Template talk:Featured article

Template:Featured article is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Archives

1

Interwiki link (again)

Please add id:Templat:Featured article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Surya Permana (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link icon to version of article that was proposed

I saw strategy:Proposal:Flag Featured article diffs, and i thought it was a good idea. Basically, instead of linking to Wikipedia:Featured articles, make the icon be a perma-link to the revision that was promoted to featured status. This could be done incrementally (new parameter rev which takes the revision id of the version that was featured, and default to current behaviour if no revision defined), or with aid of bot. Thoughts? Bawolff (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh looks like someone already brought the idea up (saw it in archives). Sorry for double posting it. please ignore. Bawolff (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{edit protected}} Please fix This template uses the deprecated File:LinkFA-star.png, instead of File:Cscr-featured.svg. Please change this. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that png thumbnails from SVGs are rather unoptimized. Usually separate maually compressed and edited thumbnails at this size are a much better idea. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subclassing to {{top icon}}

Currently this template uses a hack-coded styling , but there's a readily-available {{top icon}} meta-template which could be used instead to simplify and standardise the code. I've dropped an update into the new sandbox demonstrating this. If there are no objections I'll sync it with the live code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-add category code

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit apparently removed the categorization code from this template. The edit needs to be fixed or reverted. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ucucha 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from jcgoble3, 8 September 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This template uses id = good-star, while {{Good article}} uses id = featured-star. Shouldn't these be reversed (i.e. put featured-star on this one and good-star on {{Good article}})? I don't know enough about this template to know whether there's anything in the CSS/JS pages in the MediaWiki: namespace that would need to be changed to match. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping those would make some intuitive sense, I suppose. There are no places in the MediaWiki namespace that I can find that use these IDs, but many userscripts reference #featured-star (search). I doubt, though, that many of those CSS/JS pages are really intentionally referring to the good and not the featured icon. The only user CSS/JS page mentioning "good-star" that would be affected by the swap is User:Taylormoney94/vector.css. Ucucha (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation reveals that this template emitted featured-star until July; the change to good-star was presumably accidental, so I've swapped it back. Thumperward also changed the ID for the GA icon, so I swapped that one back too. Ucucha (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 27 September 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace this template with the sandbox version to allow the date and an offset (for use if multiple awards have been won like GA & FA or (multiple) TFA) Results can be seen on the testcases page Technical 13 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This shouldn't be necessary. An article may be GA, FA or neither - it can't be both. Nor can an article be doubly-GA or doubly-FA. Multiple TFA is rare, but not unknown: there have been two cases, both of which were exceptional - Barack Obama and Transit of Venus. But articles that have been TFA don't get a topicon in addition to the normal FA star. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure it can't be both? Steamtown, U.S.A. is both {{Good article|offset=1|date=September 26, 2010}} and {{Featured article|date=April 28, 2012}}. There are MANY articles that were GAs before they were FAs, and just because they have been featured does not mean they are no longer good. Technical 13 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the majority of FAs were GAs before being promoted to FA (many editors see GA as a step on the road to FA): but please see WP:WIAGA#What cannot be a good article? "a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On only current featured, or past and present?

Just a simple question, but do you place it on only articles presently being featured, or ones that have been previously featured? 74.248.55.19 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The {{featured article}} template may be placed on any article that has passed a WP:FAC and which has not subsequently failed a WP:FARC. Whether the article is, or has ever been, WP:TFA, is immaterial. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

use this other star. it is shinier

File:Cscr-featured1.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetra quark (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template placement

