Wikipedia talk:Featured content/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cornell?

Right now the article on this portal is Cornell university, which is no longer an FA--Jaya _{summons|contribs} 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal image problem

{{editsemiprotected}} File:Master Chief costume.jpg = redlink'd from the portal's TFA. Better step to and rectify, knowwha'msayin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.64.76 (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2010

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.BejinhanTalk 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Itself featured

It needs to be featured itself. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Contents pages navigation proposal

A proposal to add topical links to all of the contents pages has been made. As part of that proposal, the navigation bar at the top of Portal:Featured content would look like this.

Please respond to the proposal, Adding topical links to contents pages navigational headers and footers, as you see fit. Regards, RichardF (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reflist

I see there is a reflist currently in this portal. Removing it entirely causes the featured list to transclude improperly, but we could comment out the {{reflist}} to workaround that issue. I think readers would understand that they need to look at the actual list to see the citations, and aesthetics would be improved. Jujutacular ^talk 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi

This page has been overedited i think it should become a featured article asap.--Sweetcorn (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrestler Featured List has issues

The seventh item in the list has a glaring wikimarkup error, and clicking through to the full list causes the list to start at the number nine, not the number one. As this is supposedly a featured list, this is totally unacceptable and should be remedied ASAP by someone with the correct know-how (obviously not me or I would have fixed it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronsonboy (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to which list has issues? Also, from an FL standpoint, this portal has not been maintained for a long time, and it could be that the list you saw is no longer Featured. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forget what it was specifically. I think it was top champions or something? Anyway, probably not extremely important unless it comes up again.Bronsonboy (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured list fail

How come the featured list on this page, which is supposed to be an abbreviated version, so often appears in full form? Is there something seriously wrong with the formatting? Lampman (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What determines what is on this page?

It seems like a random and mix-up selection of Featured content that is not at all helpful. Can it be cleaned up and some sense made out of it? Manny may (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Add a Random Featured Article link?

How about adding a Random Featured Article link, similar to the Random Article link on the sidebar? I think it'd be a great little tool for discovering the best of Wikipedia. There's already an implementation of it that you can find here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-featured.php

--Taitcha (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support this idea -- When I'm not editing I personally tend to avoid Random Article, as I'm always a little uneasy about what might come up, but I think a random featured article link would be used more often by myself and others. Zaldax (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Disorganized

This page does seem pretty disorganized; it could really use some attention since it's a sidebar link from the Main Page... Zaldax (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've decreased the width of the Featured Article section, so that should fix the excessive whitespace, that was often appearing underneath it when the Featured Media description was long.

Aside from that, it's a page that was designed in (2006, as a tangent from the Main Page redesign that was ongoing at that time, iirc).

It could definitely use a re-examination, and possibly an overhaul. (We could either: wait and see how the current Main Page redesign proposal turns out (which would give us solid design cues, and prevent too much overlap of content); or try to redesign it concurrently with that (which definitely will make both proposals a Lot more complicated, and confuse many people; but might have positive ramifications, too.). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest being bold. There's no way this cannot be a featured portal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Featured portal link mismatch

The featured portal image shows South Australia and links to Portal:South Australia, but the caption links to Portal:New South Wales. Lesgles (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It took me a while to see how this page works, but I believe I've fixed it with this edit to Portal:Featured content/Portals. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Couldn't figure it out myself. Lesgles (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dire need of cleanup

Adding a note here that this page is in dire need of cleanup, hope it's okay I took some of that wording from a helpful comment by Bencherlite (talk · contribs), heh. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• To be specific:
  • We have featured article blurbs for articles that are no longer featured
  • We have featured article blurbs with deleted images
  • We have featured article blurbs with links to dab pages
  • We have a selection of FA blurbs that has not been updated since 2009
  • We have similar problems for the FL and FP sections.
  • Some of the FLs seem just to transclude the entire list. The page ought to be adapted to use the TFL blurbs
  • Until today, the page was displaying "featured sounds", even though that process has been dead for over a year
  • The only part of the page that was being kept up to date, it seems, was the list of featured portals. Cirt (one of the FPo Directors) has agreed with me that there seems no point in the FPo system being the only featured process that keeps its contribution up to date, so he has marked as "{{historical}}" the FPo subpage transcluded here and it will no longer be kept up to date as portals are featured or defeatured. For a page linked in the sidebar from every page on the 'pedia (3rd link down in the "Navigation" section) it is amazing that this page has basically been left to rot for years. Well, now the FPo contributors will let their section rot too. If someone does bother to start maintaining this page, please let us know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 16:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks to Bencherlite (talk · contribs) for the wise words and helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this might work better with just the static intro and the lists of new content at the bottom, until a better design develops. The random examples in the middle really are confusing, and sometimes don't paint a fair picture of F*. – SJ + 12:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That is what I have done. The previous version was beyond repair. Bencherlite^Talk 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Editors

