Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 14 September 2007

See also: Misplaced Pages:Featured articles with citation problems

Archives
pre-12/2003 and renaming poll Origins dispute up to January 1, 2005 up to January 1, 2006 up to May 1, 2006 up to Aug 7, 2006 up to January 31, 2007 up to August 23, 2007

• ]

Fairly close to 2000 FA's

Not net, but gross: As of this writing, there are 447 Former Featured Articles (23 of which are now Featured, plus one which is now a featured list) and 1,546 Featured Articles. That leaves a net total of 1,970 articles to have ever been considered Featured (447-23=424, 424+1546=1970). So we are, as of this writing, 30 articles away from 2,000 articles to have ever been considered Featured. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This always puzzled me. Was the "1000th FA" given the that title using the above theory or did it just get the current number in 4 digets for the first time. Buc 06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FA 1000 was gross, not net. See Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-12/Thousandth_FA. I don't particularly foresee any big deal made of the 2000th net FA as would likely happen when we reach 2000 gross FAs, I'm just pointing it out for reasons of perspective and as a bit of trivia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really; WP:FFA doesn't accurately track FAs lost during RBP and before Dec 2004. We've only audited through 2004. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but we are not talking Brilliant Prose, just specifically "Featured Articles." The stuff that was removed from BP or lost in the shuffle never technically became featured... if you include BP in the mix, as some are wont to do (and it can get fairly confusing), then we are hopelessly lost in trying to figure out an accurate gross. This number is only calculating what have been called and considered, specifically, "Featured."

Also, when I created WP:FFA, I believe I included everything from the FARC archives going back to March 2004, not December 2004. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not what we found in the recent audit. There were articles that were listed as featured and then removed that weren't counted at FFA. We may have passed 2,000 already. And, when I was in the history and diffs, I found that FFA and FA were a wreck until you got involved, and then they settled down. 2003 is the issue; you may have counted everything in archives, but a lot never made it to archives and we had to create files after the fact. People moved articles on and off of FA without a record, only an edit, not even always with an edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So how did you know what the 1000th one was? Buc 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knew what the 1000th was? It was likely a guess at best, considering the early (pre-2004) chaos in FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Brihanmumbai_Electric_Supply_and_Transport

I just looked at this FA and it seems that most of the sources come from the company website. That's not allowed is it? Else someone can make a nonsense puff-piece website about themselves and use that to write a rosy FA about themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purplepickle (talk • contribs) 03:00, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Let FA appear on the main page without an image

There are a long of FA that have been FA for a very long time without appearing on main page, such as Something (over three years). I'm assuming that this is mainly due to them not having a good free use image that well depicts the subject. I proposes that in cases like this they appear without an image or some general image like a T.V for a media article. Buc 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For that specific article, there is a fairly easy fix in using a copyleft image of one of the individuals involved in the production. For instance, Harrison wrote the song, so use a version of this image to illustrate it on the main page. For instance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Young subject

I’ve just got the article James Milner up to GA status and I hope to ultimately get it to FA status. But what worries me is that the subject is very young and therefore the article is likely to need a lot of updates over the next few years.

Would this affect it’s chances if I were to make it a FAC?

Would it be better to wait before nominating and if so how long? Buc 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair made FA at some stage. So it's certainly possible to make an FA for a subject in which the details are likely to change significantly over the next few years. Reviewing editors should only be evaluating the FA based on how things are now not what may or may not happened in the future. If there is ongoing controversy then it sometimes can be difficult to make an FA. For example, I don't think anyone realisticly thinks GWB can be made a FA any time in the near future. However for this specific subject I definitely think it would be possible. But bear in mind unless you and other editors are willing to put in a fair amount of work keeping it up to date and in a good shape then it's likely that the article will degrade enough over time that it will probably be delisted after a FAR. Nil Einne 10:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting list of featured articles

I would like to discuss the possibility of formatting the featured article list with every item on a separate line (a break after every article.) Rather than having multiple article links on the same line.

