Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured content

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobo192 (talk | contribs) at 02:07, 5 March 2008 (Reverted edits by 98.198.81.86 (talk) to last version by Quiddity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 60 days automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:Featured content/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
For the subpages associated with the Featured Content page, see Portal:Featured content/Pages

I have previously asked about the possibility of Featured Templates. I have a better conceptualization of templates now and understand that I really only think featured navboxes are what I am interested in proposing. I don't think infoboxes, substitution templates, or parser function templates would work out. I do think however, that navboxes would make for a great featured content addition and eventually a great main page addition. Any thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 416 748 8488 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.246.96 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is one navbox any better in its content than another, since they don't have any actual content I can't see the point of this. IvoShandor 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The featured topics project may be similar to what you are looking for. That relates to topics which as a whole (across multiple articles) are considered featured. They have navigation boxes for the related articles in the topic. --CBD 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about navboxes is that we don't want them to be big and flashy and featured. We want them to be small, efficient, and useful. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New FL on the Main Page proposal

We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 'picture of the day' was originally shown on the main page only one day a week (Saturday I think). However, a picture was selected every day. Featured lists might want to start a similar practice of selecting one list to promote each day. Once the process exists it may be easier to get it included on the Main page as well. However, I think the main objection there will continue to be a lack of space for a list in addition to the current content. --CBD 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page regularly updated? I see that the featured picture shown on the page has been deleted... — Lost(talk) 04:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it looks like its updated at random. I see another picture there now.. — Lost(talk) 04:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page elements are randomly selected each time the page is refreshed. The missing picture you encountered was likely one which has been deleted since the last time the random list was updated. --CBD 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Featured Article

Says that Tony Blair is the current prime minister of Britain! Please fix ASAP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.227.214 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article blurbs are copied from the articles at the time they are displayed on the Main page. Thus, some of the older ones contain information which eventually becomes out of date. Thus far there hasn't been any sort of general consensus that these should be updated - though I often go in and replace pictures which have been deleted and the like. --CBD 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOTD proposal

You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Recommendation

You should add the picture Top of Atmosphere.jpg to the page.

- KevinJi9 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that picture has been part of the random selection for this page since August. There are just so many featured pictures now that the odds of it coming up on any particular page view are only about 0.2%. --CBD 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to portal namespace

I suggest we move this and associated pages to the portal namespace. —Ruud 17:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context: This suggestion is related to the recent moves of the various subpages of Portal:Contents into portalspace, and would allow us to re-add the links to {{Contents pages (footer box)}} (that were removed due to WP:SELF).
Unless there is an obvious reason not to, I support this move, which would cover this page and its 6 subpages. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Not this again. I originally created this page as Portal:Featured content, but it got moved to the Wikipedia namespace about two years ago as the result of similar wrangling over namespace. The 'featured article/picture/et cetera' pages, which I think are what is meant by the '6 subpages' (though several of them actually predate this page), were always in the Wikipedia namespace. I gather the motivation for the move is to allow linking to these pages in templates used on articles? Though of course the 'featured article star', {{featured article}}, does that already by just ignoring the 'cross namespace' silliness. I don't much care where the pages are located, but I'm not a fan of shuffling and reshuffling things to comply with whatever triviality people have decided to go on crusade about this week. I'm trying to recall the reasons people wanted them in the Wikipedia namespace, but I didn't find any of it very compelling then either. This page could go in the Wikipedia namespace like Wikipedia:Community portal, the article space like Main page, or the portal space like Portal:Current events... note that all three of those, like this one, link to both article space and project space. My 'simple take' is that all of these pages are very obviously 'portals' and thus logically would go in the 'Portal' namespace... but it just isn't important enough to fight over. Whatever namespace they end up in doesn't change what they are and shouldn't have any impact on whether they can be linked to. It's just silly bureaucracy. --CBD 01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're absolutly right ofcouse, but that still doesn't really stop me from wanting to put tings in the right place :) I didn't really get Quiddity's point about self-references but I wouldn't want to see any links to this 'portal' from article space. —Ruud 01:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not really portals, are they? They're lists of articles, and it really belongs in the wikipedia namespace. -- Scorpion0422 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this 'featured content' page at least is definitely a portal... like any portal it has display boxes for samples of the topic matter, links for accessing the pages in the topic, and other links for projects and discussions related to developing the topic. The pages for the individual content types (articles, pictures, et cetera) have the same sort of links to both the content and development work. They are not just "lists of articles". The only thing common to 'portals' which they don't have is a 'showcase' for individual examples of the subject. However, that could be added easily and I'm not sure it's a 'requirement' for being a portal. The purpose of 'portals' is to provide organized access to both content and meta-discussion... they are meant to coordinate things for BOTH readers and builders of the encyclopedia. Things in the Wikipedia namespace, such as Wikiprojects, are generally intended for encyclopedia builders - not readers.
That being said, some things which are obviously portals (e.g. Wikipedia:Community portal and the Main page) are put into other namespaces... the Community portal is almost entirely devoted to encyclopedia builders rather than readers and thus makes some sense in Wikipedia space. The Main page goes into article space as an exception. This page started out as a portal and got moved to Wikipedia space... and now back.
I don't really care where these 'featured' pages are located. Right now they're split between Wikipedia and Portal space. That ought to be sorted out so they are all consistent. So... what reasons are there that they should be in one namespace or the other? What difference does it really make? --CBD 09:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is good idea to separate the reader-oriented navigational pages from the editor-oriented pages. Moving this to portal-space is a near trivial improvement, but so are most things done on Wikipedia. —Ruud 12:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posed this basic question at the Portal peer review: Contents and megaportals. Viewing portals as the doorways to the encyclopedia, I support having this and all six featured content pages in portal space. Project-related pages for peer reviews and candidacies can stay in project space. To me, that's just the most consistent organizational message to send to novice readers, in particular.

