Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
American Writers	review it now
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Featured articles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:FA

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 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.

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark	Review now
Rudolf Vrba	Review now
Michael Tritter	Review now
Middle Ages	Review now
Emmy Noether	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would agree with putting ancient architecture under the archaeology subheader. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - My bad, pinging also UndercoverClassicist. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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? Ϣere SpielChequers 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I seem to have missed this. But I fully support splitting. It has even been on my to do list pretty much since I became a coordinator. If no one else does it I'll move it up my priority list. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, does someone have to be a coordinator to do a split? Or are there technical elements in doing so? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance template

Is it inappropriate to place maintenance templates on FAs? Every attempt to tag Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was reverted with different summaries that do not invalidate (or even address) the issues the tag raises (it was even called "ugly" as if that's relevant).[1][2] The discussion on the talk page and its extensiveness make clear that while there are opposing views on the fixes, the issues are clear and present. It's astounding to see several users that reverted the tagging not take part in the discussion after emphasizing its importance over the tag itself. KyleJoan^talk 03:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against doing so, and 'ugly' is not a good reason not to. (No comment on whether there is a good reason in this case). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, Nikkimaria. In that case, I'll treat the tag like we would any other material and generate a consensus on the appropriateness of its placement. Do you have any suggestions on where it'd be appropriate for me to open that discussion? KyleJoan^talk 04:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would typically be the article talk page, though for a NPOV tag you could also try WP:NPOVN. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons. The discussion regards whether season articles should go through the GA/FAC or FLC process. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAWARDS are back

Letting any watcher or regulars of Featured articles that the W Awards are back up and running since it's long sleep of 10 years. It'd be helpful if you'd like to become a reviewer or nominate people who you think fit the criteria in any of the awards (Bronze, Silver, Golden, Platinum) and give any suggestions on awards or changes that you think should happen in the talk page! Thanks, W Award Coordinator Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]