Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles

message: Where does Provinces of Thailand go? It is a former featured article, and it was repromoted, but it was repromoted to a featured list. Does it belong in the repromoted section Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Its a bit of an anomoly, really.  The re-promoted section is for articles re-promoted back to Featured Articles.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repromotions 

message: I found (easily) 2 articles that had the  tag but are not in the nomination logs. There are probably more. TimL 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect.  See my note on your talk page.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake FA's 

message: Excuse my ignorance, but why are some of the former FAs listed bold, while others aren't? If there's a good reason, we should probably state it on the Project Page for the benefit of readers. --Alex S 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are probably the ones that appeared on the main page. Raul654 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The explination is (has been) at the bottom (the "Notes" section).  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:FA page has abandoned this practice—should we do the same? Punctured Bicycle 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feh.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The FA page still bolds articles that have appeared on the main page.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the bolding? 

message: Jesus, there are a lot of fallen articles here. Why is this even allowed to happen? It would be so easy to check out the date the articled were First pronouced featured, and revert back to then! Sure, a lot of edits would be lost, but it seems by far the lesser of two evils... There better be a strongly valid reason why we aren't doing this - Jak (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these articles were not removed because they got worse but because the standards for what shouydl count as a FA have gone up.  That said there are surly a number of articles that have become worse and fallen off.  I suspect that some of these are the results of contentious edit wars (disagreements are a good way to have an article trashed).  I do agree that there should be a wikiproject for fixing up former FAs I mean here is a list of articles that are at least close it.  Seems like a nice way to add 170 or so FAs with less effort. Dalf | Talk 02:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any place on Wikipedia that discusses the problem of articles losing quality and what long-term efforts might be used to combat it? I've seen that some articles, through small incremental changes, get worse over time even without vandalism. They take "random walks", if you will. It seems to me that it makes sense that featured articles should gain permanent protected status where only registered users can edits. And perhaps even for the best articles that are not time-sensitive, all changes must be debated and implemented only then by an administrator. I think the problem of article regression limits Wikipedia's long-term success under the current policies. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not revert? 

message: --Greasysteve13 08:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, when the FA project was started all of the articles in the older "brilliant prose" project were promoted to FA at once, so there are many first articles.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The oldest version of the "brilliant prose" (now FA) page: 11 December 2001. Some "brilliant prose" articles become FAs, some did not. The first FA on the main page was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 22, 2004. Gimmetrow 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the first featured article on wikipedia? 

message: I have been watching the FA count for a few weeks now and it seems that so far this year the demotions have keep pace with the promotions.  However the count of articled demoted here does not seem to be keeping up.  Is the (currently 331) number correct? Dalf | Talk 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the number (332 after English poetry) is correct - I track it (as well as the FA count) daily.  The demotions in January seem to be at the same pace as promotions because we had a backlog over the holidays, with a higher number of demotions falling into January.   Also, the FA number at Jan 1 was 1208, so promotions are growing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Article count 

message: List of new RBPs to be added to WP:FFA 
*Alexander the Great
*E. P. Wigner
*Homer
*Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
*Mortimer Adler
*Paul Erdős 
*Perseus
*Stephen King
(Marskell - can you add those above - former FFAs - to the correct cats on the list, or should I?)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marskell, maybe we should hold off on adding these until we understand Placebo's list below - if all of those are former FFAs, wow !  For example, Baseball is a current FA <confused> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allright, now that I've located Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose, it's much clearer - so we do have this many FFAs, and Baseball should currently be listed in former repromoted about to be demoted for the second time.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the list above.    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add RBPs

message: Otherwise needs to be sorted out
*There's something weird at Talk:Beer and Talk:Beer/Tags - may need manual attention? 
**The tags are on a sub page because there are so many, which breaks most of them - could be sorted out by the new template. Yomanganitalk 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort out

message: Now listed at GA - removed from FFA cat - not good:
*Euro  
*Super Mario 64  
:: Fixed in  by using currentstatus=FFA/GA Gimmetrow 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimmetrow, I noticed that the incorrect current status tag on Super Mario was added manually by RyanGerbil10 and Euro was added by Placebo, probably before you came up with the combo, FFA/GA.  If editors add incorrect tags manually before the bot does all the work, will the bot eventually correct them, or should I continue to check the count for mistakes?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, no, the bot isn't going to be scanning pages again unless they are re-submitted for FAC. Perhaps by then the bot will have code to fix human error. Gimmetrow 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - then maybe we should put an instruction line on the actual template, asking people not to manually insert it until the bot work is done, or something to that effect, and also explaining right on the template that the bot does all of the work of adding closed FAR/FAC etc. info?  Otherwise, individual editors might start tweaking and messing things up and adding the template themselves, before you're done?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA/FFA?

