Wikipedia talk:Featured articles
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Featured articles page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | Wikipedia:Featured articles is a reader-facing page intended for viewing by non-editors. Please prioritize their needs when adjusting its design, and move editor-facing elements to other pages. |
| FACs needing feedback view • | |
|---|---|
| Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted | Review it now |
| La Isla Bonita | Review it now |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Theatre buildings
This is more of a little nitpick than an actual issue, but there are at least four theatrical building FAs in two separate sections. Two of them (His Majesty's Theatre, London and Theatre Royal, Drury Lane) are under the "Theatre" subheader, and the other two (Harris Theater (Chicago) and New Amsterdam Theatre) are under the "Architecture and archaeology" subheader. Should these articles all be listed under the Theatre subheader? – Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Would anyone object to me moving the Harris Theater and New Amsterdam Theatre articles to the "Theatre" subheader? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. They fit a bit better there than in a general architecture section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I've moved the articles to the Theatre subheader. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. They fit a bit better there than in a general architecture section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Architecture and archaeology
I wonder if its time to split these - both have quite a few FAs added in last couple of years. I can do the separating, if there is agreement. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, ancient architecture tends to go with archaeology but there's a growing number of modern buildings among our FAs now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, can see that as being subjective and tricky, and am now less sure. Waiting to see what other think, but would put ancient architecture within archaeology. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree with putting ancient architecture under the archaeology subheader. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, can see that as being subjective and tricky, and am now less sure. Waiting to see what other think, but would put ancient architecture within archaeology. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Per Ian above, agree that the proposal should be "should we split Architecture and archaeology so that ancient architecture is within the separate archaeology sub-section".
- So pinging KJP1, Johnbod, Giano, Amandajm, Rodw, A. Parrot, Mr rnddude, WereSpielChequers, Usernameunique, Dudley Miles, Caeciliusinhorto. Not pinging the cords who do the work of maintaining, as presumably they already have this page w/listed. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- A split seems reasonable to me – there's no obvious reason that 7 World Trade Center and Benty Grange hanging bowl should be categorised together. Which category to put ancient architecture in is of course potentially a grey area, but e.g. Beulé Gate (currently at FAC) certainly strikes me as more of an archaeology article and I suspect it would be reasonable to categorise most articles on ancient buildings under archaeology rather than architecture. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, pinging also UndercoverClassicist. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that iron age hillforts are more a matter of archaeology than of architecture, and that Hampton Court Palace is more architecture than archaeology (except for part of the gardens). But where do you put the boundary? ϢereSpielChequers 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe pre- and post-history, ie c. 100 AD on? Or depending if the civilization is lost and the buildings are in ruins, eg Aztecs or the lost cities in the Amazon. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- A split seems reasonable to me – there's no obvious reason that 7 World Trade Center and Benty Grange hanging bowl should be categorised together. Which category to put ancient architecture in is of course potentially a grey area, but e.g. Beulé Gate (currently at FAC) certainly strikes me as more of an archaeology article and I suspect it would be reasonable to categorise most articles on ancient buildings under archaeology rather than architecture. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, split. Whether the building is still in use, or a date, should be the dividing line - also whether there have ever actually been excavations there. In most cases it will be obvious. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with the split. The dividing line proposed by Johnbod makes sense to me. Some articles in other categories may also belong in the new "archaeology" category—discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun is an archaeological event, but it ended up in the catch-all "history" category, presumably because it's an even and not a site. A. Parrot (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, the articles would like to merge into archaeology are listed here. I also agree with Johnbod's criteria. Re things like Corp Naomh and the few objects we have at FA FROM from Egyptian art, would prefer to be within "artworks". Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the Corp Naomh doesn't seem to have ever been buried, & I think should be just "Art". The Icelandic Phallological Museum seems to be natural history/biology. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would also support splitting. Sure, there will be edge cases that will need a bit of thought/discussion, but I agree with the views already expressed that the majority will be blindingly obvious. KJP1 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a clickbait section heading
Because I'm not sure what else to say. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way is not getting many responses (possibly because the WP:Feedback request system seems to be down), and I've been racking my brains to think of a page that isn't too high-traffic (e.g., WP:VPP) or too biased (e.g., WP:FTN) but still cares about content. I picked you. If you have an opinion about what we really ought to do when there's no consensus – when you want to add or remove content from an article, and editors just can't agree – please tell me what the right answer is. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
72.85.185.181 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Not accurate dates
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. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
My name is Wilfred I Have Information about africa tribe in Tanzania Maasai and Nyaturu Tribe
I wish to have people to support me write clear article about these tribe Wilfred Japhet Lotha (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)