Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 6

message: It looks like a mess now with the two jumbled together, I think a split to Sport and Computer and Videogames would be best--Atirage 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport and Games section 

message: Please add :ka:ვიკიპედია:რჩეული სტატიები to the iw list. - user:Alsandro 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: I cannot find the answer to this question- If I nominate a GA for FA status and its nomination fails does the article keep its GA status? Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it does. Raul654 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Yes, although the issues on the FAC may be used to delist the article from WP:GA if sufficiently severe. Titoxd(?!?) 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank for your response, I apreciate it. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA question

message: On one movie article I'm editing, I have several reliable references to the web and DVD. There are also book references, but they were added by someone else. I know that specific phrases in the article can be referenced with the books, but past editors did not have the hindsight to use inline citations. I don't own the books and I'm not going to buy them solely for Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if not inline citing the books will be a problem for the article's GA and FA noms. However, I've also noticed that several featured film articles, such as Casablanca, have books in their references but do not inline cite some of them. Thanks. -Dark Kubrick 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: The Lord of the Rings , Middle-earth both these FA articles contain images and maps that are stored on Commons and are subject to copyright, these have been nominated for deletion. Should these articles be sent to FARC Gnangarra 09:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per FA criteria 4, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.  It would seem simpler to just remove the offending images.  Optionally a fair use justification might be possible for the images which would allow the images to stay on the English Wikipedia and in the article while still being removed from Commons. --Allen3 talk 10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Middle-Earth is already at FAR BTW and eagerly waiting for reviewers. Marskell 10:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy right 

message: Articles are ordered by first letter (see Special:Allpages).  The alphabetization in the list is inconsistent, either going by the technical convention I just noted, or by last name for bio articles.  Which shall it be, then?  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alphabetization is by first letter in all cases except for a person's name (which uses the last name instead of the first). Raul654 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetization 

message: I think it can be a little confusing that biographies of people are listed in their field of work. I think it would be easier if there was a special section called biographies in which all biographies of people could be put. There can be several examples of people who could qualify for more than one category - for exeample is J.R.R. Tolkien listed in Literature but he could easily have been put in Language and Linguistics.
:If someone is dynamic enough, yes, it's possible that (s)he can be put into more than one category - at which point, it becomes a judgement call. This is not usually an issue. However, creating one category that overlaps with all the others is not a good idea. Raul654 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies 

message: Shouldn't Gregorian chant be listed under the Music category rather than Religion and mysticism?  It's much more an article on music history than religion.  The comparable article on religion would be Roman Rite. Peirigill 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian chant 

message: I notice that Angkor Wat and Mosque are currently found under the Religion heading. Quite properly they might also be located under the Art, Architecture and Archaeology heading. Is there any reason they can't be located under both headings as they are equally applicable? 
Also, Isn't it time we separated Art, Architecture and archaeology into separate headings?--Mcginnly | Natter 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlapping categories

message: Separating video games from board games and keeping board games with sports makes little sense. The new category should be called Games and toys. FA Sudoku and former FA Lego were under Sports and games and neither fit under these new category names. Medvedenko 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see this working out is that Computing is split to Computer hardware and Computer software and videogames with the pokemon characters put into the media sectionAtirage 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video games and board games

message: --Greasysteve13 08:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Mozart was the first article featured on the main page. There was, in fact, no one first featured article - those articles that were designated Brilliant prose and survived the "Refreshing Brilliant prose" vote, which converted them into featured articles. See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose Raul654 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the first featured article on wikipedia?  

message: Does every FA get a little star at the top? I don't see one on the globular cluster page, so I wondered if it was only for articles when they show up on the front page? — RJH (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from what I gather, there was/is a debate on whether the star should be allowed because it's "self-reference". So maybe that's why not all FAs have them. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They all get them eventually, but they need to be manually added (since Raul654 doesn't do that when he's making the promotion). Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could it very quickly Kirill. But is there a consensus to do so? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's my impression.  While a number of people find them objectionable, I don't think there's been any serious attempt at removing them for some time; and they have been placed on the overwhelming majority of FAs at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the FA talk template is transcluded 1109 times (by the way, that means there are three FARCs that were removed from WP:FA but still retain their talk page banner...) and the Fa star is transcluded 1108 times... IMHO there is a problem there, prolly because people closing FAs don't remove stars and notices from pages... But I may be wrong... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pulled everything transcluded for  into Excel. After eliminating Wikipages, user pages, templates, and archives...I count exactly 1106, the current number of FAs. Marskell 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, AWB still returns 1109 to me when filtered to mainspace... Don't get it... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. I still perform these laborious, manual looks at things when various auto-assist programs would probably help me. Marskell 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are right, there are some archives that's true. Sorry about that :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work Graf. Given that occasionally newbies will simply add an article they like to the FA list, it's predictable that adding the star also occurs but is not noticed. Marskell 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold star 

