Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 2

Appearance overhaul
While we're overhauling this page, let's spruce up its appearance. This is supposed to be a portal to the finest articles in the Wikipedia, yet it's very ugly to read. Some ideas:

Wikipedia's article on Abberinth was written over the course of two years by over fifteen contributors, including Roger Daubach, professor of Abberinthology at the University of Australia, and also including six anonymous contributors.


 * 1) include brilliant pictures here when the pictures are in an article that's listed here.
 * 2) Some special div boxes (see the example to the right) highlighting particularly brilliant articles, with some anecdotes about the authors and the number of edits.
 * 3) Tables like on the front page?

DanKeshet

That sounds like a great idea to me. 168... 23:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I've implemented a couple real examples at Brilliant prose/temp, but I'd love to see my idea get hijacked by people who actually have talent. :) DanKeshet


 * I think this is a good idea. Perhaps we could limit the top-level headings (and possibly a few more) to the same ones listed on the Main Page and then use subheadings for more specific topics.  I think that would make the page more organized and as a result easier on the eyes. --Minesweeper 15:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Articles to be added
I've discussed the article Geyser with User:Eloquence on his talk page, and he has withdrawn his objection. The article needs to be added to the Philosophy, Mathematics, and Natural Science section

Redesign
Now that the voting on which articles to keep is done, could I redirect people to brilliant prose/temp? If there aren't further discussions at wikipedia talk:brilliant prose/temp, I will slowly start integrating the ideas that page features into the real page. DanKeshet 18:32, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's basically a face life of this page to make it look more like the main page. I don't like the idea for several reasons. First, it's too gaudy. Second, it isn't scalable. What happens when the number of BP articles doubles? Or triples? Third, (just like the main page) editing it becomes hard when you have all that extra HTML stuff to deal with. I can't say I like the idea much at all. &rarr;Raul654 19:04, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Answer at Wikipedia talk:brilliant prose/temp.  DanKeshet

Protection
Now that this page has been moved, it needs to be edited. Could somebody unlock it so that we can come up with some better introductory text? DanKeshet
 * I've temporarily unprotected it. &rarr;Raul654 19:32, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * This page has now been reprotected. &rarr;Raul654 06:20, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for permanent protection - Brilliant prose. I had to revert someone today who added an article that had not been voted, and I'm sure I am not the first. Obviously, he had not read the instructions at the top of the page. That not withstanding, now that it's linked to from the main page, it's only natural that it's going to happen more often. I see no reason why this should be the case. I suggest protecting it. Sysops can add the newly voted ones. &rarr;Raul654 05:35, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC) (also, just so no one is surprised, there's a name change/page move brewing for the BP).
 * I very strongly agree. We need to divert people to the candidates page first. --mav 05:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
 * I've gone ahead and protected it. &rarr;Raul654 19:40, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily unprotected so it can be edited following move to Featured articles &rarr;Raul654 19:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Following major reformatting, I have reprotected the page. Barring unforseen circumstances, I expect this to remain indefinitely. &rarr;Raul654 06:18, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why vandalism to that page is so vitally critical that it requires permanent protection. To give people advice, try using a combination of HTML comments and explanations, rather than page protection. Martin 20:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism that we're worried about, it's simple ignorance. People write an article, and they like it so much, they post it to the Featured Articles. They don't read the top of the page (which says not to post before going through the voting process). By protecting it, we're preventing this. It's happened before, and if you unprotect it, it'll happen again (more often now, too). &rarr;Raul654 21:15, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * The protection policy doesn't allow for page protection simply for reasons of sysop convenience. You've barely tried to make the note at the top of the page clear and explicit - if you'd tried that and still been bothered, I might be more sympathetic. Martin 18:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page should be unprotected ASAP and left unprotected. There is no reason for it to have a permanent protection. I'd go right ahead and unprotect it right now, but I appreciate due process. Kingturtle 03:41, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the changes Martin made - now it's downright hard for someone to add something here without being told to go through the nomination process. Let's leave it as it is, and see how successful it is. &rarr;Raul654 06:49, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

