Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See also: Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems

Archive
Archives
Shortcut:
WT:FA

Contents

[edit] It's that time of the year again

Yep, it's the time where users are opposing articles for no reason but size, even when they admit articles are adequately comprehensive. The Hurricane Irene (2005) discussion is being repeated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Erika (1997) and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, and just repeated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ismael. You can also have a look at these kinds of comments... what can be done in cases like these? Titoxd(?!?) 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • When people make inactionable objections, informing them of the policy as you did here seems fine. About the talk page comment you linked, I don't think anything needs to be done, although you could explain to him the nature of the process. Such misunderstandings are unavoidable so long as our featured article standards diverege from the standards people would naturally expect. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you think this article is FA quality?

Comments sought on this biography of a musician. Thank you. AppleJuggler 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured user pages

Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured articles semi-protection

I suggest all Featured articles be semi-protected automatically after reaching FA status. Too many have ignoble ends. Many unregistered, irresponsible edits often turn an FA article into a bad one; it prevents a general downward slump. Pls seriously consider this suggestion. Mandel 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with ya! See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection and Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection, the debate can get quite lively.Rlevse 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. It would prevent a lot of unnecessary editing. Viper323 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Support me there if you please. Mandel 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You have my complete and total agrement. FA status appears to be a big vandalism magnet; maintaining the article quality is a daily job. — RJH (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I split Sport and Games ?

They seem like very diffrent aspects to me. I notice this topic was raise back in January but nothing has been done. Anyone know why? If no one objects in the next day or so I'm going to split them into "Computer and video games" and "Sport and recreational activities". Buc 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was done, and not done very well, which is why I reverted. In effect, it created two categories where the split was not all that clear. (By splitting it between "Sports" and "Games", the distinction between the two being very subjective)
I don't care for your proposed split because there is already a computer section. Perhaps it should be computers and video games? Raul654 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How about all computer and video games are moved to "Computing" and "Sport and Games" is renamed "Sport and recreational activities"? Buc 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next few hours I'm going just go ahead and do it. Buc 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate, I'm OK with the proposed move, but I would prefer the section be called "Computers and video games" Raul654 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't tell what split is being proposed, or how it will work, but if it happens, WP:FFA needs to follow suit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is to realign "Sports and Games" and "Computing".
"Computing" will become "Computers and Video Games"
"Sports and Games" will become "Sport and recreational activities" Raul654 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Just to clarify here are the articles I've moved. 3D Monster Maze Bulbasaur Chrono Cross Chrono Trigger Donkey Kong (video game) Doom Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Final Fantasy IV Final Fantasy VI Final Fantasy VII Final Fantasy VIII Final Fantasy X Final Fantasy X-2 Half-Life 2 Halo: Combat Evolved Katamari Damacy The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Link (The Legend of Zelda) Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee Perfect Dark Shadow of the Colossus StarCraft Torchic

[edit] FA documentary?

Does anyone know of a or high quality or FA documentary article similar to Trembling before G-d? The FAs are very hard to look through these days. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is it will be in the "Media" section. Buc 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article of 21 February 2007

I am truly astonished about the article that made it on the Main Page today (Avatar: The Last Airbender). This article has a number of problems:

  • in the first sentence, there is an occurence of the word "currently". This means that after some time, the article will no longer be correct. No article with such a formal fault should make it on the front page.
  • the logo shown in the article and displayed of Wikipedia's Main Page is copyrighted. Although it looks as if the copyright owner cleared it to be used in Wikipedia, the copyright owner is a comercial company. No Article containing such Material should make it on the Main Page (IMHO). Here the citation of the copyright license of that picture:
  • This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots
  • for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. For more information, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

  • To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

By the way, the required "fair use rational etc." is missing in the article.; another reason that it should not have made it on the frontpage!

