Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches

Documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

This is a maintenance page for the Featured article (FA) processes. It displays mismatches between articles labeled as Featured articles and those listed at the Featured Article page (the official record of FAs). For articles appearing on this list, it is likely that a mistake has been made, or vandalism has occurred, or a step in the review process has been forgotten. Ideally the first four sub-headers should be empty.

Fambot automatically overwrites the old version and generates a new page every Monday at 12:30 (UTC). Manually deleting entries as they are fixed is acceptable since the new report will reflect corrections. Manual edits like adding entries, inline comments or changing the section headers are overwritten when Fambot next runs.

Mismatches can occur for a variety of reasons and are usually easy to resolve. Editors who are not familiar with the FA processes, or with the template {{Article history}} (which tracks article milestones) can post questions at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles or Template talk:Article history.

In Category:Featured articles but not Category:Wikipedia featured articles

These articles have the {{featured article}} template on the article page (rendering the bronze star in article space ), but are not listed as having been promoted via the Featured article candidates (FAC) process. Checking the history of the article may reveal how this has occurred. Possible reasons include:

1. The {{Featured article}} template has been added to the article when no review has been conducted. This is the most common reason and usually happens when a new editor copies content from an existing FA and doesn't remove the template. Sometimes it is added by editors who do not understand the FA process. In this case just remove the {{Featured article}} template from the article. You may wish to inform the editor who added the template of the nomination process, and how to check the article talk page for the Article milestones template.
2. The article has been promoted as an FA, but the FAC page has been deleted from the article's talk page. A search of the talk page history should allow the FAC to be located and reinstated.
3. The article has been delisted at Featured article review (FAR), but the {{featured article}} template has not yet been removed.
4. The article has been delisted without a FAR. A community reassessment needs to be done for the article to be delisted. An incorrect delisting can be reverted and the editor responsible referred to the FAR page.
5. The current status field is empty in the {{Article history}} template. It needs to say |currentstatus=FA for the article to be placed in the Wikipedia featured articles category.

In Category:Wikipedia featured articles but not Category:Featured articles

These articles are listed as promoted at FAC, but do not have the {{Featured article}} template on the article page. Possible reasons include:

1. The {{Featured article}} template has been removed. In this case, after verifying the Article milestones are correct on the article talk page, just add the {{Featured article}} template near the top of the article or revert to the version that contained the template. Sometimes this can be the result of vandalism so it might pay to check the recent page history.
2. FACbot has missed adding the {{Featured article}} template. It can be added manually.
3. The article has been delisted at FAR, but the {{article history}} template has not been added. Unfortunately there is no automatic means to update or add the article history and it has to be done manually.
4. The article has been redirected to another article. Make sure the redirection is not vandalism. If it is a legitimate redirect it can no longer be a featured article. Please post an inquiry to the talk page at Featured article review for assistance.
5. The current status field still says "FA" in the {{Article history}} template after an article was delisted at FAR. It should say |currentstatus=FFA for the article to be removed from the Wikipedia featured articles category.

In Category:Featured articles but not on Wikipedia:Featured articles and On Wikipedia:Featured articles but not in Category:Featured articles

This will occur when:

1. The {{Featured article}} template has been added to or removed from the article without a review.
2. An article has been added to or removed from Wikipedia:Featured articles without a review.
3. The delisting or promotion process is incomplete, possibly because the change in status has not been processed by FACbot.
4. There are hidden characters in the article name.

Check the status of the article and either replace or remove the {{Featured article}} template, or correct Wikipedia:Featured articles, or wait up to 24 hours for the bot process to complete.

In a subcategory Category:FA-Class articles but not a Featured article

This class of errors is not tracked by Fambot. To find articles that were erroneously tagged as FA-class, follow these steps:

1. Go to this query and modify the format option of the output tab to "Wiki".
2. Run the query and copy the output list into your sandbox.
3. Create an AWB list of the "links of page" from your sandbox.
4. Add a find-and-replace to AWB to set class=FA and class = FA to just class=.

If you want to add an extra check, convert your sandbox list to articles, and then do another PetScan run to filter for pages that are missing {{featured article}}.