distinguishing these articles further
What do you all think about this idea....that we place at the bottom (or at the top) of each featured article a notice that says something like This article is a Wikipedia featured article. Kingturtle 19:33, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. I agree with you, but the consensus was to place it on the talk page instead. Tuf-Kat 04:48, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * But with the name change, you might get better support. I didn't like putting This article is Brilliant prose  on a page cause it seemed like a POV opinion, and like bragging.  However, an article being a featured article is a factual, verifiable piece of information.  Not really ready to support it yet, but I'm not opposed either. Gentgeen 07:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: I'm new here and I'm tring to understand this system. Ok. Can we talk about this item? Can we keep together our different versions here? Then we can talk more about this topic, and if you wish so, I can tell you more about my sources and my studies. And you too of course (about yours). Thank you so much.

Newbies without logins who come in and delete entire articles and replace them with their own work with no comments as to why are looked up with suspicion. If you have problems with the current article, please let us know what they are, and modify the article as you think it should be. But don't just replace the entire thing without any explanation. RickK 23:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's Ok! Now I've understood the procedure. I beg your pardon again. I'm not a vandal, of course. If you prefer the top of the page, for me it's not so important. I'd like to talk on what we are not agree about. This is my e-mail: conte@queendido.org. You're welcome, thank you.

Thank you
Just a thank you from me for putting History of the Netherlands on this page, just when I started to worry about none of the pages I created or substantially edited being on it. It was my first major page, if I recall correctly, back in March (maybe April) 2001. Andre Engels 13:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A new name, what about a new face??
I liked Dan´s idea of a new design, and i like his experiment in Brilliant prose/temp. What about implementing it?? Muriel 14:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That design obviously looks quite a lot like the main page. Worth bearing in mind then that there is a revived movement afoot to redesign the main page - may be the redesigned featured articles should like the redesigned main page? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it is a bad idea to have a page mimic the main page so closely. It can be confusing to the eye. As for the name, it was changed three weeks ago from Brillant Prose. I liked the old name better, but this name (Featured Articles) will do. I'd rather not keep changing the name. Kingturtle 17:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * When the new Main page is installed (see Main Page/Test) the similarity issue with the Main page will be not be an issue. Bevo 15:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dont like the name either (missed the votation) but it shouldnt change now, of course. I was only suggesting the appearence change. Maybe you are right because it looks too close with MP, but i like the organized style. Muriel 14:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject prototypes
Would anybody be interested in the various WikiProjects choosing something to be their representative article? The one that includes everything an ideal article should, and is written well, etc. Perhaps to be a running list at Wikipedia:Featured articles (i.e. every WikiProject that has reached such a stage has the article listed at the top, with more added as the newer projects develop). Tuf-Kat 07:00, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * One possible place to put such a "standard bearer" article would be on WikiProject - the article could go in brackets after the project listing. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I add an example to that page to show what I had in mind. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This is assuming all Wikiprojects will get advanced enough to have at least one article worthy of Featured Article status. Is that a reasonable assumption?  Also, what if an article is already Featured, and then gets swept into a Wikiproject?  For example, Hubble Space Telescope is featured, and may will soon be redone by WikiProject Telescopes.  I do like the concept of having a "standard bearer," although it could be redundant if we are making a template on the Wikiproject page.  --zandperl 23:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Many projects won't have one, probably (like WikiProject Music standards), but that's alright. I would rather see a section of this page (rather than what's happening at WikiProject that says something like Look at all the areas that we are working on!