I know that this might be met with quite a bit of opposition, but what is the general consensus of having "featured editors" (possibly skipping the idea of good editors, etc.), that require multiple facets, such as archived talk pages, a long history of good edits, a long history of helping other editors, lots of community support, etc.? This might be a larger, more intrinsically-rewarding award than barnstars, which have become so common that they may lose their meaning, even if they're really intended well. I realize this would be a major project, but does anyone else think that it might be a good idea? --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not many editors watchlist this page, so I would suggest adding some suggestions elsewhere. However, there is also a simlar thread that was coined I believe due to no consensus – see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Editor of the day" section of main page. It is not the same thing exactly, but similar. I remain neutral on this discussion. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured sounds

I always enjoyed this project and was just wondering if there were any plans to resurrect it at any point in the future. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of just not linking to it since it isn't really for users or nominators anymore Vctrbarbieri (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to ressurect it, but I'm not willing to throw out everything from its previous incarnation, which meant I dropped reviving plans. I actually consider it very important to get it working: There's a lot of free sound sources that only offer the downloads for a limited time, like a lot of the US [Army/Navy/Marine/Air Force/etc] bands, so if we don't have someone looking for them, Wikipedia loses that content. There's also issues with getting good documentation for sounds, and so on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Wikimedia featured content

We link to this at the top of this portal. It doesn't appear to have been updated (not even the trivially-updated commons bits) since 2008. Should we just merge the commons bits in here, and mark the other portal as historic? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Replace list of links with annotated edition?

Hey all, what would you think of replacing the current list of links with the Signpost's featured content section, which comes out each week? For example, see this week's edition. Do note that there were no newly promoted lists last week. It would be a vast, vast improvement over the rather boring list of links that is shown at the present time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great idea! Could that be done by transclusion, or would it need a maintenance edit every week? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I too support this. I often come to this page (by clicking "Featured content" in the navigation box) to view newly featured content, and I find The Signpost's summary more inviting than just a list of links. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I support this, but then, I've written or co-written most of the last month or two of FCs. I suppose the only issue will be figuring out how best to link tot he right FC. Should be fairly doable, with a few quick checks (They're always dated to Wednesdays, so we just need an if-exist to deal with the rare case where a week gets skipped followed by a double issue, and a check for the draft template so we can jump back to the previous if it's not done yet.) Ed, shall we begin working on something? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we can do this automatically by using the code at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue, which is updated when publishing each week. Something like {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}/Featured content}} might work? I don't want to clutter the page, so please look at that under preview without the nowikis. :-) This would also have the advantage of not being affected if we ever skip a week. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And kudos to Adam for great work; I love the current page, too. Tony (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done it. One thing that might be improved is editing Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start to add a variant version of the template for use on this page. I'm happy to work on coding any suggestions, but, as the templates are complicated, can we try to reach agreement as to what we want first?

I should probably also add a fallback, so that if the Signpost skips a featured content, while otherwise publishing, it'll just jump back to the previous week's. I don't think this has ever actually happened anytime recently, but it's better to have a fallback than not. The secondary fallback can be the announcements page, e.g. a return to the former status of the portal. Done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add the lists, as they were, to the bottom of the page? (Of course they'd still need to be updated). While I strongly welcome this new feature, the lists do include the additional information of the latest X featured articles/lists/images/topics/portals (where are the sounds?), regardless of whether they've been added this past week, month or even longer periods (for me personally, there is also the advantage of seeing which links look purple and which look blue at a quick glance). Sorry, by the way, I just thought of all of this now. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Done! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's perfect—the much better report comes first, followed by the comprehensive list for those who desire more. As for a variant of the template, that would take coding skills far about mine. ;-) What were you thinking of implementing? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

For example, we could replace the "Featured Content" light grey text with "The Signpost", in the appropriate font, and so on and so forth. But I want agreement on what to change first as this isn't particularly trivial. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me as it is. A great idea to re-use the Signpost material here. Incidentally, Sluzzelin, the "featured sounds" process is dead and has been for some time, hence no list of new featured sounds. Bencherlite^Talk 14:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I should probably try to revive featured sounds again. But there's enough bureaucratic red tape over reviving a project that it's not exactly easy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved in delivering this feature. I regularly visit this project page now, one click away from wherever I am, and enjoy reading the presentation of new featured content and then clicking to read, skim, view... A great service. I know it must take a lot of time and effort. It's worth it! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Best Wikipedia Has to Offer?

