Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

dividing FAs into more categories or adding subcategories

I think that many of the sections that FAs are divided into are too broad. For example, Warfare, Sport and recreation, Music, and Media are some of the categories that happen to have the most FAs. To make reading the lists a bit more easy on the eyes, would anyone object to dividing the FA categories into more categories or adding in more subcategories? The Media section, for example, could be divided into "Television", "Film", and "Actors". As a guide, we could probably use the categories used for GAs. This would allow readers to look at shorter lists and more easily pick out articles they might be interested in reading.--Edge3 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (see #Music above). Readers might be helped a bit, but dividing categories into a GA-type system is a hundred times harder to maintain. Our FA directors work hard enough as it is. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
So are we going to use the above-mentioned standard that a category must get at least 200 articles to be divided?--Edge3 (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. Really, that's something to be discussed with the FAC director and delegates—Raul654 (talk · contribs), SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Karanacs (talk · contribs)—as they're the ones who maintain the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see.--Edge3 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping to work on a revamped version so that we can at least break out Warfare....stay tuned for a link to the sandbox. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by sandbox?--Edge3 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
A page that she can used to draft a revised version of the page. See User:Karanacs/FA revamp. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I may have miscounted, but I think the Sports and recreation section has more than 200 articles. Should we divide that section as well?--Edge3 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Karanacs, I've taken a look at your sandbox. I'd hope to avoid segmenting the page in a way that leads to sub-categories, as that trend may mushroom and we may end up with a maintenance nightmare similar to WP:GA. Is it possible to find a way to divvy up Warfare into categories rather than sub-categories? I've often thought that if we ever divide up music and theatre, we would create a category of performing artists, to separate out the bios ... I can't recall where Raul stands on any of this, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You guys are too quick - I wasn't finished with the sandbox. I plan to do a second version that has new upper-level categories. Up above, Raul mentions that he wasn't very thrilled with the idea of adding a new upper-level category, so I wanted to present both options to see what it would look like. I'll try to get the second option done this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I sorta hoped that the current divisions highlighting lean and bloated areas would prompt folks to write FAs in the lean ones...but that's obviously a pipedream..Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In addition to splitting out performing artist bios, I think it might be helpful to separate sports into sports persons, sports teams and sporting events. Politician bios might do well to be split out from other politics FAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to have subcats, we'll have to discuss at WT:TFA/R how that affects the point system there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to introduction of subcats; I do not believe a page like WP:GA is desirable or easier to negotiate. New categories should be created only when a category is seriously too large to negotiate, and by creating new categories, not sub-cats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've run out of time and ideas so I'm putting any work on this on hold for now.... anyone else have suggestions? Karanacs (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it - for mine, the divisions are not uneven enough to make me jump up and down and fall over myself to split. I tend to see the blocs of FAs as nice paras of prose in appearance - carving it up into subcats would be aesthetically questionable for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Too bad Psychology is shoved under Philosophy. Probably why Psychology never bothers to try for FA, despite having reams of articles on Wikipedia and striving to be a science-based discipline, just as much if not more so than Psychiatry. Some short of short-sighted librarian-type determined that, no doubt. Who cares? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I cannot find nor have ever seen any evidence for the conclusions you draw. The absence of psych articles at the GA level is just as noticeable as it is at the FA level: Category:GA-Class psychology articles vs. Category:GA-Class medicine articles. What I have seen is intolerable arguing over every psych article that appears at any content review process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well from a user-perspective, breaking it down in subcats is much more user-friendly and usefull (see my request to split Physics & Astro below). Sports should be broken up by disciples (have some cut-off criteria like there needs to be 10 in a given discipline to warrant having a subcat). Military ones should be broken down by "conflict" / "units & armies" / "weaponry" or similar. Etc... WP:GA looks horrible to manage but they have 3 times as much article as here (huge categories on some of them, road articles, sports, biogs...), and the presentation is too fancypants No need for a baseball next to the baseball one, just place ;Baseball: and be done with it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) how about divvy up Psychology and Philosophy. Former to Medicine (to make medicine & psychology), and the latter to Religion, mysticism and mythology to make Religion, mysticism and mythology and philosophy. The category is short anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Medicine & Psych would make sense IMO. Religion & Philosophy also.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Because that's how it was before, which led to a protracted debate and the current division. Please read the archive I linked below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion for splitting Psychology and Philosophy section and incorporating Psychology into medicine, and philosophy into religion sections

