Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:36, 6 April 2022 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Featured articles) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in Featured Articles.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed as soon as possible.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the succession box. Taking the first item as an example, the "Family information" succession box (using {{S-fam}}) is the only difference that I found between the two. If you're satisfied with the appearance in the new rendering (it makes the box be wider and collapsed), then you're done. If you're not, then the "table" (most navboxes and infoboxes are tables underneath) needs to be changed.


This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. I know this table looks intimidating, but the second column gives you a hint about what to look for (for example, cite means something related to ref tags; spans are usually hidden in infobox programming). The highlighting for the first link indicates that the problem for that article is in the infobox. The most common problem in an infobox is parameter values that are multiple lines/paragraphs (because the template wraps much of the content in span tags, which aren't allowed to go across multiple paragraphs). This problem is probably due to the use of {{plainlist}}.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92160779 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Infobox_person"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=94408063 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Cite_news"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalloid?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86748675 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cædmon?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87622008 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(mythology)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=93175905 {"name":"span"}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_MacGregor?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=47224103 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Location_map+"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81665220 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Moreton_Hall?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=94171080 {"name":"span"}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Moreton_Hall?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=94171081 {"name":"span"}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Moreton_Hall?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=94171082 {"name":"span"}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Roumanian-American_Congregation?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79107263 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_Beth_Elohim?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=94593770 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=93793605 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Navboxes"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_Nabis?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78213233 {"name":"cite"}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_Nabis?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78213234 {"name":"cite"}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudd_Concession?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=68036341 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Location_map+"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Rhodesia_Flight_825?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=46969774 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Location_map+"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Sinai_(Oakland,_California)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=45968429 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=94236037 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangani_Patrol?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79690655 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Location_map+"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Hull?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80677867 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Location_map+"}}

Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once.

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback round: A proposal for referencing sections of the same work more easily

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) has posted this note at WP:VPT, and I think it will interest FAC regulars even more:

A mockup of how referencing sections of the same work more easily could work. Please leave your feedback here

Referencing multiple sections of the same work in an article is currently cumbersome. Editors have asked for an easier way to do this for more than ten years. In 2013 and 2015 a wish to change this made it into Wikimedia Germany’s Technical Wishlist and it was wish #24 in the international Community Wishlist survey 2015.

WMDE’s Technical Wishes team conceptualized an idea how the problem could be solved: A generic solution that can be used for any refinement, such as pages, chapters, verses etc., and that could be used as a voluntary option, not forcing the users who don’t want to change their working mode to use it.

In order to find out if we can start working on this solution, we’re inviting editors from all wikis to have a look at it and tell us what they think in a feedback round from May 14th to May 27th. Thanks to everyone who participates and helps spreading the word!

-- Thank you.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Classification of Construction of Rockefeller Center and Construction of the World Trade Center

I had a question about the classification of these two articles, which are very similar topics (they both describe the construction of major building complexes in New York City). These articles are classified differently on the main Featured Articles page. Construction of Rockefeller Center is classified as an "art and architecture" article, but Construction of the World Trade Center is an "engineering and technology" article. Should one of these articles be classified differently? --epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

PLEASE LET ME EDIT THIS PAGE, I CAN MAKE IT LIKE A HISTORY BOOK. H3wo1 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Full dates of birth in lede

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#The lead date-range vs. full dates thing might be of interest. GiantSnowman 11:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Make a /summary

I make a summary, to make the page only content featured articles page. Nhatminh01 (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Divide

Divide:

Agriculture, food, and drink
Agriculture, food, and drink

Art and architecture
Art and architecture

Engineering and technology
Computing and engineering · Transport

Geography and places
Geography · Places

History
World history · Royalty, nobility, and heraldry

Language and literature
Language and literature

Mathematics
Mathematics

Media and drama
Film · Television · Media and drama

Music
Music ·

Natural sciences
Biology and medicine · Chemistry and materials science · Earth sciences · Physics and astronomy

Philosophy and religion
Philosophy and religion

Social sciences and society
Culture, sociology, and psychology · Education · Economics and business · Law · Politics and government

Sports and recreation
Sports and recreation ·


Video games
Video games

Warfare
Warfare ·


Miscellaneous

but the number of it must be update in {{FA number}}

Nhatminh01 (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been adding comments on the talk pages of articles, some better classed including FA, concerning "External links". Sometimes things can "creep in", and incremental edits can produce a longer list than desirable, but some articles have over 15 "External links" and over 20 "Further reading" sections. I have only been focusing on articles containing "more" than 4 links but certainly those articles with an enormous amount of overlinking like 15 t 25. I haven't looked but if this is not addressed as a criteria during class assessment it needs to be. If it is then things have just drifted along and a good reason to check back in. Otr500 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

MoS compliance is part of the FA criteria so an examination of external links should be included inline with WP:ELMIN and other guidelines. In my opinion anything more than links to an official website and maybe 1–2 other major sites related to the subject should be the max. Further reading can contain more, but WP:RS applies and there should be good reason why those sources aren't cited in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

FA cleanup

Didn't there used to be a page listing FA's that have maintenance tags on them? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Is this what you're thinking of? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Yes that's it, thanks! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC on stability criteria

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs for a RFC that is of interest to this project. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

197.156.83.16 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles that may concern editors of this project. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed an excess of British-themed articles have made it to the front page in the featured articles section. Its like a regular thing, beyond what is due to their population. I'm wondering if some of this is just because there is some tendency for British editors to work on British-related articles to get them up to featured article standards, or if not that, then its a kind of deliberate promotional coordination. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably, who knows. We should aim for diversity. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Brie Larson

There is a big controversy regarding Brie and Rotten Tomatoes going on right now. It's actually been going on for a couple weeks. Anyways, the article is not FA level without coverage of this issue. And, it's about to be featured on the main page the same day that her movie Captain Marvel comes out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"big controversy"? Where are the sources that call it such. Rotten Tomatoes is just preventing review bombing. This is such a non-issue. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this link will work out correctly, but this is the most coverage from RSs that Brie has received outside of getting the Captain Marvel job. If the most or second most coverage ever isn't relevant, then you're just using your personal opinion. https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWlqOW9iVGpZQU1FZkJRQlNiWE85dy1LQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Fourteen-day gap rule

Why is it the rule that an FA nominator must wait at least fourteen days after their previous FA nomination closes before nominating another FA? Векочел (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The fourteen day wait only applies to unsuccessful nominations. The issue was that some people were using the FAC process as a form of peer review, by nominating articles that were clearly not ready; the two week delay is to discourage this "throw everything at the wall and see if anything sticks" approach. If your FAC is successful, you can nominate another article the moment the previous article is promoted. ‑ Iridescent 21:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Aye, I've at least once filed a new FAC as soon as the preceding one has passed and never heard any complaints. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