message: With these corrections, the counts at WP:FFA and :Category:Wikipedia former featured articles agree.
There are 330 articles in the category, which includes Wikipedia:Templates used for featured content, so 329 articles.
There are 343 articles in WP:FFA minus 12 repromoted minus two Project pages = 329.
  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category and list in sync - done

message: Strike means template added - from Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose
*Paramount Pictures
*The Today programme
*Three Colors: Blue (I did one - pls doublecheck)  SandyGeorgia (Talk)
*Bridge game - this was an RBP keep - how to find remove? SandyGeorgia (Talk)
**It was actually an RBP remove . Dr pda 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confused - some of the list above are current featured articles - are any of them former featured articles, or should I check each one?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I understand - we do have to eventually add all these RBPs, but will wait for ArticleHistory to be added.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny thing, the two category topics that aren't articles were already included in the FA count. The Placebo Effect 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the Project pages?  Someone told me once that they used to be included in FAs, were FARC's, and Project pages are no longer included in FAs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What do i do for the template if  the article was moved, just attach it anyway? The Placebo Effect 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say to attach it anyway, and trust me to track them down?  I wanted to make sure the list was in sync at some point, but from here on in, I won't worry as much.  Also, I can move the FAR/FAC if it gets too confusing, and I think I understand the template enough now to adjust them if I need to move them - I would only do that in cases where the name is so dramatically different that I can't do a crosscheck when we're done of the list and the category.  Let me know when you're done, so I can add them to WP:FFA and crosscheck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, The Today programme vs. Today programme isn't going to mess me up alphabetically on crosschecking; Business strategy to Strategic management or Bulldogging to Steer wrestling is another story, and those were adding up on me.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of waiting til they were all done, and doing a new sync.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 5 to FFA (Alchemy, Baseball, Paramount Pictures, Today programme, Three Colors: Blue); numbers in sync.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New RBPs to be added

message: Two out of sync, to track down:
*Talk:History of the United States - this was listed before as WP:FFA - may have another FARC somewhere.
**Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of the United States
***Found in FARC archives:  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to tell from the RBP page what exactly happened with each vote, since no result is given. Perhaps OMG was supposed to be removed, but got overlooked? In any event, it was listed on FA and only removed months later through FAR. Seems like a FFA. As for HotUS, the FA-review page simply notes that it was removed by DanKeshet, the same editor who had removed it back in 2003 in the link above. The FA review page was created in 2005 probably to help people track things. Unless this can be found listed on an FA page in 2004 or later, I think this is a delisted BP, not a formerFA. Gimmetrow 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking.  So, I'll remove History of the United States from the FFA list, as it was a RBP, and I'll update the template at OMG to reflect the later FARC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, you're fast, Gimmetrow !  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) While I was hunting things down you seem to have solved the problem. I think I've managed to untangle what happened to History of the US. It was removed from Brilliant Prose on 28 Aug 2003 , and added to the 'Recently removed' section on WP:FAC. However this removal comment didn't have a timestamp, so lingered on until March 2004, when the 'Removals' part of WP:FAC was moved to FARC . From there it found its way into the archives, and then in June 2005 the article was tagged with , and the FARC subpage created with the original (Aug 2003) removal rationale so that there wouldn't be a redlink in the template. For some reason it was voted on in Refreshing Brilliant Prose, despite not having been listed on BP for a few months prior to the vote (perhaps because it was in the Recent Removals section). It was only ever a BP, so shouldn't be on the list here, and arguably doesn't need the ArticleHistory template. --Dr pda 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dr pda - but, uh, oh - I continued adding articlehistory templates on the rest of the RBP list above, listing them as FFACs - sounds like we need not continue doing that?   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two problems

message: Is there a wikiproject or any sort of orginized effort around getting any of these re-promoted? Dalf | Talk 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might look at Marksell's WP:1FAPQ.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repromotions 

message: Anyone else bothered by the FFA image?  To me, what is important about FFAs is not that they are not FA class but that they once were.  The current crossed out FA seems to imply a substandard article rather than one which is simply no longer at current FA standards.  I tried to make a FA star in the hazy distance casting a shadow towards the present, but my SVG skills are really not up to snuff. --Myke Cuthbert 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFA image 