This page is an embarrassment, full of place-holders and unfinished business. Why do we call special attention to such a clear example of what's not getting done on Wikipedia! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks as though the automatic transclusion of the latest "Featured content" news page from The Signpost hasn't worked this week because there isn't a "Featured content" page in the latest edition, so we're seeing an unpublished draft instead. Adam Cuerden, can you think how to fix this? Bencherlite^Talk 22:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As this page is highly visible I asked for assistance (probably at the wrong place, but whatever, at least a lot of people will see it). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, because of some issues with scheduling, I asked for FC to be pushed back a bit, so I wouldn't have to try and get everything done in 3-4 days. I also asked for people to make sure it wouldn't appear here. Guess which one of those two happened?

There is a fix; I'll put it in now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, again, I do apologise. I do need the extra time for FC this will give me, but this really should not have happened. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not the end of the world - the FC page for the Signpost must take an extraordinary amount of time to create each week and you ought to get more thanks than you do for it. So thank you from me! Bencherlite^Talk 23:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who sprang into action in response to my complaint. I see now that I just happened to catch the page with its metaphorical pants down. It looks great now, except that the extra-wide main image prevents the page from conforming to the width of my screen and forces me to scroll to the right to read the entire page, which is a bit of a nuisance. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange. That should resize to your screen - do you have Javascript off or the like? I'm not quite sure how the new galleries work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Javascript is turned on. I tested the page with both Chrome and MSIE, and the picture didn't scale down with either browser. If I click on the picture, it does scale down in the viewer. I don't know whether it's the top picture (cowboys) or the bottom one (spider), or the combination of both, that's keeping the page from scaling down, and I don't know how to test. If you can suggest anything I'll be happy to try it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch: Well, I found it. Bug in galleries within tables. I've removed the coloured frame for now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That worked! Thanks for taking care of it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Our best Wikipedia: space articles?

Wikipedia:Navigating_conflict is superb work (IMO) but I guess it's not eligible to be a "FA". Is there a category in which Wikipedia: pages can be featured (proposed)? Should there be?--Elvey^(t•c) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

New font

Yes, this is something along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but lately I noticed the font had changed on the featured content template (where new FAs, FLs, etc. are displayed). Is there anyway we can change it back, or at least make it more legible? Or at least remove the italics? (Sorry if this is the wrong place -- I'm having trouble viewing how/when this edit was made, but I think it was pretty recently). Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 23:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that's bleedover from the Signpost report, actually. I'm not quite sure why it's bleeding over, though; I'll look into it soon. Sorry! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Adam! (Sorry to cause any trouble). Ruby 2010/2013 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: Found it. Basically, the last fix created a new issue, as they sometimes do. When I removed the table that gave the Signpost report a background colour, I missed removing a | - this actually didn't break anything major, but it split a

pair that were being used to apply fonts to a previous issue link. Since I don't think the link would look right without the borders that the Signpost used to have, I just deleted all that code. By the way, you may want to update your signature. {{CURRENTYEAR}} or, even better, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} might be a better choice than 2013. The first will always display the current year (so in 2017, things you post now will have updated to show 2017), the latter will show the current year at the time you post (so in 2017, things from this year will show 2014.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for fixing! Oh, and my signature is just meant to reflect my graduation years, not the current year! (Yeah, I know it's boring, I've been considering changing it...). :) Ruby 2010/2013 14:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right! Sorry! =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Should articles based predominantly one on source be featured?

Today's featured article is on HMS Bellerophon (1786). It is a very good, well-structured, and balanced article - although maybe a bit longer than the subject deserves. However, it is predominantly based on one source - the book Billy Ruffian by Cordingly, with about 80 of the 153 references being directly to this book and to me it reads as a synopsis of the book. This does not stop it being a good page but I am not sure it is the type of page that should be promoted as featured content. Jeremy Young (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeremy Young: Well, it's not the place of this portal to rejudge the featured article process. Can I suggest WP:FARC? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Advanced warning

There is a small chance of a minor layout bug with the transclusion of the next Signpost article. I'll try to check it, and I'll try to have instructions on what to do as well.

