Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

FACs needing feedback view •
Battle of Saipan	Review it now
The Motherland Calls	Review it now
Infant school	review it now
It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water	Review it now
Seattle Kraken	Review it now
2015 KNVB Cup final	Review it now
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

Featured content dispatch workshop

2014 Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism 2013 Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? 2010 Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3 Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2 Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1 Mar 15: GA Sweeps end Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards 2009 Nov 2: Inner German border Oct 12: Sounds May 11: WP Birds May 4: Featured lists Apr 20: Valued pictures Apr 13: Plagiarism Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT Feb 23: 100 FS approaches Feb 16: How busy was 2008? Feb 8: April Fools 2009 Jan 31: In the News Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders Jan 10: December themed page Jan 3: Featured list writers 2008 Nov 24: Featured article writers Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest Oct 13: Latest on featured articles Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August Sep 1: Featured topics Aug 25: Interview with Mav Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article Aug 11: Reviewing free images Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July Jul 28: Find reliable sources online Jul 21: History of the FA process Jul 14: Rick Block interview Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale Jun 9: Main page day Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May May 26: Featured sounds May 19: Good article milestone May 12: Changes at Featured lists May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities May 2 (late): Did You Know Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes Apr 14: FA milestone Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence Mar 31: Featured content overview Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter Mar 17: Changes at peer review Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration Mar 3: April Fools mainpage Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity Feb 11: Great saves at FAR Feb 4: New methods to find FACs Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer.

For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

Image/source check requests

Strange red link

Talk:The Oceanides shows a strange red link, which leads correctly to the FAC. How could that happen, and how can it be changed. Sgvrfjs followed the instructions for the first time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's blue now, solved, but still a mystery to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Cache issue? I've often seen links that kept being red for a while even after I made them redirects to articles. Refresh helps. FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing at FAC?

Hello all. At FLC, a reviewer has indicated here that canvassing has been taking place at FAC, among other content processes. I asked for more details there, but until they are provided please be on the lookout for behavior that would imply canvassing. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: As I mentioned in the FLC talk page, it's not just an indirect form for canvassing, but more like a Quid pro quo. I'm not sure if it takes place in FACs as I'm not a regular here. But this happens across FACs, FLC, and GANs. Better to have look on the first-timers (in FACs) as they feel their candidates might fail due to lack of reviews or they might pass if their friends happen to review them. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit notice for FAs

Last month TomStar81 (talk) got the idea for an editnotice for all MilHist articles to try and minimize disruptive editing and Nikkimaria (talk) pointed to the one that WP:MED uses for articles under its purview :

Attention editors Management of multiple sclerosis is one of the English Wikipedia's featured articles. While it is open for editing like any other, it has gone through a community review process where it was checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the featured article criteria, including a consistent citation style. It is requested that you discuss significant changes of text or images on this article's talk page before editing.

As a medical article, this article must also comply with Wikipedia's medical content and sourcing guidelines.

Having cleaned up any number of badly-cited, unsourced or incorrectly formatted changes to FAs over the years, I think something like this would be a great idea for high-quality articles. The basic language of the MED editnotice would work fine for us although I'd add that date formats, EngVar, etc., should conform to the existing style of the article. Once we've established the exact language, I'd hope that Hawkeye7 could modify the FACBot to add it to new FAs and perhaps a task could be added to an existing bot to add it to the existing articles. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind this. While I know our editors mean well, the top 1% or so of the articles that have an FA-Class rating and the bronze star need to adhere to certain standards, and I think it best that the community is notified upfront that these articles need to be maintained at a certain level so as to remain quality articles. I was unaware that MED had a template for this purpose, however since this fact was brought to my attention I am of the opinion that it will be a much needed and very welcome addition to FA-Class articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Years ago I would have said No. Now I've drifted from Purist to Pragmatist, esp. since this still does not prevent new editing. +S. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Fully behind this idea, though I'd suggest that the notice advises users to discuss a change on the article's talk page (Talk:{{PAGENAME}} should work, right?), which has the benefit of inviting users to collaborate and possibility opening an avenue for them to learn about editing through discussion. GRAPPLE ^X 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be a pragmatic solution. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea. Seeing the support here, perhaps we should seek broader consensus and start an WP:RfC with a concrete proposal? Wugapodes (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. The wording above has been taken and customised from WP:OWN, it has no shortcut to this section for edit summaries, perhaps it should?

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. The {{article history}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the wording, though I would take out Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. as I don't think that's particularly relevant to editing. Because the text is Creative Commons, We must link to it for attribution purposes, but I believe we can provide attribution in the edit summary when we add it to pages. Wugapodes (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not suggesting that wording is used, just showing where it was derived from. An edit notice on the editing screen would need to be much shorter (and in big red letters!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm personally in favor of such a notice, I fear that some in the broader community might take it as implying article ownership, see for example this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Implications of article ownership might be an issue, but it seems from the discussion that the problem was the (now deleted) wording of the template which listed a particular editor. From the closer's comment, it seems like the community might be willing to think about particular wording for something along this line. Wugapodes (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If no editor is named then there is no ownership problem which is what WP:OWN stresses in relation to FA stewardship, any notice would relate to the community's wish to maintain high standards. I hope this idea is followed through, it might encourage me to nominate more articles for a standard that I tell friends is just about the only type of WP article that can be trusted to be accurate. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC bot problem?

I noticed on my previous FAC nomination the text on the article talk page did not update after the FAC nomination page was started, so a redlink was still left in place. I've now seen it happen on another nom, despite the nom page being active:

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.

Please feel free to initiate the nomination.

Also edit here and add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isabella Beeton/archive1}} to the top of the list.

I thought this may be a problem with my PC, but I've purged the cache and it's still there, and another editor has also commented that it needs to be looked at. Anyone got any thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine to me; I suspect this is a local cacheing issue at your end. Try opening it in another browser. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Odd. It's working OK now, but it wasn't a local caching problem: another editor pointed it out to me as a problem on their machine, and both my PC and tablet showed the redlink still in place. It looks like the bot is just running slowly, if it is a bot that makes the change. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Same happened to me with passenger pigeon. It solved itself after some time. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the bot has anything to do with this. I think it's a database lag issue on the server side. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll nod sagely in agreement, even though I don't understand anything after "it's a..."! Thanks to all for your thoughts. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

“ A Nodder is something like a Yes-man, only lower in the social scale. A Yes-Man’s duty is to attend conferences and say “Yes.” A Nodder’s, as the name implies, is to nod. The chief executive throws out some statement of opinion and looks about him expectantly. This is the cue for the senior Yes-Man to say yes. He is followed, in order of precedence, by the second Yes-Man - or Vice-Yesser -, as he sometimes is called- and the junior Yes-Man. Only when all the Yes-Men have yessed, do the Nodders begin to function. They nod. ” — P. G. Wodehouse

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)