Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Subpage edit link for bicycle

Currently one cannot click the edit link for that nomination to vote or comment on it. All other links seem to work except this one. I have never seen this before. Anyone have any ideas? - Taxman 15:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was some weird formatting in the template itself. It has now been fixed. →Raul654 15:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Best FAC week ever

With 17 new featured articles, this past week was the best week in FAC history. Congratulations to all the writers, copyeditors, proofreaders, 'etc who made this possible :) →Raul654 07:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Huzzah! Something for the Wikipedia Signpost?? --Plek 10:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Someone let Michael Snow know :) →Raul654 17:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Plek 18:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

April Fool's Day featured article

I'm posting this here because it's where most of the featured article junkies will see it. Several people have asked what I intend to do about the featured article for April 1 (April Fool's day). Here's the deal - I'll go with whatever you guys decide, but I have only one stipulation - whatever article you pick must first pass the FAC, just like any other daily featured article (and because a featured article needs to be factually accuarate, this means no made up articles). You might want to cull wikipedia:unusual articles for ideas. We'll take it to a vote few days before April Fools. →Raul654 07:55, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I personally would love to see Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 done as a FA, but it is nowhere near Featured Article status. Perhaps we can run a collaboration of some sort to get this thing up to status before April 1? →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 16:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing Bronx cheer or lighting farts moved to FAC. After all, we do need a bit of class around here. – Clockwork Soul 16:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Boy, there are a ton of subjects that could be FA-worthy. A few that come to mind for me right away include Ig Nobel Prize, Plan 9 from Outer Space and Lake Wobegon, but the majority of the articles I glance at don't meet even the most basic criteria that we've been using (references and images). I'll either find or spiff up something soon... slambo 17:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest Xenu, but it's already been on the main page... - Fredrik | talk 17:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Spork has a bit of potential, but can use some work. – Clockwork Soul 17:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was just adding a suggestion for this when I ran into an edit conflict here. Something about "great minds..." B-) slambo 17:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

:D It's a somewhat goofy article, but its true benefits are the start of a history, and some decent images. Its primed for completion, I think. – Clockwork Soul 17:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit of this and expanded the patents info. We need to fixup the references. Anyone up for it? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the goal here is to come up with an article that at first appears to be patent nonsense (i.e. an article that by title, picture, or glance at the opening paragraph, appears to be a hoax similar to the fake news perpetrated on April Fool's by newspapers, TV, etc), but is actually a real (and really good) article. A brief look at the unusual articles section suggests Five second rule, Joshua A. Norton, or the Boston Molasses Disaster (where one person already has asked if it's fictional on the talk page). The idea is to pull a fast one on people by making it look like we're obviously perpetrating a hoax, but then actually have a real article on a real topic. Bantman 19:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Joshua A. Norton is already a featured article and was on the main page. →Raul654 19:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, I didn't mean to suggest any article in particular, just provid examples of the spirit I think we should aim for. Bantman 21:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    - That said, I do like Boston Molasses Disaster, and while short, it could easily be brought to Featured status by April first. --Andrew 00:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I support Boston Molasses Disaster. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so true. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I too would support Boston Molasses Disaster. Sad, yet hilariously true. – ClockworkSoul 17:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Well I am glad that many of you find the disaster so hilarious, but clearly it is not going to be the joke FA. That would be in horrendously poor taste. Pcb21| Pete 10:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd be for one of the biggest media hoaxes ever, San Serriffe, if it can be brought to FA status. Kiand 21:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe something like my (well, largely my work) article on the Hodags? Or any of the other fictional national animals, for that matter. Especially Drop Bear, Wild Haggis, or Jackalope. -- John Owens (talk) 22:02, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
- Wild haggis would be brilliant if it could be raised to featured article status! – Clockwork Soul 23:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think George Psalmanazar, the poor Frenchman who successfully impersonated a prince of "Formosa" in 18th-century London, could make quite an interesting and unusual article. Almost his entire adult life was one extremely elaborate hoax, which was incredibly believed by many respected people in Europe. And moreover, the story actually illustrates something historically important about Orientalism and Western perceptions of "the East". I have a good book on him, which reproduces many of his fanciful and rather entertaining illustrations of his "native land". Does anyone want to collaborate?--Pharos 22:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Probably not unusal enough, but Benjamin Thompson is fascinating (our article does not do him justice - see the second external link - participant in the American Revolutionary War on both sides, scourge of beggars in Bavaria, Count Rumford of the Holy Roman Empire, married Lavoisier's widow, and inventor of a coffee pot and a form of central heating). -- ALoan (Talk) 01:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My personal preference would be to simply choose an article at random through some sort of system. I don't believe we should specifically choose an article because it's "silly" or whatever. Wikipedia is not a joke site, and we are not supposed to be culturally biased. Everyking 12:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because there's nothing like some good toilet humour on April Fool's Day, I'd like to propose Japanese toilet. It is a featured article already, it's very comprehensive, interesting, and (unintentionally?) funny. The intro section might need a bit of expansion, but that's about it. It's a splash! --Plek 13:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- To make that an April Fool's article would be making fun of Japanese people. Everyking 15:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. Why not make urinal an April Fool's Day article? – Clockwork Soul 17:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. You may be right. Although it was not my intention to poke fun at the Japanese, and the article itself most definitely doesn't do that, either; it may be perceived as such. Having said that, most articles named so far could be seen to make fun of at least somebody when used (Swedes, Bostonians, Scientologists, Ed Wood, fast food restaurant workers, Scots, etcetera). --Plek 17:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, yes and no. Using the Japanese toilet article would be to make fun of how the Japanese culture performs a basic biological act, in effect suggesting that the way they do it is odd or somehow "wrong", and that way Westerners do it is "right". If we choose an article that makes fun of somebody, it would be a relatively small group of people that did something that was, intentionally or otherwise, genuinely odd or bizarre, and not merely the way a particular culture takes a crap. – Clockwork Soul 18:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this missing the whole point; a good April Fool's hoax would be a believable article that is not true, like the BBC Swiss spaghetti harvest classic? Filiocht 09:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- But that's just what people would be expecting! Fooling people into disbelieving the truth is the logical step forward. Besides, Swiss spaghetti trees are real. --iMb~Mw 09:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, the article on spaghetti tree is real anyway... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's true. When I was in college, I used to grow my own spaghetti in my dorm room closet (until I got busted). – Clockwork Soul 13:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First preference, a perfectly factual article that sounds like a hoax, and Boston molasses disaster would do if nothing better comes up. An article about a hoaxster would be OK, too. Frank Abagnale comes to mind but the article isn't great and is too much based on his autobiography. Joseph Pujol, Le Pétomane (How would you translate that? The Fartmaster? The Fartster?) combines a toilet humor element with the not-a-hoax-fooled-ya element. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Boston molasses disaster is great (though it will need to be retitled before it can be featured). Another possibility is Lake Peigneur, though that's much farther away from feature quality. Gdr 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
There's a problem I see here. I already voiced my opposition to the general idea because I think it's culture-biased and frivilous, but let me raise another point: if people see what they think is a silly article on the main page on April 1, might they assume it is fake simply because of the circumstances? It's expecting a lot to imagine you'll put some silly looking and obscure article up there and people will read and investigate and realize: Wow, so it's true after all! I figure a lot of people would just think: Damn, that's lame, this sure ain't no Britannica. Everyking 00:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I would recommend that the References section is particularly important for the chosen article. You make a valid point, but we don't want to be the same as the prudish pedias! violet/riga (t) 08:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hereby nominate Spam (electronic) (already an FA) for April 1st... we can use a photo of a CAN of SPAM... and literally SPAM the mainpage.... SPAM in current events, SPAM in DYK... etc... User:Alkivar/sig 14:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hormel has officially requested (see paragraph 3) that images of their meat product not be used and that the word "spam" should be typed in all lower case letters when referring to electronic spam. slambo 14:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

