Template talk:Featured article/Archive 1

Archive 1

Interwiki links

Please add interwiki links to the Norwegian and Vietnamese versions of this template:

[[no:Mal:Anbefalt]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Sao chọn lọc]]

They were created before this template was, and they are linked to from the other versions. Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add also interwiki link of fa.wikipedia!

[[fa:الگو:نوشتار برگزیده]]

Thanks

Mosaffa 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please add [[bg:Шаблон:Избрана статия]]. Thanks. --Petar Petrov 15:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  Done. —Nightstallion (?) 01:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Can someone please move the <includeonly> up one line so it's right next to the </div>? The way it is right now creates an extra white space at the top of articles. --Khoikhoi 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The white space is gone now. --Khoikhoi 03:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Popup hint

The popup hint on the star is currently "Wikipedia:Featured articles". Could this be changed to something more meaningful to non-wikipedians? Lupin|talk|popups 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing. Something like: "This is a featured article", and link it to Wikipedia:Featured articles--liquidGhoul 09:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The source code won't allow it. It uses pipes in the syntax and so a piped link will not work. I agree, if someone could implement it they certainly should. So far as I know, (which isn't much, though), it isn't possible.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a popup hint now, using a new template, {{titled-click}}. :-) Lupin|talk|popups 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Progress

I've slapped this template on the first three sections of articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles - "Art, architecture, and archaeology," "Awards and decorations," and "Biology and medicine." I'm going to take a break for now, as I should get some sleep before classes tomorrow. If anyone else wants to pick this job up, update your progress here. Note that Raul654 is currently in the middle of promoting a batch of articles to FA status; check that we don't miss any in these previous sections. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What is this?

Not only does it not show in an article but it doesn't show on the template page. Perhaps the top of the talk page then is an appropriate place to explain what this does and why/where it is used. Rmhermen 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes a little star appear in the top-right of the screen. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be clarified through a brief noinclude note.

This template will place a small star () in the top right hand corner of an article. See also Wikipedia:Featured articles

-- Ec5618 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, could someone add this (or something like it) please? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I clarified the description a little more for newbies who might stumble on this page for the very first time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion?

Did the community discuss this before it was implemented? I know of a number of people who are adamantly opposed to marking FAs anywhere other than the talk page, so please point me to a community discussion where consensus for this was reached. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles, where only Raul and Silence were opposed to the idea. Also, if you look at the top of the page, there had been discussion about this before, but it didn't really go anywhere. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is a great idea. Subtle and non-intrusive. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

concur, I was skeptical at first but have since found it very useful to tell at a glance it's featured. -- Stbalbach 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

CSS

The style code should be in the CSS files, not the template, as what is a sensible location in the Monobook skin is not neccesarily sensible in other skins (I havn't checked, but we had that issue with the Spoken Wikipedia template a year or so back). Joe D (t) 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem: gap at top of articles with infoboxes

Copied from my talk page:

Something I just noticed that may be important: when the template is added at the top of the article, it forces the text down (appears to be an implicit break somewhere). I would suggest using it only at the bottom. —Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, that's a pain. I like putting it at the top, since it has its effect at the top of the article so it feels right to put it there. This should be fixed in the template, but I don't see how. Lupin|talk|popups 03:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It only seems to affect articles with a floated template at the top (infoboxes and such), so it may be an issue with overlapping div tags. —Kirill Lokshin 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas for fixing this? Lupin|talk|popups 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The two line breaks (assuming you set up the templates like this:

{{featured article} }

{{infobox article

name=

blah=

blah=

}}

text of article) make it that way. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do place the template at the bottom of articles, as it says in the <noinclude> text. That makes it less confusing/inconvenient for editors. Chick Bowen 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category?

Could/should we add a Category:Featured articles tag to the template so we have a handy category of all FAs? Proto t c 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a Category:Wikipedia featured articles, but it annoyingly links to the talk pages of articles through the {{featured}} template. If we include it in this template, it might be a good idea to get rid of it from the {{featured}} template to reduce redundancy in the category. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a step too far, and would be bound to further enrage the no-metadata-here people. We have Wikipedia:Featured articles already, which does the job pretty well I feel. Lupin|talk|popups 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedia-specific category in the article-space would be a violation of Wikipedia:Self reference and would thus be out of place on a third party site. Featured articles are specific to Wikipedia, nowhere else. --mav 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A third-party site would presumably blank this template anyway, so the category would disappear with it. Still, I don't think the category is really needed or helpful - the star already links to a list of FAs (for readers), and whatlinkshere also works (for editors). Also, most FAs suffer from category creep and don't need another redundant one. Finally, since it would be the only metadata category, it would seem a bit out of place. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are other metadata categories: the notorious Category:Living people and its little sister, Category:Year of death missing. But yes, the talk page category serves the function and is quite sufficient. I was taken back at first when the star appeared, but after thinking it over I've got no problem with it. I'd recommend not trying to expand on the idea for a while, however. Chick Bowen 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those are actually metadata, even if they are used for that purpose - if someone is a living person is information on the article's subject, not the article (whether it's useful content-wise to categorize by it is another matter). "Year of death missing" is the kind of cleanup metadata we generally accept, like Category:Stubs. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stax can't read (aka, another category discussion moved up)