Might as well formalise this: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yes to both. Psych is close to medicine than to Philo, and Philo is closer to religion than Psych. Neutral. I did read the archives before commenting and did not see anything special in there that gives me concern. However I just check the current population of the category, and it has a weird membership that is hard to classify and greatly overlaps with other things such as culture and society and as such I don't know how to improve it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Where are you putting parapsychology then? Please read archive 8. After the long discussion that resulted in the current cats, I see no benefit from rocking the boat, nor need to make work for the sake of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    ...Religion & mythology seems the only place where it should go, as with all the beliefs about life and death. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Please read the archive before responding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why is Reactive attachment disorder under "Philosophy and psychology" and Major depressive disorder is under "Health and Medicine" when both are in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM and the World Health Organization's ICD diagnoses? What is the logic in not putting them in the same section? —mattisse (Talk) 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support. —mattisse (Talk) 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Parapsychology isn't even in the Category:Psychology and is not considered within the subject matter of Psychology in academic institutions. Psychology uses DSM diagnoses as much as Psychiatry does, maybe more as there are more psychologists. Most of the psychology article subject matter (the ones that are not pop psych) overlap with Psychiatry. For examply, many of the rating scales used by psychiatrists were developed by psychologists. Much if not most of the criticism/analysis of the Rorschach was written by psychologists. The relationship with Philosophy is historical only and disappeared after Psychology emerged as science-based. Where would you put an article on Neuropsychology? Under Philosophy? —mattisse (Talk) 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No, just leads to other problems, well covered in Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 8. And some of the Psych articles won't fit in medicine. For example, what would this proposal do to Getting It: The psychology of est and Parapsychology, which is part of why the categories were defined as they currently are to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Seems pretty clear that the book falls under psychology and parapsychology falls under Religion & Mythology as with all the rest of beliefs about life and death. I don't see the problem. Parapsychology isn't Psychology nor Philosophy, so it shouldn't even be where it is right now. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    If you see no problem, then it doesn't seem that you've read the archive I pointed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. I've pushed for category reform before, but this isn't enough. If we're going to change the categotories, we might as well hange the whole thing. --Edge3 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

PPS: FWIW, Getting It: The psychology of est struck me as more philosophy despite the name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Does ROT13 belong in Engineering and technology section?

I realise there's some overlap, but wouldn't the featured article ROT13 be better under the Computing section? ROT13 is a form of cryptography – a featured article that is a member of WikiProject Computer science. Also, as ROT13's lede says, the algorithm has is associated with Usenet and other online forums. Hertzsprung (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was surprising by seeing it there. It definitely goes in computing before engineering. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done Moved sections Hertzsprung (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Past Contributors notification

As part of a editor moral boost, how about a bot that upon an article passing FAC, notifies all previous contributors that an artcle they've edited has made it to FA. I know some will be vandals, but they don;t matter - the boost to editors who made a positive change will outway this .. ? L∴V 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. It's definitely a moral booster for those that make themselves busy by making minor edits. It also reinforces the idea that the community, not a select group of people, makes Wikipedia so much better. --Edge3 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea as well. Maybe the notification can go to all significant contributors, e.g. to contributors with more than 10 edits to the article ? That would help to avoid vandals, anons, and also the wikignomes who write on thousands of articles and do not want to be spamed by dozens of notifications every week. SyG (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Error in a featured article

A featured article, 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash, designed as featured on May 2009, 12th contained an erroneus sentence : "In April 1968, the United States military sent a Star III mini-submarine to the base to look for the lost bomb, which had the serial number "78252".[10]" (ref) (it was removed in August)

I don't think this is very reassuring for the quality of articles labelled as featured. Maybe you should get a stricter peer review process ?.. Cordialy, 83.158.13.117 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Featured articles are not perfect. If you see something that you can improve, please go ahead and fix it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Physics and Astronomy category should be split in "Physics" and "Astronomy".

The articles are so different in topic and scope it makes very little sense to lump them together IMO. That and the fact that it is nearly all populated by Astronomy articles (planets, moons, novas, stars, telescopes, Galileo, ...) which have very little to do with physics (Atom, GR, Atomic line filter, Louis Slotin, ...). It would be best to separate the two IMO, in the same way that "Law" and "Politics & Goverment" are separated. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the articles overlap, and that would create unnecessarily small categories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but some articles already overlap so I don't see how that's a concern. Atom for example, could/should be in Chemistry too, while Atomic line filter could/should also be in Physics. A quick build of the physics category would have at the least (I'm sure I could find others) : Atom, Atomic line filter, Equipartition theorem, General relativity, Introduction to general relativity, George Koval, Photon, Quark, Louis Slotin, and Edward Teller, which is comparable to other existant categories.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
A better idea maybe to combine small physics and mathematics sections. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
These are completely disjointed subjects, a merge wouldn't make sense. The closest thing I could think of would be to merge with Chemistry, but even then that's iffy. Astro has enough to stand on its own, and let's preserve the traditional Phys/Chem/Bio division of sciences (although I would create a subcat for species articles in biology, ballpark of what it would look like). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are some other weird splits - we have Geology, geophysics and meteorology (quite a large section), and Chemistry and mineralogy (might be good to move geology into the latter one). also note that paleonotology is often considered as much a part of geology as biology. We have a huge biology section, that might be a natural split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Geo & Meteo ones is mostly because you want to lump Earthquakes and Hurricanes together. It would probably be better to restructure as "Natural disasters", but that is a bit drastic for change, and I couldn't tell you what to do with the leftovers. Perhaps split into "Natural disasters" and "Oceanography and Earth & Atmospheric Sciences" (although a better name should be found). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, can you explain your rationale for wanting to make all of these changes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well right now I'm just talking about what ifs. For my original proposal, Physics & Astronomy should be split because the historical nature of that division does not reflect what physics and astronomy are today. Articles about the moons of Jupiter don't fit with articles on the equipartition theorem, and it's not pleasant to browse. (here's a ballpark of what the split would look like) The rest is simply my hypothesis about why Geology & Meteorology are lumped together. It seems to me that the goal was to lump disaster articles together since they attract the same readership. If that's the case, then it seems to me that readership would best be served by as "Natural Disaster" category , treating specific earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, floods, and so on, kept distinct from an "Earth Sciences" category which would treat things like marine currents, tectonics, atmospheric phenomena, climate change, etc... After the initial cleanup (I can help there if that's the concern), it doesn't seem to add much, if anything, in terms of management.(Examples of the split into Natural Disasters/Earth Sciences) Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand the work behind your "what ifs", and that someone will come along next month, disagree, and want yet another change? Back to where we started, just as with Parapsychology ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dunno, took me like 10 minutes to make the two examples above (which are a bit crude, but not far from what it should look like if we're heading in that direction IMP). The parapsychology & philosophy stuff however is more complicated than this and may not be all that good idea to split it in the way suggested about. I think it's because the scope of the category itself is sorta ill-defined.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ten minutes to do that, sure ... but FFA has to be done, then TFA has to be changed, adn then someone will disagree with your changes a month from now. Stability on this page is key. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well we shouldn't do with solely based on my whims, there obviously needs to be proper consultation first. If FFA and TFA is a concern, I can take care of those too.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Talking doesn't hurt. Ultimately I am not too fussed the way it is, and have pointed out some other examples. (shrugs) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Language List on the left hand side

