Template talk:Featured

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion on the layout of this template before standardization is archived here.

Contents

[edit] Usage

As of 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • {{featured}} - will link to history page.
  • {{featured|ID}} - will link to version of ID at time of featured if corrected version ID is input.
  • {{featured|ID|oldname}} or {{featured||oldname}} - will link to the original discussion properly, if the page has subsequently been moved to a new title.

[edit] show on actual page, not discussion

shouldn't this be shown on the article , not on the discussion (which most readers don't view)

No. Featured articles are supposed to exemplify Wikipedia's best practices; this includes keeping metadata out of the article to make it as easy as possible to reuse. Raul654 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template standardisation

Per the vote on Wikipedia:Template standardisation, ClockworkSoul's design emerged with the greatest support from the community. While everyone is still free to improve it, please take radical changes to the talk page first. JRM · Talk 10:20, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

[edit] New Text Proposals

Well I guess this is now the place to try to get the ball rolling on text changes. I'm moving my entry from another page...

I think we should make a considered effort to improve the text of at least the main FA template. I feel strongly that the wording should serve to give users, particularly newish users, pause before they jump in with edits, without outright discouraging them. I feel so strongly because there are now quite a few articles that are truly gems and that represent scads of personhours in achieving just the right wording, balance, detail and thematic progression. A great disservice would be done to the project if the topnotch writers of these articles are alienated by a steady scrambling of their work. They will be "disincentivized" big time and will contribute less or even leave altogether. We certainly don't want that.

I don't know if there should be voting for this. Maybe we can take a swing at an informal consensus on this Talk page and go to voting only if we seem stuck.

Here's my attempt at FA:

"This is a Featured Article. We believe it is one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Changes should not be made lightly, as you will be altering text and/or a thematic progression that by consensus is already of very high quality. Even so, improvement is always possible, particularly by addition of new or interesting text.

Archived discussion that led to this becoming a featured article should be at the nomination page (may not exist for older articles)."


JDG 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems kinda wordy and intimidating. I'm not sure it's an improvement over what is already there. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of intent to change template text

Well, it's weeks since the new templates were rolled out and no one (other than me) has taken up the issue of new text. I guess that puts us back into the regular edit cycle. I intend to replace the current text with the above entry, unless this notice kicks off some renewed interest and we get some other versions to look at. JDG 04:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't have any problems with the proposed text. You have my support unless somebody can raise any other objection sthat I haven't considered. – ClockworkSoul 04:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Neutrality that the text he reverted to is superior to the text proposed by JDG. JDG's text appears to me to be against the spirit of WP:BOLD. Simply because an article is featured does not mean that it cannot be improved by radical editing. Lupin 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer Neutrality's version as well. The FAC process isn't perfect: some flawed/incomplete articles can make it through and editing them shouldn't be discouraged. Redquark 04:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, some people prefer mine. I don't think it goes against "be bold" since it says "improvement is always possible", and we desperately need a check on the overwriting of topnotch material. Believe me, we are currently in danger of losing some of our best editors for this very reason... I guess we'll need some sort of (hopefully informal) contest...I feel pretty strongly about this, so off-the-cuff reverts ain't gonna work. JDG 17:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this needs some more discussion, and JDG - to claim your version has consensus is not correct. violet/riga (t) 17:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus" is a slippery word. My version wasn't approved by any sort of process, but between this Talk page and the old redesign Talk page there are a number who have agreed to it-- so compared to Neutrality's incursions, it does have "consensus". As you can see above on this page, I called for more discussion. The only response for weeks was Clockwork's support, so I think it was pretty reasonable of me to conclude there were no objections. JDG 17:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
But Neutrality, Lupin and Requark have objected to it, so really you should now be discussing their views instead of continuing the revert war, surely? I understand the frustration of waiting and receiving no objections then being reverted, but they have come (finally) and, seeing as the old wording lasted for quite some time, it may be best to go back to that and regather consensus. violet/riga (t) 17:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
No, not surely. Neutrality hasn't said anything, and I am discussing with Lupin and Requark. Clockwork, RJE, me and at least two others on the other Talk page are for it. So it should stand until real discussion leads elsewhere. You may be getting a tickle from thinking I am in the position you were in with the template design, with Neutrality now playing the role I played against you. But it's not really like that. Neutrality's edit summaries say nothing and I have some explicit support for specific changes. JDG 17:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in this debate before, but I just wanted to make a small point. It's not just about BB, but JDG's text seems to discourage making even minor edits. To a newbie, it's easy to see how wording like editing should "not be taken lightly" sounds like there will be a reprimand for the slightest wrong change. And consider this: FAC does not declare that passed articles are perfect at all in spelling, grammar, diction, etc. If it's egregious, there may be an objection, but if there's one of those annoying "seperate"s or something, anything minor, we should encourage the commonfolk who don't know a lot about editing to go ahead and fix it. I've seen quite a few FAs with a few grammar and spelling errors. --Dmcdevit 17:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about it for a while and have decided that I too prefer the old text, agreeing with the comments above. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