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: How should we handle this?  Do we need to clutter the FFA page with a link to the AFD, will that add clarity or future problems?  I'd like to hear from Gimmetrow as far as how the scripts work before adding anything.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought of a problem (but Gimmetrow is the one "in the know").  I'm pretty sure that by deleting the article talk page, we're going to have a problem with script tallies on the number of FFAs and so on.  Is it not possible on AFDs to leave the talk page, so that ArticleHistory is preserved?  To whom should I direct this question?  Need to hear from Gimmetrow on this, but I'd sure like to preserve the article talk page and articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored and fully protected the talk page in question. If it turns out that it would not affect the tallies, I will re-delete it. I believe there should be some note on this page, perhaps a footnote; people might assume it's vandalism and remove it as I did today. Marskell 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the entire talk page history need to be restored for the Featured article bot to work? If not, it may meet the AfD results to redelete the talk page and then create a new talk page with one post. If you want to get rid of the red link at Wikipedia:Former_featured_articles#Culture_and_society, make Nude celebrities on the Internet a redirect, perhaps to Depictions of nudity or Celebrity sex tape. Where is the discussion making Nude celebrities on the Internet an FA article? I really would like to read that. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jreferee, I should be able to dig that up, but it will take some time.  In the "olden days", articles moved directly from WP:FAC to WP:FA without interim FAC files, and we recreated those fake files to build articlehistory.  To find the info you want, I have to step through the old WP:FAC page literally diff by diff until I find it.  When I do, I'll link it in to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nude celebrities on the Internet.  On the other issues, Gimmetrow is really the one who knows what is needed for the scripts and bots.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the only thing I came up with: .  Back then, I think anyone could just add them.  Someone should ask Mav :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Making Nude celebrities on the Internet a redirect to celebrity sex tape could work.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not on board with the redirect idea, as that doesn't solve the articlehistory issue, and I'm not concerned about the red link in FFA.  But again, Gimmetrow is the person who knows the issues.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, you can just leave off the oldid line, since it goes nowhere anyway.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Jre, there was no discussion on it, I believe. Someone deemed it "Brilliant prose" in 2003, it was officially made FA in early 2004, and then demoted a few months later. The redirect won't work because people may link through from here and assume they're looking at a page that was once an FA. And while I can imagine someone searching "Nude celebrities", "Nude celebrities on the Internet" is unlikely. I will bury a note beside. Marskell 16:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including info from Sandy above, Mav posted a summary 'Do we really want to needlessly link to smut?'23:00, 24 February 2002. Two minutes later, in a 23:52, 24 February 2002 post to Wikipedia:Featured Articles, Mav wrote "Added Nude celebrities on the Internet; Don't laugh, it really is a well written and researched article." Lord Emsworth went around tagging talk pages with an FA note in February 2004 21:53, 15 February 2004, probably part of identifying FA articles via their talk page. So far, I'm not seeing an initial consensus. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean no consensus to first make it an FA? No, but in a sense that's true of many pre-'04 because it was often a one editor decision. The nomination system was, I think, introduced in the last quarter of '03. See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others, where the article ought to have been "refreshed" to make it an official FA; it appears it didn't have the votes, even then. Oh well. Marskell 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, end of the second quarter. "Beginning mid-June of 2003, a nomination process for Brilliant prose was implemented. Before this process existed, articles were added to Brilliant prose by individuals, and no system of debate, voting, or discussion took place" -- Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose. Marskell 16:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the work Gimmetrow and I did when we built articlehistories, Nude isn't unique in this sense (little consensus to retain as FA in RBP).  There was a lot of informality then; some of those articles have yet to come through FAR.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If we set that up, how would it affect the tally at the top (include or no?) and how does it relate for example to the WikiProject pages and Provinces of Thailand, which are still counted?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do whatever you want, it doesn't matter much. My script is off by two because of the project pages anyway. If this one is treated as an FFA but isn't linked, I think the script would be off by one then. Gimmetrow 20:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it sounds like I can pass the buck to Marskell and let him decide how where he wants it to display and whether to preserve the talk page  :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There ya go--can't argue with a guy who was here in '02. These detective stories are interesting but sort of a waste of time. I actually think we should leave it as it is with no separate section. (It seems very possible to me that that this will never happen again.) By having s separate section, just for one, it invites people to keep asking us about that one. The redlink may lead people to think vandalism, but I've left a little note saying that it's not. Similarly, I think we should leave the talk page restored--it'll save some other cohort of editors scratching their heads in five years. It does violate WP:CSD, but it's an exceptional case and IAR (that otherwise troublesome principle) is made for something like this. Marskell 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me; maybe somebody will create an actual article at that title some day. --mav 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mav, the article is already restored (so Marskell did the right thing in just leaving the link alone).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nude celebrities 