message: Why does the been on main page script in my monobook not work anymore? Rlevse 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User_talk:Raul654#Template:FA.2FBeenOnMainPage Raul654 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed that link and pasted in the line of code indicated, but no dice. Isn't that all I should need to do? Paste in one line of code to my monobook file? — BrianSmithson 10:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes in your monobook.css file, not monobook.js. — TKD::Talk 10:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That got it. Thanks. — BrianSmithson 11:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Been on main page

message: The article "Cannabis rescheduling in the United States" doesn't exist. The article Cannabis rescheduling in the United States/Picture options does exist, but definitely doesn't warrant a bronze star.
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not allowed to play with the Featured articles.
:The article does exist and it is a FA. Joelito (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: In talking to various people over time, I've learned that the only people who really understand what goes into a Featured Article are people involved with the FAC process in some way, or are pretty serious Wikipedia editors and just inevitably are familiar with FAC even if they don't participate there. I think that most editors, if they even know FAC exists, believe that FAC is a pretty casual process where articles without any glaring POV are promoted, usually because people think the topic is cool or important and so on (witness all the hopeless nominations of articles along these lines). On the dreaded Wikipedia Review, I was amused to find that supposedly informed critics of Wikipedia seriously believed that Raul simply once a day picked a random article he liked, without any community input, and that's how an article made it to the main page.
What I'm getting at is that most readers and observers seem to think the FA selection process is a lot more random and undescriminating than it actually is. And this undervalues FAs, if so many people have the perception that they're just random non-stub articles. I think if people realized how much scrutiny goes into selecting an FA, how it truly is one of the most difficult (and possibly rewarding) tasks you can try on Wikipedia, that there'd be a lot more appreciation for them. 
I'm not sure what the solution is, exactly. Maybe modifying some existing pages about FAs, maybe including a link from the main page to something about how FAs are actually chosen would be a good way to dispel people's common misconceptions. But however we do it, I think that if people realized FAs are a lot more than just random articles Raul happens to enjoy, I think people'd have a lot more respect for the process and for Wikipedia in general. --W.marsh 13:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you regarding this issue; the importance of understanding how a FAC is promoted and the strict requirements it undergoes should be more widespread. Exactly how to do this, I'm not sure either: perhaps Wikipedia:Featured articles, linked to from the sidebar and Main Page, could contain a more descriptive description (talk about redundancy!)? Or perhaps Wikipedia:What is a featured article? could be more prominently linked? Not too sure... Flcelloguy (A note?) 13:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this might not go over too well, I was thinking one idea would be an essay along the lines of Wikipedia:Featured Article standards are high (probably written by someone with more experience than me) that clearly spells out how many hours of work go into the average successful FA, and so on. Link to that maybe for a week from the main page, and maybe include it in the FA template that is put on talk pages. --W.marsh 14:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd been musing over was Wikipedia:Non-experts writing Featured Articles. On Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles it's noted that "we may be able to get by without the writers and researchers being subject-matter experts themselves." If we are going to get anywhere close to a 100k feature-quality articles (which seems a ludicrous, if noble, objective) we absolutely must have non-experts working. This might not sit well given concerns over expert retention, but encouraging non-experts and encouraging experts to write are not mutually exclusive. We should do both. The purpose would be "yes, you can write an FA, but you must be very conscientious. Here are some pointers." The problem with "Featured Article standards are high" is that it sounds discouraging, rather than inclusive. Marskell 11:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Awareness