The main pro of this change would be that the articles would be easier to search, especially if you try to do so in alphabetic order.

The main con would be that the page would become a lot longer.

I would personally be in favor of this change, because in my opinion, articles being easy to find should be the main concern on an overview page.

An example of how this might look:

Art, architecture and archaeology

· An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump

· Angkor Wat

· Felice Beato

· Belton House

· Matthew Brettingham

· William Bruce (architect)

· Buckingham Palace

· Campbell's Soup Cans

· Cathedral of Magdeburg

· Chicago Board of Trade Building

· Salvador Dalí

· Deconstructivism

· Dürer's Rhinoceros

· Adolfo Farsari

· El Greco

· The Four Stages of Cruelty

· Four Times of the Day

· Holkham Hall

· House with Chimaeras

· Hoysala architecture

· History of erotic depictions

· IG Farben Building

· Paul Kane

· Robert Lawson (architect)

· El Lissitzky

· Michigan State Capitol

· Henry Moore

· Sylvanus Morley

· Mosque

· Benjamin Mountfort

· Palace of Westminster

· Palazzo Pitti

· Palladian architecture

· Francis Petre

· Point Park Civic Center

· Pierre Rossier

· Sanssouci

· Scottish Parliament Building

· Shotgun house

· Shrine of Remembrance

· Sicilian Baroque

· St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

· Tech Tower

· Templon

· Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

· Triptych, May–June 1973

· John Vanbrugh

· Roman Vishniac

· West Wycombe Park

· Xanadu House

Frostlion 10:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If nobody has a problem with it, I will go ahead and change the layout in a week or so. Please let me know if you would prefer to keep it in it's current layout. Frostlion 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, the articles are quite easy to find with the current layout, since they're already in alphabetical order. I see no benefit to greatly increasing the page length like this. Kirill 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing that makes items in a single line list easier to find is you can just move down until you get to the right first letter. In the current layout it's a fair bit trickier to do in my experience. Then again, maybe it's just me not being particularly handy. That's why I'm mainly curious if other people have noticed the same thing (it being tricky to find particular articles in the current layout.) Of course if I am the only one who has this problem, then you're absolutely right that it would be silly to change things.Frostlion 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is. There are currently 1591 FAs listed, my hand hurts thinking about scrolling down line by line to the bottom. ♫ Cricket02 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK as it is. Though you might consider putting something stronger between each article listing, like a "*":

Aldol reaction * Ammolite * Antioxidant * Baby Gender Mentor * Bupropion

SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 16:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You could bold the dot too, like this: • Titoxd 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting?

Why is biology, medicine and psychology grouped together in the section "Biology, medicine and psychology"? I propose that Biology gets split off into its own section leaving the remainder as Medicine and psychology. I mean, biology and psychology could never be confused and I don't quite know why they were grouped in the first place. The section is quite long and there's undoubtedly going to be more additions, so if we split them now it saves a bit of work later, when most of the page is going to need revamping as is likely to happen. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Spawn Man 12:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some articles overlap biology and medicine; I don't think that's a good split. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Such as? Warfare and history overlap, yet they are separated. How would you categorise an article such as the Treaty of Versailles? It's both history and it's a treaty which brought WWI to an end. I fail to see how this would affect any splitting of the section... Spawn Man 03:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many feature articles that cover multiple topics and hence can be placed in more than one section. As an example, Angkor Wat is currently in "Art & Architecture" but can justifiably placed in "Relgion" as well. It is inevitable that as the number of FAs grows and more classification groups are added, it will difficult to decide where certain articles should go. Gizza 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so if Angkor Wat (What??) overlaps, I'm sure the few article from medicine that overlap with biology wouldn't cause too much concern... Why, we could even rename them "Biology" and "Health". Spawn Man 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take as example the GA page. It is well organized and easily searchable. CG 08:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The GA page isn't very attractive. The graphics are cartoonish and unhelpful, the collapsing sections don't seem to serve a purpose for the reader, and breaking up the articles into groups as small as 1, 2, or 3 is not useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:V0.5 dealt away with the collapsing sections, so that wouldn't be as troublesome as you imagine. Titoxd 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I had to restore Parapsychology to its place as a sub-discipline of psychology. Parapsychology is a scientific discipline. Please see the recent ArbCom on the paranormal Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal for details. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to recent edit warring, I've had to remove the section here, pending consensus. Please see the ArbCom for details.