message: A pretty minor note, but some of the articles on this list seem to have their former featured status be rather dubious.  I'm not referring to brilliant prose promotions that survived the refreshing vote and were later demoted, but rather ones that seemingly did not, yet were not taken off the list for some reason.  A clerical error, if that's what it was, does not seem to merit granting something Featured status, even if it was later removed?  I'm not familiar with the history here, so it's entirely possible I'm missing something.
Specifically, both pub quiz and paradox (seemingly) lost their refreshing votes (1-2 and 1-4), but apparently weren't removed immediately for some reason.  Political correctness has a quite wonky history with one person re-promoting unilaterally, apparently, but that didn't go contested for a time, so eh.  I'm sure that there are probably others, too.  Is there a reason behind this, or perhaps should some of these be removed from this list? SnowFire 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul has been pretty clear on this; in spite of the chaotic history of the FA page prior to 2004, if an article legitimately appeared on WP:FA according to the procedure at the time (that is, anyone could promote, and excluding vandalism), it was a featured article.  Our histories reflect that.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles that may never have been featured to begin with. 

message: Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for your helpful and flattering characterization of my motives ("rvv").  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, RobertG; that was completely unintended, I don't know how I did that, but I didn't even see it until you pointed it out now (and it's still hard for me to see the two Vs together, that's my eyesight).  I have all kinds of issues with the touchpad on my new laptop, which I hate, but I can't say that's what caused the error, because I didn't realize I'd made it until now.  I will create a null edit to correct the record.  Also, I left Gimmetrow a note right after that edit, asking him if he could reconstruct what you wanted to do in a way that didn't affect the bot (footnotes in the list); I hope that's enough to convince you I didn't intend to call it vandalism, and my sincerest apologies.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely missed the note on my talk page. Is this resolved? Gimmetrow 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Resolve in the sense of ruffled feelings, yes, but I still don't know if the footnotes he introduced interfere with the bot functions.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bot gets links off the page. If the note doesn't include links to articles that shouldn't be on the page, I don't think it's a problem. Gimmetrow 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, I thought they were improvements 

message: I don't like the former featured article star having a cross. I want it to be broken in half. --Fangoriously (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  no likey 

message: Pastun people. Adding a note at the bottom about that YellowMonkey  (bananabucket) 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoted and demoted twice 

message: where can last featured versions be found? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the Article history milestones on the article talk page; a link is provided with the date.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. i wish those links were more obviously presented without a need to click on the box expansion link... 93.86.205.97 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to featured versions? 

message: Is there any list anywhere of FAs that have actually been deleted? FOARP (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are five items on this page that are notated as now being redirects. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see six (?) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - five "now a redirect", one just redirect". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we standardize and double-check that we got them all?  I don't know if I missed any during my periods of wikibreak, and I wonder if  has an automated means of making sure we have them all. I also used to make sure we flagged (at FAC, in red) any nominations that might be re-promoted at FAC, so that Coords could alter this page, but I've noticed that the current  no longer do that (eg, recent re-promotion of Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

text: PS, I left the “now a” off of Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 because it has yet to be merged and redirected, although we are quite a bit past the AFD.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I thought about starting one when spoo (food) was deleted, but undeleting the history under a redirect seemed better. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks guys Folks FOARP (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all guys in here :)  Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

text: So the answer to Sandy's question is yes, we should standardize annotations for these. Automating it makes the most sense to me if it's possible because of an order of operations problem: if an article is delisted because it's merged/deleted/redirected then we can mark it manually, but if that happens after delisting chances are coords will not be aware. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I have corrected all of the others below (Harold and Inge in progress still), but the situation at Metal Gear Solid and Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) is an unfortunate mess that may not be worth the time to fix.  I am, nonetheless, noting the problem and pinging here for educational purposes only.  The original FA was, in fact, at Metal Gear Solid, now redirected to Metal Gear, with the FFA at Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game), and now no record on article talk of Metal Gear Solid having ever been an FA. But the talk page of Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) is noted as an FFA.  The two redirects make for work in reconstructing the history. Metal Gear Solid was demoted in 2008. Cwmhiraeth (correctly) moved the article in 2019—no problem there. The problems happened with Steel1943's edits right after Cwmhiraeth's in 2019. Articlehistory is designed and intended to require no updates if an article moves; the links will not break and do not need to be changed.  If/when they are changed, this wreaks havoc in archives, of the type we have to then sort with  for his FA stats. (See the considerable work involved at User talk:SandyGeorgia/archFASorting. In this case, the links were also corrected in the FAC archives,  but this work should not have been necessary, and similar moves make a mess for Mike and me to sort.) This article was originally featured and then defeatured as "Metal Gear Solid", and leaving those links to accurately reflect what the article name was at the time is how articlehistory is intended to work. Instead, Steel1943 unnecessarily moved both the FAC and the FAR to the new name, and updated the article milestones (and archives) to reflect that (samples: here and here).  In effect, these moves make the history difficult to track. And Steel1943, having done this, missed the step to also change the name at WP:FFA.  Moral of the story: 1) educate others about how to use articlehistory to avoid the need for all this checking, 2) advise editors not familiar with articlehistory or FAC and FAR archives to consult someone who is before moving FACs or FARs, and e) the FFA article still exists (has not been deleted or merged away, just changed names), so we don't need to indicate it here as now a redirect. The article that was once an FA is still in existence, just after a move and two redirects.  Rather than undo all of those moves, I will change the article name at FFA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the list I turned up:
** Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering - merged due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering in 2016.  Didn't get a formal FAR, instead was delisted in this edit by User:Bencherlite.
*** Bogus; talk page article milestones do not show FAR, we need to create a procedural FAR to record in articlemilestones and check that it was removed from WP:FA, and note as now a redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  08:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