message: Has anyone noticed the bias in the articles that are chosen in the Literature and Media sections?  There are 6 featured articles that are directly related to Star Wars, and many others that are also related to Science Fiction.  Isn't this limiting the scope of the featured articles category?  Isn't it a little unsettling that 6 star wars articles made it in, and not one on William Shakespeare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkBirdDuke (talk • contribs) 
: Articles are written by people. For some reason, people prefer writing about SW rather than Shakespeare. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but the featured articles are chosen by some kind of committee of editors/administrators, right?  Who are these people, a bunch of scifi comic book nerds like you? MonkBirdDuke 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't insult other editors. Featured articles are chosen on content, not subject. The biases of those reviewing featured article candidates should not play a role. They cannot promote articles on Shakespeare if the articles are not of sufficient quality. If you wish to rectify this, you may begin improving an article of your choice to featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does everyone on here get their feelings hurt so easily?  MonkBirdDuke 13:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MBD, you have hit the nail on the head. My personal policy is to vote Support only if the article is related to Pokémon or Star Wars. I once considered voting Support on a Doctor Who article but ended up going Neutral instead. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this. When I actually took the time to read the Padmé Amidala article (after it had passed FA), I was quite pleased with its quality. Can't say that about Juliet Capulet you can't. — BrianSmithson 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your comment was directed at me, MBD, you needn't concern yourself with hurting my feelings, nor do I see that anyone else's feelings were hurt. I don't know what kind of experience you may have at other web sites, but I think you'll find that your arguments carry more weight here if you can make your point with logic, rather than insults. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just for information, I don't contribute to SW articles... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars/Science Fiction Bias in Media Section 

message: I understand that the FA category for Psychology is underpopulated (that topic area gets hit with too many speculative edits), but why are some of the FAs listed there not in Biology and medicine?  Asperger syndrome (AS), for example, is not a psychology topic:  it falls in the medical realms of neurology or psychiatry.  Psychologists may treat persons with AS, just as they treat persons without AS, for the effects of living with the condition.  The word psychology is mentioned once in the article, anecdotally in quotes.  How/where do we go about developing consensus for fixing this categorization?  Is this only an artefact on Featured Articles, or is this occurring elsewhere in Wiki?  I hate to bring up the inferior example of Good Articles, but they have correctly included Tourette syndrome (also a neurology or psychiatry medical topic) in Biology and medicine, rather than Psychology.  The situation is similar for AS; can we fix that here?  Sandy 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but would note that culture and society is something of a grab-bag. Marskell 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously, the fundamental problem with single placements is multiple classifications. I just followed the category trees for Schizophrenia up a few branches and "psychology" certainly seemed to be a legitimate placement here to me. However, I won't waste my time being bullied by those with more clout than I. Rfrisbietalk 23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The arguments seem to be somewhat circular.  Remove the heading because it has no articles. Remove the articles because they're really about something else. Don't list articles more than once because that would be too much work. Usability from the perspective of the reader seems to be what's on the short end of the stick here. Oh, well. Rfrisbietalk 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just correctly categorize them, it's simple. If it doesn't fall under a certain umbrella, don't put it there. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect categorization of Medicine articles 

message: I just added the following to Wiki space. The idea is a list to encourage regular FA writing. I had thought of listing the proposal somewhere, but then thought no harm in just adding it. Sigs on the list most welcome. Marskell 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter]] 

message: I like the mini FA star for those identified as such to know that one is reading the best of Wikipedia. I also suggest that for featured articles, in lieu of the regular navy blue hyperlinks, gold coloured hyperlinks to be added. This will create some interest for a reader to click and read WP's best articles as gold is the colour for the finest and is similar to the gold (or brownish gold) colour given to an FA star. But it should be automatic as manually tagging takes too much work. Someone can work on those lines. Idleguy 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be really really cool, but I don't think it'd work, the colours are built into Internet Explorer.Simondrake 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold links for FA 

message: Could some authority look at this music Wiki article to assess it for potential Feature Article endorsement? It concerns India's most prolific film composer. I think it is in solid shape: objective, concise, covers the necessary issues of the subject enyclopaedically, contains rigorous referencing consisting of credible sources that include academic journal article, theses and published books.
Would appreciate an FA administrator taking a look at this Wiki. Cheers. Splashprince 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get feedback by submitting the article to peer review. Sandy 15:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, thanks ;) Splashprince 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a potential candidate for Feature Article: [[Ilaiyaraaja]]