Where do I find the wiki text for that? I went to Edit This Page, but couldnt find it. I'm needing to copy it for the Anglo-Saxon version, and also add its link here. Thanks. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I see it now, it's under the /Header page. Nevermind :D —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

More kinds of featured content

As far as I can see, there aren't currently featured disambiguation pages, nor featured redirects, nor featured wikipedia: namespace entries, nor featured help: namespace entries, nor featured category pages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of disambiguation pages on this wiki is very high, however none of them rated for quality. The number of redirects is probably even higher. Unrated as well. There is no lack of unhelpful help pages. But how is a newbie ever to gonna find a helpful help page, if the help pages aren't rated? Dedalus (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want a laugh, see Wikipedia:Featured redirects. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, time for the serious answer; I'll take this point by point:
  • We do have many types of pages, but only articles and lists actually contain content, which is what the reader is looking for. Media—pictures and sounds—can also be featured because they help to elaborate on and illustrate examples or concepts of the subjects covered in the text. Featured topics I'll admit serve editors more than readers, but they help the readers too, as they encourage editors to improve all articles in one topic to high quality.
  • Disambiugation, redirects and categories are navigational rather than encyclopedic pages; they are very important, but their sole purpose is to make Wikipedia easier to use for readers rather than inform them. I can't see calling something such as Austin our "best work".
More coming. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Dabomb87, that is nice. OK, I'll drop all, but one: disambiguation pages. They are informative, at least to me. A quality rating system like featured, or good, might have been instrumental in improving a whole bunch of articles. Featured lists are worked on to have them look nice. There are over 150 thousands disambiguation pages. However, I haven't found a single dap with an image of some kind. And yes, my impression is that the featured system as a whole serve editors more than readers. Dedalus (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps because images in dab pages are specifically discouraged (as they probably should be). See WP:MOSDAB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Friends of Featured articles, please help me out!

I have made a proposal to showcase featured articles here. Please comment! GeometryGirl (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Notifying WikiProjects

With the Featured article review process there's a note to let relevant WikiProjects know if an article is nominated for the process. There isn't a similar note in teh featured article nomination process, and I was wondering if it was worth adding it? Okay, typically a wikiproject might be expected to be aware, but it's not always the case and it might be beneficial. Apologies if this has been discussed before. Hiding T 14:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've written an essay on how to handle deletion discussions of good and featured articles. Your input and edits are welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again country music got snubbed. Not one featured article in the music section was a country artist, album or song. There are more country radio stations than any other format and the CMA award show gets as many viewers as the grammys. Wikipedia does a poor job at including country music in there articles. If you read about music of the 90's you will find no mention of garth brooks or shania twain. Only Elvis Presley has sold more albums in america than garth brooks as a solo artist but not a word about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianearlhaines (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2009

This is a volunteer project, the editors can work on whatever they choose to work on, and thus the solution is for yourself to go work on country music articles and get them to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In that vein, you might contact User:TenPoundHammer. He is very involved in country music articles and is always looking for more help. Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question

I'm a new user and I'm wondering if an article is demoted from it's featured article status and it gains it back again would it be on the main page again?--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally an article is featured on the main page just the once. Majorly talk 12:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-categorize

I noticed that the Drapier's Letters were placed under "Literature". I was wondering if it could be renamed. Here are rationales:

  • Business, economics and finance - It deals with Irish economics and a dispute over a letter patent.
  • Law - The basis of the argument is an Irish constitutional argument and it is one of the main works in the argument for Irish independence.
  • Politics and government - It deals with the dispute between Irish independence from British rule and argues that the status of the "King of Ireland" as a separate entity from the "King of Great Britain" allowed for Irish sovereignty separated from Britain.