What about improving he text of the template along the lines of what JDG is suggesting, but only to a lesser extent. I think it would be an improvement if we just added the phrase "With that in mind" to the second sentence, so that the whole thing reads:

This is a featured article, which means that the featured article candidate process has identified it as one of the best articles that the Wikipedia community has produced. With that in mind, if you see a way this page can be improved further, we invite you to contribute.

I'd be behind other changes of similar magnitude—something that reminds users that they are editing an already excellent article, but also something that doesn't strongly discourage editing. --Spangineer ∞ 02:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I think we need a compromise between the two, suggesting that changes may be done but reminding them that we already think it's a great piece of work. If I remember/have time I'll have a stab at it myself later. violet/riga (t) 08:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm

This is a featured article, which means that the featured article candidate process has identified it as one of the best articles that the Wikipedia community has produced. If you see a way this page can be improved further, we invite you to contribute.

and

Featured is a Featured Article. We believe it is one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Changes should not be made lightly, as you will be altering text and/or a thematic progression that by consensus is already of very high quality. Even so, improvement is always possible, particularly by addition of new, interesting text or graphics.

produce

Featured is a featured article, which means that the featured article candidate process has identified it as one of the best articles that the the Wikipedia community has produced. Bearing in mind that consensus has identified this as an article of high quality, improvement is always possible, so we invite you to contribute if you see a way this page can be improved further.

Perhaps a bit wordy! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
How about

Featured is a featured article, which means that it has been identified as one of the best articles that the Wikipedia community has produced. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, possibly by addition of new graphics, feel free to contribute.

--Phil | Talk 12:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, neat blockquoting with class :) I'll copy that. I would actually trim that to say:

Featured is a featured article, which means that it has been identified as one of the best articles that the Wikipedia community has produced. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

-- ALoan (Talk) 13:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that this is actually an improvement. Can someone give me a concrete reason for changing the current template? The potential drawbacks of a change like this seem plain to me, but I'm puzzled as to what it's attempting to achieve. Lupin 23:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why you're puzzled. Articles that have been refined to the point of elevation to FA repesent a lot of work and consensus. We don't want people just bulldozing such quality at the drop of a hat. Sadly, many folks fancy themselves to be much better writers than they are. The proposed revisions will hopefully nudge them to give it some extra thought before they slam the Save button when editing our best pieces. JDG 07:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. The problem I have with this is that people should not be discouraged from editing simply because they write badly. They may have valuable ideas about content or form; their contributions can be polished by more accomplished editors. If they contribute bunkum then the page should be reverted - nothing new there. I'm not convinced that the impression should be given that editing conditions are different for featured articles than for other articles. On a wiki, change happens - and this can include bulldozing quality work if it means a net improvement to the article a whole. Managing successfully it is simply one of the challenges wikis face.
I think that the phrase "if you see a way in which it can be improved further then we invite you to contribute" does draw attention to the fact that we invite improvements without giving the impression that we do not welcome change. The qualifier about "compromising previous work" could in my opinion scare off less confident editors and/or generate the perception that we are attempting to restrict editing, so should be avoided. Lupin 13:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, I like that last one by ALoan alot. --Spangineer ∞ 14:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I can go with Aloan's. Making the change. JDG 07:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing link in the text

The new template text lacks the link where one can read the objections and suggestions made during the FAC stage. Please include it.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I was going to, but then noticed the last six or so people in the History have left it off. I assumed this was some kind of consensus. Clockwork-- why did you leave it out? JDG 19:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I have been bold and made the alteration. Whilst I agree to the textual change I think having a link to the discussion on FAC is more important than having a link to Wikipedia:Consensus; after all I think most people understand what consensus, but they may wish to know the reasons for an article being listed as a Featured Article. Rje 23:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearing edits