message: Maybe someone could add that one featured article a day is added - this is an essential, if obvious, part of featured articles.  I don't know how to put it there myself. -Slash-
:That's not actually the case; you're probably thinking of "Today's featured article". Kirill Lokshin 11:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small helpful addition

message: Do motorcycling or automotive articles come under this system, and if so, can someone say where? Seasalt 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport. Marskell 10:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanxSeasalt 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transport

message: Any suggestions on what to do with this?  Clearly neither of the subarticles are FA worthy (no citations to speak of, and poorly organized/formatted).  Any objections to just removing it from the list? --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main part of the featured article is now Oflag IV-C which is an exact copy of the entire material on this subject that was in the original article. If you consider it to be poorly organized/formatted, that didn't appear to be an objection when it was originally a "featured article"! - Syrenab 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was promoted over a year and a half ago, and wouldn't stand a chance at FAC today.  I guess WP:FAR is probably the best way to go. --Spangineerws (háblame) 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We're trying to deal with it now at WP:FAR - a mess.  Sandy (Talk) 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Colditz Castle]] 

message: I note that Apollo 8 is listed under "Physics and Astronomy" rather than under "Engineering" with the Saturn V article. Does anyone else agree that this is problematic? If it is, is there a procedure by which we can move it, or do we just do it? MLilburne 07:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest?  That both be astronomy, or both be engineering?  I think the rationale was that a rocket is not necessarily astronomy (but certainly engineering), while Apollo is definitely astronomy. --Spangineerws (háblame) 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Apollo as being engineering rather than astronomy. It may count as planetary science, but astronomy is generally seen as the study of stars and galaxies rather than moons and so on. MLilburne 16:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astronomy is much broader than that, and it definitely includes Planetary science, which includes the study of moons.  That said, what's wrong with multiple listings in cases like this? If that's a big deal, the article's classification gets to :Technology sooner than it gets to :Astronomy (I didn't actually find a classification going directly back to :Engineering). If you have to pick just one, go ahead and switch it. Rfrisbietalk 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in favor of opening the door to multiple listings; I envision that creating a "bookkeeping" mess.  Sandy (Talk) 17:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul has expressed strong disapproval of multiple listings in the past, and he's the guy that directly maintains this page.  Let's avoid that mess. --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if Raul doesn't like it, that's good enough for me! ;-) Rfrisbietalk 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much agree with everything Spangineer has said. I conceed it's a subjective thing - Saturn V strikes me as being a better fit in engineering whereas Apollo 8 is about a mission to space (which is closer to astronomy than engineering, IMO). On the other hand, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, except that I'm very strongly against having multiple listings because it creates the bookkeeping nightmare Sandy mentioned. Raul654 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the categories as well as some people, so thanks for explaining, everyone. I do see why it was put under "Astronomy". I just didn't think of looking for it there... perhaps it's just me. MLilburne 19:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable to me.  I'd wait a day or two and see if anyone else has an opinion, and then just make the change. --Spangineerws (háblame) 16:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of [[Apollo 8]] 

message: Where would articles on crime go?--Lucy-marie 10:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My first guess would be the Law section with History being a second possibility.  Depending on the nature of the crime other categories could also be appropriate.  It is also possible to create a new category if a large enough number of new crime related articles pass review at WP:FAC. --Allen3 talk 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Law. If we got enough crime related articles, I might consider changing the title of that section to Law and Law enformcent, or Law and Order, or something along those lines. Raul654 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: Why is Pepper in Food, while the three Saffron articles are in Biology and medicine?  Confused, Sandy (Talk) 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saffron, Pepper - consistency

message: I moved W. S. Gilbert from Music to Literature.  Gilbert was a playwright (some of his works were with collaborators who wrote music).  Shouldn't there be a separate heading for Theatre and Drama that would include everything from Opera to Ibsen that is performed on a stage?  -- Ssilvers 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature, Music, Drama/Theatre