 * Telescopes - Hubble Space Telescope
 * Cetaceans - Sperm Whale
 * IMO, these should be added to Featured Articles as normal, but then placed in a special section. Tuf-Kat 17:52, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea! If the Wikiprojects are not advanced enough, now this is a good motivation to do so. I like the Look at all the areas that we are working on! idea, but something more like Ongoing projects. Muriel 14:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cross-listing
Should articles from the "Technology" section such as Hubble Space Telescope, nuclear weapon, and spacecraft propulsion be cross-listed under "Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics"? --zandperl 17:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism
I removed this article after there was a clear lack of concensus to keep it. It has now been reinstated. I clearly object. What is the prescice policy on removing articles from the featured articles list? At the moment it seems an admin can make it arbitrarilly. Sam Spade 03:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no precise policy. I'd suggest Featured policy as a place to the policies so they are spelled out and consistent accross both FP and FA. Gentgeen 17:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Combining candidates poll
A poll at Featured article candidates seeks to determine if the two featured candidates pages should be merged. Please go vote. Gentgeen 17:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Confused about process
According to the process at Featured article candidates, an articles are nominated, and then if approved, they are moved to the section Featured article candidates. I see that there is an article: bioinformatics, which is listed as being recently added, but is not on the actual list of articles, there is also an article, DNA that is Featured article candidates, that hasn't been removed from here. Is this simply an oversight, or am I confused about the process? --Lexor|Talk 08:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding DNA, I think it was still under the Nomination category because it hadn't enough time yet. However, today made the amount of time a week, so I removed DNA from Featured Articles, and made the appropriate change on the Candidates page. Kingturtle 02:09, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding Bioinformatics, I think it was simply placed in the wrong spot. The nomination has an objection, so I moved it to Nominations with unresolved objections. Kingturtle 02:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Auto updates
Jdforrester had a great idea that I was able to make reality. I created Template:February 26 and referenced it via  to get:


 * {{July_29}}


 * Is that cool or what? For the selected anniv queue I'm going to use the naming syntax MediaWiki:Month day selected anniversaries . MediaWiki:Month day featured article or even MediaWiki:Month day year featured article may be good for the featured article queue (if you decide to create one - although I think you would be daft not to! ;). --mav 06:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see much more of a rationale to do this for historical anniversaries, as these are likely to stay the same for each day of the year. For the featured article I like to have the history in one place.&mdash;Eloquence 06:55, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is it necessary to have the history in one place? I think it would be neat to have 366 of our best featured articles in a queue that could also serve as a set of galleries of only the best of our best work (organized like Selected anniversaries). The mere links on this page aren't very inviting, IMO (just like the old Main Page). It would also make updates much easier so that human update energy can be devoted to keeping the new articles and news sections current. --mav


 * As pretty much the chief maintainer of Template:Feature, I'd like to say that I'm not fond of the idea. I wouldn't mind creating one page to hold all of them (so that it becomes a cut and paste thing), but I very much dislike the idea of spreading them out over 366 pages. &rarr;Raul654 06:04, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * If it is the work of doing such a thing that you don't like, then be comforted by this: I will create all the 366 MediaWiki pages and all 12 subpages for this. I will also link to the MediaWiki page on each talk page of each featured article after a mention that the article is a featured article. Just as I've done with the day talk pages. See Talk:January 1. And what happens if you are on holiday and somebody else forgets to update? Auto updates from a human-created queue seems to be the most logical way to go. The galleries will also be very interesting for readers to read - thus generating more interest and development in the featured articles concept. --mav

I've thought a bit about this and I think I'm OK with the idea as long as we allow ourselves some room for switching upcoming FAs. I think there should be a fair chance for an article that has just gone through the candidate process to be on the MP the next day. I'd still appreciate some more time to think about it before making a rather big change that is unlikely to be reverted. I think the element of surprise is one key factor in how FA works, and a predefined list of articles would eliminate most of it.&mdash;Eloquence 08:45, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - this can wait a while. --mav

Ok, I'd like to explain my thought on the matter of the autoupdate.
 * 1) In principle, I like the idea of an automatically updating section. The more regular updates would be a benefit, and there wouldn't be a chance of someone (me) forgetting to update
 * 2) However, I think Erik has a point - it would lose that sense of randomness. As it is now, nobody really knows what's coming down the pike until it gets posted. This serves to make it interesting. Tangibly, I think it increases the number of edits an article experiences when it gets posted. Queuing them in a predetermined order takes some of that away.
 * 3) I'm not worried about actually creating the 366 articles. I'm worried about what would happen if we were to change the format, or if we need to do some big maintence later. IMHO, spreading them out creates a potential logistic nightmare.
 * In short, I can see the benefits of what you're proposing and I think I could live with it, but I'm not entirely sure of it. Erik also makes a very good point - I don't think it'd be wise to impliment it until we've had a little more time to fully think this through. &rarr;Raul654 05:05, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Yep.
 * 2) No reason why you can't swap things around the day before (moving the featured article that was there before to place a newer one on that page). Even if we didn't do that, then so what? The Main Page is a chance for us to show off some of our best work - it is therefore aimed toward readers, not really toward people like you and me who will become quickly familiar with the content of the 12 galleries.
 * 3) Each day MediaWiki page would have a MediaWiki mesage on it that would have contain the 'More featured article' message (perhaps one each for each month's gallery - just like with the selected anniv section). So if there is a formatting change, then, at most, 12 pages would have to be changed.
 * As I said, this can wait a while. --mav