I am personally biased to seeing it as the last two, but significant portion of the work is devoted to aspects surrounding copper currency on Irish economics and the economic liberty of the nation of Ireland, so there is a strong argument for the first option. Of course, it could stay as Literature simply because it was a famous work. I just wanted to throw this out there for discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a hard time figuring out where to put this, and I assumed you would let me know if you disagreed with the placement. We can only put it in one category, and, you are right, there are four that it fits in. How do you think the average reader would classify the work? Karanacs (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't a clue. That is why I am putting it up here. I see four perfectly good categories for it. :) I will defer to consensus personally, as I want to see what everyone thinks on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Where do libraries (for example, Dewey Decimal Classification) put it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Most academic libraries in the U.S. use the Library of Congress Classification instead of Dewey. In LCC, The Drapier's Letters are classified as AC, "Collections, Series, Collected Works". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for AfDs of valued content

See WT:AfD to discuss adding a categorization- and notice-template to XfDs for valued content, including featured articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Candide

Can I move article Candide in section Philosophy?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think that it isn't bad idea for articles about Blaise Pascal and Mary Wollstonecraft--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Please consult the opinions of the primary contributors to those articles first. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I will not move that personally. I will write to them. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


For info: AUSC October 2009 elections

The election, using SecurePoll, for Audit Subcommittee appointments has now started. You may:

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 07:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections

There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:

MBisanz • Tznkai;

  • Or go straight to your personal voting page:

here.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


10 best FA

I would like your opinion about the 10 best FA out there. 128.232.247.48 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"best" is too subjective and vague to have any real meaning in this context. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the 10 FA you have enjoyed the most reading. Thanks. 128.232.247.48 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

i would say it would probably prob georg w bush article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article categories

As the number of featured articles grows - the total has doubled in the two years I've been active - it would be helpful if the categories under which FAs are listed could, in some instances, be subdivided (as happens in the GA listing). An example of where subdivision would be useful is the "Music" category, where the 20 or so classical/opera articles are buried under a mass of song and album articles; it's hard to detect that classical or opera are represented at all. The same might also be true of some other categories. Would it be a problem to implement this? Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)'Italic text'

Yes :) We've tried to avoid fragmenting the page like GA, because it becomes a maintenance nightmare and less readable. A category of 20 or so isn't optimal. There are some very large categories that do need to be split (Warfare), but we've never settled on how to split them. I've often thought if we were to split Music, Media, and Literature and theatre, we would split out the bios into something like a Performing artist category, but I'm not sure if that idea has traction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it is needed. I suggest that few people read WP:FA. The only consequence I am aware of from the categories go to the single point awarded at TFA/R for underrepresented (50 or fewer), and this would have a very limited effect on that. So I am left confuzzled, or whatever Sandy's word is (though that may include having a cold, which I don't have) about the need for the splitting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained OR images in FA

I removed the image from the box in Hepatorenal syndrome. It's not explained well or tied to the article appropriately. The image is original research by the editor who gathered two poorly identified micrographs from the internet and juxtaposed them without any explanation of why and how they are related. There are no scale markers on either. There is no species identification. There's no reason behind these other than, apparently, it's a FA and needs a picture. It's better without a picture than with just any picture. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The top image is an H&E stain of liver showing alcoholic cirrhosis which is a common cause of hepatorenal syndrome. It shows classic changes of alcoholic cirrhosis (steatosis and Mallory's hyaline, and fibrous septae, which admittedly would be better with a trichrome stain) and is a fine image. The second is an image of a normal kidney glomerulus at fairly high magnification. The combined image is useful conceptually to understanding HRS as it depicts that renal pathology is normal in this syndrome and that the pathology is found in the liver. I will revert the removal. -- Samir 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion belongs at Talk:Hepatorenal syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
There is now a discussion on the article talk page.
I would like to see some criteria set and met for inclusion of a FA image on the front page. This one was a bad choice. I like to look at the articles and images on the main page of wikipedia. They're often very high quality, and I learn a lot from reading the articles on strange and unfamiliar topics. But it's disappointing to see something of such obvious poor quality appear on the main page. I hope there is more care taken in the future when selecting images.
It would have been better to not have an image than to detract from an excellent article with a second-rate, poorly-chosen image. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In technical areas such as this, there is no substitute for expert reviewers. In many articles a layman's eye can spot an inappropriate or weak image; in this case there is no chance that anyone unfamiliar with the subject would have spotted a problem. If you have expertise in this area, it would be very helpful if you would take a look at any FA candidates that come up where your knowledge can help improve the images. Mike Christie (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to propose a criterion regarding a TFA image, please start a discussion at WT:TFAR. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That page appears to be about what the next featured article of the day will be. Why start a discussion there rather than at FAC? --69.226.100.7 (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Because that talk page's corresponding Wikipedia page includes the criteria for requesting featured articles to be on the Main Page, which is what you are asking about. FAC concerns the process that determines whether article meet the FA criteria or not, while you are concerned about TFA image concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly what he said, but I wonder if the intent was to suggest that the FA criteria for images should be tightened. In that case the FA criteria talkpage would be the right place. Mike Christie (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

further sub-categorisation

i noticed that under many categories there is a huge number of articles. i propose that it is time to further sub-categorise the categories.

for example:

under geography:

  • cities
  • countries
  • continents

under warfare i think the following categories would be apropriate:

  • wars
  • battles
  • warriors, soldiers and combatans
  • air based weapons
  • land based weapons
  • sea based weapons

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 14:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Picture needed?