  • The article can be viewed as a comercial add. There is an organisation (a TV Chanal) having a comercial interest in this article appearing on the Front Page of Wikipedia. IMHO, articles for which anybody has a comercial interest in making them more visible on Wikipedia should not be allowed to become featured articles. The first question comming to mind is if they paid teh Wikimedia foundation money for this (nothing wrong with that, but readers should be informed by a banner saying "This is a comercial adverticment sponsored by ...". Or did the people in that TV-Chnanal wright the article and then somehow manipulated the election process (by registering a lot of fake voters or the like). Even if nothing of this is the case, the mere fact that such question come to the reader's mind is enough not to choose such articles as featured article. Choosing such an article is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia!
How is this a comercial add, there are numerous people that helped make this article featured today. Im not sure about people paying for stuff, didnt even know you could. The article was chosen because the people who helped write it worked hard and changed everything they thoughtwas wrong. Saying that thsi shouldnt be a featured article is wrong because it ws not created to make other sites known (thats why there are no fan sites n here). Rosario lopez 19:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No matter how well the article might otherwise be writen, but even if it is, I can't help having the suspission that it was written by employees of that TV chanal. TV-Chanals tend to employ a lot of professional writers and graphics designers. This impression is increased by the copyright license in Image:Avatar-TLAlogo.jpg. Clearly they saw that it was an advantage for them to grant Wikipedia the right to show this image. The question is if Wikipedia should accept such licenses. In my opinion, something like this must not happen again. So I would like to propose the following as a general Wikipedia policy: If somebody has a comercial interest in drawing attention to a particlular Wikipedia article, such an article should never be allowed to become a featured article, no matter how well written it may be!Nannus 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Your criticisms are wrong in every respect. (1) Generally speaking, an article should give the current state of its subject. While this does mean the article could/will become outdated at some point, that is the nature of the beast when writing about current topics. (2) The fair use rational is given on the talk page of the image, per standard Wikipedia policy. (3) As far as copyrighted images on the main page, generally it's avoided if possible, but there are some topics for which a free image is impossible to find, and this topic is one of them. (4) As far as your unfounded accusations that this was written by an employee of Nickelodeon, I think the author's reply (below this comment) is an an adaquate (if not rather tame) reply. Raul654 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I expressed myself not so clearly. I did not make any accusation that this article was written by an employee of that TV station. Just my first thought when I saw it was that it might be that way. In my oppinion, an article that provokes soche a reaction in some readers (and I guess I am not the only one who felt like that) is in my opinion reason enough not to put it there. Nannus 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I can tell you right away that I don't work for Nickelodeon, never have, and never will because I hate the company. I've helped to write more than half this article and keep it clear of vandalism. I don't enjoy your accusations in the least. As for the TLAlogo, I really have no idea what your problems are with it, but it's been there for almost two years now. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not say so. But when I see a logo owned by a comercial company on the entry page of Wikipedia, the first reaction I had was such a suspission. The fact alone that I (and probably other usres) are getting such a suspision on looking at the article disqualifies it, IMHO, as a featured article. I gor a fishy feeling. This does not mean that the article is not well writen (it is), just that in my opinion an article should not be there if anybody may have a comercial interest in seeing it there. I might be wrong on this, but I thin this should be discussed.Nannus 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, first off, fair use rationals go on the image description page, not the article, and the rationals is there. Secondly, what exactly are you on about? Nickelodeon has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this article. Furthermore, someone can have a potential commercial interest in just about any article. Take, for example, yesterday's TFA, Mary Wollstonecraft. That article could be a commercial interest for somebody writing a biography on her. Should that be inappropriate, as well? Heck, there was a Star Wars movie on there earlier this month, and tomorrow's is a video game. I really just don't see what the problem is.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please reconsider making accusations or implications regarding coverage of commercial. If there were a problem about language in the article that did not meet WP:NPOV, this would be completely reasonable; however, implying that articles are being written or featured to meet commercial interests is wholly inappropriate and borders on a personal attack. ShadowHalo 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"in the first sentence, there is an occurence of the word "currently". This means that after some time, the article will no longer be correct" At which point I imagen it will be changed. Buc 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

accepted Nannus 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry for hurting anybodies feelings here. You people did a good job and had a big success and then I came along and spoiled your day. I should have waited a couple of days and I should have chosen my words more diplomatically. I did not want to hurt anybody’s feelings, but I did not take the feelings of those who wrote the article into account, and that was clearly a mistake. On the internet, you see words and easily forget the people behind those words. I hope I did not spoil your general enthusiasm about contributing to Wikipedia.

My reaction to this article being on the main page was emotional, and I should have waited until those emotions were gone. I hope you accept my apology.

Now let me rephrase the question without emotion and in a general way: if somebody could have a strong (commercial, political…) interest in seeing an article on Wikipedia’s main page, should this stop the Wikipedia community from choosing that article as featured article or are such considerations irrelevant? Should the choice only be based on the intrinsic qualities of the article or should other factors be taken into consideration?Nannus 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "currently" is bad form - ideally, an "as of" should be used. This is a wiki, you know - Be bold! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand exactly how you feel, Nannus, and while I didn't contribute to this article (I just clicked on it when I saw it on the main page), I believe that while articles that could be editted for things such as political sway or commercial gain, the like, that's why the featured articles are important in one way; those articles are the ones that don't have those biases or suchlike degrading the value of the article, showing it's exceedingly high quality (at the time it was nominated, at least).