Just a question, but since we have this template now shouldn't we remove Category:Wikipedia featured articles from {{featured}} and move it to {{Featured article}}, so that the article itself is filed in the featured article category and not the talk page? Staxringold 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See the same conversation about three headings above ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty simple to me... If you think the category is extraneous, CfD it. Until that point the featured article category should probably be set up to be filled with Featured Articles and not Featured Article talk pages. Staxringold 01:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Page widening under Classic/Opera

Under the "classic" skin on Opera, the FA star widens the page so that there's a blank strip under the star, and enough extra blank area beyond that to cause a horizontal scroll bar to appear. --Carnildo 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, rather bothersome that. Janizary 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why the css should be in the css files, not in style tags in the template. Joe D (t) 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

Doesn't this need a {{selfref}} around it? SeventyThree^(Talk) 08:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The selfref template indents and puts italics around the text. Is there another comparable template which doesn't do this? Talrias (t | e | c) 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of one, although you can remove the italics easily enough. Does it matter, since no text is displayed on the article pages? SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Selfref now has a second parameter; if it's set to blank (rather than not given at all), there isn't any indent in the selfref. --ais523 17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured lists

I created {{Featured list}} for the Featured lists. CG 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to run this by Jguk, who does for the featured lists what I do for the featured articles (as well as posting it on a better place than this). Raul654 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Click doesn't work in Firefox

I use Firefox 1.5.0.1. The little star is supposed to link to Wikipedia:Featured articles, but for me there's no link at all. The problem is presumably with Template:Titled-click. Is anyone enough of an expert to make the link work in Firefox as well as IE? dbenbenn | talk 07:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I use the same version of Firefox, and it is working fine for me... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Dbenbenn, which article is it not working in. Maybe you should try a different article. --liquidGhoul 08:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that it's the star in the top-right corner of the template and of featured articles, not the star in the body of the template page (which is just a demo and isn't clickable). But you probably knew that... does using {{click}} instead of {{titled-click}} help you? You could copy this template to your userspace and test it out. Lupin|talk|popups 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Click has exactly the same behavior: it makes the image not clickable. Actually, here's something interesting: if I make the font size really teensy, then the link to Wikipedia:Featured articles appears, and the hover text, "This is a featured article ...", shows up. dbenbenn | talk 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. In IE there is also a problem at large font sizes. Perhaps we should recreate this template in a simpler way. Shinobu 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Top or bottom?

The instructions say to put this at the bottom of the article but the few that I've checked have it at the top:

1. Does it make any difference?
2. Should anyone bother to move it from the top to the bottom?
3. If it is indeed important then please BOLD it in the instructions and some of us will start to change the existing ones as well as notifying the folks that didnt realize its importance.

hydnjo talk 00:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do change hte star from top to bottom. It's abtrusive to have it at the top of the wikitext. Raul654 18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't noticed that the accepted policy was to put the {{featured article}} template at the bottom of the article. Indeed I've moved some of them from the bottom to the top [1]. However, I think that this is the correct location for accessibility reasons: the featured article star will always appear at the top corner of the page regardless of the location of the template due to the absolute positioning of the CSS. However, wikipedians using special user agents (e.g. a blind wikipedian using a voice browser) will only notice that's an article is featured if the template is before the lead section. Otherwise, if the template is located at the bottom of the page they will have to read the complete article. See Wikipedia:Accessibility. Best regards, —surueña 13:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Star image truncated in IE / Monobook

When logged in, the bottom legs of the star are cut off -- it doesn't look so good. When not logged in, the star image is OK because the "Please donate" link seems to provide some extra space before the h1? --Tabor 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I also have image truncation issues... it only happens at large font sizes (I find this very significant), because the image falling out of the 14x14 click region. Currently our template calls result in lots of nesting divs and spans - perhaps it would be better to redo this in a cleaner way, where we can solve the problem more easily. Shinobu 16:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Some "featured articles" templates link to the picture and not to the article

Take a look at Java programming language, and click on the Wikipedia:Featured article emblem in the upper right corner, you will be redirected to information on the image.

Take a look at India, and click on the featured article emblem, you will be redirected to the article about featured articles.

What is wrong with the Java programming language article?

