. We could add criticisms etc. but it would still be able to qualify as a featured article with enough depth.
I might sound a little too far fetched, but I think that it's a possibility. If so, would it benefit (more content) or spoil the wikipedia ideals (with sneaky commericialism). As it is there are already articles on popular culture and brands that are much better written than historical or other non-technological areas. Any thoughts on this?
And yes, I've got too much time on my hands right now  ;) Idleguy 11:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) What you are describing is Raul's 6th law in action. (2) If a company wants to write an article about themselves that is  comprehensive, factually accurate, and written from a neutral point of view, and it passes muster at the featured article candidates - then why should it not be a featured article? →Raul654 15:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial featured articles 

message: It may be a good idea to add some sort of a template to the FA articles. Smaller then the talk one - perhaps just sth like the barnstart with the words FA (like a medal) - but sth should be there to indicate their status, especially considering that now articles do show 'stars' in interlinks to other language FAs () but don't indicate what they are themselves. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: :Template:featuredarticle looks very nice, I think we should add it to every FA article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur. Some type of marker on article page, not just the talk page. Vaoverland 16:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Mirros are fine, but I prefer to concentrate on what's best for 'classic' Wikipedia. Besides, there are many templates like merge, copyedit, NPOV, etc. linking to Wikipedia namespace, so it's the debate about opening an already open door... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you consider this metadata template too Wikipedia-specific to transfer to mirrors, how about my proposal above, since the span tag it adds to articles will be invisible on other sites? It's equivalent to the featured article interwiki links, after all. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 04:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA template on main article page? 

message: A brief glance at the types of articles tell one that Wikipedia is good in social sciences but sorely lacks in psychology, philosophy and chemistry related ones. Amazingly even food and drink articles are not upto the standard it seems. Looks like we need more "mental" editors (pun intended) to solve some of those and a few food connoiseurs for creating more food and drink articles of FA status. Idleguy 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some good points and some not so good 

message: Hi, There is a proposal at "Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team" to declare articles which have passed Peer review "Wikipedia Version 0.5" articles and Featured Articles to be "Wikipedia Version 1.0" articles. There is also a proposal to protect peer reviewed articles from edits by IP users and Featured article from non-admin edits. For each FA a "suggested changes" copy would be created which would be open to all edits. Please voice your opinion of these proposals at the above talk page. Seabhcán 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.5/1.0 

message: fractal is supposedly no longer a featured article, but I find no support for this in this removal procedure.--MarSch 15:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Fractal]] 

message: Only today did I feel that Henry Fonda's FAC was half-hearted. There was only five votes, two of which were slashed (objections), leaving only three votes, all support. That is certainly not enough to have warranted Henry Fonda the FA label, so I want to resubmit it to the FAC. - A Link to the Past (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Fonda renomination 

message: I was going to try and tighten some of the wording in the introductory section, and I saw a big allcaps comment reading, "PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS ARTICLE DIRECTLY!".  Does that only apply to adding articles to the list of featured articles?  Would it be all right to change the comment to, "PLEASE DO NOT ADD ARTICLES YOURSELF", or something like that?  Otherwise, it seems like you might as well just protect the page, and protected pages make me sad.  -- Creidieki 18:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole purpose of that statement is to dissuade people from simply adding articles to the list of featured articles (which is what the FAC process is for) →Raul654 19:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *All right, great.  I've made it more specific, so it doesn't dissuade people from editing the rest of this page.  Feel free to futz with the wording or whatever.  Thanks.  -- Creidieki 20:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Editing this article directly" 

message: I think the promotion of Hugo Chávez in its current state is a really bad call. It sets a chaotic standard for how to reference an article, and it encourages people to simply ignore any future objections that have anything to do with making reference section as big as they need to be, not as big as the article writers want it to be. Worst of all, it completely discourages compromises, of which there were literally none in the case of the Chavez-article.
Peter Isotalo 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that reference standards need looking at in this respect.  85 references, it seems to me, is far, far too many.  You can have too many references as well as too few, and it seems to me there have been quite a few horribly over-referenced articles that have reached featured status recently. Worldtraveller 19:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A total of seventeen votes were cast in the Hugo Chávez FAC vote. Peter Isotalo was the sole objector. Meanwhile, the other sixteen voters supported the FAC, thus defeating Peter Isotalo's suggestions and objections by a ratio of sixteen to one. So now — and this is just a guess — the above data suggest to me that perhaps Peter Isotalo's views on "footnote orgy" do not represent the consensus view. And — again, just another guess on my part — that Peter Isotalo's views on "footnote orgy" may well constitute an extremist view, considering again that he was outvoted by sixteen to one. So, unless someone here is obliquely advocating that Wikipedia move towards a more completely fascistic FAC process, I regretfully fail to see what purpose this "debate" serves. Saravask 15:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, you are a little out of the loop. Jeronimo hasn't edited FAC since March. Bishonen | talk 02:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware that Jeronimo hasn't edited since March - I am the one who added him to missing persons after all. But I am hoping he'll return. Raul654 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: <Blush> -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference standards in shambles 