[edit] 1000 Excellent Articles in German WP

I am proud to present you the 1000th Excellent Article in the German Wikipedia: Pamir, a German sailing boat. There are also 1821 Lesenswerte Artikel, that corresponds to the Good Article in the English WP. You can suggest an article for translation into English at Wikipedia:Translation. --Tantalos 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion:Featured Templates

In the same way we have Featured articles, pictures and sounds. Buc 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates are not encyclopedic content. Aside from some sort of April Fool's joke, it's difficult to see how this would work. See also Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles/Archive4#How_about_.22Featured_templates.22.3F Gimmetrow 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we publish a compilation of featured articles?

I've heard a lot about the Wikipedia:Release Version, and I thought, why not release a CD containing all the featured articles? Or maybe a DVD with all the featured content? It could be released as a stand-alone version, or in a double-disk with the currently proposed release version? — Jack · talk · 18:47, Friday, 16 March 2007

Be my guest. Raul654 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:V0.5 relies heavily on FAs, btw. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Make sure to credit all of the authors and have their contact info to verify that they own the copyright to the text. --Iamunknown 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will say that I have given a whole lot of thought to how to publish Wikimedia materials (especially Wikibooks!) in multiple formats. I was also one of the early leaders on Wikibooks who first started to convert Wikibooks content to PDF formats (I can't claim to be first, but I certainly was one of the first two or three to do so).

In regards to Wikipedia, I would like to see something similar to http://www.wikipress.de/ Wikipress] (but in English!), where some groups of articles (like an entire set of Wikipedia articles about Chemistry or Astronomy) could be put into PDF files for similar kinds of distribution that Wikibooks already is doing for quality published Wikibooks. These PDF files would have value in and of themselves, and have generally brought very positive comments on Wikibooks other than the obvious issue of having them gradually get dated if they are not revised with new material on a regular basis.

Don't get me started on automated PDF generation of Wikimedia project content.... that is a whole Wikibook of information and arguments by itself. Let's just say that for now it is an impractical concept and wishful thinking for those who want to see it done in the short term. As a major programming effort worthy of a Google Summer of Code project, it may be (barely) a good suggestion. I think it is going to be tougher than even what a few college students could do over the summer, as I do have considerable experience in similar software engineering efforts. But a couple of very motivated individuals may surprise me.

PDF files simply must be created by hand. The most popular method on Wikibooks is to import the HTML into Open Office, fix up the HTML formatting aspects into something more readable in a word processor, add the GFDL and author information, and then finally export to a PDF directly from the Oo *.swx file. This same process can be done with Wikipedia articles, and indeed would be trivial.

Other formats for having these files besides PDF files (which are nice for off-line reading.... which is why I like them) would be to use static versions of the Wikipedia articles. The static HTML does an interesting thing where it lists the "authors" of Wikipedia articles.

Regardless, if once these files are put together in whatever format you want them, I would strongly recommend that a *.iso file should be created and made available.... preferably as a bit-torrent file or some other P2P file arrangement. We don't need to overload the Wikimedia servers any more than they already are right now.

For the actual publication... that is beyond me. I would love to organize an English "Wikipress" group that would make physically printed materials available, including pressed CDs and DVD-ROMs. There is no very organized effort right now to get content of this nature available for sale at say Amazon.com or another other commercial outlet. One of the huge reasons for this is because it is a very capital intensive activity, and we need to get somebody who is willing to risk some considerable amount of money (close to $5000-$10,000 USD) that may simply all disappear in a giant virtual black hole. And don't suggest Lulu Press here either, even though that is a good place to start. I would love to see something here involving the Wikimedia Foundation, but Brad Patrick and others on the WMF board of trustees have explicitly stated that the WMF does not want to get into the business of being a publisher and take on that legal liability.