First FA

Conversation moved to user talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi all, I'm hoping you can help. I have never passed an article through the FA nomination process, however, I would like to do so in the near future. I have a couple of GAs under my belt (specifically articles such as the 2018 World Snooker Championship, and the 2018 UK Championship. However, as there aren't any current FA articles on snooker tournaments (to my knowledge anyway). What I don't want to do is nominate an article without a good grasp of what issues might arise, but reading the criteria seems quite open-ended. Could someone let me know if there are obvious things that I would have issues with in an FA nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There may not be any other snooker tournament FAs, but there are absolute shedloads of FAs about sporting tournaments to use as models. The best advice is not to get bogged down worrying about MOS stuff, as if it's non-compliant other people will point it out and you can either fix it or explain why you're intentionally deviating;* instead, think of terms of "is there anything missing?". A useful thought experiment is "if I were a 14 year old with no prior knowledge of the topic, would a printout of this page make sense to me?"; remember that particularly when it comes to FAs, a lot of readers won't have got to your article by following links but will have come to the page direct, and that thing that you think is so obvious it doesn't need explaining won't necessarily be obvious to non-fans; plus, work on the assumption that they can't follow wikilinks if they come across something with which they're unfamiliar, as a surprising number of people will be reading either hard copy or mirrors of the article on other sites. (On a very quick glance at the two articles you mention, at absolute minimum you need a very brief explanation of what snooker is, since 90%+ of readers will either never have heard of it or think it's just another word for pool. Take the series of articles on the Boat Race—e.g. The Boat Races 2015—as good models of how to write about sports with which most people won't be familiar.) This essay is a decade out of date now, but to my mind is still the only "how to write a FA" guide that's worth the pixels it's printed on. ‑ Iridescent 14:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*And don't get too intimidated at the thought of having to comply with the MOS! What reviewers are looking for isn't slavish compliance with arbitrary rules, but whether you can justify not complying with those arbitrary rules in those places where you don't follow them.
Thanks for your help Iridescent! From the sounds of it, if I were to look at my first nomination, something like a "background" section, on what is Snooker, and the world championships in general would be beneficial? The article goes into a lot of depth on how the tournament is played, and how each match went, but more context would help a new reader unfamiliar with the sport. I'll try and something like this.
I was surprised there weren't more guides on what to look out for with a FA nomination, but I'll check that one out.
Technically, a snooker is a type of shot in pool. To an extent, Snooker actually pre-dates modern pool games like Nine-ball, but it's all dwarfed by games like 3 cushion billiards, and even further afield ground billiards.
The Rambling Man is probably better placed than me to advise on the appropriate level of background. I'd personally say that anything snooker-related at minimum needs a one-line summary of how the game is played, and probably at least a minimal explanation that it's considered important (it doesn't need to be anything fancier than "it was shown live on prime-time TV" or similar), to make it clear that this genuinely is A Big Deal and not some obscure local sport like cheese-rolling. The US accounts for roughly as many readers as the rest of the world combined, and most Americans have no idea what snooker is or who any of the people involved are. ‑ Iridescent 15:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski Yeah, I'm good at obscure sports which 99.9% of readers think equates to "canoe racing". I've got around 150 GAs and a handful of FAs on the subject, so feel free to ping me if you want to continue the conversation at a more appropriate venue? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)TRM has always been incredibly helpful to me in the past, so if he has any comments, I will be 100% behind them (although I did see he was on holiday?). To be fair, there have been a few American players; but I do understand. It's been a long time since Cliff Thorburn was around. I'll definitely put something in about the coverage, as it's a three week event, and it's covered on the main channel in the UK for hours on end. I'll move to talk pageBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders

So, mmm... why has the Seattle Sounders appeared on the front page twice? I mean I'm a fan of the team, but I thought every article only received the front page treatment once. Praemonitus (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: I saw your question but I have no idea how that process operates these days. It might be best to ask at WT:TFA. --Laser brain (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 redefinition of SI base units

2019 redefinition of SI base units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do we have to do to make this the TFA on 20 May 2019? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

First, it needs to have featured article status, see: WP:Featured article criteria & WP:Featured article candidates. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Will deadlinks hurt an article from becoming FA? I'm working on a level 4 vital article and noticed deadlinks I can't seem to find archives for it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not bring an article to FAC without being confident of all the sources. If you can't find an archived version of a source, I would look for another source for the material it supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie:If there is no other sources supporting that info, it would be impossible to have the article become FA? Tetris has deadlinks to ratings for Allgame, I have not been able to find any other sources covering their ratings for the game.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at the dead links in question; some of them are archived at the Internet Archive. Copy and paste the dead URL into the "Wayback Machine" at Internet Archive to see if there are any archived copies of that particular page. If there are, then add three parameters to the end of the citation: "archive-url=" "|archive-date=" and "|dead-url=". archive-url= is the URL of the archived copy of the page at the Internet Archive, |archive-date= is the date it was archived, and |dead-url= should equal "yes" (this is necessary so that the title of the web page links to the archived copy of the page, not the dead URL). AmericanLemming (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I was searching for it the wrong way. I had to refresh back to the website whenever I typed in a new url back on the main page rather than continuing my search. it doesn't seem the question is no longer relevant to me but thank you again for your assistance.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

FA categorization

We have subject groupings for FA at WP:FA, but why don't these translate into actual categories? It would be useful to be able to see, at any given point, how many "Art, architecture, and archaeology" FAs there are, for example. Is there another mechanism? Categories seem the most obvious means to do so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If you look on the front page of the relevant Wikiproject, they will have the breakdown (e.g. here's the one for art and architecture). ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You could use Petscan in combination with either Wikiproject tags or categories. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I know, but there are a couple problems with that approach: WikiProjects don't always overlap with FA categories (sometimes narrower, sometimes broader) and, perhaps more importantly, FA categories only consider the most relevant, while the same FA can be included in a variety of WikiProjects. So if I want to compare the number of Art, architecture, and archaeology biography FAs with the number of physics and astronomy FAs and the number of Philosophy and psychology biography FAs at a glance, that's not really doable afaict. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


Adding subsection under meteorology

Would it be okay to add a subsection on tropical cyclones under meteorology? Most of the links under that heading are tropical cyclones and I think it might be convenient for people browsing this page if the articles on other topics within meteorology are split from the hurricanes. Don't know whether this will break stuff, so not doing this boldly. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Chronological list?

Certain it has been asked before, but is there a list of FAs by the date they became a FA? Like what were the 10/50/100 articles to become FA most recently? (I sense the date they appear on the main page has only limited connection to when they became an FA). Thanks in advance for your help/guidance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi UnitedStatesian, the Featured log gives a month-by-month chronicle of when articles were promoted to featured status, if that helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

FA and GA nominations

Hello. I have an article in the GA nominations queue which may be there for some time to come. As the content is quite comprehensive, instead of merely broad, I'm wondering if I have joined the wrong queue. Is it permissible for an article to be nominated for FA and GA concurrently or, if I decide that FA should have priority, should I remove it from the GA list? Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd regularly pull articles I'd written from the GA queue and submit them direct to FAC if I felt they met the FA criteria and consequently that GAN would just be a rubber-stamp, and nobody ever complained. Having them open at both processes I'd think would cause bad feeling; since the result of the FAC will overwrite the GA rating, you're effectively wasting the time of any GA reviewer who starts in good faith to review it. ‑ Iridescent 11:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I'll leave it alone for the time being while I gain more understanding of FA criteria and process. I must study some FA articles. If anyone should start a GA review in the meantime, I'll go with that first but I'll pull the GAN if I decide on the FA route first. Thanks for your help. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd stay away from dual nominating, it could cause some issues. If you believe it should pass an FA, you can simply nominate for that instead of GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Lee. It's likely I will go to FA and pull the GA. I'll study a few FA articles first to compare standards. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't already, then poke the participants in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neville Chamberlain/archive2; the topics are so closely linked that any potential issues at FAC are likely to be identical. ‑ Iridescent 13:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That's useful. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Music subsections