message: I understand why "less than perfectly encyclopedic" article should be included.  But shouldn't we have a either
(a) a further requirment of encyclopedicness to become a featured article, or else
(b) a further requirment of encyclopedicness to become a front page article.
As I understand it, one simply needs to meet the minimal requirments to not be deleted to be able to attain both.  Its going to be quite embarassing if merely the ability to write well is enough; and it considerably strengthens the deletionist position.  As it stands, people arn't even allowed to object to either on the basis of an article not being encyclopedic.
Also, we should also try not to include products which are currently under heavy promotion by their producers.  iPod is a good article about a pretty influential product, probably fine for FA & front page, but not when Apple has just released a new one.   JeffBurdges 22:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, but what are your feelings about frontpaging articles which are being heavily advertised?  JeffBurdges 02:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Coca Cola and Bank of China not have been put on the front page just because they are major corporations who advertise? MechBrowman 02:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It could potentially be applied to every featured article about a living person, place, purchasable object, 'etc. It's a very slippery slope to go down and I don't think it's worth the headache. I've only excluded those two articles because I felt there was an extremely compelling reason, and "oh no! It could potentially be construed as advertising!" doesn't really strike me as a particularly weighty objection. Raul654 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Alright, I phrased my objection quite poorly.  Clearly putting Coca Cola and Bank of China on Wikipedias front page for a day doesn't matter on iota to their advertising methodology.  What I had in mind was specific to time sensitive advertising, i.e. iPod mini shouldn't go up just after they release it.  But I'll grant that such distinctions may be more subtle than is apparent.  JeffBurdges 12:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Time-sensitive articles, such as iPod Mini shortly after release, or 2006 Olympic Games on the day of the opening ceremony, will be rejected for "featured" status on the grounds that the article is too new/too unstable.  And without being featured articles, they can't make the main page. --Carnildo 22:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool (song) made the main page recently.  JeffBurdges 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopedic article 

message: Often I have seen that the featured article of the day is subject to vandalism. Not even a proffesional attempt just deleting the article and typing in a new nonsense text.
Should we not protect the featured article from editing?
It is just an idea and I wanted to share it.
Allard :: 29 Nov 2005 :: 20:15 C.E.T. :: The Netherlands
:This idea comes up often enough that our guy in charge of Featured Articles has a canned response to it: user:Raul654/protection. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article Vandalism 

message: Hello. Regarding, featured articles, what do you think of Wikipedia:Stable versions (formerly Wikipedia:Requests for publication) -- Zondor 03:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Stable versions]] 

message: I was trying to bold Roy Orbinson because he was on the main page recently.  I could not find the article listed.  Am I just too tired and I missed it, or is it really missing from the list for some reason? MechBrowman 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Roy Orbison.  The article seems to have been removed and the nomination closed; but the nomination was then re-opened, presumably without adding the article back to the list. —Kirill Lokshin 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put him back in the list for the time being. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see thanks for clearing that up, I fixed the number at the top of the page. MechBrowman 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Thank you. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roy Orbison

message: Hey, everyone. Just a question: why do we allow the editing of featured articles when they are up? I think the amount of vandalism that occurs when a page is up front for everyone to edit outweighs whatever additions anyone might have on an already featured article. Then many of us won't spend half the day reverting changes on articles that are prominent. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 04:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, yeh but one of the things noted, "Vandalism (especially to highly visible articles like the main page featured article) is cleaned up very quickly, often in only a couple of minutes." is not so much an advantage. Do you know how many unsuspecting people will cruise through that page in those few minutes? I wouldn't call the idea so bad, but I retract my point about them not being changed too much when they're on the front page. Clearly the consensus seems to be favoring the other side on that argument. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of Featured Articles 

