→Good Lists: new section |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 16) (bot |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::If no one else is concerned I'll go ahead with it then. [[User:Neuroxic|Neuroxic]] ([[User talk:Neuroxic|talk]]) 06:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
::If no one else is concerned I'll go ahead with it then. [[User:Neuroxic|Neuroxic]] ([[User talk:Neuroxic|talk]]) 06:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion == |
|||
'''''[[2012 tour of She Has a Name]]''''', Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion. |
|||
Please see discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name]]. |
|||
Thank you, |
|||
— '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Use of paintings == |
|||
If paintings are going to be used in featured articles, they need to be accurate. [[Pedro I of Brazil]] is currently '''actively misleading''' people by using a copy of the painting that is not accurate, but which the nominators think looks nicer. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but it's a violation of [[WP:OR]] to reject an image created by a group noted for good colour fidelity, and replace it with one with a blue cast taken from some random internet site because you'd rather the image looked differently. |
|||
We can't actively mislead readers as to what a painting looks like. One can reject the image alright if you think there's problems, or one can replace it, but if the painting's notable enough to be the lead image, it's our responsibility as an encyclopedia to depict it accurately. I'm 99.9% sure the non-Google-Art-Project image being edit warred to is inaccurate. The Google Art Project meets the criteria of a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], whatever random place the other one's grabbed from doesn't. |
|||
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 19:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== splitting media section == |
== splitting media section == |
Revision as of 04:49, 5 May 2015
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
2023 World Snooker Championship | Review it now |
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 | Review it now |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
redirect appropriate?
Would it be appropriate to redirect the term 'list of featured articles' to this page? This is the current result of the search. If not this then how about the term 'list of wikipedia featured articles'? Neuroxic (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, this would make it a lot easier to search for this, and I don't see any downsides.----MASHAUNIX 23:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
splitting media section
The media section is simply too large.
This may not be a problem on its own, but I feel the page would be better organized if the section was split into a film, tv and miscellaneous (media) section.
This would certainly make finding featured examples of flims, tv episodes, tv shows and others easier.
Neuroxic (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015
107.147.19.198 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Hello, I was wondering if I could edit? There is some things that need editing.
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Kharkiv07Talk 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Good Lists
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)