I came looking for examples of featured songs articles, and found a mixed (as considered by type) wall of music related articles. Rather than leave it the way it was, I chose to create subsections for the works, albums, songs and miscellaneous articles, and the music biographies of groups, people and also miscellaneous. The result can be seen at the version pre-reversion. For immediate reference, the structure I proposed is simulated below:

  • Music
    • Works
    • Albums
    • Songs
    • Miscellaneous music
    • Music biographies
      • Music biographies of groups
      • Music biographies of people
      • Miscellaneous music biographies

Laser brain doesn't think the changes I made is a sensible information architecture nor are the label semantics precise (revert edit summary), and I'd like to have a chat about it with the aim of subsectioning the listed music articles.

I think the structure and section naming I created is perfectly fine for both semantics and to disambiguate the sections (i.e. and e.g. "Miscellaneous music" as opposed to just "Miscellaneous" and "Music biographies of groups" instead of "Biographies of groups"), but am more than happy to discuss possible improvements with an aim to a better organised and more user friendly list. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Principal among my concerns is that the term "works" generally refers to any musical composition, so it's not sufficient to denote "stuff that isn't an album, song, or this other stuff". I believe that a taxonomical labels in general need to be precise and predictable. Can the average reader predict what will be under "miscellaneous music" or "miscellaneous music biographies"? The fact that catch-all bins had to be made at the end of your information architecture means that it's not fully appropriate. Finally, I'm in favor of minimal sub-sections on this page in general as it is a page meant for browsing. I think readers are more likely to want to browse all of the "music" featured articles than a more divided list. Separating songs from albums from other things doesn't seem to serve the reader in any useful way. --Laser brain (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding: An alternate way to proceed would be as Media has done it—anything that's not a Song or Album would just be at the top. I don't think breaking up music biographies at all is useful. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Considering your feedback, how about:
Seems reasonable. I'm hoping to get some additional feedback since this is a relatively high-visibility page. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Okie doke; I'll keep watching and poke it if it stop breathing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears no one else is eager to comment. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It does appear so. Let's give your suggestion a try. --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done What do you think? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey is donfizzy,really appreciate. Donfizzy87 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Is great Victor Baruch (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've updated a featured article to reflect more recent research, but the same article has been translated and is featured in multiple other languages, many of which I do not speak. Is there any good way to tip off the other languages to update their featured articles? HLHJ (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the article? I'd suggest a talk page message, and link to on each of the WP:ILL articles. Not sure if that is the best way to go, but someone is surely working on the different language versions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Lee Vilenski, just saw this. Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. I sought some external reviews on my update from WP:MED. Basically historians finally started publishing on the subject, and proved better at historical scholarship than epidemiologists and lobbyists, who tended to make the subject more simple and coherent than was accurate. There are about ten languages in which it has been featured, about half of them no longer featured, and twenty more in which it has not been featured... I'm not sure anyone is watching most of them. I was hoping for a semi-automated method, or a translingual template. HLHJ (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the best method would be to ask the people who translated it in the first place, on their user talk pages. Some of them will presumably be inactive by now, but if they translated the article from en to a different language they probably can read a request made in en. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, starting off the list of suggstions, can you feature the South American tapir or Baird's tapir (tomorrow) please? 2601:206:8101:2F0:F5:9807:10BF:ED07 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes Victor Baruch (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Im just start still learning how to edit the page. How to edit im always block. Thanks Palata752 (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles/sandbox

Greetings,

does Wikipedia:Featured articles/sandbox this page still serve a purpose? It spuriously appears in WhatLinksHere for FA articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes It does Victor Baruch (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I agree with you re. "spurious". @Victor Baruch: can you expand on why the page still serves any purpose? The statistics are illuminating. It has had 175 edits in 13 years, of which 150 are by a bot; it was last edited 18 months ago, and its ast 50 edits go back to 2012. That is the definition of spurious! ——SN54129 11:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, any guide? How to edit? Do i need to removed some content or just add words? Palata752 (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

FA-Class Chicago articles

I just completed reading the articles in Category:FA-Class Chicago articles. I made some edits, most uncontroversial and a few contested, as well as some suggestions. On a whole they were good reads with only one that might have needed downgrading but I removed the controversial section and tag. Otr500 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers. Sdkb (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Where do volcanoes belong in the list

Currently some volcanoes - such as Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) - are in the "Geology and geophysics" section whereas others - such as Ubinas and Wōdejebato - are in the "Geography and places" section. What is the correct section? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Some things fit well in more than one category. Others, like Underwater diving, get shoehorned into the least bad fit. Tricky. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
See discussion at WT:TFA

Preliminary: Here I suggest to speedy make Virus a WP:TFA. When this is actually requested (having some support from WP:MED), the discussion should be on *this* page Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article @TFA coordinators (changed) IIRC. Initial support from TFA-minded people (like you, reading this) would help getting a good decision. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this discussion. See further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Speedy Corona-related TFA. Once we get a better sense there, the proposal can be put forward at WT:TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Plus can you give me any good reason not to block you on the spot since you openly admit you're canvassing people you think will give "initial support"? You have 200,000 edits, the "I wasn't aware of the rules" argument isn't going to wash. ‑ Iridescent 15:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Iri, you indented under me, but I assume your comment is aimed at DePiep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
(ec) User:Iridescent That reason is AGF. As you can read, I am proposing an idea on relevant WikiProjects Talk pages. Asking for Initial support is good practice, since there might be issues I myself do not see. Also visible is that I am clearly open for arguments on why it could be DOA. BTW already people have added good replies, bringing my proposal further. If you wish to furthen your personal attack, please read WP:CANVAS first, digest its purpose and intention, and be more specific. Is there anything else I can help you with? -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, It's been over ten years since it was last featured on the main page, so that shouldn't be a problem. Maybe bounce Turpitz off from 1 April? I mean, it's clearly trading on that oh-so-very-important anniversary of its launch (when clearly what most people would be interested in is its sinking, D'OH). 'Tirpitz' is certainly not very April Fools-ish (good), but although viruses are equally unamusing, it could be cogently argued that the complete fuck-up that we're currently observing—AKA world leaders running around like headless chickens with none of them having the blindest clue as to what to actually do wrt COVID-19—is fractionally more suited to the day in question. YMMV of course. ——SN54129 15:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The April Fools idea is sick, and not in a funny way. This is the wrong page for this discussion; could we see what Graham Beards says about our virus articles, what the FAC coords say, and then launch a proposal on the correct page, WT:TFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Misunderstood... ——SN54129 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Why are we still discussing here? DePiep are you planning to start the discussion at WT:TFA or should I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I'm fine with you starting that talk. Glad you dove into this. -DePiep (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep:, ok, will do, arming with sanitizer to do some errands, will post to TFA when I get home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI/my afterthoughts: here Graham Beards suggests TFA'ing Introduction to viruses (TFA in 2012) or Social history of viruses (2013). Virus seems to have no degraded-issues.
As for the speedy argument: usually a birthday is a strong TFA trigger on the calendar. We could consider coronavirus similarly calender-bound b/c of actuality. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Today's featured article#Proposal to re-run virus-related TFAs during Coronavirus pandemic SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Table captions

I thought it would be useful to draw your attention to the discussion and conclusion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #RfC on table captions. We've previously accepted the lack of a caption for a table where the table was placed immediately below a heading that would duplicate the caption. However, the RfC rejects that now that we have a template {{sronly}} that can encapsulate text that we wish to be rendered by a 'screen reader only'.