 * What about using the Random page concept and the auto-update concept together on the queue of 366? Ancheta Wis 12:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) That could provide the surprise element.

msg:featured
Is there a msg:featured? If not, I'm thinking along the lines of:
 * This is a Featured Article, one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Even so, if you see a way this page can be improved still futher, we invite you to contribute.'

If not, any object to me creating one and putting it on featured articles? Please put further discussion at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki custom messages. --zandperl 05:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Funny I have just the same idea about msg:featured so I second Zandperl's proposal. Kpjas


 * Such a message would be good to have on each featured article's talk page. --mav 02:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I created Template:Featured and linked from every FA talk page. --mav

Can an Article be Delisted from Featured Articles?
My concern is about Sons of Noah. I found the following sentence in this article --
 * Also Aram the son of Shem not to be confused with the Aramean descendants of Arphaxad.

which not only makes little sense, but makes a claim that is not substantiated anywhere. So I removed it, only to find its author insists on restoring it with the comment "reverting Llywrch's deletion of ref's which contradict his religious beliefs".

I won't go into our disagreement (except to note that, as usual, the person who wrote this is wrong), but it leads to my question: can addition of enough questionable material result in having an article delisted? If so, what is the process? -- llywrch 05:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a system in place. If you want to get an article 'defeatured', go to the Featured Article candidates page, go to the bottom "requests for defeaturing or something like that" and list it there. &rarr;Raul654 05:32, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Bolding articles
I'm not particularly fond of bolding articles that have been featured. It's not readily obvious what it means, and it's very distracting. If you want to find out which ones have been featured, you can check the archive. &rarr;Raul654 04:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is explained at the top. Plus, it makes choosing a new feature easier. &mdash; Timwi 06:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deus Ex Nomination
I think that Deus Ex is an excellent Wikipedia article. There are many things I know well and love, but rarely have I ever seen such a good synopsis of something. It is not long-winded but does not abbreviate too much either, clear and concise, and it has many handy links that I found useful, even ones, like UNATCO, created purely for the page itself. I would like to nominate this for a featured article- however, it does have spoilers, so probably isn't good to read for someone planning to play it. Does this present a problem? Aerothorn 03:22, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. :)  I've copied your nomination and placed it on the candidates page, other people will read the article and comment on whether they think it's good enough to be featured: Featured article candidates.  That's the place to nominate any other great articles you come across.  :)  fabiform | talk 03:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Sorry, I'm new at this. 216.186.63.41 18:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV page
Just an idea - how about creating a page along the lines of Featured_articles that highlights the best of NPOV prose? L UDRAMAN | T 19:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe a section of Featured articles would be better than a whole new page? Angela. 19:05, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * What's the difference from FA now? If an article isn't NPOV, it's going to struggle to get supported. Ambivalenthysteria 00:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Space elevator" category
Could "Space elevator" be moved from "Physics, Astrophysics and Geophysics" to "Technology"? Physics is essential to understanding how a space elevator will work, but chemistry and materials science will be needed to produce a strong enough material. The space elevator is an application of these sciences.