So the DYK is about the product, and the FA is electronic spam. --SPUI (talk) 14:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slambo is right here - we should not be using pictures of a product of a totally different nature to discuss electronic spamming. The current one found on electronic spam isnt very good either. Someone more creative than I should come up with something better. →Raul654 16:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the (quite long) article, one other problem with using Spam (electronic) is that it doesn't have a References section. Many other FACs have been shot down for a lack of references; it would be bad form to go back on that now. slambo 17:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

What's the point? (April Fool's Day article)

What's the point of doing something different for April Fool's Day if it isn't an April Fool's Day joke? Simply posting an article that might pass for humorous as a featured article (when it is in fact a featured article) is just disguising it as something valid for April Fool's Day. I'd propose something like Wikipedia:Sandbox (idea originally suggested by cimon), since it's not a Featured Article and is probably the only lasting article which is least likely to come anywhere near being allowed FA status. At least this would pass for an April Fool's Day joke, and not look like the Wikipedia community compromised with some strict, rule-hungry individuals. It's like making "Casual Friday at the office" the day when you can loosen your tie. -- BRIAN0918 17:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be easiest just to go with the suggestion that's already in situ, jguk 19:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weak. -- BRIAN0918 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:jguk is referring to the article that was in situ a few hours ago, for 1 April in the FAC almanac, which was European toilet paper holder. The link now points instead to the Sandbox, and jguk's suggestion doesn't even appear in the History. I don't exactly understand how that came about. It makes it hard to tell which alternative Brian0918 is referring to, naturally. Bishonen | Talk 22:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since Raul's dead set against having a hoax article on 1 April (I don't understand why as many eminent broadcasters, newspapers and journals have hoax articles then), we might as well go for a humdrum serious article, jguk 06:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A reminder

I'm going to start the April 1 poll here about 5 to 7 days, so if there is an article you want to nominate for that poll, you need to nominate it on the FAC now. →Raul654 07:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this - people can start nominating featured articles whenver they want. The poll itself will started on the 27th and run for 48 hours, using approval voting. →Raul654 05:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Example

Nom 1:

Support. - user:bob
Support - user:joe

Nom 2:

Support. user:Ellen

Nominations

Since Raul is dead set against "toilet paper holders" for 1 April, I'll make another suggestion - which has absolutely nothing to do with 1 April, but then I doubt any other currently featured article will. I'll renew my "support" vote on Easter Sunday so that it fits in with Raul's start of vote, jguk 06:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nom 1: Brian Close - as Eric Morecambe noted, you can tell when the cricket season has started by the sound of leather hitting Brian Close

Support - jguk 06:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nom 2: Colley_Cibber. Due to his contemporaries calling him a dunce --Allen3 14:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm-- messed up section. Can an admin fix?

Sorry it looks like I messed up the project pages of "Collapse of the World Trade Center" and "The Giver". Attempts to fix have messed things up more. Admin?? JDG 07:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How much time is "enough time"?

From WP:FAC: If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

What is the definition of "enough time"? Cheers, Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 17:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)