Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

FACs needing feedback view •
Tyrone Garland	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Georg Forster	Review it now
O-Bahn Busway	Review it now

See also: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles

Good Lists

There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC) banter deez nuts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.7.39 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

setting to turn off display of featured article star?

This page currently says "On non-mobile versions of our website, a small bronze star icon (This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.) on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured, unless the appropriate user preference is set." Which preference is it talking about? I am aware of a gadget (under Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance) that allows the user to "Mark navigation links to featured and good articles in other languages" (which may not actually be working because it doesn't affect the sidebar like I thought it would when I tested it) but none I am aware of that allows you to turn it off for the page itself. Am I overlooking it or is this a mis-statement? Jason Quinn (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Given no response and that I believe it to be an error, I made a change over this. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Turning off images will (obviously) do the trick, but I would like to think that our readers can work out "if I disable images, I won't see images" for themselves. (Although given that I had someone a couple of days ago insisting I explain that magazines are written by writers, nothing would surprise me.) – iridescent 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you disagreeing with the new wording or pointing out another way for the images to disappear? Or, if you are objecting to mentioning the preference to toggle the images, the point of that is not to explain what toggling does but to point out that such a feature exists. Maybe that is expendable; I kept it in part to maintain some continuity with the previous wording. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirected FA titles

Currently 18 FA-articles are listed under an old, now-redirected, article title. I would like to change those to their actual new title, both at WP:FA and WP:FANMP: it would make comparing categories and FA-pages to look for inconsistencies a lot easier, if all titles were current article titles. Otherwise redirected titles appear as difference in such comparisons (categories use current titles of course). Just checking: Is there any technical reason to keep the old article titles in those 2 FA pages? GermanJoe (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Silence means consent ;). OK, it's unlikely to break anything and helps managing the list -> I have changed those links on WP:FA and WP:FANMP. GermanJoe (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Main Page redesign underway

A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. However, in order to see the formatting, you must enable the "Show the new version of the Main Page currently under development" gadget under the Testing and development section in your preferences.

In the current redesign draft, the order of presentation of content is being modified, with Today's featured article alone at the top. Your input is welcome. The Transhumanist 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Very far from done with Oviri (Gauguin)

Excuse me, did I miss something? I was very far from done with Oviri (Gauguin), yet it somehow got promoted? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Best wishes in all things. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  To you too, man :) For the record Lingzhi was making valuable suggestions, all of which were being taken on board, slowly maybe, and none of which I disagreed with. I think the material issued were deal with, though I was (perhaps selfishly, as his time analysing is helping me a lot) looking forward to another round with him this weekend. Either way: his comments are all moved to the talk, with my commitment that they will be dealt with there (most already had, post promotion, and before I saw this). Ling, I very much valued and appreciated you time and input, and am fine with a FAR, it will amount to the same thing; article improvement. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

All articles can be improved. In my view the article was ready for promotion and there was a consensus to do so. I admit, and apologise for missing, Lingzhi's last comment at the FAC. I thought the last comments were some days before I promoted the article. Often I promote FACs that have remaining unresolved issues and add a comment about continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. I hope that this can be the case here. I am sorry if I have upset anyone. In my defense, there were ten FACs, which I had to go through before promoting on the occasion in question, my attention must have become less than ideal. Apologies. Graham Beards (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit gob-smacked, but I see now I did not understand the way Graham runs the process. So move along, nothing to see here. Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)