I want to use a table in the article; I don't think it'll cause problems, but I'd rather be ready with a fix, than to let the complaints roll in. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. We appear to have gotten away with it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"on a Friday night, your beer will be served in a plastic "glass" just in case you get beligrunt bellagerunt a bag on

Is it really supposed to say "on a Friday night, your beer will be served in a plastic "glass" just in case you get beligrunt bellagerunt a bag on" in the section on St Helen's Church, Ashby-de-la-Zouc? I don't know how to change it. Siuenti (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes; this is copied from Wikipedia's newspaper the "Wikipedia Signpost". But the newspaper is allowed to be a little quirky in its tone, shall we say, whereas Portal:Featured content is a much more visible page, and I agree that the tone is not appropriate here. I'll bring this to the attention of the "Signpost" editors. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Siuenti, John of Reading, and Adam Cuerden: Hi all, the featured content section of the Signpost is admittedly rather silly and tries to be amusing to a far greater extent than the remainder of the encyclopedia. The most recent edition was the first one with myself and Gamaliel serving as editors, and honestly, I forgot the page was transcluded here at the time I was reviewing this article. In the future, I will read more carefully, as I think this probably toes the line for non-Signpost-space. Adam is our regular section editor, so I will let him comment further if he desires. Thanks for bringing this up. Go Phightins! 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: ...Frankly, my only response is, "This is what I get yelled at for? I can make endless puns on "de Kock", including in the title, and everyone's fine, and it's not until a deeply-buried joke about drunkenness meant to illustrate the concept of a finger pillory that someone complains? In an article that begins with a joking reference to a new FA that claims we're all using amphetamines, but that's fine?

I don't think I can possibly guess what will upset people. Any joke that I make that I think might be controversial almost invariably passes without comment, and the one that I thought was a little silly, but harmless... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed that the "on a Friday night, your beer will be served in a plastic "glass" is not happening in the church. I am rather touchy about religion, but I this comment was about the village. Ashby-de-la-Zouch is a small town in North West Leicestershire where, on a Friday night, your beer will be served in a plastic "glass" . Why shouldn't that be appropriate. If anyone would have written anything like that about the sacraments, I would be the first person to react ... but this ..I mean, it has nothing to do whit the church at all. Hafspajen (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I also get the sense that the comment was objecting to the perceived alcohol/church correlation ... no harm, no foul, just make sure we don't go out of our way to offend anyone. Go Phightins! 03:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually- beer is served in plastic glasses on Friday and Saturday nights in Ashby. The phrase "getting a bag on" is a dialect term. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A misspelling

Greetings and felicitations. In the text for the featured picture Self-Portrait with Two Pupils, "self-portrait" is misspelled "self-portait". I'd fix it myself, but I can't find the appropriate edit link. <sweat drop> —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I tracked it down at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-11/Featured content by doing an "Everything" search for the whole phrase. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I need to work out one of those v-t-e things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Opel pic caption

Unless I'm missing something, there's an error in the caption of the Opel wagon pic. It should read "durch das Rübenfeld" (singular "turnip/beet field") or "durch die Rübenfelder" (plural). Eric ^talk 13:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Butter??

From the article: "In the French version they kiss while holding hands, and then Wentworth buys a pound of butter from a passing milkmaid." Surely this a Last Tango in Paris reference. I presume this is humor, and not to be taken seriously. -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm this does not happen in the film. ;) Ruby 2010/2013 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing the Signpost from the portal

Well, I thought the quality of the Signpost was sufficient that we could trust it for this page. As it is, though, I don't think that's true. I think we're probably better, at least in the short term, to comment out the Signpost report, and run with the WP:GO transcription until such time as content improves to the minimum standard necessary for a high impact page. I have accordingly commented out the code until such time as the appalling travesty being offered for next week has passed, because I put my name out as a guarantor of quality; I don't have the time for Wikipedia to keep up with the farcical situation being done with featured content on the Signpost - would you believe that they've hard-coded it so that, despite the Signpost running featured content reports so that the promotions happened during the period between two and a half weeks and a week and a half before the date on the issue, they've hardcoded the bot used to set it up so it can't be run until three days before the issue comes out, or it grabs from the previous week.

