Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 7

message: Yep, it's the time where users are opposing articles for no reason but size, even when they admit articles are adequately comprehensive. The Hurricane Irene (2005) discussion is being repeated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Erika (1997) and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, and just repeated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ismael. You can also have a look at these kinds of comments... what can be done in cases like these? Titoxd(?!?) 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's that time of the year again 

message: Comments sought on this biography of a musician. Thank you. AppleJuggler 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you think [[Ilaiyaraaja|this article]] is FA quality? 

message: Hi, please comment here.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured user pages

message: I suggest all Featured articles be semi-protected automatically after reaching FA status. Too many have ignoble ends. Many unregistered, irresponsible edits often turn an FA article into a bad one; it prevents a general downward slump. Pls seriously consider this suggestion. Mandel 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with ya! See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection and Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection, the debate can get quite lively.Rlevse 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. It would prevent a lot of unnecessary editing. Viper323 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support me there if you please. Mandel 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You have my complete and total agrement. FA status appears to be a big vandalism magnet; maintaining the article quality is a daily job. — RJH (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured articles semi-protection

message: I think all Featured articles should be totally protected while they're on the front page (and for a day or so beforehand) - there have been a few times recently (the most recent being about 5 mins ago) when I've undone vandalism on the day's front-page article. I seem to remember that front-page articles used to be proteted like this, and I can't think of any good reason why it would be changed. Can anyone clarify why the change was made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tavdy79 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any recollection of them being protected, however you should discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection not here. Richard001 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page featured articles protection

message: Does anyone know of a or high quality or FA documentary article similar to Trembling before G-d? The FAs are very hard to look through these days. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA documentary? 

message: I am proud to present you the 1000th Excellent Article in the German Wikipedia: Pamir, a German sailing boat. There are also 1821 Lesenswerte Artikel, that corresponds to the Good Article in the English WP. You can suggest an article for translation into English at Wikipedia:Translation. --Tantalos 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 Excellent Articles in German WP 

message: In the same way we have Featured articles, pictures and sounds. Buc 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are not encyclopedic content. Aside from some sort of April Fool's joke, it's difficult to see how this would work. See also Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles/Archive4#How_about_.22Featured_templates.22.3F Gimmetrow 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion:Featured Templates 

message: Would 'Warfare' be a better name than 'War'? — BillC talk 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "Military and warfare", perhaps?  (Or even "Military history", as we don't have any fictional wars there?)  But it may well be that it's just not worth fiddling with the section name, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like Military and Warfare for a title.  They're all military-related, but not all are specifically war (ships that never saw combat, etc.) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change it to 'Military and Warfare' and hope this doesn't come across as fiddling with it. I won't object if someone changes it back or to something different. — BillC talk 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War category FAs 

message: I noticed that Nintendo Entertainment System is listed under "engineering and technology" while Wii and Commodore 64 are listed under "computers and video games". This doesn't appear to be consisant, so which way should we fix it? Jay32183 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somewhat puzzled why the articles on heraldry and vexillology aren't listed the same place? At the moment the heraldic material is grouped along with biographies of royality and nobility, but since flags and coats of arms are simply two related types of insignia, it would make more sense to group the heraldic material with the articles about flags. Valentinian T / C 10:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a similar problem with Mosque and Angkor Wat being in the Religion section but not in the Architecture section. The architecture section contains christian religious buildings like Cathedral of Magdeburg and St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery. I think they'd all be better filed in the Architecture section. --Joopercoopers 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed an issue too - schizophrenia listed under biology and medicine. Since it is commonly addressed as a psychological and sociological topic, as well as biological and medical, this doesn't seem quite right. Is it because it's about the only psych page that's made it to FA?? EverSince 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see Asperger's is also in there actually. EverSince 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A category of one or two is not needed, and schizophrenia needs to be submitted to FAR soon, so creating a category for it now is perhaps premature.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say a category for one or two pages is needed. I specifically asked if that's why it's currently listed under a heading that only partially covers the field. EverSince 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about sorting 

message: Is there a list of all hte featured articles anywhere?  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 15:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, Buc's referring to the fact that this page (Wikipedia:Featured articles) is the list of all featured articles. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of all featured articles? 