message: I don't feel really comfortable with the fact that species such as Albatross and Albertosaurus are put under the same header as AIDS and Asperger Syndrome. Can't we put all species and biological events/theories/etc. under one header (including virusses and bacteria which can cause diseases and syndromes) and all medicine related articles under one header (this would include the syndromes and diseases, caused by these virusses and bacteria). For instance: HIV and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (it they would have FA status) would be in the biology category, while AIDS and tuberculosis would be in the medicine category. Sijo Ripa 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then, we have to figure out why the three Saffron articles are in there, while Pepper is in Food.  Sandy (Talk) 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. Personally I think pepper belongs to biology, and saffron to food. Because so much plants have been used by humans (food, medicinal, culture, religion, etc.) often in several ways at the same time, that it would be confusing to assign some to one category, and another similar plant to biology. In that perspective: Tea or saffron would be food, but Camellia sinensis and crocus (saffron) would be biology. Sijo Ripa 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biology and medicine in one category? +

message: I know that featured articles are voted for and that they must meet a certain criteria of professionalism, but how are featured articles chosen? What I mean is in what time period are they chosen in (example: a week, a month) and how many are chosen in said time period? Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.126.44 (talk • contribs) .
:See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.  Anyone can nominate an article, and then members of the community give feedback.  If major concerns are addressed quickly, an article could become a featured article within a week of nomination.  It might take several weeks or a month if it takes longer to address all the issues.  Recently there have been around 50 new featured articles promoted each month. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also be sure to read Wikipedia:What is a featured article? and ensure that the article meets the criteria before nominating an article. Joelito (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions 

message: Where did the star go?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.240.161 (talk • contribs) 
:Could you be a bit more specific with your question?--thunderboltz(Deepu) 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the star? 

message: I don't know if this has been said before, but why the featured article on the main page is not protected from vandals IPs? I mean, it's quite amusing that people here nominate article and put it to main page. Then people always vandalize it and other people revert back. Sometimes information is even lost. Then if the vandalism is very tough editing will be blocked. Why not to do this before putting it to mainpage? There shouldn't necessarily be even the tag but just don't let IPs edit the article on that day.
Why not? --Pudeo (Talk) 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. Joelito (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see this discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard, of what happened today to the San Francisco article. It was pretty bad: there are times when the  rules must be ignored.Sandy (Talk) 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That rule needs dropped. Vandals should be shown no mercy. We shouldn't have to put up with them at all. Anon editors should be banned in total. This article seems better and better. Rlevse 02:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have the AntiVandalBots... Though, rather waiting for the vandalism to happen and then revert it, it would sure be nice if new edits to articles (or at least a certain subset of vulnerable articles) could be run through some such filter as part of the process of saving the edit.  We also now have automatic edit summaries for "blanking page"s and "replacing pages with ...".  There must be a way that MediaWiki could incorporate a filter that detects such edit is probably vandalism, and not allow it to go live until it gets checked and approved by a more experienced editor. --Aude (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See the link I provided above. Rlevse 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block IPs from editing FA of the day 

message: The page on Tongo (Star Trek) has a little feature article star.
But it's....well, shit.
I sincerely doubt it's a featured article so how come it's got the star?
How do I remove it?Simondrake 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: by rm'ing the FA template. Check the edit I just did. I put a notice on the guys talk page too.Rlevse 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tongo (Star Trek) 

message: Just thought i'd point out that in the tan box at the top of the FA page, it says that one in 1290 articles are featured, but ehn calculated with the current #s it is actually 1 in every 1317. I do not know how to change this, but if somebody could. that would be great.
~ThePedro
* I disagree. The number is 1298.6 at 1:24 on 22 November 2006.
--Meno25 04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  little blurb at top 

message: This article, which I nominated, has just been promoted and I think it's in the wrong category. Lunney is an engineer and thus fits better into "Engineering and Technology" than into "Physics and Astronomy". Am I allowed to just move the article myself, or should I leave it to someone else to do? MLilburne 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose that is a better fit. Raul654 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will move it, then. MLilburne 08:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Glynn Lunney]] 

message: Given we are now well over the 1000 articles stage, all the categories are beginning to look somewhat crowded. Would it be a good idea to split them down into more specific categories? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting up 

message: Apologies if this has been discussed... With over 25 articles (and counting: WikiProject Tropical cyclones just rocks), there are more hurricane articles alone than the total articles in some entire categories combined.  A Tropical Cyclone category would be a bit more specific than the norm, but with the quality and quantity of the articles involved, it would be entirely appropriate.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section still isn't bigger than the largest ones, like History, Media, and War.  Maybe split it once hurricanes dominate the page, not just their category. --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seperating Meteorology from Geology and geophysics might be more logical. Instead of just hurricanes, its all weather topics. Medvedenko 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Spangineer: working on it.  Titoxd(?!?) 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate category for hurricane articles? 