It is probably best to encourage editors to comply with the requirement for data tables to have captions for now, but eventually, it ought to be a requirement for Featured articles. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Featured article length & Laura Harrier

FAC Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, we are working on content translation of English featured articles to Dutch for Dutch Wikipedia. I want to include a list with all featured articles on English Wikipedia for our translators to choose from, and this petscan query tells me there are 3126 articles that have the featured article template on English Wikipedia, however on this page I read that there are 5801 featured articles. Can you please help me figure out the difference? Thanks! MichellevL (WMNL) (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MichellevL (WMNL), if I run a query for mainspace pages containing {{featured article}} I get 5800. Did you do something different in your query? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, apparently I did, but I can not figure out what it was.. Thank you so much anyway! MichellevL (WMNL) (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Categorizing Sega

To whom it may concern: I see that Sega, which was promoted to FA at the end of May this year, was categorized as a Video games article on the WP:FA list of featured articles. Given that in this case the company is a multinational corporation with their hands in movies and film, toys, arcade center operations, as well as the development of arcade and video games, I feel it would make more sense to be classified under Business, economics, and finance under the Companies subheader. Would anyone object to this? Red Phoenix talk 01:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hi guys, I would like to start the FA process for Ksour Essef cuirass but I don't know at all how it works. Could someone help me ? Thanks -- Schweiz41 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Schweiz41, instructions for this are at the top of the page WP:FAC. That said, having quickly scanned the article, I'd recommend several steps before considering FAC:
  • Ensure everything in the article is cited to a reliable source. I noticed a couple of paragraphs that don't finish with citations, that at least should be rectified.
  • Try taking the article through the Good Article Nomination process and/or Peer Review. GAN is useful as an initial assessment process, although it's usually only one person looking at your work. PR can get several sets of eyes on the article, and the more commentary you get before heading to FAC the better.
  • Take a swing by similar articles at WP:FA, and perhaps also a few open nominations at WP:FAC. This can give you pointers for improving the article and preparing for the assessment process. Don't hesitate to reach out to the community.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Brilliant prose" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brilliant prose. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Brilliant prose until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

lots of Christian leaders, but . . .

I've noticed that "featured articles" very often focus on various Christian clergymen throughout history. You don't have to take my word for it, a quick review of the history of Wikipedia's featured articles will reveal that a Christian clergyman was the subject of a new featured article in the months of April, May, June, July, and August. I have yet to see any featured articles (or at least for a very long time) on notable rabbis or leaders/ philosophers of other modern, significant, non-Christian religions. I'm not claiming an intentional bias here. Indeed, the way Wikipedia works with its multiple editors from the general public, I'd think the idea of intentional bias to be highly unlikely. Still, in the interest of balance, it would be nice to see other, non-Christian religious leaders from history occasionally featured.

If this suggestion is better left on another editorial page, please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1023:4515:3975:6C9D:D737:E58C (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP. Articles become "featured" because one or more editors engage in improving them to meet the featured article criteria. If you want to see featured articles on other topics, the best way to achieve that would be to do the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - we don't just pick articles at random. Users work on articles and then nominate such articles to FAC. There's no bias here, other than users putting a lot of work into a specific field. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

It seems that featured articles pre-2006 or so had considerably weaker requirements than they do now. As such, a lot of old featured articles got reassessed and delisted over time. From a noob's perspective (i.e. mine), it looked like the article was originally of very high quality, but that over time, it had gotten significantly worse for some reason, when in fact it probably hadn't. Thus, I'd take a look at the older (featured) versions of the article and try to include material from there.

I guess if you think about it, you would come to the conclusion that this is bogus. Unless there is a lot of new information about a topic, there would be no reason for the edits to simply be reverted to the older version. Then one would conclude that the delisting was about applying stricter requirements (or perhaps identifying fallacies in the original nomination/listing).

Still, I feel it would be prudent to mention this history in the description of what a featured article is. Or, if not there, document this trend somewhere (though I don't know where). Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes and no. It's true that standards have changed over time. However, it's also true that if no one's paying attention, an article's quality will tend to degrade over time, even if nothing new is published on a subject - and it's rare that absolutely nothing new is published on a subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of numismatics

I may be wrong, but I think that the categorization of numismatics under economics and finance is not correct. I think it would go better under the history section. From my personal experience, I know that most colleges usually have numismatics taught and studied by those in the history department rather than the school of economics. ~ HAL333([1]) 01:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Oxenfree

I was really quite shocked to see today's featured article, Oxenfree. It may be a well-known product, but the language, even if it doesn't stray into contravention of the NPOV rule (and I think it does), is certainly unacceptably flowery. I spend much of my time deleting spam from the encyclopedia and it's disappointing to see this not only slipping through the net but being held up as an example of a good article! Deb (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what parts of the article you deem problematic? It was promoted in 2018 and little has changed in it since then, so I would not expect it to be full of issues. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This section of the introduction is classic advertising-ese:

"Influenced by classic teen films and coming-of-age shows, the developers wanted to create a story-driven game without cutscenes, allowing players to freely roam the environment. Oxenfree's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with bright, geometric, and digital ones." Deb (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm no admirer of our videogame articles in general—I think they have far too much of a tendency to be self-referential and to citation-bomb with lots of questionable sources to gloss over a lack of reliable sourcing—but I can't see anything wrong with that. This style of game is essentially an interactive movie, and I wouldn't bat an eyelid at a "this is the atmosphere the director was aiming to evoke, and this is how critics described it" in a film article. I wouldn't consider it in any way advertising other than the broadest sense of "mentioning that something exists constitutes advertising" (by which criterion virtually all our articles are spam; a Featured Article on a 500-year-old painting, a sports team etc could still potentially generate revenue for someone if it prompted someone to take enough of an interest to pay to see it). Certainly, I can't imagine any gamer choosing to buy a two-year-old game because they've seen it mentioned on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 15:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It's essentially puffery, and this is just the introduction! Deb (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss content on the article talk page, but I don't think we have the same idea of what constitutes "puffery". If you think the article violates NPOV by all means, hash it out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the comments stating that the article does not appear to have any (major) POV issues. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how this is an NPOV issue. So long as independent RS describe this as being the case, there's no issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:FA devoid of STEM material

STEM articles are extremely underrepresented in WP:FA, and of the few that do exist, many are about products or services. I propose a review of high-importance articles in STEM to determine exactly what must be done in order for them to meet the featured article criteria, make appropriate edits, and award them featured article status as soon as possible, without delay. AP295 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easiest to start with STEM articles that were featured articles but lost that status at some point. (Looks like many former featured articles are also either biographical or otherwise of a non-technical nature) I'm concerned that WP:FA does not present a well-balanced view of human knowledge. If this talk page is not the place for such a proposal, please direct me to the appropriate venue. AP295 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

By STEM you mean Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? I dunno, broadly defined we have lots of these articles (including mine, most recently Quelccaya Ice Cap).