Huh?? I just saw a revert by Neutrality. I thought it wasn't justified, so I reverted. I then look in History and there is no trace of Neutrality's edit. What gives? Can Admins revise History? That shouldn't be, or it should be reserved to only a few super-trusted Admins. JDG 08:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Nah, only developers can do that, and they don't use their powers for content or policy disputes. It's probably just a caching glitch, try waiting a few hours and reloading. Redquark 04:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template placement

See Wikipedia:Template locations for discussion on template placement (article versus talk page). <>Who?¿? 15:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I've reverted to Violetriga's version because Netoholic's version had a notable gap below it (and any accompanying templates). →Raul654 00:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

gap test
gap test
gap test
There is a gap of 1em set for the bottom margin. Its screen size varies based on your font and resolution sizes. How much "gap" do you want? I took 1em because that seems to be the most commonly used setting. Isn't this something you can get used to? -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I am OK with it, provided it's standard - eg, that it isn't just the featured article template that produces the gap. →Raul654 16:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
No, every messagebox would have that gap. It's perhaps only noticed ont his one because Feature templates are stacked on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

on IRC, people, for some reason, want the template to sound more cheery. Not sure why, but what do yall think. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revision proposal

I believe this template should show the revision that an article was made featured. I have been reviewing WP:FARC lately and it is difficult to determine if some of the articles never met current standards or if they have been ruined by slow, wiki-style degradation. It would also allow a browser to see which version of a page has been agreed on as featurable but also tell them that the version is in no way pointing out the "best version" and that it could have gotten better or worse since the time it was featured. This in itself is good but I think it would also allow for a type of "featured article review" where you could nominate an already featured article to be reviewed and to see if the new version of the article is even better than the last version (giving at least a month or two in between revisions). The last part I don't know if it's necessary but I believe the first part would be incredibly useful for users reviewing articles under WP:FARC and might help to ensure that no FA is removed due to it getting worse over time. gren グレン 20:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal entirely, it seems so simple and obvious. It allows casual readers to instantly provide some level of DIY vetting of the specific FA, and to get more actively involved with WP itself by taking a simple step into the revision process.
Including in this tag a diffs link would also be great, it would compare the current version with the featured one. --Tsavage 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
They do this in fr: - old Articles de qualité use Modèle:AdQ daté (which only refers to the date of promotion) and the new ones use Modèle:Article de qualité (which includes the date of promotion and a permanent link to the version that was promoted). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree; why not? That's exactly what I came to this talkpage to propose, if it hadn't been here already. I also support the comparison link, although it might be useful to consider that that's more helpful so lightly more seasoned editors who understand that all that bold red text isn't a "bad" thing (a point obviously related to Grenavitar's that "the version is in no way pointing out the "best version" and that it could have gotten better or worse since the time it was featured").\sim Lenoxus " * " 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Without compromising previous work"

I believe this wording should be removed since it can easily be interpreted as a recommendation to not remove or alter the article in any major way, even if it would be an improvement. Articles that are promoted today are generally of much higher quality than ones that are from early 2005 or 2004. With recent FAs, this is an acceptable rule of thumb, but articles that were promoted a year or even longer ago it can lead to conservatism and notions by major contributors that the promoted version was more or less perfect, no matter how much better other articles on similar topics have become or how much applicable standards have altered.

In a nutshell, it strikes me at being completely at odds with being bold.

Peter Isotalo 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy is to "Be bold... but don't be reckless". I think doing a heavy rewrite on a featured article is, under most circumstances, a reckless thing. Raul654 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Many older FAs wouldn't stand a chance if they were nominated today, and that's without even considering the gradual breakdown into the trivia terror that many popular topics are often subjected to. My experience is that the FA status itself, without any conservative wording, is more than enough to make many users engage in extremely tedious protective posturing.
Peter Isotalo 19:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I can't think of a greater threat to Wikipedia as a whole than the loss of exceptional writing through sheer erosion in the absence of policy-enshrined protection. The fact is, there are hundreds of contributors but only a few dozen with top-notch writing/composition skills. Constant replacement of their contributions with middling or worse prose will lead to their defection, leaving Wikipedia mired in the merely adequate... The wording in the Featured template should, if anything, be even stronger in its appeal to think twice or thrice when making changes to FA. I wouldn't say it's "at odds with" the Be Bold policy, as no one is advocating a lockdown of FA. It is, though, a healthy balance to Be Bold. JDG 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This type of elitism and reverence of older material over newer additions worries me greatly.
Peter Isotalo 17:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it really elitism to say that some people write better than others? "Without compromising previous work" does not mean "do not contribute": it means "please try to make sure that your amendment enhances an article that is already recognised as being very good". It will be a lot easier if/when we have Stable versions.-- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why on Talk page?