 * Quite right. Done. --Andrew 07:45, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

How to vandalize the main page?
Today's Rock, Paper, Scissors feature got me thinking ... could someone vandalize the "protected" main page by editing an image that the main page links to? Shimmin 00:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes - they could upload a different image (required a login), or edit the mediawiki:feature message, or loads of other things. Our defense is known as security through obscurity ;) &rarr;Raul654 00:21, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes - the lack of Main Page vandalism indicates how awkward and unwiki editing MediaWiki messages are - you have to type a magic URL into your browser address bar for heavens sake. Usability and openness of the wiki has been gravely affected by their sudden proliferation. Maybe the 1.3 release of MediaWiki software will improve things... but don't hold your breath... the project has matured a lot and openness is going away. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spacecraft propulsion
Could people review Spacecraft propulsion please? It's on the list of featured articles, and I think it should be, but it's been more-or-less rewritten since it was put on. In particular, it was put on for its descriptions of many spacecraft propulsion methods, which are now on separate pages; it now has some general discussion and links to all those pages. --Andrew 17:28, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Article of the week
Regulars to this page might be interested in Article of the week, a new project which aims to bring one new article up to featured standard each week. Nominations can be made until Thursday of each week, when work will begin on a new article At this point, the previous week's one will hopefully be transferred to Featured article candidates. Angela. 11:46, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * great idea! to keep up with the pace of time, we need to work up to a new featured article a day by the time the supply of old ones runs out... or face the certain slow death of reruns... +sj+ 23:25, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

Impending reorganization
Just to let everyone know - sometime in the near future, I'm going break up the "biography" section and distribute the articles amoung their respect catagories. That whole section does nothing but cause crosslisting problems. &rarr;Raul654 04:15, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Sam [Spade] 04:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me too.   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 13:14, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Images on front page
Right now, if a user clicks on the images in the front page corresponding to the day's special anniversaries or the featured article, they get an information page for that image itself. Would it be possible to make it so that if a user clicks on the image in one of those sections, they will get linked to the article itself? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:56, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but it is possible to redirect the image description page to the article. Angela. 16:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This has come up on talk:main page before. It was decided that we should not break the standard for the rest of wikipedia just because it is the main page. And FYI - this should be on talk:main page as well. &rarr;Raul654 02:46, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Front page featured article
What is the process to decide which article should be on the front page? any vote? How could Greek mythology end up there in its current form? Thanks. olivier 13:00, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * At the moment, User:Raul654 picks a suitable candidate each day from the featured articles. Barring Raul disappearing, or posting something widely considered unsuitable, this is likely to continue - David Gerard 23:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A new method for putting articles on the front page
copied from wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates The endless bickering here, coupled with Anthony's antics on the main page yesterday and today (for which Danny banned him) have led to a proposal on Template talk:Feature for changing how articles go on the main page. Basically, everyone would get 24 hours notice. I think everyone should go there and voice your opinions. Personally, I think this could go a long way in appeasing some of the criticisms that have been voiced. &rarr;Raul654 21:22, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Too much prepuce
I've seen the Holy Prepuce article featured twice recently. This is an interesting article, but on a weird, fringe topic and I'd prefer to not see it on Wikipedia's home page more than once a year or so. It seems to trivialize Wikipedia, or introduce it as, well, the product of a bunch of weirdos. Could somebody dial down the frequency? Tempshill 20:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * To date, there have been no repeated featured articles. &rarr;Raul654 20:16, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have to differ with you. I saw the Holy Prepuce article featured on the main page last month as well as yesterday.  Tempshill 22:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, respectfully, you're mistaken - check the archive if you don't believe me. &rarr;Raul654 22:58, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I once went through a period where the browser cache or something was acting bizarre, and the front page stayed static for a week, no matter how many times I tried to refresh it. --User:rdb78