I'd imagine one problem with these might be that they often need continuous updates as I have found out to my annoyance. Beyond that point, the only articles that can become FAs are these that someone has written to the WP:WIAFA criteria. Thus the recurrent advice that folks who think a certain topic is unrepresented among FAs to write articles on that certain topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but particularly mathematics and computing. Articles like Mean or Function (mathematics) should not need frequent updates. I say this with utmost respect for you and your work, but they are more important for most people than the Quelccaya Ice Cap AP295 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've pretty much given up on them. Shuttle-Centaur is languishing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review for want of reviews and I could not get Galileo (spacecraft) through GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, I think articles like Shuttle-Centaur are important but I'm mostly talking about articles such as Mean or Function (mathematics), which I would rate as having top importance. They are simple yet very fundamental and important concepts. It's necessary to understand them to achieve any semblance of scientific literacy. There's no reason we should not be able to get these into WP:FA. AP295 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And I believe there must be a coordinated effort. Many scientific articles seem to become overly long and disjointed, with so many editors working independently. As a starting point, I think these three articles are all vital for basic scientific literacy and deserve very serious attention: Mean, Function (mathematics), Set (mathematics). My time is limited and I cannot improve them alone, but I would like to be part of such an effort. How can we organize this? AP295 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think a topic is under-represented, you should get in touch with the wikiproject surrounding it or improve the articles to the criteria yourself. We all work on articles that are important to us. I'd suggest speaking with other editors at WT:MATH Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I've repeated my proposal there. I'll leave this RFC open for now in case others have something to add and to raise awareness. AP295 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, how is the daily featured article chosen from among the articles in WP:FA? If it's chosen uniformly from among all featured articles then this would cause topics with many featured articles to be over-represented. It might perhaps be better to uniformly choose a topic each day, and then a featured article from among those relating to that topic. AP295 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This isn't an WP:RfC. You can read how these are chosen at WP:TFA, but it is generally spaced out between topics and on request. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but what do you mean "this isn't an RfC"? AP295 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
{{I'll leave this RFC open}} - this isn't an RfC, unless you've opened one somewhere else. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This section is an RfC. Do you mean the topic I started on WikiProjects? I haven't made that an RfC yet. What RfC category should I use if I do? AP295 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I misspoke, this shouldn't have been an RfC - you haven't given any options or an actual question to answer. You don't need to start an RfC for just a discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I haven't given people "options" because this is not a multiple choice exam. Since these vital articles seem to have fallen by the wayside, I had hoped to solicit comments and discussion about what we ought to do about that. AP295 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and that's something you can do simply by opening a conversation in a section like this. An RfC is used for getting a decision from the community on something which typically should not be decided by just one or two editors. Here, if you can interest other editors in working on STEM articles, you can do so; the opinion of other editors is irrelevant, so an RfC is not needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
And likewise, I think we need more than one or two pairs of eyes on this issue. Those articles are already categorized as "vital", and yet they've failed to achieve featured article status thus far, and STEM remains very underrepresented among high-quality articles. I think this is a problem worthy of more attention, and so I've made it an RfC. Do you feel this is unimportant or a waste of others time? AP295 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the importance or usefulness of the suggestion. I'm just explaining what an RfC is for. There's no harm in leaving this as an RfC, though, so don't worry about it. Re the actual discussion: this is a variation on a topic that has been discussed many times before. I would be delighted to see more math articles make it to FA (I have a maths background myself) but I don't plan to work on them, though I might be able to help review them in preparation for a featured article candidacy. If you can find other editors who are interested in working on STEM articles that would be great. I have brought a couple to FA myself (radiocarbon dating, ice drilling, ice core) but am currently working on other topics. I wish you luck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm sure I'll need it. I don't mean to seem snide, but I dislike the "multiple choice" or "loaded-question" format of RfC. It discourages lateral thinking. The results of such RfCs are predictable and it seems to defeat the purpose. AP295 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll also add that whether or not this "has been discussed before" is no concern of mine. I would like to see these articles improved to featured article status, that is all. They can and they very much should. AP295 (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Speaking only about articles like Mean, the problems I see are that:
  • The topic is so broad that making the article meet the "comprehensive" criteria of FA is hard (African humid period isn't even a FA and it took all of my Christmas holidays to author it) and it takes far more work than on a specialized topic.
  • As another user uses to say, covering the more niche topics is more important for Wikipedia because the broader topics are already covered elsewhere whereas the niche ones aren't.
Just a few thoughts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
True, but there should be no such thing as a article that can never achieve WP:FA status. For various (and hopefully obvious) reasons, I believe it's important to have high-quality articles on those subjects and once in a while have them appear on the front page. "Mean" usually refers to the arithmetic mean, and the article can be structured to give the arithmetic mean due weight. If this is not possible or acceptable for whatever reason, then we can have separate articles. AP295 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Since WT:MATH seems to be the appropriate place to discuss this, I'll remove the RfC tag from this section and put it in the section I made there. I've also edited my question somewhat and I'm categorizing the new RfC under science, so please leave this section where it is here so we can start fresh now that I've determined how to proceed. AP295 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sports biography: anyway to group or denote the kind of sports?

By "denoting", it could be adding an icon / next to the athelete's article. By grouping, it could be a bold subheading using a semicolon code ; (Badminton). The reason is: when wikipedians are working to improve an sports biography article to FA standard, they want to find an existing FA of the same sport as a model - but they would get lost in the sea of (cricket) sports biography listed in WP:FA and spend a good half and hour to find out. -- love.wh 11:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't be adding icons next to items like this. I think you'd struggle even putting them into categories for some items, as not all sportspeople just do sports, and some do multiple different sports. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
You are worrying too much over rare cases. Even if athletes do >2 sports, the atheletes have one sport with bigger achievement. For the point of "Not all sportspeople just do sports", then why even list them in sports biography? Put them in business biography (etc). -- love.wh 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Dior peer review

I was wondering if any experienced music editors at FA can leave some comments on the Dior (song) peer review? Aoba47, a very experienced music editor, left some amazing comments that helped the article immensely. I would really appreciate it if anyone like them could help the article for it to be FA level. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

When a FA is demoted it doesn't seem generally to become a good article. None of Wikipedia:Former featured articles, Wikipedia:Featured article review or Wikipedia:Former featured articles mention this but in cases like Westgate-on-Sea it seem they the are stripped altogether rather than being downgraded. This should probably be clarified since it seems odd that an article that was formerly a FA would not still be a GA even if it no longer qualifies as being a FA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, such as at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 15. You really need to discuss it at the GA page, since that is the process for assigning (or not assigning according to Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What cannot be a good article?: note point 3) GA class. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, the GA criteria indeed specifies this even though the other pages don't. Maybe this needs reconsidering though. However I know almost nothing about either since I don't usually work with such articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Number is off