--Velle 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) by Thryduulf 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

This happens to me too (I'm using Firefox). However, under Lynx you see a nice "This is a featured article. Click here for more information." but the link will always redirect to the image's information page. Can this problem be fixed? This is important for accessibility reasons. --surueña 10:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The template uses some CSS magic to make the image link to Wikipedia:Featured articles: it places an invisible link to the article layered above the image. The fix for Lynx and other browsers that ignore CSS would be to put #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]] on the image description page, something which has its own drawbacks. --Carnildo 02:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Template categories

This template is not categorized. I propose the following:

• [[Category:Miscellaneous templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] (perhaps someone suggest a better one?)
• [[Category:Title templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

To be placed with <noinclude> </noinclude> tags. As the template is protected, I cannot do this myself. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

nominated for deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Metadata_templates TimL 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Classic skin

Is it me, or has this template stopped workin in the classic skin? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been turned off for skins other than Monobook. --Carnildo 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? It worked for me. Is it going to be turned back on? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the CSS code to the monobook.css file. If it worked fine in classic it should just be a case of adding the same code to the classic css file, but I don't want to go fiddling too much with these things until I'm sure it works and there are no objections. Joe D (t) 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Under Opera/Classic, it caused page-widening, forcing a horizontal scrollbar to appear. See above. --Carnildo 06:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So one issue for some users has been fixed, causing an issue for other users? Is there any hope that users of the classic skin will get the star back? What needs to be done? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the CSS to the classic skin. It still adds a scroll bar to Opera, but the extra space is blank, so it's not actually affecting the way the page displays. Joe D (t) 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you. That is perfect.

Do similar changes need to be made to {{Spoken Wikipedia}} and {{featured list}}, or have they been done already? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoken is done, I will look into featured list. Joe D (t) 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am using Classic skin and it still not working for me (Firefox 1.5.0.3). Andrew Levine 05:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried refreshing/purging cache? It is working for me in IE and Firefox.

For some reason, it can't decide whether it wants to appear at the end of the "User: ... Talk" line at the top of the page, or in a similar position just under the horizontal line. FWIW, most articles have whitespace at the top right, just under the horizontal line, where the page name and "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" appear on the left. If there is going to be a standard place to put these things, that seems to me like a good one. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've explained the reason for this on WP:VPT (it's to do with the number of interwikis). There's an unlikely coincidence of font size and which interwikis could be selected that would cause the star to be in a position where it overlaps text; I'm not sure whether it's deemed to be worth taking this risk. --ais523 13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FA star missing from pages

I've noticed several articles that are Featured but are missing the star on the top right corner. Looking at the edit, the FA Tag is present at the bottom of the article. If you add the FA Tag to the top of the article, the star shows up. Here is an example of two pages that I had to add a second tag to the top of the article to have the star show up - Order of the Garter & Antarctic krill. Morphh 00:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to show up at all in classic skin anymore either (went away within the last week). Anyone know what's up? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody requested it at MediaWiki talk:Standard.css, and since I don't use the classic skin I'm not sure what their objection to it is about. If anybody can work out the correct css I can add it to the file. Joe D (t) 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ka interwiki

Please add [[ka:თარგი:რჩეული]] to iw's. tnx. - Alsandro 03:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The star doesn't show on our wiki (ka) featured articles at all... is there anything else we need to implement apart from placing the {{Featured article}} template? would appreciate your input. tnx. - Alsandro (T) 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. If there is a featured article in my wiki and I'd like to show it here, then I put a {{Link FA|ka}} tag into the English article. I hope it helps. NCurse _work 19:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

SVG version of the star

I'm about to switch the image over from to , but since this is such a widely used and "significant" template I figured I'd drop a note here first in case anyone knows of any reasons not to. Bryan 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine, but the new image has a bit more whitespace included, so you might want to bump the size up to 15 or 16 to get the same-size star after the change. Kirill Lokshin 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The borders of the SVG (especially within the star) seem much lighter in the SVG than in the PNG... Titoxd^(?!?) 01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumably different algorithms are being used for downsampling the image to that size, so perhaps whatever program was used to shrink the original PNG places more emphasis on dark lines than MediaWiki's SVG-to-raster converter. Or perhaps the star itself has been edited since the original PNG was created, giving it lighter shading or thinner black lines. It doesn't look bad to me, only a little different, so hopefully this isn't a problem. Bryan 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The SVG-Grafik is better than the PNG. You should use it. --217.236.232.172 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to version that was featured

The Template:featured identifies a particular version that was identified as featured, but this is buried on the Talk page where it might not be seen. The article may have evolved (in a good *or* bad way) over time since the featuring nomination. Since the version id at the point it became featured would be useful for someone seeking a stable version, could the link to Wikipedia:Featured_articles be changed to a link to the version of the article that was featured, along with some appropriate identification? dml 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured star underlined?

