Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

Older talk is archived here:

pre-12/2003 and renaming poll | Origins dispute

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.

include brilliant pictures here when the pictures are in an article that's listed here.
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.
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 Wikipedia: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I've discussed the article Geyser with User:Eloquence on his talk page, and he has withdrawn his objection.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 Wikipedia: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. →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. →Raul654 19:32, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

This page has now been reprotected. →Raul654 06:20, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for permanent protection - Wikipedia: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. →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. →Raul654 19:40, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have temporarily unprotected so it can be edited following move to Wikipedia:Featured articles →Raul654 19:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Following major reformatting, I have reprotected the page. Barring unforseen circumstances, I expect this to remain indefinitely. →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). →Raul654 21:15, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

The wikipedia: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. →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#Brilliant prose. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards), but that's alright. I would rather see a section of this page (rather than what's happening at Wikipedia:WikiProject that says something like Look at all the areas that we are working on!

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Should this page combine with Featured Pictures Candidates? (poll) 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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, an articles are nominated, and then if approved, they are moved to the section Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Recently added to Featured articles. 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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Articles nominated for removal, 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 {{msg:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}}} to get:

Template:October 14

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.—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 Wikipedia: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. →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.—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.

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
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.
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. →Raul654 05:05, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yep.
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.
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 {{msg:featured}} 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. →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. →Raul654 04:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

It is explained at the top. Plus, it makes choosing a new feature easier. — 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: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Deus Ex. That's the place to nominate any other great articles you come across. :) fabiform | talk 03:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>

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 Wikipedia:Featured_articles that highlights the best of NPOV prose? LUDRAMAN | T 19:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe a section of Wikipedia: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 ;) →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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. →Raul654 04:15, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

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

Sounds good to me too. — Adam Conover † 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. →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)