message: I've just been going over the list briefly to compile some statistics (nothing particularly remarkable - 9% of articles here are on politics, 8% history and 8% geography) and whilst counting noticed a couple of oddly classified entries:
*Apollo 8 might fit better under Transport than in Physics and astronomy? (Saturn V, too, come to think of it)
*Representative peer might be more appropriate under Politics than Royalty & nobility, as it's a political definition.
*ROT13 and Speech synthesis may be better placed in Computing (which already includes software) than Technology
*Diamond is classified under Chemistry, but other gems are in Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy
Just thought I'd mention them whilst I was here. Shimgray | talk | 22:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I would agree on the rockets going under transport - I think most people would not expect to find space exploration topics under transport.  They could go under transport but I don't see why they should not remain where they are.  On the other ones I have no strong opinion, although I would note that many articles could easily fit in more than one category, and where they end up will always be slightly arbitrary and not to everyone's liking. Worldtraveller 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some recategorising 

message: 'WP as Entertainment Tonight dept. Is it me, or did this one really smell of press agentry?
[].
I have no idea what the process was by which this moved ahead of the rest of the pack, but the main page sure didn't look very much like independent media to me this morning. What's next? Jennifer Aniston's love life? BYT 14:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I found it depressingly poorly written (sloppy commas, "one of the tasks she was given was to reading the lines at auditions" [fixed that one], etc) but I couldn't bring myself to copyedit such puffery. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the KaDee Strickland article in compliance with WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, i.e. by using quotes about Strickland from the media (in other words, attributing points of view to sources). From all of the articles I have read, the press generally seem to rate Strickland quite highly, so I tried to reflect this in the article. Extraordinary Machine 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When FAs about Hollywood starlets take over the main page... 

message: Something I have seen time and again when introducing new people to Wikipedia, is that they to try  read the featured article by clicking on the associated main page image. This is understandable behaviour, as for pretty much every other website out there clicking on a main page image brings one to the associated article. Instead of getting to the article, these readers end up on the image description page, which is quite clearly not very accommodating to confused newbies. Should we consider using  on all images in the FA blurb? Getting copyright information should still be straightforward, as the image itself should prominently appear in the article. This template has recently been added to Template:WikipediaSister to good reviews. - SimonP 14:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like an excellent idea, for all images on the main page. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a fantastic idea. I can't count the number of times I've accidentally clicked on the image instead of the link when casually browsing the main page. Its use outside of the main page should be kept extremely limited, though; total newbies won't understand what clicking on an image does, but anyone beyond that should be expected to realize that clicking on an image will get the image desc page, and we don't want to make such pages too inaccessible. -Silence 14:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Click on Featured Articles

message: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that I can not "convert" a "citation".  This is being used to warn other users against converting citations.  This has implications for some common peer review and featured article advice.  (SEWilco 02:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry: you will have to lay it out for me: what does "convert" a "citation" mean?  Do you mean that an author can choose to use bibiographic references, or footnotes, or inotes, or whatever, and another person should not change them? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As to the meaning of the above ruling and the above change to Wikipedia:Footnotes you'll have to ask the ArbCom for clarification.   As I got blocked for a single change edit, I can not make changes such as these to Gettysburg Address. (SEWilco 04:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ALoan - to answer your question, Sewilco was using a bot to do to citations was Jguk was doing to BCE/CE dates; the arbcom imposed more-or-less the same restriction on him that was imposed on Jguk. Raul654 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jguk was adding details about BCE/CE dates to articles?  I didn't notice Jguk mentioned in the case's /Evidence or /Workshop.  (SEWilco 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And I'd like to note that this is a totally inappropriate place for this dispute to be expanded to. Raul654 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As changes in citations are often recommended, this seemed quite relevant.  (SEWilco 08:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation conversion 

message: When Hurricane Dennis was promoted to this page, it was put in the "Physics and Astronomy" section. I have taken the action of moving it to the "History" section as that is where Cyclone Tracy and the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 are located.  Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. Raul654 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricane Dennis

message: This Featured Article was recently given a cleanup tag. Thought you might like to know. I'm No Parking and  I approved this message 22:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it - it's clear that it should never have been added. Raul654 22:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution]] 

message: :Image:Featurednichalp.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Featurednichalp.png