Why is this template placed in the talk page, and not on the main page? I think few people ever read an article's talk page, and they won't know the article has achieved a higher standard within Wikipedia. JoaoRicardotalk 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See show on actual page, not discussion above. timrem 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I have no made if so that if you enter the ID of when it was made an FA as the alternate (default alternative) it will link on the template. The downside is that I couldn't make the default (no alternate) link to histoy... since it's linking to oldid={{{1}}}. If anyone can fix this while still making the template usage unchanged please do. This usage will make it easier for RAUL to identify the ID when he adds it... instead of doing extra work as I had it before... it was more complex and would have taken too much time. gren グレン ? 10:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Because of User:Kirill Lokshin's edits I noticed that you could have both old ID and history parameters added. When "oldid=&action=history" then it completely ignores oldid command and sends you to history... an ugly and malformed URL maybe, but as functional as I can make it. gren グレン ? 17:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larger star

The featured article star is pretty nice, and having your article flagged as featured is more or less the greatest achievement that can be attained, so why not make it a little larger? —Michiel Sikma, 14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article star Featured is a featured article, which means that it (or a previous version) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
Why not? Looks great to me... why not be bold and enlarge it? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
50px is the standard thumbnail size for talk page images. Making it gigantic is just tacky. Raul654 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's true that 50px is the default size for most images, but I believe that a featured article star is more or less much more important than any other icons that may appear. Putting some extra weight on it to stress the fact that this article is one of Wikipedia's best could be nice, I believe. Also, I decided not to be bold since this is a pretty important template, and I wouldn't want to get a horde of angry Wikipedians leaving messages on my talk page for doing so. —Michiel Sikma, 09:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Making it larger changes the width of the text, though, which produces a rather unusual appearance on pages where a number of such templates are stacked. Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - it should stay the standard width. That's why we have standards. Raul654 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point--I hadn't thought of how it would make the template larger than the others. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good -> featured article status

This seems a bit unnecessary to me and more of a promotion for the self-congratulatory 'good article' project than actual useful information. Surely almost all featured articles were 'good' at some point before they became featured, even if not all of t. hem were roped into GAness? I would have thought that things like "Collaboration of the week" would do more to contribute to an article's featured status than someone sticking a plus sign on it, so why is GA given the glory? --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why indeed. I helped to merge {{GAF}} into the featured template. GAF provided the same information but in a separate template, and had (for some reason) survived a vote for deletion. However like you I see no particular reason why this information would be important to editors or readers - the reason I merged it was simply to shorten template length on the talk pages. — jdorje (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is the GAF functionality used again, I can't remember, is it supposed to do it automatically or something? Because it doesn't seem to be working for Legend of Zelda: The Windwaker Homestarmy 00:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
precisely. this information is not important to editors or readers. Zzzzz 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

With one voice in support of my position and none against (so far), I've removed it for the moment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No arguments from me. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Aww, but it was like the only thing we had to record when the GA system seemed to be helping :(. Homestarmy 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
precisely. its just internal spamming promotion of GA project. no use to anyone. Zzzzz 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This will probably lead to the recreation of {{GAF}}, since many supported its deletion only because of the merge. Johnleemk | Talk 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That could be very true as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to removing the tag but I do object to you calling the 'good article' project a self-congratulatory process. This is simply not the case. The good article project is about highlighting articles that meet some base standard of quality. These articles may be used to generate a stable version of the encyclopedia or allow readers to view all the good articles in a particular subject area. Only around 50% of articles nominated to become a good article actually make the cut. The rest have useful feedback left on how they could be improved. Cedars 06:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I second that objection. Identifying and listing well written, illustrated, referenced articles is self-congratulatory? Worldtraveller 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
adding template clutter to tell the world that a current featured article "was once a good article" is self-congratulatory, yes. please indicate what purpose it serves other than internal spamming Zzzzz 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the good artivle project is a great idea but we need to show that it works. I also think that this discussion should bee placed somewhere that is more noticable like Wikipedia talk:Good articles. This way other people who haven't noticed it will. After all the templte {{GAF}} was deleted because of this extension anyways. 69.192.8.106 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