So one of the greatest games of all time, Spyro:YotD is the featured article. Well, I thought it needed a picture. Can some admin add a picture to the page? --210.50.95.161 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No can do, because we cannot have non-free content on the Main Page. Box art and screenshots fall under fair use, so we cannot use them for the blurb. If you can find a high-quality free image that is relevant to the article, please suggest it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Videos

Does anyone know of featured articles with videos in them? (Or really just any article that can be used as an example of videos being used right.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a Featured Article, but a GA and currently at FAC: International_Space_Station#Space_station -MBK004 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
So it's ok to use thumb for videos? WP:CMF#Video usage says not to (and I believe commons:Video says the same thing), which is what was confusing me. I recently added a video to an article and, thinking I couldn't use thumb, couldn't get a caption except with an ugly table—apparently there used to be {{video}} for doing this, but it was deleted a year ago (WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 27#Template:Video) in favor of thumb syntax.
I just noticed, though, that the language about how thumb is bad seems to have been added very recently. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misinterpreting that bit; after re-reading, it seems like using thumb is fine as long as we don't resize the file (i.e., we force the video to appear at whatever size it originally was, like this). Is that correct? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am the editor who inserted that text. Basically I attempted to explain the problem further up in that article, in the section Limitations and Implementation Issues a year or more ago, but it is stupid to try to explain that there is a problem -- and then have a section immediately below it that shows an example of doing it exactly the wrong way. WTF?
The bottom half of that article needs to be redone, either with recompressed clips at the desired smaller size, or the videos shown full-frame -- unlikely because they are huge and cannot be shown side by side on a small monitor.
Maybe this upcoming Firefox auto-transcoder will fix all this but that is still an unknown that remains to be seen.
I am not a wikimedia expert, but it appears video support is sort of halfway implemented correctly. If you use the keyword frame rather than thumb, the wikimedia software will caption it properly like a thumbnail but will not resize it.
However I cannot recommend that all videos be shown using frame because that keyword apparently does not recognize the use of thumbtime, and there apparently isn't an alternative frametime option. This may require developer action to fix but frankly I haven't had the energy to try to pursue this problem, arcane as it seems to be.


My understanding of how to give readers access to multiple bitrates is still evolving. Writing the same description for four different video files is tedious and hard to maintain.
Recently I learned that templates created on the Commons carry over to the other Wikipedia versions. So for my latest multi-bitrate videos, the description of the videos is placed in a template, used in each video description so they all get the same one. And the template includes links to each file version, with whatever version you're looking at shown in bold in the list.
Template: Commons:Template:Video milk pipeline cleaning rev1
Version 1: File:Milk pipeline washing ff 0.25 320x240 vid 3 aud 1.ogv
Version 2: File:Milk pipeline washing ff 0.25 320x240 vid 6 aud 1.ogv
Version 3: File:Milk pipeline washing ff 0.25 640x480 vid 3 aud 1.ogv
Version 4: File:Milk pipeline washing ff 0.25 640x480 vid 6 aud 1.ogv
Using a description template seems much more elegant, and so should probably go in that how-to article for others, but once again I haven't had the energy to pursue documenting this either.
DMahalko (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlooked feat

I was looking at WP:WBFAN and noticed that YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) has become the leader in current WP:FAs. If you get a chance you should show some appreciation for his hard work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Golden W Award

The Golden W, awarded for having content featured in every area of the main page.
The Golden W, with Laurels, awarded for having content thrice featured in every area of the main page.

The Golden W Award goes to editors who succeed in having content featured in every area of the main page: Featured Article, Did You Know, In the News, On This Day, and Featured Picture. It is currently proposed as a WikiProject. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Golden W Award if you are interested in making this WikiProject a reality. Time commitment is minimal, less than an hour a month at this point. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of FAs

Category:Featured articles currently lists 2728 FAs, but this page says there are 2746. Is there any convenient way to find the articles that account for the difference? (Perhaps they inadvertently got their FA stars removed.) Ucucha 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The category is not accurate; it has something to do with articles that have no WikiProject assessments on their talk page, or something. This page is accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidates list problem

As far as I can remember, the last few links of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list have always been red for some reason. Can anyone fix it?

By the way, I'm leaving the message here because the talk page of the list in question is not watched by many people (fewer than 30 according to this). Perhaps redirecting it here would be a good idea? Waltham, The Duke of 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because the FAC page has more than 50 noms (which it will continue to have if we don't get some reviews :) This was discussed previously, and as far as I know, it can't be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Icos categorization

I'm proposing moving Icos from "Business, economics and finance" to "Health and medicine". Most of the other FA-Class Companies articles are categorized under the subject of the business, not under business itself. (By this measure Elderly Instruments should be moved to "Music" too.) Shubinator (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me (as author of Elderly). Topics in business should be categorized under Business, but probably not the businesses themselves. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Since no objections have been raised, I've made the moves. Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Please see WP:VPP#Featured whatever. Simply south (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed speedily per clear consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured articles → Portal:Featured articles — Move to Portal namespace rather than having it in project namespace. It is of interest to the readers of WP (as well as editors of course) and so it should be in a namespace that is for content. It should follow the Portal:Featured content layout. The move also establishes consistency with similar pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of DANFS text in FAs

I raised a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#FAs that are copies of other sources, just leaving a note here (I'm not sure which page is appropriate to bring this up at). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews...