@DrKay, Nikkimaria, and Gog the Mild:, the page shows 5,907 FAs, but Template:FA number shows 5,906. The number was correct a few days ago, when I last checked for WP:FAS. I can't tell what was missed, because in the interim, SarahSV did a reorganization of the Sports section, so a compare diff can't detect the problem. I don't know how to address this, but suspect that DrKay does. Did all new FAs see the tally incremented, all delisted FAs see a decrease, or was something dropped when SV did the reorg? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: End of last month 5913 + featured 6 - defeatured 12 = 5,907, so maybe there is just a problem in how the Template:FA number is populating, or maybe there is a lag (which I have never seen before); that is, it does not appear that Sarah missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Gog's last addition fed through to, and corrected, the template instantly.[2] What caused this temporary glitch? Whatever, all sorted for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Small title change

Hi! Just had 2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship promoted. We have a section for snooker (I've been steadily adding to over the years), do you think we could change it to say "snooker and cue sports", or similar? I do plan on adding other articles for cue sports over time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Lee, I didn't see the above before -- yes, I think combining snooker, pool and so in in one subsection makes plenty of sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple suggestions

The FA page has an overwhelming amount of issues. In general, there are too many huge undefined lists of articles (beginning of music, history, law, video games sections, for example) that offer no navigational ability for any readers. These problems are exacerbated when compared to Wikipedia:Featured lists, which carefully displays all the featured lists in an extremely readable format. I would strongly advocate for their collapsed list format as well...

  1. The grouping of musicals in "theatre" but operas into "music" is dubious. One solution would be to change "Literature and theatre" to "Literature and plays" thereby moving the musicals with the operas, oratorio and operettas to a "Works for stage" subsection of the Music.
  2. A "Specific cases" section in Law could certainly (and probably should) be created
  3. The History section is unnavigable and largely useless. Why no "Civilizations and Empires" (or a more appropriate name) subsection?
  4. Warfare can have a "Military divisions" section (or whatever the appropriate term would be) for the many examples of such articles (e.g. 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), 1st Missouri Field Battery, 1st Provisional Marine Brigade...)
    "Military units" would be the go I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Video games and Transport are also unnavigable. Considering we have an extremely active Video Game WikiProject, we should surely take advantage of their expertise in helping create better organization.
  6. Storms can surely be split into specific storms vs seasons?
  7. Though it would be a small section, separating individual works of art from entire genres or movements (e.g. Early Netherlandish painting, Ukiyo-e art, Funerary art) would be extremely beneficial for readers.

This is just short list of observations. I'm willing to do a lot of organizing myself, but I suspect I'm going to need consensus for a lot of these things. Aza24 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sympathetic to most of these but I agree some more opinions would help. That said I might just be bold with the "Military units" one, it seems a bit of a no-brainer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not want collapsible sections like at Featured lists, because they impede searchability, and don't like at all seeing all these tiny categories, as they create a maintenance problem (in terms of where to put articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The only suggested category thus far that would be tiny, is the art genre one—and perhaps for good reason.
      • Regardless of collapsing—which is far from the biggest issue here—the walls of text are virtually useless, and in sections like "History"—where a vast amount of topics (on a wide range of issues) are presented in a single flat list—are a joke, most readers will not be benefited by such a presentation. How would having King Arthur, Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah, Manhattan Project and the Byzantine Empire being in the same section assist any reader? There is already a "maintenance problem" (as I discovered just by fixing a few) which actually seems easier to occur from these broad categories; is there a distinction between opera and theater? Does not everything in the "law", "Royalty and nobility" or "warfare" sections fit under the "history"? Our sports and biology categories are easily navigable, ones like storms are not. There seems obvious division available, split the latter into "Specific storms" "storm seasons" and "metrological history of specific storms" (or a better, equivalent name) and the section is now a meaningful division. The fact that there are such obvious solutions for this makes me think this has not been properly considered here... Aza24 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandy about collapsible sections. Generally I like all of Aza24's proposed divisions and I agree it would be more navigable -- yes, it might be a little trickier for FAC coords to place the articles on promotion, but there's a real benefit for the reader to consider too. I don't like tiny sections either, but I think sections with hundreds of articles are worse. And we can revert if any division seems to cause real confusion. I would say go ahead with all the proposed splits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons in regards to the icon for featured content. Pbrks (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pbrks surely you know that this page is scarcely watched and the main FA page is WT:FAC? That is, if you don’t know that, page statistics is your friend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia No, I did not. Pbrks (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, if that is the case, I would suggest placing a talk page banner at the top of this page indicating that it should be used only to discuss modifications to WP:Featured articles rather than issues pertaining to featured articles in general. Or you could even nominate this page to redirect to WT:FAC (although the archives would need to be handled so that they're not lost).
I notified this page, as well as WT:FC and several other pages I assumed would be relevant, back when I launched the predecessor discussion to the one above, so it was rather dispiriting to have you and a bunch of other FA regulars start complaining at the recent discussion that you never heard about it and how could you possibly have known. If it irks you all to not have all FA notifications go to WT:FAC, then do a better job maintaining the pages in your projectspace so that it's not incredibly easy to misplace notices here instead of where you want them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

FA numbers mismatch ?

Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles displays 7,300+ FA:

The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has a summary table for article assessments that have been done by WikiProjects:

All rated articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low ??? Total
FA 1,577 2,505 2,419 1,961 181 8,643
FL 181 688 768 703 100 2,440
A 371 681 788 584 91 2,515
GA 3,247 7,385 14,818 19,733 1,761 46,944
B 17,003 32,999 54,700 69,931 23,536 198,169
C 17,004 54,392 136,175 313,538 92,626 613,735
Start 18,535 92,540 417,328 1,634,171 414,252 2,576,826
Stub 4,278 31,442 277,892 2,808,993 762,904 3,885,509
List 4,901 17,268 54,231 196,601 69,853 342,854
Assessed 67,097 239,900 959,119 5,046,215 1,365,304 7,677,635
Unassessed 123 482 1,239 17,008 405,677 424,529
Total 67,220 240,382 960,358 5,063,223 1,770,981 8,102,164
About this table

That is a difference of about 1,400 as of now. Why is it not matching ? Yug (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yug, if you look at the the section there including that table, it provides your answer: the table double-counts (or more) FAs belonging to multiple WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Best examples of non-fiction science books?

Hey all! I was wondering what the best examples of some FA-level non-fiction science books are? I've been looking through the list and it's hard to find something like what i'm looking for. I really just want to know what the standard is for such a book article at FA-level, what sections are routinely used, things like that. If we take an article like T. Rex and the Crater of Doom that I made a while back, other than expanding the lede, what else is missing that I should be looking into? (Obviously, Good level submission first, but I was just curious). SilverserenC 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Denbies

Wonder if this should be moved from "Art" to "Architecture and archaeology". Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I've just done this, while I was creating a new subsection of "Art" for paintings. Ham II (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ham! Ceoil (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

'Golden Sun' under Video Games header links to incorrect article

Golden Sun now links to the series of the games (which is a GA), not the first video game (Golden Sun (Video Game)) in the series (which is a FA). They were switched in 2019 as per the discussion on the talk page on the series.