They clearly don't care in the slightest, and this week's is apparently going to consist of uncaptioned featured pictures, presented completely devoid of context, and an undescribed featured topic.

I don't think that reaches even the minimum standard for this page. I apologise for making the proposal that it be featured on here. I thought people besides me actually cared enough to want to make sure minimum standards would be met. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually we do care, Adam, and it's very insulting for you to dismiss our efforts. We simply don't have the manpower and resources to create FC to your personal expectations, I've repeatedly told you today. We need people willing to help out, and recruiting people isn't easy when the editor most closely associated with FC, historically speaking anyway, isn't one of those people helping out and is bashing the few people who are willing to do the work. We don't always get it right, but we are trying. You currently are not. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England

Shouldn't it be pointed out that the England which borders Wales is different from the Kingdom of England which included Wales? Or is that too complicated? Slightnostalgia (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Errors

I tried to report an error with yesterday's featured list. To do that I posted on the talk page of the list feature of that day. A later post said that I would have been better posting at WP:ERRORS. How does one know to do that? Are there links to WP:ERRORS from the various featured archives? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor: Redirect link to ro.wiki is weird

Hi! I've noticed that the link to the Romanian-language version of this page leads to Wikipedia:Proiecte de evaluare, which just list articles where you can propose featured articles. I know ro.wiki isn't nearly as intricate and organized as this incredible place, but does anyone know of a more suitable link? More importantly: does anyone know how to replace it when one is found, since mediawiki doesn't seem to allow changing language redirects.
Thanks!
Double Plus Ungood (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Featured content table numbers

In the table under Lists of featured content, the number of former featured articles has a thousands comma and the numbers in the top row don't. I tried to find where these numbers are being formatted but couldn't figure out how the series of transclusions works. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Cut down on the weird links

Since this page is the third link in the main sidebar, and gets 5,000 daily pageviews (!), can we trim it of some of the weird links? The table at the beginning is confusing and unappealing even to an editor like me—entries like "3493 / T" or "FLRC / T" aren't going to be parseable to the average reader of Wikipedia. I'd say we don't really want an interested reader who's never edited to be directly clicking on a link to Wikipedia talk:Featured topics anyway—the description at Wikipedia:Featured topics would be a better overview and from there they could investigate some of the internal links further if they were keen. And the main FA, FL, FT, FP links are already present at the top of the lists of recently promoted content. So I propose we scrap this table entirely.

Then there's also the odd collection of links under the header "Featured content procedures"; I can't imagine that the first two are even useful to any editors and none of the links are great for a casual reader. Again, I'd like to scrap it entirely. And lastly, the "Shortcuts" box is too cluttered and distracting to a reader who just clicked on a sidebar link—I'd trim it to just "P:FC". I'm posting here rather than just editing because I'd like to hear other people's thoughts, but if there's no response I'll likely take that as consensus and implement these suggestions in a week. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I've implemented all of these changes. I also removed a Signpost template that hasn't been used since 2014. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 16:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (pending technical request). Editors who support the move argue that having this page in the Wikipedia namespace would be consistent with similar pages, such as Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Featured lists. (non-admin closure)​ — Newslinger talk 17:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Portal:Featured content → Wikipedia:Featured content – Wikipedia:Contents was just moved. I believe this and Portal:Current events should be moved as well to be consistent. Interstellarity (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to project space. This was originally in the project space and was unilaterally moved to the Portal space without discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support logical change back.--Moxy 🍁 22:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support this is definitely more of a project page than a portal page.– BrandonXLF (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Content pages should never be placed at Wikipedia namespace. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The page begins "Featured content in Wikipedia" indicating that it's a page about Wikipedia content. DexDor ^(talk) 18:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia namespace is a better location for this page. Note: Most/all of the other language equivalents are in a W- (rather than a P-) namespace. DexDor ^(talk) 18:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Since other Wikipedias use the Wikioeida namespace for their equivalents and that featured content is a internal process and not a topic in itself. Dq209 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support to make consistent with Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Featured lists etc. the wub "?!" 00:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Status quo ante bellum --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. My inclination is like that of User:NaBUru38, but I see good rebuttals by several editors which make sense. This is not a portal page. Based on common practice and examples given in the move request, this page should be moved to Wikipedia pagespace. BusterD (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.