Oops, wrong spot. Moving to WT:FAC Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Could use some advice

I'm having a problem at Muhammad al-Durrah incident and would appreciate some advice, both about that article in particular and about the problem in general of maintaining featured articles on contentious issues.

This year is the 10th anniversary, so I tidied it and submitted it for FA status, and it got promoted in January. It has come under attack by some pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel editors (one is a known, regular editor; two others have been blocked as socks), who feel it veers too far in the Israeli direction. They've been removing material they don't like, adding some poorly written material, adding POV tags, dubious tags, and so on. It's worth mentioning that the only person who opposed it at FAC was Wehwalt, who felt it veered too far in the Palestinian direction.

I don't know what to do for the best. It's a very finely balanced article: every X is balanced by a not-X; the word structure has been chosen carefully to be disinterested or immediately qualified if it conveys a significant POV. It reflects the most knowledgeable sources, and it's the most comprehensive account of the incident anywhere on- or offline.

My dilemma now is that if I leave the article to be edited by these accounts, it will inevitably deteriorate, but if I try to maintain it, I'll be accused of OWNing.

Does anyone have advice about what to do, or about what has happened in the past with FAs on contentious issues? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAR actually works to draw more eyes to the problem (see the Barack Obama history of FARs), but won't work in this case, because an article can't be FAR'd for at least three months. But FAR is one way to really bring in other editors to help you deal with this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
My fear is that FAR is their aim. Cause it to deteriorate, then take it to FAR and vote it out. Or if they fail, back to causing deterioration, rinse and repeat. The problem is that so few people want to argue in the kind of atmosphere created on the al-Durrah talk page, which is basically very low signal to noise, with people acting out the conflict rather than focusing on the article. I'm on the verge of bailing out myself—I've even taken it off my watchlist to stop it constantly popping up. That leaves only the ones with the very strong views. I suppose what you're saying is that I should try to view FAR as a positive thing in a case like this, and you're probably right. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Look at the Obama FARs; that trick won't work for them at FAR :) It will give you a broader audience, and fresh eyes. But I understand your frustration-- same thing on all the Chavez articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the Obama FARs. I've also opened a user subpage to discuss the issues with User:George, one of the people who commented on the FAC and a very good, neutral editor. I was hoping if we tweak it here and there, we might meet some of the pro-Palestinian editors' concerns, though I'm unsure that anything will please them short of a declaration that Wikpedia knows what happened. But if we go too far with the tweaking, the other side will complain, so I'm feeling somewhat battered and wondering how much more of my life I can devote to it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifacation Of Proposal To Promote wp:quote

There is a proposal to promote wp:quote.

I do not know why candidates was notified, but they were so you should be notified as well.174.3.107.176 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore

Hi there. I just happened across Kingdom of Mysore which is apparently a "featured article" and yet, supposedly:

  • Its factual accuracy is disputed.
  • It appears to represent a biased viewpoint inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

This doesn't seem right. 81.129.128.129 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

Normally, I would advise starting a featured article review, but after looking at the previous one, perhaps that is not a good idea. You might bring up the issues on the talk page of the article and see if the editors there are willing to work on them. More generally, many FAs have deteriorated (including Kingdom of Mysore) since promotion and no longer meet FA criteria; sometimes, they are easy to clean up, but I don't think this article is one of them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting work on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries on the main page

There a lot of FA/GAs around, and many of these can be used on the main page on selected anniversaries. Many FA/GAs can be, but at the moment, SA is not well-known and has no selection process; unlike DYK and ITN, you can just turn up and serve yourself. This is leading to lots of unsourced, messed-up articles getting on the main page. One admin Ragib (talk · contribs) has been reverting an article he contributed to, Operation Searchlight, which has lots of references of officers involved in the war/battle, citing WP:OTHERCRAP. Anyone with a FA or GA with a relevant date, you can get yourself 5000 hits for the day, and the article can go on there each year, unlike TFA and DYK, and raise the standard of material on the front page as well to make Wikipedia less of a joke, there are many unused articles that are far better than unsourced and unvetted and self-addable start class articles going around on the front page YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Philosophy and psychology section

This section is appallingly small, for some reason.

Here's a featured article which is missing from this list -Major depressive disorder. I would add it, but the warnings I saw with I tried to edit the page stopped me.

I wonder - are there others?