The above documentation is transcluded from Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches/doc. (edit | history)

In Category:Featured articles but not on Wikipedia:Featured articles

1. Β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

   Inquired at WP:VPT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Featured articles but not in Category:Featured articles

1. β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

Redirects in Wikipedia:Featured articles

1. Albert, Prince Consort --> Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

   Fixed,[1] but did not re-alphabetize, as whether there is, or what the alphabetization scheme there is unclear. Perhaps one of the @FAC coordinators: will opine and fix, as there's a jumble thoughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   That list was a bit of mess -- granted royalty is always a pain with titles, forenames and surnames competing for emphasis, commas and other punctuation, but I think it's better than it was now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych --> Crucifixion and Last Judgement Diptych

   @Ceoil, Victoriaearle, and Ravenpuff: this looks like the change was in the wrong direction, per this source; please check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Hi Sandy, I saw it and don't understand why it was moved. It was correct. There's a good argument that the article title shouldn't be in italics b/c it's an object - hence, "diptych" - but that should be raised on talk. A unilateral page move isn't ideal. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   That's what I saw as well ... maybe the Diptych portion in the lead should be lowercase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Hmm, tricky. I would have preferred a discussion. I've checked two books on my shelves - Craig Harbison has triptychs and diptychs as part of the titles & capitalized. Maryan Ainsworth from the Met leaves out the diptych, so it's Crucifixion and Last Judgement. I have other books to check but as it happens they're under dropcloths at the moment and I'm on my way out <sigh>. Can we put it back and have some time to check sources? And also to check the move logs? It's possible there was an earlier move. Victoria (tk) 18:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Ravenpuff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Why not Crucifixion and Last Judgement (diptych) (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   It would be best to be able to survey the sources, which takes a bit of time & to discuss on the talk page. If it's Crucifixion and Last Judgement it needs to be disambiguated but the attribution is isn't definitely van Eyck (if I remember off the top of my head - at least not both panels). I've never seen it called Crucifixion and Last Judgement (diptych). It's a 600 year old object that doesn't want to be stuffed neatly into modern internet usage rules. Hence the need to check sources & discuss. Pinging Johnbod too, since the discussion seems to be here. He'll know. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   The Met's online page currently uses The Crucifixion; The Last Judgment (link in the notes - AmEng of course) but I expect they have used different variations over the years, as no doubt have other sources. There's not really a "right" title (just several wrong ones). The move was supposed to be for capitalization, but shouldn't have been done without discussion, especially to an FA. I rather doubt a proper RM proposal would have passed. I'm inclined to agree with Victoria; move it back & if anyone wants to do an RM, well let them. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Just a note to let you all know that this page is overwritten every Monday, so if this isn't resolved within about five days, you might want to copy this discussion over to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Harbison's usage seems most WP:CONSISTENT with most of the painted (not ivory) diptychs at Category:Diptychs. Ham II (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Apologies for the delayed reply; was on a long flight. If we're using italics, it makes sense to treat it as a proper title, in which case "diptych" ought to be capitalized, otherwise it looks very jarring to my eyes. Otherwise I'm happy to restore the original capitalization, but remove the italic styling – i.e. treating "Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych" as a name but not a title. More detail is available at MOS:VATITLE. Also, as has been pointed out, we can be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles at Category:Diptychs. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

   I think it certainly is a title rather than a name, even when including "diptych". Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

   I've changed it in the text to Crucifixion and Last Judgment diptych which is generally what I'm seeing in the sources. Ravenpuff this is a featured article and it was page moved and the main image changed without discussion or consensus. I've restored that image as it should be and fixed the text. Please move the page back and it seeing a lower case "d" is problematic, then open a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

   Done as requested – thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 05:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A friendly reminder this conversation will be deleted on Monday, when the next bot run updates this page. It will still be viewable in the page history. Or it could be copy-pasted to the article talk page. -- GreenC 00:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Disintegration (Cure album) --> Disintegration (The Cure album)

   Fixed,[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

2. 1989 (Taylor Swift album) --> 1989 (album)

   Fixed, [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)