message: Hi,
for people who are using classic skin, there is no hint that an article is a featured one, because the little star in the right upper edge is not visible. Is ist possible to fix that? --Nina 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It originally was that way, but there were some issues with some browsers using the Classic skin. I'm not sure what happened from there... you're probably more likely to get someone to fix it on the Village Pump. Titoxd(?!?) 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I'll try it there. --Nina 10:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles not visible in classic skin 

message: I think Charles Atangana should be moved from the "History" section to "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry". Either that or "Politics and government". Either would be less generic than "History", I think. Any comments or objections? — BrianSmithson 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Politics section would not work because thats really reserved for current government, the government Atangana worked for has since been replaced. I haven't read the entire article yet so I can't be sure about Royalty but it seems History is the best section. Medvedenko 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. He was royal, he was nobility, his daughter succeeded him. Why doesn't be belong under "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry"?. — BrianSmithson 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the "nonsense" comment. As for "Politics and government" being reserved for current governments, his daughter did succeed him after an interregnum. — BrianSmithson 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and moved him to "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry". There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason not to. -- BrianSmithson 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Atangana 

message: We claim that there are 1183 featured articles out of (at moment) 1514222 articles. This means that ratio is 1/1280, but 1/1270 is claimed on the project page. The calculation is done using , so I am quite amazed that this wrong result comes out. --gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 09:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Rounddown thing—1514222/1183 = 1279.98, which gets rounded down to 1270. --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong ratio

message: How is the main page picture selected from within the featured article?  I'm a contributer of an upcoming FA, and I'd like to ensure that the picture on the main page inspires readers to read the whole article.  Is there a way to tag the desired picture?  Appraiser 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Sandy (Talk) 02:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article picture

message: The vexed issue of date-links occasionally takes up space in the FAC room. I'm trying to gather support for an attempt to have the developers create a parallel syntax that allows dates to be autoformatted without being linked, while retaining the current system. We hope that this will have a number of benefits for the project, including a reduction in conflict. 
The discussion, draft request text, and list of supporters are here. Tony 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They won't even know about it until you poke them at Bugzilla. Titoxd(?!?) 08:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course not. The poke is going to happen within a few days. Tony 08:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  autoformatting and date-links 

message: Some/many? featured articles seem to be vandalism magnets.  See 'Iranian peoples' for example.  Instead of wasting all kinds of time with vandalism reverts, would it be better to give featured articles semi-protected status for, say a week, starting when they are featured and before the vandalism starts.  And do this automatically, given the history of such time-wasting vandalism--not spending effort or which articles should be so protected, just do all of them.  Featured articles deserve no less. Hmains 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protecting featured articles  

message: Is there somewhere within this project which lists the newest additions of featured articles by name as they are added by month? I want to accumulate a specific topic of FA articles for a project's newsletter. Also is there a similar statistics list for Good Articles as well? --Nehrams2020 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log.  Sandy (Talk) 04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA statistics

message: If Areas of mathematics improved sufficiently, would it be eligible for Featured Article status, or would it be better suited for Featured List status? Tompw (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a list to me, but it reminds me of the problems on the FAC for Macedonia (terminology) - it started out as mostly a list with some prose, but through the FAC process, grew to prose with some lists. You might want to confer with  or .  Sandy (Talk) 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List or Article? 

