User talk:Conrad Devonshire~enwiki/Better means of identifying when an article receives or loses featured status

Technical aspects?
While I agree with the changing on the talk template to include revision links, does anyone have any idea of the work involved in making the whole history page thing happen? Seems to me like a lot of work for something that would probably be quicker to find by just looking at the talk page. --james (lets talk) 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In essence, this would be an application of metadata tagging of revisions (a related problem is hiding vandalism from edit histories). This has been requested by Bug 4288, but the featured status indicator is an interesting application of the idea. &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I agree about the history page idea. Now that I think about it, that wouldn't be very useful and would be more trouble than it would be worth it.-- Conrad Devonshire  Talk  19:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What we already have...
I did a little bit of hacking to Template:Featured so you can add the version it was identified by doing. This edit shows me doing it. Raul knows that I added this but I think he doesn't feel it's worth the time to check for each article. You could do the same thing for former featured article by allowing the input of two old ids and a diff between them. Template talk:Featured also contains my discussion of this... if that helps any. gren グレン 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling in header
I've fixed the spelling in the header at the VP so that it will link to this article sub-page. --hydnjo talk 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Main page date
It seemed to me that some articles contain beneficial edits after being featured which is why the Template:Mainpage date was chosen to identify a baseline revision. --hydnjo talk 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But some have less beneficial edits. This is a good idea. Ashibaka tock 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Going forward" idea
This idea seems like something that we should start doing with articles featured after a certain date and defeatured articles that were featured after this date. Older featured articles didn't necessarily have very good standards anyway, so denoting their featured point isn't really that helpful. --Danaman5 18:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True, still it seems like a good idea and it will make Featured article review much easier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A new idea
Now that I think about it, it would be pretty helpful if this proposal were to be extended to all cleanup, POV, etc. templates.-- Conrad Devonshire  Talk  19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)