Done - Realmaxxver (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Featured article nominated for deletion

A featured article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). Therapyisgood (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I was planning on taking this article to FAR to be de-listed as a FA before the AfD was initiated. The article strays so far off of topic that it is not about Lewis, but instead the details of the one game Lewis played in, leading to several WP:COATRACK instances. This brings into question the FAC which do not specify sticking on topic. #4 is the closest item: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Can this be modified to ensure a well-written article is actually about the main subject? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2. Dege31 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent FA placement?

I see Whitehawk Camp is in archaeology but Knap Hill is in geography; I don't know which is better but I think they should be in the same section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, both should be in archaeology. As you've no doubt seen, I just looked at the FA list & found a number of ridiculous misplacings, mostly art called archaeology/architecture. The whole list could probably do with a checkover. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, I went ahead and moved Knap Hill. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't Fort Ticonderoga below in warfare as much or more than its current placement of architecture/archaeology? Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, more. Most of the article is on it's active history, & though abandoned, it seems to have needed "restoration" rather than excavation. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Alphabetical list

Is there an automatic way to generate an alphabetical list of all current featured articles? Does such a list already exist somewhere on Wikipedia? Or would it have to be done manually? Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Category:Featured articles suffice? If nothing else is available, you can put the whole page into Excel and sort ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that'll work, thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Header wording

Additionally, if the current article is featured in another language, a star will appear next to the corresponding entry in the Languages list in the sidebar to let you know. - I believe a different colored star appears if the article is a GA in a different language. See, for instance, the grey star next to the Chinese language link at Battle of Marais des Cygnes. Should we consider making a wording change here? Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Counter?

At WP:GA there is a counter set up to total how many are in each section. Would it be possible to set up something similar here? Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi HF, is the GA counter automated now? I remember it was all manual but been a long time since I reviewed at GAN... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's automated ... if not then I've been screwing stuff up over there pretty badly. I'm in the process of trying to create an update of Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_statistics#Jan_1,_2020, and the two methods I know of are 1) manual counting and 2) copying everything into Microsoft Excel, deleting out all the headers, and seeing how many rows there are. I'm two off and frankly don't feel like going through all of the methods with every single section. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I added wikicode I borrowed from Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology so it automatically calculates the number of articles in each section. The only problem that I can tell is that it automatically adds dashes between articles, so we have both dots and dashes separating articles. We could fix that problem by removing the asterisks in front of the article links. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Save diff: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Update

I previewed removing the asterix before each article title, and that really messes up the formatting. I also tried replacing the wikcode from the Good article page by creating Template:Featured Article subsection, which is based on Template:Featured List subsection. I replaced “{{#invoke:Good Articles|subsection|}}” with "{{Featured Article subsection|}}", and it worked beautifully for the first 3,668 articles before it gave me a Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size alert and hid the remaining 2,355 articles (everything after "Physics and astronomy"). I tried to get around that by creating Template:Featured Article subsection2 and using that from "Politics and government" through "Warfare", but that didn't help at all.

In short, I think that if we want to automatically calculate the number of FAs in each section, we may have to live with the somewhat unsightly dots and dashes between articles. I'm copying User:PresN from the Featured list project to ask for ideas, seeing as the featured list project automatically calculates the number of list in each section with "{{Featured List subsection|}}". There are currently 3,873 featured lists, so I'm not sure why there isn't an issue with Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this! Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@AmericanLemming: Hmm, if I check the source for WP:FL, it's telling me "postexpandincludesize":{"value":1375072,"limit":2097152}, so, 1.3 million out of 2 million, a pretty big gap. The problem seems to be {{FA/BeenOnMainPage}} - y'all have 5200 calls to it on the page, and WP:FL doesn't use a similar template to track that. If I strip out those template calls, the FA page drops to "postexpandincludesize":{"value":884087,"limit":2097152}}, or 800,000, far away from the limit. (WPFL has way more little subsection counters, so it makes sense that we're higher there). I don't know enough about what parts of templates are expensive to know if there's any edits possible to the Featured Article subsection template to make it cheaper, but if not, then you won't be able to use it and have 5000 calls to FA/BeenOnMainPage. --PresN 05:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
How about having a template "NotBeenOnMainPage" instead, calling that for the much smaller number for which that's the case, and getting used to the reversed display appearance on WP:FA? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: If I create a template, would it be worthwhile to make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests so that the switch doesn't have to be made manually? Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it might be simpler than that. The wikitext looks like this: * {{FA/BeenOnMainPage|[[Harris Theater (Chicago)]]}}* [[Harry F. Sinclair House]] so a search and replace of "{{FA/Been" and "]]}}", " [[" and "]][carriage return]" might work -- it could be done in a text editor, so long as you are careful about the order in which it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
That's probably above my skill level. Also, I didn't realize it was possible to find & replace in any of the edit modes. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I typically do things like that in a text editor. If you get the new template working I can try to do the update for you if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Hawkeye7, because if we make this change, it'll affect the operations of FACbot. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I typically stripped out the extra via Find/Replace in Word, and then moved to Excel for the counting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It is AWESOME to see all of you working to address this issue, as the Word to Excel manipulations I had to do in the past to come up with the numbers was quite time consuming as HF has now discovered! This is the kind of leadership and taking the bull by the horns I knew we would see from HF, following on the same from Mike Christie, where we can actually have data-based discussions. :) :) I agree that whatever can be done to make the numbers appear could take precedence over other formatting issues. I love the idea of switching to "NotBeenOnMainPage", to shorten the overall effect, but if that is done, please remember to fix the green tool that displays the "been on main page", eg at User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Why was Space Shuttle Challenger disaster placed in History, rather than Engineering and technology? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators:  ??? Queried a week ago, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It's Gog's promotion, so I can't answer that. I don't have an opinion which section is more appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 11:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
All other space stuff is in Eng & tech (the issue came up when the nominator was confused by where to find it at WP:FFA [4] as this is a re-promoted FA that needed to be noted at FFA). That is, it was in Eng & tech at FFA (because that is how it was classified in its first go-round as FA), but the nominator thought it was not there, as they were looking in History, since it was put in History here. FA and FFA need to stay on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I neither knew nor care how the article was previously classified. IMO while Space Shuttle Challenger may be engineering, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was an incident and so belongs in History. If the FAC nominator disagrees I am happy to discuss it with them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, I hope you are having a nice day. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Delist featured article

