Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive6

message: There have been at least three relisted nominations of Featured Articles in the past few weeks are so.  I myself was almost guility of this when I was going to nominate the Fermi Paradox article, but then realized it was already featured.  Perhaps we should just start putting the  template on the front of the page rather than on the talk page?  Any other ideas?
:One other idea (which could be done as well as or instead of the first idea): Change the featured article instructions at the top of the wikipedia:featured article candidates page to say "Check that the article you want to nominate hasn't already been featured before nominating. You can check on Wikipedia:Featured articles or check on the article's talk page" (or something similar)? Jongarrettuk 21:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Metadata should not be on the main article page. The problem you cite is not big enough to override this general principle. Talk pages should really be read before nomination anyhow, to get a flavour for the history of the article. Pcb21| Pete 22:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: So why not advise them to do so as part of the 'how to nominate' bit at the top of the featured article candidate page? Jongarrettuk 22:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: What exactly is wrong with a tag on the article page saying it's featured?  There are tags to say articles need cleanup, merging, attention, expansion, etc etc, which go on the article page, do they not? Worldtraveller 21:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting Successfully Nominated Pages 

message: I'm adding a nomination, but it doesn't show until I force the page to purge. What's up with that? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with this page? 

message: In writing up a Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured albums proposal|Featured albums proposal, I have discovered that, as I thought I remembered, Smile was once nominated for featured status, but I can't find any record of it.  Am I missing something?  What are the extant objections? Tuf-Kat 23:55, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
:It is here.  Somewhat surprisingly, not much support or comment. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Smile?

message: I removed this prematurely, since it was obvious not all concerns could be addressed during the candidacy. Moved discussion to Talk:Grade (education). Perhaps put it on peer review to get additional comments. — David Remahl 18:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grade (education)]]

message: There are, and have in the recent past, been a number of scientific or other technical articles that have been FACs. I for one take the view that these articles are not suitable as featured articles unless they can be understood by a layman. And I have not been the only one taking that view.
However, I do acknowledge that there is merit in having technical articles suitable for those who have a reasonable understanding of the underlying subject matter. I am also conscious that one of the objections to Wikipedia is that it has no quality control on scientific articles. What about having a new category of articles called "featured technical articles" (or something similar) that covers high quality encyclopaedic articles suitable for the technician rather than the layman? jguk 22:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific and other technical articles

message: Does anyone understand why the article's HTML source has duplicated the value, toc, for the id attrib (on 2 different elements)?  This is obviously invalid.
-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 16:34, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
:It's from Template:Featuredtools, which (like too many templates) wrongly uses id="toc" when it should use class="toccolours".  I've fixed it now. - 19:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated attribute values on ID elements in *HTML* source 

message: I notice it is currently in vogue to make sure all article are properly referenced at the time of feature. Can I plug then Template:Book reference. By using this template to add your references, nearly all the work in getting references formatted in the APA style requested at Wikipedia:Cite sources is done for you (you still need to remember to write Author = Lastname, FirstName). If lots of articles use this template, we will have a great starting point for automated conversion as and when the "references"/metadata tab gets implemented (lots of support for this tab on the mailing list at the moment). Pcb21| Pete 22:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, which mailing list/thread? Fredrik | talk 22:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's buried in various threads in wikiEN-l, IIRC "Original research" is the most important thread - though there are subthreads off that started by RK. Pcb21| Pete 00:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for example,"References considered virtuous (was New policy proposal)" started by David Gerard.... basically there was a general feel of a sudden rush to references both on this page and EN-l. Pcb21| Pete 00:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Fredrik | talk 01:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rush for references

message: Please, could somebody fix the Domestic skunk/Pet skunk nomination? I noticed something had gone wrong with it this morning--look right at the bottom of the Christmas vote, and you'll see. I've been staring at the History and at the article itself, hoping to fix it, but I can't figure how. (It looks like the article has been moved several times.)--Bishonen (talk) 19:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's done- the problem was that the section is called pet skunk, while the article was linked to as domestic. Mark1 01:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Skunk snafu

message: I just added a comment to the "Rio de Janeiro" nomination, but it doesn't show on the main FAC page. However, when I click "edit" on the Rio section, it does. Any idea why this is and how I can fix it? Jeronimo 07:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just click the "refresh server cache" link at the top of the page and all will be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment doesn't show up?