due to constant inappropriate edits by members of GA team, any more spam-advertising of GA project anywhere on wikipedia including this template, will be treated as vandalism. Zzzzz 08:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think it's appropriate to make such a threat. The functionality under discussion no more constitutes 'spam advertising' for GA than the FA tag does for FA. The situation we have is that a template was deleted because its functionality was included here, and now that functionality has been removed, without very much discussion at all. I'm not fussed, myself, about whether the template or the template code are available or not, but I can't really see any strong arguments to have neither. The original logic for removing it was it must be rare for a "bad" article to go straight to featured without passing through "good", which is not actually the case. Worldtraveller 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
its quite obvious: who *cares* that a featured article was once tagged with "good article"? who does it benefit? the reader certainly doesnt care, the editor is not interested, the only people it benefits is the "good articles" team because -hey- its free advertising! so NEITHER a new tag nor an amended FA tag is appropriate. i suggest a serious re-think about the over-enthusiastic GA team flooding wikipedia with spam if the project is to be taken seriously in future. it really doesnt look good. Zzzzz 09:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree with Zzzzz that adding the functionality is vandalism, it does appear to go against a consensus, or at least an overwhelming lack of will for the featured article project to give credence to its mentally disabled younger brother. People often vote 'merge' in cases like the cited TfD because it's the easy, uncontroversial option, not because it benefits the target article. Those of you that think I'm making generalisations, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius home collegiate school, in which a significant number (wrong, sorry) two usually sensible editors 'voted' to merge suggested to merge an article about a tiny pre-school into the article on a city containing several million inhabitants. Clearly a 'merge to x' result does not by any stretch of the imagination mean a consensus that x will be better off afterwards. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
its mentally disabled younger brother - that's really quite offensive. You can criticise the good articles page without being so crude. Worldtraveller 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. Of course the editor cares, especially if they were one of the people who managed to get the article to GA status. As far as the advertising aspect, what's wrong with that? Getting an article to FA status is hard, this lets people know there's a level below that which they can strive for. Anyways, this is all silly; {{GAF}} was kept at WP:TFD despite many of these same arguments, and the only reason it was deleted when I nominated it was because the functionality had been merged here to avoid having it take up so much screen real estate. So, as I see it, there's two choices here:
  1. We recreate {{GAF}} and have more talk page real estate eaten up by a seperate box for former GA's.
  2. We leave the GA addition here in place (which consumes less screen space than the old {{GAF}} template did).
Or.. you know, you could start calling it "vandalism" because you're on some illogical crusade against the idea of Good Articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
this user has now been blocked for inappropriate actions. furthermore the above message is plain admission that the only reason for the text is a self-congratulatury pat on the back and non-policy project promotion (internal spamming). unacceptable. Zzzzz 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on this template is unacceptable. I have protected it. Raul654 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an absence of Wikilove in this discussion especially in comments that criticize the Good Article project and the many fine volunteers who support it. Please before you post think about whether your comments are going to help build a better encyclopedia. Cedars 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