Tom Cloyd (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder is under Health and medicine: there are none missing from the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Beg to differ. Major depression is a mental health issue. On the [Major depressive disorder] Talk page it states "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects." The first one listed is Psychology. It's silly to put the article in only one place in the Featured Article list - and seriously misleading.
I'm a licensed Mental Health Professional in the state of Washington, so I do have a bit a of a leg to stand on. Allow me to say this: very little depression is treated appropriately only with medication or other medical-only interventions. Virtually all is treated (appropriately) with psychotherapy, and when, the depression is serious enough, also with medication - which only works with the more serious forms, and not always with them. It is only reasonable to have it in both sections, surely. Fair enough? Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
We only list FAs once on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, obviously, but how many really belong in more than one? If you insist on this, mental health topics belong surely in psychology, not medicine, for many many reasons (but why not share?). Here's one reason: I have been looking for other articles in the Psychology Portal area that have attained Featured Article status. I'm working on PTSD - the only professional who appears ever to have done this - and I'm aiming at FA status. I could find very very few Psychology article examples to guide me. Putting an article in an odd group is a fine way to effectively bury it, as I found out. Does this really benefit anyone? I cannot image who - certainly not me. How about we just move this one? Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on what logic would we move a medical condition out of health and medicine? Then you would also want to move autism or Asperger's or Down's, medical conditions treated by physicians. Psychologists may help those living with these conditions, but they are still medical conditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
One can certainly find professionals who think depression is only psychological, and physicians who say it has to organic. I personally do not know of conclusive arguments either way, and I don't think it wise to attempt to resolve the matter by declaration. I have offered some facts which I take to be common knowledge among educated people: [a] virtually all depression is appropriately treated with psychotherapy; [b] only some is appropriately treated only with organic (medical) interventions. Big Pharma certainly wants us to think of it as wholly organic, as if spelling errors in my word processor is a problem with the chips in my computer. Obvious nonsense, albeit profitable nonsense.
Down's is clearly a genetic disorder. Autism (Asperger's will likely be merged into this in the DSM-V) is by consensus of everyone I know considered most likely to be organic in origin. There is absolutely no such consensus regarding major depression. Depression is in fact one of those mental conditions where body and mind meet in the middle. Failure to grasp this reduces the success of treatment interventions, and I say that as a non-medical person. This is the heart of the absurdity of putting it in only one category. As I said before, I don't think this problem occurs at all often, but it IS occurring with this topic. I wish that consideration might be given for this special case.
An important historical point, rarely known or appreciated by non-mental-health-professionals: There was a time when mental illness/health issues were taken up only by neurologists. Then psychiatry was invented as a profession. It wasn't until 1949 that Clinical Psychology became a major profession in the USA (or anywhere else). Mental health professionals know this history well. Here's the point: since that time, psychology has taken over mental illness interventions, with the exception of those requiring hospitalization. Doctors still run hospitals.
Today, psychiatry is a profession in serious decline. Most psychiatrists write prescriptions, and do little else. They're not happy about it, but they have little choice. THEY NO LONGER CONTROL THE EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS, except for disorders with clearly organic origins or aspects. Major depression in in the latter category ("aspects"), but only to a modest degree.
So, I'll leave you with that. I really want my time to go specific articles in mental illness/health which seriously need the attentions of someone who's actually in the profession, starting with PTSD. I know these matters we address here are complex. I can't help that. I hope what I've taken time to write is of some use. Tom Cloyd (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the heart of the absurdity of putting it in only one category. Again, this page is an accurate tally of Featured articles; we do not duplicate entries here, articles are listed on the page only once, and many of the articles here could fit into multiple categories (that is not at all uncommon). Conditions that are treated with medicine and by medical doctors and have an organic basis are in Health and medicine. If you want other means of locating psych articles, that is the purpose of Categories on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, will check in "categories". But...the groups of articles on the FA page obviously are categorized, and that's the problem. You cannot really say they're not categories. I do understand that you're referring to something else, but it looks like you sidestepping the issue.
As for a mental illness's being "treated with medicine and by medical doctors and have an organic basis" - PTSD is treated by medicine (though only in a palliative sense, as is a significant amount of depression). Most if not all psychotropics are dispensed by physicians because that is the law - they must be prescribed. The "organic basis" is highly debatable, and is still being actively debated. Clearly only some of it is, so far as we present know. One should not confuse organic correlates with organic causation (very commonly done). The picture is definitely not clearly one thing or the other.
Where you put Depression has consequences for readers. You mislead when you call it a medical condition. That's what Big Pharma does, and it's cynical exploitation of people's ignorance. It's a disorder which is sometimes (thankfully) amenable to medical treatment, but if I wanted to take the time I do have a number of citations, from authoritative psychiatrists, who advise against ONLY using pharmaceuticals. That wouldn't make sense, if it were wholly organic. The psychiatrist Aaron Beck showed over 20 years ago in his NIH research program that cognitive therapy treated most depression fully as well as medication, and with longer lasting effects. That doesn't sound very organic either, yes? Finally, it is well documented that mild depression is NOT responsive to medication. How could that be, if it's merely organic? It's just not amenable to either/or thinking, except by the ill-informed or cynically biased, it appears to me (and I'm not alone). This is not a critical issue for me at this time, but I hope to return to work this article if only to review the causality section.Tom Cloyd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
Hi Tom. The wikiproject templates on the talk page automatically create categories by "class". In your case you'd presumably be interested in Category:FA-Class psychology articles (and its "lower quality" equivalents), which is a category on the talk page of the article you mentioned (see the bottom of the page). If there is any conceivable point to all the talk page clutter related to projects, surely this is it--to help you find these articles in a manner more fine-grained than the main featured article list. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion - in the service of usability - This is useful information that you've just given me (thank you!). It's also not at all obvious to casual readers (a category I'm well beyond at this point).