message: The current list of FAs has a bunch of categories and I am wondering if maybe we could adopt a list like they have at the different 1.0 projects like Wikipedia:Release Version. Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their categorization doesn't look feasible here; for example, they combine History, War, and Archeology.  That would make for a very big category here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of FAs 

message: I just happened to randomly come here and notice that there are 1,337 FAs. Is this part of April Fools or something, or is this real? -- RattleMan 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked the number (a few days ago), it was real; what is your concern?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just wondering. I haven't come to the FA portal for a while, so it was sort of surprising to see 1,337 FAs. -- RattleMan 02:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sandy - 1337 is "leet" ("elite") in Leetspeak. Rattleman was wondering if this was coincidental, or something done for April Fools. RattleMan - it's the real number. Raul654 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <grrrr ... >  Pollyannified again.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1337 Featured Articles? 

message: How are the division (high level topics) on this page decided upon?  As the number of FA's gets larger how do we decide to break them down further?  Will further divisions happen at the same heading level (such as giving cities and countries their own sections) or will there be subheadings created (such as adding a biography section under several of the top level headings, or creating a storms/hurricains subheading). I think we shoudl give this some thought because the number is getting up there and many topic areas are starting to accumulate a lot of featured articles (such as all teh dino FA's) but are in topis to broad to be approprate for Wikipedia:Featured topics for some time. Dalf | Talk 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions in this page 

message: Once an article has been promoted to featured and later featured on the Main Page, is it ever featured on there again in the future? Simply south 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To date, no - we have not featured any articles on the main page a second time. Raul654 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Front Page 

message: I wonder why the bot didn't run to highlight The Turk for the main page?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schutz bot 

message: I can see some connection between art and architecture, but archeology has nothing to do with the other two, other than starting with ar.  Why is the first entry alphabetical when the rest are topical? Atropos 22:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Art, architecture, and archeology?

message: Anyboddy notice that the current featured articles spell 1337? (leet) 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, because it has already been mentioned. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless to say but...

message: There are nothing like enough yet to have them daily so how about weekly.
They could go right under the featured image. Buc 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Featured lists on the main page 

message: And pull the article from this page, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.226.172 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lindsay Lohan. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See [[Talk:Lindsay Lohan]]

message: Drawing the attention of FA interested editors to this discussion at Village pump (proposals). --HailFire 11:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Retrieved on" accessdate notation

message: There have been several FAs with fixed image sizes, contrary to the MoS guidance on images. Could checking for this be added to the FA criteria, please? Andy Mabbett 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image sizing

message: Was the article Swedish football champions really a featured article? --Bensin 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. It was a featured list. --Bensin 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning FA-status of article "Swedish football champions" 

message: Please take a look at an article I've written as part of my admin coaching. You'll find it at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates Cheers. --Dweller 22:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual classroom lesson on Featured Articles 

message: I recall seeing a list of users by number of FAs they nominated.  I remember the first three people: worldtraveller, raul654, and johnleemk However, runing that name through Google isn't yielding anything.  Would anybody be so kind as to point me to the right page? hbdragon88 23:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: At present, featured articles are only identified by the small bronze star in the upper RH corner. This is unlikely to be noticed by the casual, or even experienced, reader (as I can attest).
Since Featured Articles are Wikipedia's best -- shouldn't they be identified more prominently? An attractive banner at the top might be appropriate. Cheers, Pete Tillman 05:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the talk page of FA. Buc 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this something in the archive? I didn't see a discussion on this page. Cheers, Pete Tillman 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I ment was check the talk page of any FA. Buc 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not, for the same reasons that I opposed and continue to oppose the FA star, only more so. Raul654 05:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The star is enough; it's been discussed before.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More prominent ID for featured articles? 

message: I am nominating Starcraft article as an article for demotion due to a major error I discovered.  The error is that all starcraft units are missing their sections and every link takes the person the unit's race.  When someone clicks on the unit it should take them to a section or somewhere that describes the unit not the entire race.  This is a probelm because each unit is used many times and many other articles have the units as comparsions and untill this error is fixed then Starcraft should not be a featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agentheartlesspain (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are suggesting the article have a full list of all units, this certainly isn't a case for demotion. Such is known pejoratively as 'cruft', and has no place in encyclopedic articles. A wiki for the game itself would be a more appropriate place. If you find such lists in other articles, they should be removed or at least tagged in some way. Richard001 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no link in the StarCraft article to mutalisk,  and the fact that mutalisk redirects to the race is no problem - we certainly don't have articles on individual units in real-time strategy games. Richard001 05:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) might answer your questions. Pagrashtak 14:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starcraft 