Shortcut

Requests for Admin assistance

In the previous discussions in 2019 it was understood that the exclusion of subpages must be by MfD. I believe that this section "Requests for Admin assistance " should be removed from this talk page.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to that consensus? My view is that it's legitimate to request assistance for technical changes, such as when replacing Portal:Foo/Articles/1 to /99 by a template in Portal:Foo which produces similar excerpts, but not as part of demolishing a portal (for example, after quietly replacing its main page by a redirect to a broader portal). Certes (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the link, I can search for discussions, but this is unnecessary. @Certes: you are a witness, like me, of the thousands of excluded subpages that were restored. I think it is better not to repeat the same mistake again, or we exclude via MfD or leave them in limbo for a while.(Or we propose a new criterion for speed deletions)Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bug collection

This section is only for tracking bugs and feature requests, in the MediaWiki software itself, which affect portals. For general technical help with portals or portal-related templates, create a new section on this talk page.

 Do not report new bugs or feature requests in this section – only list them here after a Phabricator task has been created.
  • T196722: Gallery slideshow controls take up more than one line on narrow displays
  • T196723: Gallery slideshow flickers when changing images
  • T194887: Mode slideshow of gallery tag is not working in phone screens
  • T199126: Scribunto/Lua should have a built-in method for retrieving category members

Making Portal:Peace

Hi all, User:Hoary recommended I ask here:

I would love to make a new portal (for Portal:Peace) but I want to make sure I do so correctly as per WP:MOS.

I feel that a Peace portal is missing because it would connect such varied topics as conflict resolution, interfaith religions, environmental activism, lists of pacifists, pacifist religions, speaking truth to power, world anthems, and other previously disconnected topics. I can think of 10-15 articles and categories off the top of my head that would fit it. No similar portal exists; only a category.

Shall I achieve consensus for portal creation? Or can I just WP:BEBOLD and go for it?

If I just go for it, it would be too much to do in one session. So, would it be better to build it in chunks in draftspace, or publish it with an 'under construction' tag?

(WP:PORTAL doesn't contain the answers.)

Thank you all, Evedawn99 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined the project and I hope we can make this one.★Trekker (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about "Portal category list"

Hi, At Category:All portals it shows A, B, C, R, D, etc. Asking how/why does "Portal:Reformed Christianity" show up here, and out of sequence? I am clueless so asking here. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ω Awaiting JoeNMLC (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Date redirects to portals?. Cremastra (u — c) 01:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC) RichardF (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag para says it's under 136 atmospheres of pressure. the "article", or page, or whatever, says 1950 atmospheres. Fix it, I don't know which is right. 71.92.65.87 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took a while to find the page you were referring to because it was the 'static' image rather than the animated one which gets displayed here. The correct figure, according to the image creator, is 1950 atmospheres. I updated it on the static image page. --CBD 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed the creation of a new WikiProject dedicated to collecting, and critqueing sounds for Featured Status. Sounds is the smallest group of Featured Content on Wikipedia, and we need to help fix that. So if you like, please click on the following link, and second my proposal, so it can be created. Thanks. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Featured Sounds Zidel333 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heyho,
please choose between 'Exzellente Inhalte' oder 'Exzellenter Inhalt' in the sidebartranslation for german users. Greetings, Conny (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I gather I got the tense wrong with 'Exzellente Inhalt'? Sorry, my German is more than a little rusty. I've switched it to 'Exzellenter Inhalt'. --CBD 10:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence of featured content