please before you add internal spam text to this template think about whether it will help build a better encyclopedia. Zzzzz 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that instead of everyone fighting and arguing we should have a straw poll and then put all of this to rest. 69.192.8.106 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a TFD for the {{GAF}} template itself two months ago or so that resulted in a keep (I forget whether it was a no-consensus keep or a consensus keep, but in any event, there was no consensus to delete). I think holding a straw poll every month because someone has deep personal issues with GA is just silly. Zzzzzz (or whatever his username is) needs to respect consensus, as do the others insisting this be removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
As stated here (TFD log) it was a no concensus to keep. Also here (TFD Log #2) there was a discussion about bringing it here onhe featured template talk page. 69.192.8.106 22:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
TFD is irrelevant to this discussion. question: does the info provide any benefit to wikipedia? answer: no. result: no adding the info to this template. Zzzzz 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This added GA-spam does not benefit Wikipedia in any way. It is just crass advertising for a pervasive non-policy project; there is no difference between an FA that used to be a GA and an FA that didn't, it's an entirely arbitrary distinction. -Silence 18:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What's crass is the use of the word spam to try and belittle something you don't like, rather than trying to sensibly argue the pros and cons. Worldtraveller 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a fan of the GA system. It's great for shorter articles which wouldn't get featured, and quite a few articles I've worked on now have that badge. However, I have to say that once an article has been promoted to FA it's former status as a Good Article is kinda irrelevant. Let me add though that while I can't support the promotion of GA in the FA template, it would be wise to remember that GA is part of Wikipedia and it has a noble cause - improving articles and motivating editors. Please don't slag off the people who have contributed to it, or call their efforts "spam" and "advertising". --kingboyk 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of WP:GA, I have not seen any supporter of the GA>FA notice provide a good argument for its inclusion in the current template. Several times above the question has been posed as to the actual added value of such a notice. So what added value is there, for editors or readers, in telling the world that 'this article was once a good article'? To me, it seems that there is none. The sole reason I can think of would be to point more editors to WP:GA, which I do not consider a valid reason to clutter templates. I do not think it is a good thing that such clutter gets added without any good argument, and that it seemingly could stay only because of some 'no consensus keep' template or because the discussion has become overheated. With all due respect to the good GA folks, it seems clear arguments will have to be provided for this notice to be included. I'm listening. — mark ✎ 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New functionality

I just added some code to allow for situations where a page has been moved since it became featured. Just use the template as follows: {{featured|revision id|former title}} and it will link to the nomination correctly. The revision id can be omitted - just make sure there are two pipes between 'featured' and the former title.

Hm, forgot to sign this, several days ago - Worldtraveller 09:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOINCLUDE and further discussion on GA>FA

Could the <noinclude> before the {{#ifeq: be removed? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done that, and also unprotected it as the edit war which led to its protection was a few days ago now. Worldtraveller 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Strangely it seems the code got messed up when people were reverting it in/out. I've fixed it so it works as it did. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

a nice attempt at putting GA spam back in the template, but please respect Raul654's decision or you will be subject to blocking. Zzzzz 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not the way it works. Discuss the merits of the different versions and try to reach a consensus. Threats (whether directly or by proxy) and individual actions do not a consensus make. --CBDunkerson 11:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
What decision are you referring to, Zzzzz? And please stop using the inflammatory and inaccurate word 'spam' - it really doesn't help here. Worldtraveller 13:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Raul654 does not run Wikipedia. Wikipedia is ran by consensus. A TFD debate on {{GAF}} was held around two months ago and the result there was to keep. As that template was merged into this template to reduce it's size, I find it hard to believe that this negates the previous debate regarding the individual template itself. Please don't be a dick and respect the previous debates results. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
this user is banned for a month. WP is not a democracy. some users are more respected than others. lack of consensus to include the worthless changes overrides anything anywhere else. banned users opinions matter even less. Zzzzz 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]
This user is in fact not banned at all. If you slur other editors by inventing claims like this you could well find yourself blocked for disruption. Your constant comments using the word 'spam' are far more spam-like than what you're attacking. We know your opinion - no need to repeat it ad nauseam. Worldtraveller 11:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
actually he is Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Proposed decision. but lets talk about this GA spam: its clear this info has no function here other than locke cole's reasoning that it "promotes the GA project" (internal spam) and that its a "self-congratulatory pat on the back" for some users (unwanted - if editors get excited by an article being listed "good" surely they will be ecstatic seeing it as "featured" anyway?). i see no valid arguments about WHY this info is required here, how it helps wikipedia, just veiled threats from GA spammers. probably because there arent any. Zzzzz 11:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Shut up about spam, OK. It makes productive discussion impossible. Note that you linked to a proposed decision. Locke Cole is not blocked at the moment. Worldtraveller 11:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, Locke will be blocked (5 arbs are required for majority, there are 6 in support), but it won't take effect until the arbitration case is closed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have again protected this template due to edit warring. Raul654 01:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

  • The asininely bureaucratic: a TFD decision is only binding on the actual templates listed there, for obvious reasons. TFD cannot impose changes on unrelated templates; thus, the addition of any material from the deleted {{GAF}} here is merely an editorial decision.
  • The actually meaningful: we need to avoid having this template bloat. Unless GA has some special status within policy—and I don't believe it does, at present—there's no reason why it should appear directly in the FA tag, rather than in its own template. Otherwise, there would be dozens of other relevant tags (a handful of different peer review flavors, past collaborations, FAOL, etc.) which, being no less relevant to the FA process (and likely more relevant, in the case of peer review) that could get merged here, resulting in an uncontrollably expanding template.