message: Is there a process for requesting the removal of Featured Article status, even long after the fact?  I ask because, having just now taken notice of the fact that Global Warming was such an article, I nearly fell out of my chair when reading the necessary criteria for such status -- NPOV, in particular.  Anyone who has read the voluminous talk pages for said article would immediately recognize that it is one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia.  There have been many complaints about the stranglehold that a select few editors have on the article, and there continues to be complaints on a regular basis.  The fact that these complaints are dismissed by the article's controllers in no way diminishes them -- it only diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia, for allowing such repression.  That seemingly insignificant star lends an added sense of credibility to the article, and implies that it can be safely taken at face value, but this is most decidedly not the case.  I request removal of the star, if possible, to avoid these misleading connotations.  --64.222.222.25 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what POV issue do you have? When it comes to something like global warming only scientific views are valid regardless of what the layperson or mass media may say about it, and the majority of scientific literature supports the article. I'm not even sure what exactly the nature of your complaint is though, so you'll have to be more specific. Richard001 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I specifically asked if there were a procedure for removal of FA status.  I need to know this before I commit to mounting a detailed case.  Please confirm or deny, if possible.  Thanks.  --64.222.222.25 05:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Global warming. Pagrashtak 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:FAR is where FAs are reviewed; 64, you don't appear to have read the talk page of Global warming, since it is currently at FAR.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Removal? 

message: I would like to get this article evaluated:
* Reindeer hunting in Greenland
-- Fyslee/talk 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're thinking of it becoming a featured article you may be aiming a little too high - going for Good article status is a more realistic goal early on, and really a prerequisite to becoming an FA anyway. Richard001 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. I'm just interested in getting some people who are experienced at evaluating articles to take a look and give some pointers on what's lacking and needs improvement. -- Fyslee/talk 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to try Wikipedia:Peer review for that. While I'm here, here's some quick notes: the lead needs to be expanded per Wikipedia:Lead section, and references are missing information, such as access date. Try using  and other citation templates to aid you. Pagrashtak 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a prerequisite whatsoever, so I'm not really sure what you mean by that... Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it may not technically be a prerequisite, but it's pretty obvious that any article that can't get past GA nomination isn't going to have an FA star any time soon. Richard001 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation please 

message: Why don't the Featured Articles categories use the cool-looking show/hide boxes like on Wikipedia:Good articles? It's a lot easier to sift through 1000+ articles that way. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it makes it harder to sift through the articles, since to see them all you have to click "show" 20 times. Aside from that, the page is impossible to search and the icons make it look juvenile. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do Good Articles and the official Content page use such sorting? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those pages are poorly designed and unattractive? Check the archives for further discussion on this issue, it has been brought up before. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show/hide sorting 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_brat_%28U.S._subculture%29
How is that promoted when it is clearly just sympathetic to American "POV" ? It is on your FAC review now here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Military_brat_%28U.S._subculture%29
Porkshireman 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American bias? 

message: From  New or non registered users anyway, they seem to be the target for spammers and this may help from destroy the credibility they so greatly achieved. `--Mrlego9 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock Featured Articles! 

message: Why is this article listed in the economics section? Sheep81 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps somebody confused him with Marx? I've removed him - the article is a GA undergoing review for FA. Someone must have been a little overenthusiastic and added it in anticipation. Richard001 02:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I promoted it earlier today. Raul654 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alfred Russell Wallace

message: I can see the small bronze star at the top right in Monobook, but not in classic skin. Why not & can it be fixed? -- SGBailey 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template  creates the star. According to Template talk:Featured article, it was turned off at one point for skins other than Monobook because it caused problems with page format. But it seems that problem was fixed, so who knows. Your question might receive a better answer on that talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Bronze star

message: Could also have its own section, by splitting Biology, medicine, and psychology. It's also a long section, and it seems odd having Tuberculosis beside Tyrannosaurus. Marskell 09:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree of Life 

message: To facilitate throughput to GA and FA, I'm trialling this; I've listed Standing Lists of large articles with substantial content which may be within striking distance of GA with varying amounts of work WRT formatting and copyediting. Some are already being worked on but I'm seeing if this increases collaboration. So far I've done this on WP mammals talk page and WP Birds collab pages. Be interesting to see if more of these come through cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice thoughts! I think this idea will help in the maintenance of FAs and GAs. I suggest you create a template that could be implemented easily in all wikiprojects. And Some wikiprojects have already implemented this idea (check WP India). CG 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standing lists at Wikiprojects

