Template talk:Featured article

Interwiki link (again)
Please add id:Templat:Featured article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Surya Permana (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Link icon to version of article that was proposed
I saw strategy:Proposal:Flag Featured article diffs, and i thought it was a good idea. Basically, instead of linking to Featured articles, make the icon be a perma-link to the revision that was promoted to featured status. This could be done incrementally (new parameter rev which takes the revision id of the version that was featured, and default to current behaviour if no revision defined), or with aid of bot. Thoughts? Bawolff (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh looks like someone already brought the idea up (saw it in archives). Sorry for double posting it. please ignore. Bawolff (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Please fix This template uses the deprecated File:LinkFA-star.png, instead of File:Cscr-featured.svg. Please change this. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do note that png thumbnails from SVGs are rather unoptimized. Usually separate maually compressed and edited thumbnails at this size are a much better idea. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Subclassing to top icon
Currently this template uses a hack-coded styling, but there's a readily-available top icon meta-template which could be used instead to simplify and standardise the code. I've dropped an update into the new sandbox demonstrating this. If there are no objections I'll sync it with the live code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-add category code
This edit apparently removed the categorization code from this template. The edit needs to be fixed or reverted. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ucucha 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from jcgoble3, 8 September 2011
This template uses, while Good article uses. Shouldn't these be reversed (i.e. put  on this one and   on Good article)? I don't know enough about this template to know whether there's anything in the CSS/JS pages in the MediaWiki: namespace that would need to be changed to match. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Swapping those would make some intuitive sense, I suppose. There are no places in the MediaWiki namespace that I can find that use these IDs, but many userscripts reference #featured-star (search). I doubt, though, that many of those CSS/JS pages are really intentionally referring to the good and not the featured icon. The only user CSS/JS page mentioning "good-star" that would be affected by the swap is User:Taylormoney94/vector.css. Ucucha (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further investigation reveals that this template emitted featured-star until ; the change to good-star was presumably accidental, so I've swapped it back. Thumperward also changed the ID for the GA icon, so I swapped that one back too. Ucucha (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2013
Please replace this template with the sandbox version to allow the date and an offset (for use if multiple awards have been won like GA & FA or (multiple) TFA)  Results can be seen on the testcases page Technical 13 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This shouldn't be necessary. An article may be GA, FA or neither - it can't be both. Nor can an article be doubly-GA or doubly-FA. Multiple TFA is rare, but not unknown: there have been two cases, both of which were exceptional - Barack Obama and Transit of Venus. But articles that have been TFA don't get a topicon in addition to the normal FA star. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you figure it can't be both? Steamtown, U.S.A. is both  and .  There are MANY articles that were GAs before they were FAs, and just because they have been featured does not mean they are no longer good.  Technical 13 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the majority of FAs were GAs before being promoted to FA (many editors see GA as a step on the road to FA): but please see WP:WIAGA "a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article". -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

On only current featured, or past and present?
Just a simple question, but do you place it on only articles presently being featured, or ones that have been previously featured? 74.248.55.19 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The template may be placed on any article that has passed a WP:FAC and which has not subsequently failed a WP:FARC. Whether the article is, or has ever been, WP:TFA, is immaterial. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
use this other star. it is shinier

File:Cscr-featured1.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetra quark (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Template placement
The current instructions state that the template should be placed at the bottom of the article, apparently in part because of this bug, which seems to have been fixed. The Good article template is placed at the top of articles, which to me is in line with MOS:ORDER (I'd make it item 2.5 on the list), and it certainly makes the template easier to find. Who's with me in making this change?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, since the template's message appears at the top of an article, it seems to me to make sense that the template should be there, too.—DocWatson42 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I think that all topicons and templates that related to the whole article should be placed on top, where they are easiest to find. I am referring among others to this template, and Use dmy dates and Use British English etc. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, those latter two types—date format and dialect—are already supposed to be placed at the top, though Coord currently goes at the bottom.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was instrumental in that. They can still sometimes be found somewhere at the bottom though. I agree with you that Coord should likewise be on top (or in an infobox). Debresser (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2018
Change to so the star will appear only in article and talk namespaces. This would have been useful to combat template vandalism, such as this. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , is there a reason you're throwing two sets of documentation in there? Primefac (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, having parsed this out, I'm not sure it will have the intended consequence. If the template is placed on a template which then gets transcluded in an article, the mainspace will be "Main", and thus nullify the intended reason for the code. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes you may be right. do you think the following code would work?


 * which would render as     . L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because when transcluded in the article space, it wouldn't show that message, meaning you'd have to be someone *other* than the person who added it to the template to see and/or care about it. You also sill haven't answered my query re: two documentation calls. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For the Documentation, I had fixed this but I gut an EC with you and I forgot to re-add my modification. I guess you're right about that the star will still show up on articles, but at least someone will be able to track down the problem faster, like in this case. L293D (☎ • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how adding a big warning message would lead to people seeing the vandalism faster, since it would only appear on non-articles uses... I think what you're probably wanting is for it to populate a category if it's not used properly; just add a simple pagecheck to flag if it's used in the Template namespace. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure by what you mean by "add a simple pagecheck to flag if it's used in the Template namespace". Is there some way to get a notification when the template gets used in the template namespace? Otherwise, I could just create a category and check it from time to time. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 01:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, #ifeq {{NAMESPACENUMBER}} = 10, chuck it in a cat. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What would your code do? It's a bit confusing. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Translation of the above - if transclusion is in template namespace, put it into a maintenance cat. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We also have a Main other metatemplate that might be used here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True. I guess I'm thinking that the 400 or so uses in the non-article-space (mostly userpages) are somewhat reasonable. Of course, if this template should only, ever, absolutely be used in the article space, then I'm all for it. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess Ill just make it populate a cat. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I'm deactivating this for now until we can figure out if it should be placed in a cat any time it's not being used in the article space, or only if it's being used in the Template space. Also, whether it should even be used outside of main. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment. Sdkb (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 April 2024
Change:

To:

This removes a random asterisk in the link and allow you to go directly to WP:Featured Articles. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The asterisk is for a statistical redirect, added by Elli last month, for tracking purposes. SWinxy (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Think this data collection is still useful so suggest withdrawing (or someone else declining) this edit request. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 02:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

question
This might be dumb but why does it link to Featured articles* and not Featured articles? 48JCL ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's so we can see how many people click the link from the template, as opposed to ending up on that page some other way. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * thats smart 48JCL  ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)