Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Archive 3

message: At Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAs first, I am trying to set up a system to ensure that featured articles are regularly reviewed.  Have a look at what I've come up with there.  It's a list of featured articles with links to the revision that was current when it was promoted and a diff with the present-day version.  If changes are significant, they could be placed on a sister page Wikipedia:Featured article review to be approved (hopefully).  Suggestions?  Is anyone interested in working on this? Tuf-Kat 08:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article review

message: I think it would become useful if it was standard practice if candidates were given a diff of the version when they became originally featured and their present state (at least the state at nomination).  If that is compared with the nomination discussion I htink it can would help see what arguments were made when it became nominated and allow us a comparison. gren グレン 09:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Blatant Hollywood starlet's exercise in self-promotion (or fanzine hagiography). Not sure which it is at this stage -- probably a bit of both -- but it sure isn't encyclopedic.
Who, beyond the article's prime mover, is actually willing to maintain that this was an appropriate selection for the main page?  Nobody now seems to want to take responsibility for that decision, or for the vanity-press move of running the article on the actress's birthday. Presumably she was logging on eagerly at home at the stroke of midnight. See the dispute on the article's talk page and at User talk:Raul654.  BYT 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[KaDee Strickland]] 

message: Not sure if this is proper reason for defeaturing, but according to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sicilian Baroque it was promoted with 3 supports... and 4 objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to ask Raul654 - all of the objections were about prose style.  Have you read it? -- ALoan (Talk) 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure he will get around this part of Wiki eventually. Yes, I have read it, and the objections are not major enough for me to run screaming and put it at main FARC immediatly - so I want to know what you think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sicilian Baroque]]

message: I raised this issue before and then decided to wait for the Wikipedia:Featured article review to become more established. I now feel it is. I believe the FARC guidelines should state, "Before placing an article on FARC, editors should first either raise the issues with the article on the Wikipedia:Featured article review page or on the article's talk page."
I feel this language is loose enough that people can still bring bad articles to the FARC but it also gets them to raise issues elsewhere (and let the article authors try to fix the article) before bring it to a FARC vote. Comments?--Alabamaboy 14:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't seem to be very many stupid FARC nominations right now, so it's not too big a deal.  I also think that articles with major, clear-cut issues can come straight here. -- SCZenz 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think that they should at least raise the issue on the article's talk page first? Seems like common decency to the article's editors do this (or, alternately, to go to the FAR page). If the editors were not responsive, the article could quickly come here. I see this guideline more as a way to more closely follow Wikipedia's be nice attitude and to give article editors a chance to correct the article before it comes here.--Alabamaboy 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FARC Guidelines: must go through Featured article review and raise issues on FA article's talk page

message: I have set my sights on several articles from our history section that seem to indicate they are about a former state, but are in fact about history of a country. This distinction may seem superficial at the first glance, but it is not. Consider: History of Poland (1945–1989) (a FA) vs. People's Republic of Poland (a former state article), or History of Poland (1569-1795) vs. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (a former state FA)). Other good FAs we have that are 'diminished' by several confusing articles are Indo-Greek Kingdom and all of our 'history of...' articles. Now, the articles which I think should be renamed are Congo Free State (Talk:Congo_Free_State#Rename) and Habsburg Spain (Talk:Habsburg_Spain#Rename), both which have a former state name but are in fact purely 'history of...' articles. A name change is not a valid enough subject for FARC, so as far as those two I am just letting you know about the need for their renaming, but unfortunately we have two other articles which are currently a confusing mix between a former state and history of articles, and that need not only to be renamed but rewritten to keep up with our current standards (both are old - one from 2004, other from brilliant prose days). Those two 'black sheep's are Old Swiss Confederacy (Talk:Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Rewrite.2C_move_or_de-FA) and Byzantine Empire (Talk:Byzantine Empire). If they are not rescued in the coming days, I'll put them on FARC for the above reasons. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the right place for this discussion is on the relevant talk pages and/or on WP:RM: in essence, you are suggesting page moves to more accurate titles, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at your first pair of examples (postwar Poland), and your distinction seems to me rather trivial.   People's Republic of Poland is largely a summary of the History of article, with the addition of a vestigial Politics and government section, a little piece on the history of the economy, and a bit on the changing geographical boundaries.   Surely economic history and geographical history are... history?   If you mean that an article on the Byzantine Empire should include coverage of its geography and economy, and how they changed over time, then I'm minded to agree with you, but I haven't looked at it to see whether it does.   Then again, as I recall, Congo Free State deals fairly extensively with the slave-based economy which was the reason for the state's existence, which leaves me again confused as to why you propose renaming it. Markyour words 12:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PPR article is rather poor, but compare PLC and IGE instead. There is a difference between country and history of that country, and just as there is a different between history of a country and it's economy, the same applies to the past. Economy of Byzantine Empire is not the same as History of Byzantine Empire. Example: Education in Poland is not the same as Education in the People's Republic of Poland, nor should the latter be merged with History of People's Republic of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History vs. former state confusion