message: I vaguely recall a page about how to create the 'ideal' or 'best' Wikipedia article, and I'm at a complete loss to find it.  Maybe I'm totally making this up or maybe with all the emphasis on Featured Articles it got cannibablized but if anyone here remembers anything like that please let me know.  Or even if you know something similar, just going through all the pages about editing and layout and style hasn't helped that much.  For instance, one of the only this I remember about this (imagined?) page was that it described how the Lead section should be short enough that someone just wanting somewhere between a dictionary level definition and a bit broader an overview could read just that first paragraph or two but that it shouldn't be so long that you end writing your whole article there.  Does or did this page exist?
: Wikipedia:The perfect article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elements of Ideal Article - Extant?

message: Renewing invitation for discussion of the policy - there has been a lot of debate today. Richard001 08:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection]]

message: Would it not be a good idea to start breaking down some of the more populated categories. Break history down by period, for example, or media down by film, character, tv series etc. It's getting quite difficult to read now and it's not accessible enough to the casual reader. DevAlt 09:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see cities, countries, parks, etc. broken out of geography and places. Dalf | Talk 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking down categories 

message: I moved the featured article Paulo (Lost) to Nikki Fernandez and Paulo after Nikki Fernandez was merged into it.  Now, on the talk page, it says the peer review and featured article candidacy is archived but the links are broken.  How do I fix this?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You messed with the ArticleHistory template and broke it . I have fixed it. Raul654 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red-linked template on talk page after move 

message: To what was hastily posted recently at WP:AN, I may add that the matter inexorably goes on, affecting Final Fantasy VI so far. Seems that the upcoming articles in month's queue are less likely to be affected. Brand спойт 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taggism 

message: The featured article Search Engine Optimization is currently listed under "Computers and video games" at this article page. The correct category would be "Business, economics and finance". See where the article is located in the Wikipedia Category hierarchy.
Business and Economics -> Marketing -> Internet Marketing -> Search Engine Marketing -> Search Engine Optimization 
Could somebody fix this please? Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I find this suggestion absurd. Search engine optimization is a heck of a lot more closely related to computers than it is to marketing. Raul654 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the Computers category.  Hello, Carsten! Jehochman  Hablar 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA for Search Engine Optimization in wrong Category 

message: Wikipedia stinks to an all time low. Are we really this stuck up for featured articles? Brettr 07:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured article status is a designation that an article is of high quality. It has nothing to do with how important that topic is (which is a subjective thing at that). I'll also note that over the same time period we featured those articles you named, we also featured the history of Puerto Rico , Hippocrates, Boston Massachuessets, Antioxidants, the Turkish language, and the 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash. Raul654 14:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus neither of them have specified what exactly is wrong with having  a bra, a satanic-themed metal band, two soccer teams (two? there was Norwich City and who eles) or a video game on the main page. Buc 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wonderbra is a type of clothing and has just as much right as Toga (if it was an FA) to be featured on TFA. I suspect however, that the trolls above would think something related to Ancient Rome is much more "encyclopedic" than something related to contemporary society. Prejudices against Popular culture is not taken account when FAs appear on the main page. GizzaDiscuss © 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has gone out of my way to make numerous contributions, corrections, and starting articles from scratch on Wikipedia and enjoy very much the opportunity to do so, I resent being called a "troll" simply because I expressed an admittedly minority opinion that think some of the choices of topic for featured article status seem quite frivolous and not what I or probably a fair number of others would consider traditional encyclopedic material, and I freely admit that's a bias I might need to work on dispelling. I look at the Featured Article spot as a place where articles of potential interest to vast swaths of the readership of Wikipedia on serious topics can be shared (no, not necessarily on Ancient Rome), and I have no problem with probably half or even more of the choices that have been placed there, and I'm not in any way implying that the others I don't agree with have no place on Wikipedia at all. I just feel there is too much of a tendency to place more bias on topics of limited current pop culture interest versus equally well-written and researched general topics. Just my opinion, I am NOT a troll, and I thank you all for the place to express it. Apologies for the admittedly emotional initial reply here, I didn not intend it to come across so harshly as I see it has. Talshiarr 10:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weather or not it is "traditional encyclopedic material" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with it appearing on the main page. Raul tries to vary the topic as much as possible and my guess is  "traditional encyclopedic material" all come from the same 2 or 3 topics. If you'd like to see a certain article on the main page go to the request page. But I still don't really understand what's wrong with articles such as Wonderbra. Is "traditional encyclopedic material" something a long history? well Bras (which can't appear on the main page as it is not a FA) have been around over 100 years. Buc 17:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wonderbra 