message: Does it seem that when an article gets featured, its gets vandalized more and more?--ParalysedBeaver 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. As there are fewer good-faith edits (because fewer edits are needed), the signal to noise ratio goes up, but the raw number of vandalistic edits keeps approximately constant. At least, that is what I have seen from my experience. That is, of course, if it isn't on the Main Page. Titoxd(?!?) 07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 90% of edits are vandalism or reverts. I went on the talk page of todays FA and saw the worst picture I've ever seen in my life O.o .It was very disturbing...FA's should be semi-protected or something to stop stuff like this. M3tal H3ad 10:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The featured article of the day recieves a huge spike in vandalism (as does pretty much other article linked from the main page). It's not a very useful data point for answering the general question. In my experience an article being featured has not increased the level of vandalism that greatly. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall to wiki, yes, but the percent of MP edits that are vandals is RIDICULOUS and wiki is WAY BEYOND the point of needing to do something about it. Poor quality control is what led cofounder Larry Sanger to leave and start Digital Universe and then Citizendium. Wiki better wake up and get its head....Rlevse 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rlevse, you might want to check in on Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection where this topic is being discussed. (Disclaimer: I agree.) –Outriggr § 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- this newly created project is adding a big "constellation of stars" graphic on the main article space page of many FAs in contravention of the "no metadata on main article space" rule. please comment at the TFD discussion. 195.114.94.194 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Featured topic }} 

message: I am very impressed at the rate at which articles are becoming features in the last two months. Keep up the great work. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But hang on, there are two variables here: number of promotions and quality of promoted articles. Let's not make the mistake of equating mere promotion numbers with increases in the quality of WP. Tony 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New feattures

message: Any chance of moving Brabham (a Formula One racing team) from 'Engineering and Technology' to 'Sports and Games'. While there is a fair chunk of tech-y stuff in the article, I suggest that the majority of visitors will be looking for it in the sporting context, not the engineering one. Cheers. 4u1e 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and executed. –Outriggr § 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta. Bit late, I know :D 4u1e 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brabham 

message: This article has a tag indicating it is a former featured article. The tag was placed on the talk page June 29, 2005, but a search of FAC, FARC and featured articles does not show it even being nominated, much less ever being made a Feature. Could somebody please show me where it was ever listed? Otherwise I will delete the tag. Thanks. Jeffpw 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed at WP:FFA - several possibilities - it could have been a brilliant prose promotion, and the article could have been moved.  I continually notice people moving articles without regard to fixing the talk page templates.  I'll see if I can find it in the FARC archives. I don't know where to find the brilliant prose archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find it in the FARC archives; there's no Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Same-sex marriage (now there is, I created it as a redirect) or Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Same sex marriage or Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Same Sex Marriage; as of Feb 2005 it wasn't listed as an FA ; I can't find an indication in the article history of it carrying the star; June 29, 2005 talk page template added by  who left Wikipedia, but was a serious editor, involved with GA and FA.  The day that he listed it, he listed quite a few, so it looks like he was playing catch up on the archives - I'll check farther back.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I saw, too, Sandy (minus the bit about WorldTraveler being a serious editor). It's strange. Jeffpw 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much, Sandy! That was driving me nuts! Jeffpw 15:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still a problem, though - it's not clear from the dialogue on the FARC, or the FA history, that it ever was an FA.  Maybe someone who's been around longer than I have can help out here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Resolved - found its removal from FA - will try to fix talk page template now.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow--how odd they didn't get around to tagging it as FFA for 6 months after it was demoted. No wonder it was so hard for me to find. Never thought about searching so far back from its tagging date. Jeffpw 15:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so odd - those kinds of jobs depend on a volunteer to pick them up - for example, I noticed the failedfac tags weren't being done, and I started doing it, and had to play catch up.  The key here was knowing that worldtraveller was a serious editor, which made it worth searching for :-)  I could use some help on keeping up with FA talk page templates, in case you're interested :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Same-sex marriage]]

message: I don't know if it's just me but I find the layout of the Good article page far more user friendly. Maybe this page should have same layout.Buc 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no - hate it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  The GA page is an utter nightmare, from a usability standpoint; among other things, it's impossible to use a browser's search function on it, since everything is collapsed by default. Kirill Lokshin 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, if anything, GA should be redone to agree with this page's layout.  Just today, an article came up at WP:FAC, claiming GA status, and it's a nightmare to verify - often, they aren't - someone just stuck the GA template on, which is easy to do, but hard to track down because that process is so convoluted, and you can't just search the page.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout like Good article page 