Chomsky

 * Why is he classified under "language"? He's done more than just linguistics. Perhaps a "people" category? I didn't see a better place to put it. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * We had a "people" category - I remove it because it caused innumeralble conflicts about where to put someone. Chomsky is a linguist first and foremost, so he goes into linguistics. &rarr;Raul654 02:17, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was just coming over here to say that! :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd almost put him under Philosophy. Filiocht 12:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * He's done a little bit of philosophical work,and his work has had a major impact on the philosophy of language, but it would be bizarre to classify him as a philosopher and not a linguist. Charles Stewart 11:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One million articles?
"At present, there are 389 Featured Articles, out of a total of 354282 articles on the Wikipedia." I thought there were over a million articles on Wikipedia now! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The 1 million is across all language versions, the 354000 is for the English edition only.Graham 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Restoration of an article
On 29 January of this year, the article Representative peer was promoted to Featured Article Status after receiving the necessary votes. I later removed the article, which had by then been merged with another article (Peerage), itself of featured status. (There was no formal removal vote; in fact, no one even requested the removal.) Now, however, the article representative peer has become its own article again. Its content is the same as that prior to removal, with a few minor grammatical changes. As the only reason the article was removed was its merger with another article, and because this reason no longer exists, I have re-added representative peer to the list of featured articles. I hope there are no objections. -- Emsworth 01:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom
Ah, what happened? It's blank. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When are the featured articles changed?
I noticed that the featured articles change every day, but when each day? Is it at midnight in a certain time zone?
 * Wikipedia operates on UTC. The featured article is automatically updated at midnight, UTC (8 pm US eastern time). &rarr;Raul654 15:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

Ever heard of the Manual of Style?
How can you write a Wikipedia: article about articles that are "well-written and complete", based on their "style, prose[sic] and completeness" without using the Manual of Style? For better reference go Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas.

Finally, I too would like to thank my parents, Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II. Moogle 00:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Moogle - uh, what the hell are you talking about? &rarr;Raul654 01:35, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I suspect that he or she refers to the failure to use a serial comma. -- Emsworth 01:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

War and history
I think that all historical articles from war sections should be added to history. ATM we already have some chaos here - for example, Warsaw Uprising is deemed history not war, Attila the Hun is history but Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson and Nazi generals are war...it is a very fuzzy distinction. Leave equipments and strategy concepts at war, but anything that is a biography or past conflict is history, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Can I interpret the lack of responces here as silent agreement with me? :> Please comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I will then begin moving some things around. There are other problems then war/history - for example, lol, Ferdinand Magellan is NOT geography or place (he is a person after all!), he should go to history as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this comment. I don't mind minor tweaking, but war was split off from history because it was large enough to warrant its own subcategory. Please don't remerge them. &rarr;Raul654 19:48, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. Come to think of it, we could move half of stuff over to history :>. Perhaps we should add a small definition what goes into what category - or at least a note to the history that 'it goes to history ONLY if it cannot be fitted into any other category'? and which sections should NOT have historical events in them (like geography)? The changes I did: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Warsaw Uprising moved from History to War
 * Byzantine Empire from Geography and Places (how did it end there?) to History, same with Congo Free State and Éire. Perhaps we can add subcategories like 'historical places'? Anyway, those things don't exist anymore so they belong more into history then geography
 * Ferdinand Magellan went same way as the above, he is an explorer, not a 'geography and place' thingy
 * 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens from Geology to history, it is a minor historic event, just as Galveston Hurricane of 1900 which already is in history
 * Alchemy from religion&beliefs to chemistry (see below talk for arguments why)
 * Julius Caesar from politics&government to history
 * Great Mosque of Djenn&eacute; from Culture&Society to Geography (it is a place)
 * Baroque from Culture&Society to Art&Archeolog (it is a historic art movement)
 * History of the Peerage moved from history to Royalty, nobility and chivalry section
 * Notes: I am pretty sure Max Weber was featured already.
 * Suggestion 1) new category: Sociology
 * Suggestion 2) split art and archeology, they definetly make strange grouping, perhaps add archeology (back?) to history