message: Why does it seem importance to projects matters if they are to become featured?
This seems to be common argument that they are just not important enough. For example Jordanhill railway station did not get FA because it was not important or well known enough. However, to contradict this, a district in London, Moorgate has until very recently been a featured article for almost two years. It was of low importance to a project. 
Simply south 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) Your premise is simply false. Importance is not relavant. (b) Jordanhill failed FAC, but it's clear from reading the nom that that failure had nothing to do with the article's importance. Raul654 14:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does importance matter to FA? 

message: Dear all,
I have put forth a discussion here about a current FA (though one which feasibly could go to FAR at some stage), with an ambiguous name which realistically probably should be a readirect...all $0.02 much welcome here...or there..cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant to add was, would this be best discussed at FAR (given it's an FA?)? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chopping up an FA...

message: has the article count on the template itself,  does not, this makes updates to the Featured article count harder to track and seperate from edits to the Featured article page itself.  Tcrow777  talk  23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654 (for promotions) and Marskell/Joel (for demotions) are doing fine keeping up with the FA count. Why fix what isn't broken? Gimmetrow 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not improve what isn't broken, a unified way of counting Good articles and Featured articles would be better, and yes I have read Instruction creep.  Tcrow777  talk  05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I have been thinking it over. Why fix what is not broken?  Tcrow777  talk  21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  change FA number to resemble GA number 

message: i notice that most, if not all FA articles has references counting upwards of 100. What this does is take up a lot of space in the wikiarticle and somehow, it does not look good aesthetically (functionally - i have nothing against it!). I took a stab at one of the articles - Harbhajan Singh#References to limit the space occupied by the references section. If everyone is OK with this, we can look to having a bot that implements this across atleast all FA articles. --Kalyan 06:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, bad idea; the article is no longer printable after your change. Kirill 06:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, mirrors lose references.  Please don't do that.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references - limit page space occuption 

message: I once saw a while ago a link to recommend a featured article. How do I recommend one?
:You go to this page, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and follow the instructions there. Medvedenko 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation 

message: I'm hoping to make Unassisted triple play of featured standard, but I'm not sure if it should be a FL or FA. Buc 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a list. Medvedenko 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of the content is in prose form and describes the features of a single topic. The fact that the article includes a table does not make it any less an article, as it stands. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article or list 

message: According to Wikipedia:Former featured articles, there are over 400 articles that at one time met the Featured article criteria. Many of these were demoted for minor reasons that could easily be fixed by a dedicated group of editors. This project aims to dramatically increase the number of featured articles by first focusing on those former FAs closest to meeting the criteria, and working its way to those in need of more help. This would be done through scheduled collaborations on said articles. While all editors are welcome to join, editors with experience creating FAs, especially those with strong copyediting skills and/or knowledge of MoS are most needed. There is no reason for wikipedia to have any "former" FAs. It should be top priority to maintain them. "Once an FA, always an FA." is the eventual goal of this project.  This project would also serve as a "rescue squad" for articles under FA review. Please click the above link and add your name in order to join. Wrad 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Former_Featured_Articles_WikiProject|Former Featured Articles Wikiproject]] 