message: Call all FA writers interested in LGBT issues! The LGBT studies WikiProject has a high number of copyeditors and Wikifaeries, but we're quite short of FA writers. If anyone out there is interested in raising some LGBT articles, you are heartily invited to join the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Homosexuality article would be a good place to start. While not as bad as it previously was (when I labeled it "Unquestionably one of (if not *the*) worst articles on Wikipedia"), it's still fairly bad. Raul654 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, that article needs major work.Rlevse 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation 

message: DNA is in Chemistry, but DNA repair is in Biology and medicine.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA/DNA repair

message: I thought that we used to semi-protect anything that shows up on main page? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blurb is protected. The article is not. Raul654 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) I don't know if they once did, but see the disputed policy Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection that currently half-prevents it, and its talk page for arguments for or against it. –Outriggr § 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-life 2 

message: I propose we change the default featured color from the current orange(), to the blue now used in most top level pages. E.g. this demo diff.
Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Color. Thanks :) —Quiddity 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured color - orange to blue? 

message: I've sometimes seen the complaint that FAs are often about very obscure subjects, while many more important articles are badly-written. I think I've found at least one cause of this: Talk:Long Island Rail Road#Big article. Whenever any article gets too good, it gets split up. --NE2 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because all articles must observe Wikipedia:Summary style; we don't want articles that go into extreme depth on every obscure point on the subject. We're an encyclopedia, not a library. However, subarticles should augment, not supersede, the primary article. By far the best example of summary style I can provide is Hurricane Katrina and its subarticles, which all together are possibly the most impressive work in all of Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen 14:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Katrina set is indeed impressive. Also keep in mind that wiki runs on volunteer editors and hence they are free to write about what interests them, so what you think is obscure may not be obscure to me, ie, to me History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), my first FA, is fascinating but most won't think so. One of the goals of our Scouting WikiProject (or any wikiproject for that matter) is to improve topic organization and improve articles. The Scouting articles are much better then they were 13 months ago, before the project existed, but not where we want them to be yet. IMHO the best WikiProject is WP:MILHIST.Rlevse 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAs about obscure subjects

message: Even if it seems minor, I think its peculiar to not have any plants among the featured articles.  Theres gottta be a plant type which demands high encyclopedic recognition.  I couldn't even find one in the 'good' articles. Mmcknight4 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's Banksia brownii and Banksia integrifolia - but I don't blame you for missing them. Three or more years of featured article process, and only ~110 on biology and medicine combined: kind of a big, underrepresented subject area. :^ –Outriggr § 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles

message: I was scanning down through the sections, and when I got to the "Culture and society" section, the name David Helvarg leaped out at me. Granted, that section is something of a catch-all, but there's got to be a better place for David Helvarg. He's primarily known as a journalist, so the ideal place would be the "Journalism" section -- but, ooops, there is no such section, because... well, there's only ONE other FA article about journalism. How on earth can it be that there is such a paucity of excellent articles about journalism & journalists??? This is amazing. Just Helvarg and one newspaper (the Philadelphia Inquirer) made the cut -- but not a single war correspondent (unless you count Helvarg's short stint in Central America).  
Okay, so the next option I looked at for David Helvarg was the "Media" section. But after a careful look at all of those many articles, it became clear that the section is mis-named. With two exceptions (the aforementioned Philadelphia Inquirer, and Triumph of the Will), every single article is about entertainment. In common parlance, "media" is generally understood to include the news media, not merely entertainment media. 
So I hereby propose that the "Media" section be renamed "Entertainment" or possibly "Entertainment Media". (The two exceptions can be moved elsewhere.) Meanwhile, if anybody has a suggestion re David Helvarg (or journalism articles, for that matter), please run it up the flagpole. 
Cgingold 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: George Washington Dixon is a featured article on a journalist, but his career spanned so many areas, it's easy to miss. There may be others hiding in there. — BrianSmithson 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Helvarg, Journalism & Media 

message: I found the GA list of articles and the FA list of articles but I cannot find the A-class list which is supposed to be in the middle. Can someone point out the list and the candidates page, please? 650l2520 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A-Class ratings are assigned by individual WikiProjects at their own discretion, so there's no centralized list or nomination process. Kirill Lokshin 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A-class list