Frankly, I don't see what the point of a dedicated GAF tag is; wouldn't it be better to just create a "WikiProject Good Articles" banner to use instead? Project banners are long established, and I doubt anyone will seriously object to their use in this case. Kirill Lokshin 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

They already have one - template:GA. The problem is that they also want to tag former good articles that have become featured articles. Raul654 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why can't they just add an optional parameter to that tag that would change the message from "is a good article" to "was a good article before promotion", then? Kirill Lokshin 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
this is the problem: why should they? who cares that a featured article was a good article before promotion? the only reasons given so far are for internal spamming and self-congratulation, neither of which is acceptable. Zzzzz 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand how an article could go from being 'bad' or even merely 'mediocre' to featured standard without passing through 'good'. That makes "This article is excellent, but it used to be merely good" unnecessary verbiage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kirill Lokshin here. 'Good articles' are not a part of the featured article system; what distinguishes a former 'GA' so that it deserves to be mentioned in the same tag indicating that the article has been promoted to featured status? I feel that this is unnecessary - simply because an article was tagged as "good" once does not mean that it should stay tagged as "good" once it becomes a featured article - at least not on the same template. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Do you think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles is a legitimate WikiProject? If it is, then general convention seems to be that it can place a project notice tag on the talk page of a related article; and that it can include notes in the tag (within reason)—such as the fact that the article has been promoted to FA after being marked as a GA.
(I'll point out, in case it wasn't clear, that I'm explicitly talking about the GA tag as a WikiProject banner, rather than as a process comparable to FA. Whether this is a permissible interpretation—that is, whether the GA effort can be a "regular" WikiProject—is, of course, open for debate.) Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though I'm a critic of GA (as seen as arguing against its inclusion in a release version of Wikipedia 1.0 in Template talk:Grading scheme and arguing against it being a black hole for small articles in Wikipedia talk:Good articles, I do not see a problem with this addition to this template. As Kirill indicates, it would be a good idea to move the article to a separate WikiProject banner; however, doing that adds clutter to the top of talk pages, which is what is trying to be avoided here. "Instead of adding an entire new template, just add a line here" seems reasonable to me, and as I can't see another template that would be placed on every featured article page, this can do the job nicely, in spite of GA not being part of the official FA system. As for the argument of pointless internal spam: well, in that case, all of Wikipedia's metadata is useless, including {{featured}}, so that isn't even a concern in my view. GA is used, and just as FA isn't {{policy}}, it doesn't need a ratification. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any real need for the GA stuff to be included in this template, and I really don't care whether a separate template exists or not. I am, however, absolutely sick of Zzzzz bleating on about spam all the time. This is spam: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] . The GA page and related templates are not spam. If you want to have a productive discussion, Zzzzz, stop using the word spam all the time, in every single post you make about this. Worldtraveller 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


As I said above, I do not see any clear arguments voiced in support of including the notice on this template. It is unfortunate that the discussion has gotten so heated, but I think it is clear that there is no consensus for inclusion: I count at least seven people who explicitly object against the inclusion of this notice (Sam Blanning, Zzzzz, Matt Yeager (agrees with Sam Blanning), Silence, kingboyk, Flcelloguy, and myself), five who do not see a good reason for inclusion (Jdorje, Cedars, Raul654, Kirill Lokshin (or is that an object?), and Worldtraveller), and only two who support its inclusion (Locke Cole and Titoxd). Time to unprotect and remove that line. — mark ✎ 13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the template because things seem to have calmed down. I will wait a bit before taking further action, but as I said above, I think it's time to move on and remove the GA>FA note. — mark ✎ 05:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As 69.192.8.106 (talk · contribs) has done just now. — mark ✎ 06:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly shorter version

Featured article star Featured is a featured article; it (or a previous version) was [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{{2}}}|identified]] as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve the page without compromising previous work, please do.

Several talk pages are overwhelemd with templates, and this will less likely spill to a fourth line. A small step. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33 4 September 2006 (GMT).

Implemented excellent revision. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a semicolon before it (Two indepndednt clauses). I like it too. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)