text:  So what appears to have happened is that aside from maybe the Meteorological history one, there wouldn't have been any reason for the coords to have known about the merges.  This'll just be something that needs checked every so often. Hog Farm  Talk 20:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unable to work on these corrections at the moment, as I am up to my eyeballs in a fringe-y popular controversy at PANDAS that is getting lots of attention; please let me know if no one else is able to get to this, and I will put it on my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

text: OK, caught up at PANDAS now, so I can work on this list tomorrow.  Also, since no one has merged the Doug Ring article, I will just redirect and let them sort it out later, so we can finish that one, too. And I’ll look at Metal Gear. Mañana.  Thanks for doing the hard work, HF !  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  09:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Just got a big history refresher on this page at #Consolidating category and list; did not realize that history with Gimme, DrPda, Aloan (WOW) and Raul was stored on this page.  Back to sleep I go, if the pooch is done with her business.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  09:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Ah ha! I see we had already discovered and footnoted the Harold and Inge discrepancy at WP:FAS; mystery solved. (I seem to recall DrKay finding this earlier.) So, that means if we want to go back and add that to 2016 archives, the FAS tables could be easily adjusted. My recommendation now is that we do add it to the August 2016 FAR archive, adjust all tallies, and correct the footnote at WP:FAS to indicate now fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks normal to me. DrKay (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the issue now ... there is no Review comments and FARC comments section headings, but the edit button is next to the actual article title.  D'oh.  Sorry :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Also  who also tracks WP:FAS and will want to know what the heck I'm doing :)  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: OK, first I am adjust the archives and FAS to account for Harold the Engineer (above).  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Update now to 14:  (And noting again here for posterity that  began source reviews at FAC the month after I promoted Anak Society.) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted FAs? 

message: Update: So, I have noted six more redirects, bringing us to a total of 12 (which includes the unfinished Doug Ring, but does not yet include the unfinished Harold and Inge Marcus). The Metal Gear situation is a different mess which I will separately explain next. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha! I see we had already discovered and footnoted the Harold and Inge discrepancy at WP:FAS; mystery solved. (I seem to recall DrKay finding this earlier.) So, that means if we want to go back and add that to 2016 archives, the FAS tables could be easily adjusted. My recommendation now is that we do add it to the August 2016 FAR archive, adjust all tallies, and correct the footnote at WP:FAS to indicate now fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks normal to me. DrKay (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the issue now ... there is no Review comments and FARC comments section headings, but the edit button is next to the actual article title.  D'oh.  Sorry :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Also  who also tracks WP:FAS and will want to know what the heck I'm doing :)  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Since ANAK Society may be headed for a delete (rather than redirect), does anyone object to changing the note to "Deleted or redirected" so that we have one standard note?  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: OK, first I am adjust the archives and FAS to account for Harold the Engineer (above).  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Update now to 14:  (And noting again here for posterity that  began source reviews at FAC the month after I promoted Anak Society.) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: Talk:Super Mario 64 has now been (re-)promoted for the third time.  I have completely forgotten if: a) that means we remove it from the top of the list and b) if we increment a counter.  It's now listed at both the top (delisted) and the bottom (repromoted), along with other articles that have been repromoted more than once. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Current FAs that were once FFAs are listed once in the re-promoted section. Current FFAs that were previously re-promoted are listed twice. There is one counter for all articles that have ever been demoted and one counter for articles that have ever been repromoted, so in this case no adjustment is necessary to the counters. DrKay (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, DrKay (not that I am likely to remember next time, but I'll know where to look for the answer now :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

text:  I don't know how it works, since this was my first involvement in the FA process. DrKay's logic makes sense though. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Mario 64