Alchemy
Could alchemy go under chemistry, as that is the topic to which it most closely relates (even though alchemy is pseudoscience)? -- Emsworth 20:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how alchemy relates more to science (facts) than religion (belief)? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Solitude's line of thinking is exactly what mine was when I categorized it - Alchemy is more of a system of beliefs than it is a science. &rarr;Raul654 19:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, on the bright side, the section is entitled Religion and beliefs. Still, I don't think it is the right place for alchemy. As the article's very own lead states (ATM) it is a protoscience, which in turn sais: Fields such as astrology and alchemy prior to the invention of the scientific method can also be regarded as protosciences. With the advent of the scientific method, they rapidly produced the scientific fields of astronomy and chemistry respectively, leaving those who refused to adopt the scientific method to practice pseudoscience. While their is no perfect solution, I'd vote for including alchemy either in chemistry or history, as unlike 'religion and belief' it did adhere to the scientific method (most of the time) which is one of the important distinguishers between science and belief. Preferably in chemistry, as it is after all it's 'father-science'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As there are no further complains here nor on User_talk:Raul654, I am moving it to chemistry. Please comment before rv this change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Featured Articles often contain dead links
I would like to suggest that all featured article be complete, including links. Many featured articles contain links to Wikipedia articles which have yet to be created, and I don't feel this truly represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. Perhaps articles which are being considered for featured articles could be in the queue, and a call could go out for them to be fully linked prior to inclusion. What does everyone think of this? jimaginator
 * I couldn't agree less. Filiocht 13:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I'm afraid. The ideal red link is not an error or a mistake, but rather an invitation for an article that needs writing to be written. In general, I think such links should be encouraged, not discouraged. Whether or not article Bar has been written is not really relevant when judging the quality of Featured Article Candidate Foo. &mdash; Matt 13:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that it makes sense. Although I haven't written any red articles in a featured article, I have in other articles. Points taken. jimaginator

Paragraph 175 article excerpt is lame
66.167.139.105 10:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC): I think the phrase "greatly exacerbated its severity" doesn't belong in a featured article, particularly when that phrase is in the excerpt quoted on the main page. See Talk:Paragraph 175 for the details.

Article placement
I'd argue that presuppositional apologetics should be categorized under religion and beliefs rather than philosophy, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it (well, not enough to make a unilateral change). Anyone else have a comment? Or am I making too much of the categories? Jwrosenzweig 23:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Featured template in articles
Wouldn't it make more sense to put Template:Featured in the articles instead of on the talk pages?

Templates for articles listed for cleanup, with NPOV disputes, etc, are all placed in the articles, and even add category tags to the articles accordingly. Certainly we should be as eager to announce that articles are of featured quality :)

Of course, the template would be ugly at the top of articles, but why not place at the bottom? I believe something like this is done on the German Wikipedia.

While I agree that self references are generally a bad idea, a message at the bottom would be discreet, and the actual reference to Wikipedia is stuffed away in the template.

- Fredrik | talk 11:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO we should move those other notices to the talk page. Pcb21| Pete 15:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly about moving those other notices to the talk page. I'm not at all sure about adding the "featured" template to articles, but the others all serve as warnings that the article may be less than trustworthy, and I think it is very important for Wikipedia's credibility that those be prominently placed. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Any self-ref notice which is temporary in nature is OK for an article. The featured tag is not and makes 0 sense for third party users of our content. --mav 04:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reusing featured articles?
For 2005, I was thinking I might clear all the bolding on this page, and start reusing featured articles. My reason is that, IMHO, I think that most of the most interesting featured articles have already been featured. In fact, in general, most of the featured articles have been featured (I eye-estimated it at about 2/3's or more). Now, just to unstuff the strawman before he appears - we are *NOT* in any danger of running out of featured articles anytime soon; we're promoting around 8 or 9 new featured articles per week and we have a pretty big reserve to boot. So what do other people think about this idea?
 * I find it increadibly stupid a bad idea (refactored by User:Matt Crypto) and pointless, since we're not running out of subjects anytime soon. I strongly suggest against reuse, even in the case of running out of subjects. It should be motivation to fix up more articles, not become lazy and depend on past work. Alkivar 20:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the primary purpose of putting Featured Articles on the Main Page is to show off decent Wikipedia articles so that the project looks good to newcomers. To that end, it doesn't matter if we reuse articles that haven't been on the Main Page for a long time; so yeah, sounds OK to me. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Although, having looked through the FA list again, there's still plenty of unused articles that I would be interested in reading. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think reusing articles is a good idea. Particularly if they have improved, which I know is the case with quite a few featured articles. Fredrik | talk 22:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea. Like Alkivar says, this should rather be a motivation to fix up more articles. Re Matt Crypto: 'Looking good' might be a primary purpose for the FA's on the front page, it isn't the only purpose. Even if it was THE primary purpose, it would be better to fix up more articles instead of relying on old ones, since producing new ones has several pleasant side-effects.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 01:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you expand on why you are finding the remaining unboldened ones less suitable than the boldened ones? A brief scan of the titles and a sample of the articles doesn't indicate that they are that different to me. Pcb21| Pete 19:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with Pete. If you consider the presently unbolded and unused articles too boring for the Main page (I would agree that some of them are, but I also see some favorites that haven't been used), it seems to me a franker move would be better: to remove them from the list before clearing the bolding.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a page for that very thing: WP:FARC. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Bad idea. That featured articles are candidates for the main page is a motive for contributors to polish an article to featured standard. By reusing articles it reduces that incentive, and we want more featured articles not less. It is also not clear to me that we are running out interesting articles having looked at some of them still to be featured. :ChrisG 19:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chris, for all the reasons he gives.   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 06:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * What about incentive to polish the many existing featured articles which are not quite so good? - Fredrik | talk 16:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are right in pointing out the importance of improving existing featured articles, but I'd say that WP:FARC, WP:Peer review and WP:FAC would be the way to go for those. Incidentally, I think that the idea of reusing articles that have improved significantly is not as bad as simply unbolding all FA's; but still I'd say that creating more Featured Articles is of more importance in this case since it brings more diversity and helps counter the systemic bias of Wikipedia.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This chart compares Wikipedia's coverage with other encyclopedias:

Reusing featured articles would solidify this unfortunate trend. A better direction for the featured articles section would be to include more articles from this list -- Xed 17:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't understand what this table is supposed to represent? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am against reusing older articles, unless it is an anniversary of some kind. There are people who check Wiki page every day for featured trivia, and they may become less interested when they find sth they already seen. Also, reusing older articles means that earlier articles would be featured more often, and newer one would have a diminising chance of being featured. On the side note, I was wondering if we can vote on what article should be featured when? This would allow us specific argumens like 'this was featured once, but I think it should be featured again because...', thus allowing us to decide on this problem on individual article basis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm also very much against reuse for many of the same reasons others have stated. Oh, if it is an anniversary, then it would go in Selected anniversaries instead. :) --mav 02:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Given that most people are against it, I'll table the idea until we are actually running low on featured articles. &rarr;Raul654 06:36, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say use ALL of them then remove the bolding and start again. Also, I would give preference to newer articles. J OHN C OLLISON (An Liúdramán) 10:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Raul, several people asked you pointedly above why you thought the unused (=at present not-bolded) FA's were less suitable for the Main Page than the ones you have already sent round there once, and you haven't replied to these questions, whether time-savingly or pointedly is hard to tell. The impression left by this Sphinx demeanor plus your original comment, "most of the most interesting featured articles have already been featured", is that you consider the other FA's or their subjects too boring for the Main Page, and will shun them if you can. I'd like to know if this is the message you intend to send. Naturally it would be a discouraging one for the people who worked on these articles. I'm not myself very eager after this proposal and the way you handled it to try to bring more articles up to Featured standard, or to list them on FAC. (Getting the strawman out of the way, no, it doesn't make a lot of difference that you tabled the proposal.) Noticed the FAC list getting shorter lately...?--Bishonen | Talk 17:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I did not say less suitable. The articles themselves are quite good (and the FARC has been doing a good job of pruning the ones that are not) And it's not that I consider them boring, but many of them are from related areas. Looking at the list of featured article, we have a great many on british royalty, or the beatles, or geology, or battles. It *is* boring when you have many of the same types of articles being featured, even if the articles themselves are good. On the other hand, we've long since exhausted the supply of food articles, or transport articles, etc etc. There weren't many of those to begin with, and we're not promoting any new ones along those lines. I don't think my idea was an unreasable way of solving this problem, but since most people disagree, I'll drop it. And I don't appreciate the accustatory tone, either. As far as the FAC not getting as much traffic, I think that can be attributed to the holidays more than anything else. &rarr;Raul654 17:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * And I don't appreciate the injured innocence. But thank you very much for explaining.--Bishonen | Talk 23:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)