message: The current categorisaton system  on this page is too bulky, and certainly for me it doesn't help me find immediately any particular sets of articles I want to find. Can I suggest at the very least, we create new categories for films, animals, cities, hurricanes, books, politicians, and individual wars. Does anyoen object to this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I object. Those would be redundant with the ones we already have. Raul654 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah me too. I don't get this, all thoughs thing already have categories. Buc 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is not that they are uncategorised, but that many of them are now so full they aren't helpful. When I've been looking for FAs on cities, I have to trawl a massive cat that contains a whole load of stuff on countries, and parks, and other things. It took me a while, and while looking I ended up clicking through to articles I wasn't interested in because their names were ambiguous This isn't helpful, certainly not to me, though I have all the time in the world at the moment, and especially not to Average Pablo who, according to research, will spend about nine seconds on this page before giving up. We need subcats, and soon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok subcats sounds like a better idea but there would need to be some sort of "at least X articles" otherwise people be asking "If films, cities and hurricanes can get categories why not other things"? Buc 16:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: Hello. I was browsing the FA page and noticed good old Bill listed as an FA. Pleasantly surprised, I clicked on the link, only to find no star, and no such designation on the talk page. Is it mistakenly listed there? 69.202.41.119 15:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was promoted within the last hour; the talk page and articlehistory will be updated by a Bot later (as indicated on the talk page at the  template).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I just added Shakespeare to the FA list here within the last hour. (It was one of 16 articles promoted) GimmeBot will be along shortly (within the next few hours) to update the article's talk page. As far as putting a star in the article itself - I make no effort to do that (long story). Raul654 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see. Thanks! And congrats to everyone involved in making it a featured article. It must have been quite an undertaking! 69.202.41.119 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This caused me some confusion. I was directed to the discussion here. The other nominators will be pleased. Thanks, Raul. RedRabbit 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We could put it in the instructions at the top of the FAC, but those instructions are already too long, IMO. Raul654 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to do something, not sure what.  Editors update the talk page themselves, which stalls the bot and causes extra work.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why expand them? We should just use the blink tag :) Raul654 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over-my-frustrated-head alert.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blink tag does exactly what it sounds like - it makes web page text blink (e.g, repeatedly appear and disappear). It's quite possibly the most irritating thing you can put on a webpage - but it gets stuff noticed. (For an example of blinking text, see here) But I was joking when I suggested it. Raul654 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, ha, I see :-)  OK, what if we expanded the instructions at WP:FAC, but within a show/hide cap-thingie?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's a ton of manual work; the whole point of GimmeBot is to help Raul avoid the tedious template and talk page work.  When Raul promotes only four or five at a time, I try to add the star with a note that minimizes confusion in the interim; when there's 33 at a time, the manual work is a bit much, and it's better to wait for the bot.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could Raul trigger the bot?  Or, perhaps better, would it work for Raul to simply copy the contents of the FAC page, cut and paste the promotions to one list and the failures to another, and save those to pages living in GimmeBot's user space?  Then GimmeBot could use those as inputs to trigger all the related actions.  If people edit the FACs in the meantime, so be it.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot sometimes requires manual intervention, because editors often mess up the talk pages; the idea was for Raul not to have to spend his time on this, since he's busy enough with the rest.  GimmeBot doesn't need a new trigger; it uses the existing archives.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That wasn't quite what I meant, but after some thought, I've realised that my suggestion wouldn't work anyway. Carcharoth 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm...I didn't realize I had touched off such a nerve with my rather simple query. Apologies to all...all I wanted to know was why one page said one thing, while another page said differently. That's all. And it was answered satisfactorily by two editors above...again sorry if I somehow offended people. 69.202.41.119 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. Your query was fine. I'm rather responding to edits like these. Gimmetrow 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William Shakespeare]] 

message: FSC now has well-developed criteria and a backlog of nominations. It would be most appreciated if one or more people volunteeered to act, informally, as the closer(s) of nominations on the promotions and demotions page on a regular basis. 
Thus far, it has been a small workload. Volunteers would need to be very circumspect in their reviews, or to avoid reviewing (to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest). The task, from time to time, is to arrrive at a balanced assessment of the reviews and the nominations in relation to the criteria, and to perform the mechanical task of closing. The ability to interpret the criteria is necessary. 
Interested editors are asked to declare their willingness on the talk page. Tony 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteers to close nominations at Featured Sound Candidates 

message: Can an article be nominated as a featured article in both "Culture and society" and "Mathematics"?  Someone has suggested infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (currently in an AfD discussion) as a featured article, and it seems to fit both. Michael Hardy 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not in two categories. That said, that article has had enough eyes looking at it as of late... who knows. Maybe it could pull off an FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured in two or more categories? 

message: Hi, I am attempting to improve the article Oakland Public Library.  The problem is, I have no example of an excellent library article to model this one after.  If someone could point me to a GA or FA library article, that would be much appreciated.  Thanks. Paul Haymon 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see....and excellent article about a library, or an article about an excellent library?  Minneapolis Public Library is a reasonable article about a library; I'll leave other appelations to others for now. Michael Hardy 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there are not. If there were, they would probably be in the 'education' section. Raul654 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article about a Library?