Can someone tell me the correct process to nominate an article for deselection as an FPA. Thanks. Today's Jaguar article has a misleading over-saturated poor quality image in the infobox which a group of editors voted to keep in preference to one of my Commons FPs. Majority voting is fine, but their decison devalues the article in my opinion. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Charlesjsharp. Yes, I can help you with that, but first some things you should be aware of. First, it is highly unlikely that a Featured article would be delisted over one image, and second, we don’t submit articles for reconsideration of their featured status until after a specified wait period from when problems are first raised on the article’s talk page. We also don’t submit articles for re-assessment right after they have been on the mainpage (WP:TFA, Today’s featured article) on the assumption that issues are likely to be corrected as a result of the article running on the mainpage and being seen by more people.
That said, the place we re-assess FA status relative to the criteria is WP:FAR. Please take a careful look at the instructions, and be sure to raise your concerns first on the article talk page. What makes a Featured picture is not highly relevant to what makes a Featured article, so the concern you have raised here is not really sufficient to suggest a Featured article review is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm surprised that the quality of the lead image does not influence the decision-making. I believe it should. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Images are part of the FA criteria, but the choice of a single image - even if you believe it is of poorer quality than available alternatives - is unlikely to be sufficient to warrant removal of FA status. Added to that, Featured Article Review is not intended to be dispute resolution - I'd suggest that as the more appropriate avenue to pursue if you disagree with the image selection. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Some of us non-photography people can't tell the difference :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to subsections in sports and recreation

I see the rugby section now only contains two articles, and this isn't an area in which articles have been promoted recently. I propose that this small section be merged into the miscellaneous for sports and recreation, much how our one Wimbledon article is there, or our one basketball article is there. Hog Farm Talk 05:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Currently the category Category:Featured articles as 6,042 members, while this page states that there are 6,035 FAs. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I used to have to put them in a spreadsheet to find the problem, but maybe DrKay knows an automated way to check. This usually means someone stuck an FA on an article without going through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
PS, I see 6040 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
You're right, it's a separate category Category:Wikipedia_featured_articles that has 6,042 members. That categorizes based on the talk pages while Category:Featured articles is based on the article space. (t · c) buidhe 11:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, the three Nikki just delisted would not have been botified yet, so would still have the star on the article (and the talk page) even though they have been removed from this page (pending FACbot), while anything just promoted may similarly not yet have the star. So, unsure if there is actually a discrepancy; have to do the numbers after the bot has been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe Dr Kay just incremented the count based on this addition; it is quite confusing how y’all add articles in separate edits from incrementing the tally without indicating which article the tally applies to. Perhaps either do them in one edit, or use better edit summaries. DrKay seems to be indicating that you missed incrementing the tally, but I suggest stepping back through. I did them in one edit together (add articles and change tally in one edit), but considering the size of the page now, perhaps better edit summaries is an alternate solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The article was added but the tally was not updated. There are now either 6036 or 6039 articles in each category. This will correct itself when the bot runs. There are two rogue pages in Category:Wikipedia featured articles, which are Template talk:Article history/Archive 5 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Archive 4. This appears to be because they contain transclusions of article history sandboxes. DrKay (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
You are awesome; thanks to a FAR Coord for helping keep all FA process pages sorted! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The bot has run, and I'm getting 6035 in the Category, while the page lists 6036. ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I recalculated the 6,036 count at the FA page, and it seems to be right. Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
So who's missing their star on their article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It's also possible that a FA could be listed in two places on the WP:FA page. I know there's been some messing around with the subcategories. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I trust the 6036 number based on WP:FAS. Last month ended at 6,029, there have been 20 promoted, and 13 demoted = 6036. FAS always tallies to the archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, no duplinks there. So there is a missing one. Hog Farm Talk 01:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
HF, sometimes there is vandalism in articlehistory, so add Category:Article history templates with errors to your userspace somewhere to also watch for that. Unfortunately, that's not it this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you know any way to look for the missing one besides putting the whole mess into a spreadsheet and sorting. That's what I used to have to do, but I think it's possible to do it smarter these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Might be a Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) question. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
DrKay always manages to sort it, but I hate to keep pinging :) There have been bells going off all day ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I've developed a way to determine when the error crept in - the internet archive wayback machine archives the category page, so I can compare the counts on the two pages. Matches up at this point in late August. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ugh ... I was away for many months so was not watching WP:FAS; maybe AmericanLemming saw an oddity somewhere. I'll go check the archives to see if they match FAS numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we got off in October, if I'm doing this right. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was related to the archives falling off due to template limits, but I counted them manually and the tally is right. I will step back through the diffs for Sept and Oct at FA next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
HF, I don't think I was editing here ... do you know what this is about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be a correct edit - Gog added Cyclone Berguitta, upped the counter from 5977 to 5978, and then dinged the counter down with a later edit. DrKay's edit fixed the count. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Going diff by diff, Gog did update the count when adding [5] Berguitta, then updated the count, then reverted self on the count, then DrKay added the count again. So I think that's ok. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Echo :O SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Oopsie .. but then ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&diff=next&oldid=1042963210 ... I wasn't around, what happened with Berguitta? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
this is what happened. Hog Farm Talk 01:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh. I'll leave this to y'all then. DrKay will sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
If worst comes to worst, I can go through manually and try to find the missing one. Hog Farm Talk 01:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I give up ... better to wait and let DrKay use his fancy tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm about to give up, too. I was trying to compare a month's archive log to the category, but because of the darned default sort, they aren't actually in alphabetical order in the categories. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I am wracking my brain over whether I messed something up with Doug Ring or with the Engineering School, but those numbers were all done, and the stars already removed, so I can't think of anything I might have changed. DrKay will find it. Sometimes a vandal, or well-meaning but clueless editor, comes along and just removes a star. I don't know how DrKay detects those, but he does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Should be 6036 now. Not a vandal, an error: [6]. I use AWB to create alphabetical lists of each category and then the two lists can be compared in a word processing or spreadsheet program that tracks changes or does text comparison to identify the discrepancy. DrKay (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks DrKay. I hope DocWatson42 is aware that they removed a featured article star in that edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, after DocWatson24’s edit removed the star, a bot changed assessment on talk:[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't—my intention was to move it to top matter per MOS:LAYOUT, but apparently there was so much going on in that edit that I forgot to do so. I apologize. —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Understood … just wanted to let you know. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Potential Idea from GA project

@SandyGeorgia: I realize that I’m commenting on this issue after it's been resolved, but it occurred to me that we have an easy, automated way to detect this sort of discrepancy in the GA project. There is a page called Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches, which uses a bot called gambot to automatically look for these kinds of discrepancies. The bot was created by User:GreenC back in April 2019; they are still an active editor, so they might be able to repurpose it for the Featured article project. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much AmericanLemming; perhaps one of the FAC or FAR Coords can reach out and make that happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Sandy, I've left a message on GreenC's talk page. Hog Farm Talk 06:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, HF! I'm not well versed in how to deal with bots, and besides, came home from a nice evening out, determined to tackle the depressing copyvio situation affecting FAs. Made little progress :) Glad you took this one on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: - would you be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches/doc? Created it for the proposed mismatches page - I'm not super familiar with the article history template and it's adapted from the GA mismatch page doc's wording, so there's almost certain to be some needed phrasing changes (and the petscan query linked towards the bottom needs fixed, but I'll look at that after work). Hog Farm Talk 21:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I gave it a pass and made lots of changes, but I don't speak cats, and recommend that Nikki and DrKay have a look now. @Nikkimaria and DrKay: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
To AmericanLemming for seeing the problem and the idea for a solution; to Hog Farm for grabbing the bull by the horns and running with it; and to GreenC for setting up fambot to create the report at Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches that will save all of us many hours of searching for that missing or extra star populating the Featured article categories. Thank you for the speedy solution to a problem spanning more than a decade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles/Archive_17&oldid=1081234089"