I am willing to organize a group of independent individuals who are dedicated to setting up a publication group and I'm personally willing to take on the liability of being a publisher (as opposed to being an ISP like the WMF). But don't deny that there are considerable legal risks to going that route, and that such a group in America or the UK doesn't exist already should let you know that it isn't a trivial thing to put together. It has been more than a year since I floated this idea, and I've been very careful about not stepping on too many Wikitoes to get it going. --Robert Horning 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there is an organized group of editors working on that. It is the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and you'll be hearing news from that front Real Soon Now™. WikiReaders would be something to be considered seriously, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
So have you secured funding and a seperate existance as legal body from the WMF? The WMF, as I pointed out, wants nothing to do with this except to get some money from would be publishers from trademark royalties. Who is putting up the capital for the publication? Who is taking on the legal risk as being the "publisher" of record? Being in a corporation is not sufficient in this case, as (usually) the CEO does take on this legal risk... and why Brad doesn't want it. Have you applied for ISBN/ISSN numbers? Who is paying for that? Who actually "owns" those numbers? Are you sure you know? How is this legal entity organized doing the publication? Is is private or is membership open to other Wikimedia content developers? And not just for participation, but who can actually "invest" into this company and get any potential profits? How is that determined?
That you have some people who are very much organized into putting together the content is admirable and a very important first step. What I'm trying to say here is that some thinking needs to go into what goes next, and there is nobody who is willing to take on some of the very significant risks. I am offering, but I lack the capital necessary to get this whole thing going (I've tried!) What I would ideally like to see is some sort of cooperative that exists outside of the WMF, but whose membership is open to basically anybody who has edited content on Wikimedia projects. The charter would allow some "profits" to be given back to those who contribute, usually in the form of published materials that would be sent to you in lieu of actual salary, but perhaps actual profits be given to those who are writing the content. Certainly the WMF would be a major target of profits as well, to "give back" to the WMF as a non-profit charity. I have some other ideas, but the main point is I would like to see this stay within the hands of the Wikimedia community and not be given over to a few opportunistic users who happen to get into the publication game first. And that is exactly what I see may happen if we are not careful. --Robert Horning 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't answer those questions in detail for a variety of reasons (some of them fall outside my involvement in the process, others I'm just not authorized to answer yet, as several parties have to give some final "go-aheads"), but what I can say is that we're extremely close (less than a month away) to a release, and have been working closely with the Foundation legal team and the Static content subcommittee to deal with the relevant issues. As for the latter part - I'm not sure how we would be able to stop it, if it indeed occurred; all the content here is released under the GFDL, so if an opportunistic user decided to assume the risk and give zero profit back to WMF, we're kind of screwed. The only thing we can actually do is to prevent usage of the Wikipedia trademark. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I ask these questions because it is precisely this closed mouthed attitude that nobody wants to talk about these issues that gets many individuals all confused. If you are up front and honest, saying that "No, we are not working on commercial publications of this content.", I would consider that to be an honest reply. Particularly because the WMF (especially Brad) has been very explicit that they do not want to get involved with any "static" publications. This committee is exactly the kind of thing that I have complained almost incessanty about as well, as it sets up a closed group of individuals who are not responsive to any outside input... even though I have already served on one of these sub-committees (the Wikiversity working group).
I would very much like to avoid duplications of effort on projects of this nature, but from this sort of attitude it seems like that duplication of effort is precisely what is going to happen. Where this is particularly heartbreaking was my efforts on b:Wikijunior, where some "deadlines" were demanded (and met!) and a promise of formal dead-tree publication was made by none other than a certain member of the WMF board of trustees and then denied that it was even offered after the deadline had passed. I was stuck with the job of trying to explain to the Wikijunior participants that they had been lied to, or at least substantially mislead. Sorry about my vitriolic comments here, but this is something that has been a standing issue, even though we have commercially printable material to distribute today if somebody is interested in helping out. This is not real soon now, but today and now! It is not vapourware at all.
Indeed, when one of the Wikibooks users posted a link to a website publishing this content, Brad and Jimbo explicitly went and sent a cease and desist letter out demanding that the content be removed for sale, because we didn't get permission from the WMF. Let's just say that the effort to sell these books has not received too much support here. I could go on, but there certainly are some problems here that havn't been fully addressed, and should be in some public forum. --Robert Horning 02:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We are discussing Wikireaders now over at the 1.0 team, please leave comments. We have always considered paper releases as part of our medium-long term plans. So far, we have only produced a CD (expected to be released next week). Walkerma 04:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War category FAs

Would 'Warfare' be a better name than 'War'? — BillC talk 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Or "Military and warfare", perhaps? (Or even "Military history", as we don't have any fictional wars there?) But it may well be that it's just not worth fiddling with the section name, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I like Military and Warfare for a title. They're all military-related, but not all are specifically war (ships that never saw combat, etc.) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll change it to 'Military and Warfare' and hope this doesn't come across as fiddling with it. I won't object if someone changes it back or to something different. — BillC talk 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about sorting