You're the one doing the edit warring! There's no need to delete an entire section to have a discussion. Given that ArbCom does not rule of matters of content, how is that decision relevant? WjBscribe 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom rules on matters of content when it wishes. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But the link you're pointing to does not indicate that ArbCom wants the article moved from one section to the other. While I don't object to moving it, your principle is flawed. Titoxd 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't my intent to do any edit warring- which is why I tried to remove the relevant section for discussion. Anyway, my second change gave the necessary reasons.

The case is pretty much cut and dried, per the ArbCom case, because parapsycholgy is called a scientific dicipline, and that is the reason given for not having it under psychology. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, as you see here, parapsychology is -to the extent these things are formal- under Transpersonal psychology, which is under psychology as you see here. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, parapsychology is not a scientific discipline. The article correctly labels it a pseudoscience. The arbcom decision says as much: The loci of this dispute are the articles centering on the Paranormal and similar subjects such as ufology or the occult which have traction in popular culture, but not in mainstream science... Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor. It is not going in biology, which is a science. It goes in religion/mythology/mystecism category, which is where belief systems go. Raul654 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The section that it belongs in is "Psychology" which happens to also share the same space as "Biology". Martinphi is not suggesting it is biology. The article does not label it as pseudoscience and neither did the arbitration. The article mentions the view of some that it is pseudoscience. Psychiatry, also considered by some to be pseudoscience, is likewise properly categorized as psychology. You mentioned in an edit summary that it is a belief. Parapsychology is not a belief and you only have to read the article to come to that conclusion. There are many sources in the parapsychology article linking it to psychology. --Nealparr 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't read it properly in a few min. Here is a quote: "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way..."

This is very clear. Many people have the POV that parapsychology is not a science, but your or my opinions don't matter in Misplaced Pages. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Carl Jung, also arguably a pseudoscientist (though technically a psychiatrist), who engages in (quoted from the article) "exploring the worlds of dreams, art, mythology, world religion and philosophy" would also go under "Psychology" despite the actual things he applies psychology to being labeled "Religion, mysticism and mythology". The difference is one is a belief system and one is the study of things related to a belief system. Psychology is not a belief system and neither is parapsychology. --Nealparr 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, Carl Jung was a psyhiatrist/psychologist. In fact, if you go to his article, that's exactly what it says about him. ESP, psychokenesis, telepathy, ghosts, the occult, etc have no basis in science. As I said above, they are beliefs, and go with other belief systems. Raul654 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's exactly what I said, that he's a psychiatrist. With all due respect, if you can't read my short comments completely, how can your claim that you've read and are familiar with the subject matter of parapsychology be considered credible? Psychology deals with belief systems regularly without being considered a belief system. Parapsychology is likewise not a belief system. You only have to read the material to discover that. It's all there in the article. --Nealparr 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to abide by Misplaced Pages rules on this one. I've tagged the article till others have a chance to weigh in. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You and a handful of other people from Wikiproject:Parapsychology do not a consensus make. Raul654 01:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it irrelevant where the page is placed. Where it's placed here has absolutely no effect on anything IMO. I don't want to get into the "is parapsychology a science" debate again. Let's just end this here. It's not something to get into a debate over. Wikidudeman 01:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No. POV-pushing of this type, especially by an admin, is unacceptable. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrative powers by User:Raul654

I see you've decided to abuse your admin powers by actually reverting a tag placed in good faith (with explanation), refusing to discuss rationally (above), and by protecting your reversion of the page. This will not stand, and will merely be taken to the next levels. You are fighting the Arbitration Committee here. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)