Why not put information about this on the FA main page, so that people don't get misled as I was? My being misled is pointless. I suggested a reasonable solution, and gave supporting argument for it. Apparently I'm talking with someone who is logic proof, so the FA page will continue to be misleading. Too bad.
So, we still really need a solution for this problem. Don't you WANT people to find these articles? If so, why not put them in reasonable groupings, and make them truly accessible? I don't understand this "well that's just how we do it" mentality. At least put up signposts directing people to where the full list of psychology-related FA articles might be found. Apparently it's too much to expect them to be on the FA page. That would make too much sense for some people. Not for me though. Tom Cloyd (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
No, we do not need a solution to a "problem" that is not a problem. This page is a list of FAs, nothing more or less, and we most certainly don't want it to look like WP:GA, which is unmanageable. I seriously doubt that many editors or readers use this page inappropriately, when categories are useful for finding similar FAs. Almost every article on the page could be listed in numerous categories-- we have to make choices about how to categorize articles, and every new editor who comes to this page has a hobby horse about how to rearrange the page according to personal preferences. Should we allow readers to find all the fungi and dinosaur articles separately? Bios separately? Classical vs. pop musicians? The ways that editors with individual hobby horses want to rearrange this page can only lead to an unmanageable, unnegotiable page like WP:GA, and we're not going there. I have separately asked Casliber if he believes Major depressive disorder belongs in Psych rather than Health-- he is a practicing psychiatrist, and if he agrees it should be moved, so be it, but it is not possible for this page to be anything but a list, and choices have to be made about the majority of the articles, that could all fit into many different categories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read me more carefully. I'm not asking for it to be moved. I'm asking for a reasonable compromise - that it appear in both categories. You can deal with such requests as they come up. I have offered some carefully reasoned arguments, which you have largely ignored. / Yes, there IS a problem. There was for me, and I'm an experienced editor, not a mere reader. I think this page should serve the reader who's in search of WP's best articles. With that goal in mind, I think it can be improved.
If you ask a psychiatrist, you're very likely to get a physician's viewpoint. We may well disagree, which supports my proposal. Even if he agrees with me, my proposal stands. We should share, rather than fight over this article. That's a decent, high-usability solution. As for your "slippery slope" argument that if we start multi-categorizing there's no end to it, yes that could happen. It would NOT happen in most cases, if you apply a little common sense. Psychology and medicine are seriously different fields. Pop and classical music (one example you gave) are not. Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm repeating myself, and it is you who is not reading carefully or engaging common sense: I'm asking for a reasonable compromise - that it appear in both categories. This page is specifically a tally of FAs, a list, where the total number of articles listed on the page IS the total number of FAs and the definitive list of FAs. We do not list articles twice, and we certainly aren't going to do that for one article only, or for every article that everyone wants in two places-- that would invalidate the purpose of the page, which is a tally and list of FAs. If you want a reasonable compromise, then proposals should be based in reality and reason: we don't list articles twice, and the purpose of the page is not to duplicate Wiki categories. It is most frustrating that editors who first find this page want to alter it, without concern for 1) its purpose, or 2) long-standing arguments about how to best categorize articles. Please read the archives, and Colin's post: novel solutions that account for the multitude of opinions among editors about how to categorize articles are helpful-- calls to make an exception for one article, that alter the utility of the page (a tally of FAs) are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a list. The only real world relevance is points in TFA/R, which is purely advisory. This is not worth one percent of the pixels that I've seen expended here. Respectfully, what difference does this make?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Right (thanks), but we go through this periodically, with every new editor who finds the page and has a hobby horse about recategorizing it. This one is simple: if Casliber makes an argument that MDD is better placed in Psych than Health and medicine, it can be moved. End of story! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
(No problem). This is not a big deal, either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The big deal to me (pending Cas's input and feedback) is that, considering my editing area and background, 1) I'm a bit resistant to being lectured on the known benefits of CBT vs. medication as if I'm some kind of BigPharmShill :) and, 2) I am not going to see changes in this page that result in conditions like autism, Asperger's or Down's recategorized to Psych just because pysch treatments are helpful or used for them. I put Reactive attachment disorder in Psych because it's something that is done to individuals rather than something that has an organic cause. Cas may have other views. But the bigger picture here is that many articles could be categorized differently, and we just have to be consistent, keeping it to what it is-- simply a list of FAs. Whenever I've categorized something incorrectly in the sense of it affecting points at TFA/R, I'm open to suggestions for change, but in this case, both cats are underrepresented (I think-- do we need to review the numbers?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As long as there is consistency at work, that's all that is required.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Consistency, and usability both relevant values, I think. If this page is for editors and admins and the like, that's one thing. If it is to serve ordinary readers, that's entirely another, and that's where the usability issue enters in.
As for my "lecturing" - that's name calling, and I'm sorry to see it. What I tend to do is explain myself at greater length than many others. I assume you want actually to understand my assertions. I try to make that reasonably easy. What possible objection can there be to that? You should be grateful. I give you more targets to shoot at, if you can (and I work to make sure you can't, of course - that's just careful reasoning at work, if I'm successful). Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay - my vote for a cleaner split on the FA page is for Philosophy and psychology to be split - each has more in common with other areas - the former with Religion, mysticism and mythology, the latter with Health and medicine. That said, I can see the cases for MDD being in either. As I am a psychiatrist and the classification itself exists under the auspices of DSM IV-TR, I think it slightly better off in Health and medicine - but I really wouldn't care. I did feel keener for a split when medicine was bundled into biology before. In fact......

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles/Archive_12&oldid=1137412794"