The current instructions state that the template should be placed at the bottom of the article, apparently in part because of this bug, which seems to have been fixed. The Good article template is placed at the top of articles, which to me is in line with MOS:ORDER (I'd make it item 2.5 on the list), and it certainly makes the template easier to find. Who's with me in making this change?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, since the template's message appears at the top of an article, it seems to me to make sense that the template should be there, too.—DocWatson42 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that all topicons and templates that related to the whole article should be placed on top, where they are easiest to find. I am referring among others to this template, and {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use British English}} etc. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, those latter two types—date format and dialect—are already supposed to be placed at the top, though {{Coord}} currently goes at the bottom.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I was instrumental in that. They can still sometimes be found somewhere at the bottom though. I agree with you that {{Coord}} should likewise be on top (or in an infobox). Debresser (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change {{Top icon | imagename = cscr-featured.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia:Featured articles | description = This is a featured article. Click here for more information. | id = featured-star | maincat = [[Category:Featured articles]] }}<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>
to
{{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}} | Main= {{Top icon | imagename = cscr-featured.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia:Featured articles | description = This is a featured article. Click here for more information. | id = featured-star | maincat = [[Category:Featured articles]] }} | Talk= {{Top icon | imagename = cscr-featured.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia:Featured articles | description = This is a featured article. Click here for more information. | id = featured-star | maincat = [[Category:Featured articles]] }} | default= }} <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude> so the star will appear only in article and talk namespaces. This would have been useful to combat template vandalism, such as this. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L293D, is there a reason you're throwing two sets of documentation in there? Primefac (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having parsed this out, I'm not sure it will have the intended consequence. If the template is placed on a template which then gets transcluded in an article, the mainspace will be "Main", and thus nullify the intended reason for the code. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, yes you may be right. do you think the following code would work?

{{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}} | Main= {{Top icon | imagename = cscr-featured.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia:Featured articles | description = This is a featured article. Click here for more information. | id = featured-star | maincat = [[Category:Featured articles]] }} | Talk= {{Top icon | imagename = cscr-featured.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia:Featured articles | description = This is a featured article. Click here for more information. | id = featured-star | maincat = [[Category:Featured articles]] }} | default=<big><big><big>{{red|WARNING: the featured article template should only be used on articles</big></big></big> }} <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

which would render as WARNING: the featured article template should only be used on articles. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because when transcluded in the article space, it wouldn't show that message, meaning you'd have to be someone *other* than the person who added it to the template to see and/or care about it. You also sill haven't answered my query re: two {{documentation}} calls. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Documentation, I had fixed this but I gut an EC with you and I forgot to re-add my modification. I guess you're right about that the star will still show up on articles, but at least someone will be able to track down the problem faster, like in this case. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how adding a big warning message would lead to people seeing the vandalism faster, since it would only appear on non-articles uses... I think what you're probably wanting is for it to populate a category if it's not used properly; just add a simple pagecheck to flag if it's used in the Template namespace. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'm not sure by what you mean by "add a simple pagecheck to flag if it's used in the Template namespace". Is there some way to get a notification when the template gets used in the template namespace? Otherwise, I could just create a category and check it from time to time. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, #ifeq {{NAMESPACENUMBER}} = 10, chuck it in a cat. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would your code do? It's a bit confusing. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the above - if transclusion is in template namespace, put it into a maintenance cat. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a {{Main other}} metatemplate that might be used here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. I guess I'm thinking that the 400 or so uses in the non-article-space (mostly userpages) are somewhat reasonable. Of course, if this template should only, ever, absolutely be used in the article space, then I'm all for it. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Ill just make it populate a cat. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I'm deactivating this for now until we can figure out if it should be placed in a cat any time it's not being used in the article space, or only if it's being used in the Template space. Also, whether it should even be used outside of main. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers. Sdkb (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

{{Main other|{{Top icon
| imagename    = cscr-featured.svg
| wikilink     = Wikipedia:Featured articles*
| alt          = Featured article
| description  = This is a featured article. Click here for more information.
| id           = featured-star
| maincat      = [[Category:Featured articles]]
}}|<includeonly>{{Error|[[Template:Featured article]] is only for [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]].}}</includeonly>
}}<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

To:

{{Main other|{{Top icon
| imagename    = cscr-featured.svg
| wikilink     = Wikipedia:Featured articles
| alt          = Featured article
| description  = This is a featured article. Click here for more information.
| id           = featured-star
| maincat      = [[Category:Featured articles]]
}}|<includeonly>{{Error|[[Template:Featured article]] is only for [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]].}}</includeonly>
}}<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

This removes a random asterisk in the link and allow you to go directly to WP:Featured Articles. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The asterisk is for a statistical redirect, added by Elli last month, for tracking purposes. SWinxy (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Think this data collection is still useful so suggest withdrawing (or someone else declining) this edit request. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question

This might be dumb but why does it link to Wikipedia:Featured articles* and not Wikipedia:Featured articles? 48JCL (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL: It's so we can see how many people click the link from the template, as opposed to ending up on that page some other way. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thats smart 48JCL (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]