Not sure if this is the right place to suggest this (and it's probably been said before, though i had a quick look through the archives), but with all the publicity of Citizendium's "approved" articles and special editors, I think it should be made more obvious that WP has Featured Articles. The criteria for FA/FC is strict, and only the best articles get through. Therefore, if we made more of a point of it, it would alleviate some of the concerns that the public and media have about WP ("oh no, anyone can edit, it'll all be vandalised!!! omfgs", etc) If I'm talking in the wrong place, let me know :) Trouts! (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas how to accomplish that? The 'Featured content' link was added to the sidebar to promote this material on every page. It is also linked from the Main page. How else should it be promoted? I'm personally hoping for the introduction of 'flagged revisions' so that we will be able to mark particular versions of a given page as having been entirely reviewed and approved for accuracy. --CBD 10:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that was my problem. The link you spoke of is clearly shown, but it still seems that people don't know much about it. There needs to be some way of making them more "important" to people I know it seems silly to say this when I have no answers... but I think you get me.
Flagging revisions would be good, but then there's the problem of how to present that to people. eg would you put a link at the top of a page saying "The revision of this page saved at XXXX on XXXX has been flagged as accurate, click here to view"? That seems a bit clumsy... But if you could make it work I'd like that, and I'm sure others would. - Trouts! (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see info here on the system being developed for revision flagging. I understand what you mean about changing perceptions 'in the media and general public', but that's not really something in our control. The media isn't asking us. Jimbo could probably get mention of it into an article somewhere, but long term it'll have to be some fundamental change in how Wikipedia works... hence my focus on revision flagging. When we can point to something and say, 'this has been every bit as thoroughly reviewed as anything in Citizendium... or Brittanica' then that perception problem goes away. Until then there will always be people who don't 'get' how Wikipedia works. --CBD 09:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I've come back to read this! Actually, the flagging has convinced me... Still isn't perfect, but I don't have many more ideas! Trouts! (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, This is about the 40th most popular page on wikipedia, with almost 600 000 views so far in February. henrik•talk 09:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Day

There is debate about the propriety of placing the {{ListoftheDaylayout}} (See below) on this page. It is an experiment that needs to build up steam or lose tracktion. Exposure on this page could be the difference and could help it to eventually succeed enough to go to the main page. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages Today's featured list is: November 8 This month's featured list is: November 8
November 8 November 8
You forgot to mention the reason there is debate. There is another proposal out there, and displaying either one would be choosing sides and it would look like advertising. Also, I think that we shouldn't display either since at the moment they are just proposals and aren't official. -- Scorpion0422 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the other proposal had been posted based on choosing a list of the day chronologically based on promotion date was showing on the WP:FL. When WP:LOTD started on 2008-01-01, I had one of the admins who handles WP:FC add it so that both ideas would be getting exposure. Then the controversy arose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there are two different lists for each 'day'? Looks like competing methodologies for choosing them. Obviously that should get sorted out first. Finding ways to promote a 'list of the day' should be easy enough, but we ought to get agreement on how that list is chosen before doing so. --CBD 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with taking the sample display down is that one method is just chronological selection and the other requires generating the interest of participants. Failure to display chosen selections somewhere will reduce enthusiasm for this method and reduce its likelihood of success.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is {{lotd}}, and currently it looks like this:

Today's featured list is: November 8.

It can be expanded to display the whole list, if necessary.

The Transhumanist (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have a compromise showing a significant but reasonably small section from the head of the list followed by a more... link as used in other featured content? Currently over 90% of the portal is devoted to List_of_Lost_episodes. This might mislead a casual visitor into thinking that WP concentrates on one area of knowledge such as popular culture at the expense of whatever his interests are. Certes (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem caused by the accidental removal of the "includeonly" tags. List of Stargate SG-1 episodes is displaying in full too. I'm not sure how/where to add the tags to fix this. (and no time to research it ATM...) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has kindly fixed the problem with [[{{/Lists}}|See full list...]]. It looks much better now. Certes (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_content&oldid=195946522"