I noticed that Nintendo Entertainment System is listed under "engineering and technology" while Wii and Commodore 64 are listed under "computers and video games". This doesn't appear to be consisant, so which way should we fix it? Jay32183 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat puzzled why the articles on heraldry and vexillology aren't listed the same place? At the moment the heraldic material is grouped along with biographies of royality and nobility, but since flags and coats of arms are simply two related types of insignia, it would make more sense to group the heraldic material with the articles about flags. Valentinian T / C 10:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now put NES in the video games section. Raul654 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with Mosque and Angkor Wat being in the Religion section but not in the Architecture section. The architecture section contains christian religious buildings like Cathedral of Magdeburg and St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery. I think they'd all be better filed in the Architecture section. --Joopercoopers 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed an issue too - schizophrenia listed under biology and medicine. Since it is commonly addressed as a psychological and sociological topic, as well as biological and medical, this doesn't seem quite right. Is it because it's about the only psych page that's made it to FA?? EverSince 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I see Asperger's is also in there actually. EverSince 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A category of one or two is not needed, and schizophrenia needs to be submitted to FAR soon, so creating a category for it now is perhaps premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say a category for one or two pages is needed. I specifically asked if that's why it's currently listed under a heading that only partially covers the field. EverSince 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of all featured articles?

Is there a list of all hte featured articles anywhere? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm yes. In fact this is it! Buc 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Buc's referring to the fact that this page (Wikipedia:Featured articles) is the list of all featured articles. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of FAs

The current list of FAs has a bunch of categories and I am wondering if maybe we could adopt a list like they have at the different 1.0 projects like Wikipedia:Release Version. Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Their categorization doesn't look feasible here; for example, they combine History, War, and Archeology. That would make for a very big category here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1337 Featured Articles?

I just happened to randomly come here and notice that there are 1,337 FAs. Is this part of April Fools or something, or is this real? -- RattleMan 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked the number (a few days ago), it was real; what is your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering. I haven't come to the FA portal for a while, so it was sort of surprising to see 1,337 FAs. -- RattleMan 02:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sandy - 1337 is "leet" ("elite") in Leetspeak. Rattleman was wondering if this was coincidental, or something done for April Fools. RattleMan - it's the real number. Raul654 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
<grrrr ... > Pollyannified again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions in this page

How are the division (high level topics) on this page decided upon? As the number of FA's gets larger how do we decide to break them down further? Will further divisions happen at the same heading level (such as giving cities and countries their own sections) or will there be subheadings created (such as adding a biography section under several of the top level headings, or creating a storms/hurricains subheading). I think we shoudl give this some thought because the number is getting up there and many topic areas are starting to accumulate a lot of featured articles (such as all teh dino FA's) but are in topis to broad to be approprate for Wikipedia:Featured topics for some time. Dalf | Talk 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Front Page

Once an article has been promoted to featured and later featured on the Main Page, is it ever featured on there again in the future? Simply south 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To date, no - we have not featured any articles on the main page a second time. Raul654 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stage actors: Suggestion

Most actors are shown on the FA page under the heading "Media". Stage acting isn't really "media", it's more like "Literature and theatre". Nevertheless, it makes sense to me that ALL actors be put in one place, especially since most of them do both stage and film or TV acting. Can we make the Media heading say "Media and actors" so that it will be clear where to put the FAs for actors? I know we don't normally mention professions in the headings, but in this case it would reduce confusion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What actors are not in that section? Raul654 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned to Ssilvers that we usually group bios by topic area, without specifying profession in headings, and that opening the door to profession could lead to long section headings. But Ssilvers raises a point about the distinction between, for example, restoration stage actors and present-day "media" actors. Perhaps the Restoration folk should be consulted :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, you know very well that the Restoration actors never answer their e-mail!  :-) Ssilvers
Pardon me for butting in on this conversation, which I came across quite by accident, but as a professional in the theatre I wonder if I can put in my 2 cents. The Theatre is generally considered one of the Arts, specifically the Performing Arts, but it can also be (and perhaps most times is) a type of Entertainment -- so, perhaps instead of just "Media" or "Media and actors", would something like "Media and Entertainment" or "Media and Performing Arts" allow all actors to be included in one place? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Intersting, but then where does it end? Do we then have to change the other Art category to Visual arts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is exactly right. "Media and performing arts" vs. "Visual arts, architecture, and archaeology" (or put an "a" word first, if you want to keep this category at the top) would solve the problem and help people put articles in the right category without inviting any other changes to headings having to do with professions. -- Ssilvers 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Film is considered art and its put under Media along with television and newspapers. (Except for Abbas Kiarostami for some reason. He's a film director and under Art, architecture, and archaeology while other film people are under media. 160.79.140.254 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. I am moving Kiarostami to Media. This is a good example of why we should clarify that performing arts goes with Media, while visual arts goes with architecture. -- Ssilvers 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
oops, I just left a note on your talk page (before I saw this here) about that move. A previous editor left what seemed like a reasonable edit summary for the previous category, but I don't know anything about the guy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EFeatured_articles_c405.html"