I've noticed on {{featured portal}} and {{featured list}} that the star is underlined in blue, but that is not the case with {{featured article}}. Any idea why? Paul^C/_T+ 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

ImageMap

I have reworked this template to use the new ImageMap extension. Any problems let me know. the wub "?!" 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki addition

[[fi:Malline:Suositeltu]] —Ppntori 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Recategorization

Please add this template to Category:Wikipedia featured content templates, and remove Category:Miscellaneous templates. Thank you. Mike Peel 11:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --CBD 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to page history

I think this template should include a link to the original promoted version of the featured article. The article quality and accuracy may have dropped since it got promoted. It could be another icon next to the star.--JyriL ^talk 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

False usage

Aside from removing the template, am I supposed to do anything else about non-featured articles that have included this template? –Unint 04:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I don't know the answer to your question, but it doesn't look like you are suggesting that this page be edited so I will remove the template. CMummert · talk 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did a scan for use of the FA star on non-featured pages, and didn't find any. I scan for this periodically. You are welcome to remove the template yourself, but you might want to check if the article should be deleted. A fair number of those found using the star inappropriately have been tagged for CSD for other reasons. Gimmetrow 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Classic skin

Is the star meant to work in classic skin or not? It is confusing to be told in the text that "featured articles have a star in top right" and no articles have such a star. -- SGBailey 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The star doesn't work in skins other than Monobook. --ais523 16:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG imagemap problem

{{editprotected}} The latest edit broke the link on the image in the corner (probably due to an imagemap bug in MediaWiki). Please revert until this problem is worked out. Thanks. --- RockMFR 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

+ sl

{{editprotected}}

Please, someone add an interwiki link [[sl:Predloga:Zvezdica]]. --Janezdrilc (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 04:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Add interwiki "Korean"

ko:틀:알찬 글 딱지 is the featured article in Korean Wikipedia. Please, Add interwiki. BongGon (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. henrik•talk 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

interwiki ia

{{editprotected}}

Please add

[[ia:Patrono:Eminente]]

Thanks. —André Oliva (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Y Done --ais523 16:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

+pl

Please add interwiki:

pl:Szablon:Medal

Leinad pl (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

interwiki link to yi

Dear friends; please add the interwiki link to « ‎װיקיפּעדיע‎ » :‎

[[yi:מוסטער:רעקאמענדירטער ארטיקל]]

The template is:‎
yi:מוסטער:רעקאמענדירטער ארטיקל the related category is yi:קאַטעגאָריע:רעקאמענדירטע ארטיקלען.‎ Thanks for your efforts! Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 02:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

interwikilink to lo

{{editprotected}}

Could you please add lo:ແມ່ແບບ:ປ້າຍບົດຄວາມດີເດັ່ນ to the template page ? Thank you ! --Passawuth (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 Not done, but you can do it yourself now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature request

{{editprotected}} I don't know if this has been requested before. The tooltip ("title" attribute) when hovering over the star can show the date on which the article was featured... what do you think? Jak123 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done not because it's not a good idea, but because implementing it would require edits to add the date to all 1934 current FAs. Plus, what happens if an article goes through FAC, then FAR and is demoted, then becomes FA again. Do we count the first or last promotion? Nice thought, but (IMHO) too much effort for too little gain. Happy‑melon 11:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How to transfer the template formulas?

If you want to design a similar template in a wikia, so that in a featured article there, a star will appear in the right hand top corner of the article, how do you do it? I tried copying what was in the view source content of this page, but it merely turned into another template. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the ImageMap extension is not installed for your wiki? Happy‑melon 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well then I'll have to look into getting it installed. Thank you!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

mk interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add mk:Шаблон:Избрана interwiki. Thanks. --iNkubusse^? 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Interwikis go on the /doc page, which is not protected and does not require an editprotected. I've added it, though. Gimmetrow 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GA

What about a similar Good Article template? kwami (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[2] --- RockMFR 02:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright isues with this template

Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Attribution for images which are links to anywhere other than the image description page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to featured version

I was browsing Uncyclopedia today - yes, bored @ work. Anyways, I noticed on their featured article, the star has alt-text with wording along the lines of "This article was featured on 12 October 2008. Click here to see the featured version." It then links to a diff, presumably to the version the article became featured at. I think this is a particularly good idea, especially for articles that were promoted long ago, and may have significantly changed. I think we should add something to the star that can include a link to an old revision. -- how do you turn this on 17:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A better place to do it would probably be a link in the talk page FA notice: "...is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update ...." Some do get better instead of worse after promotion! Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but does the average reader look at the talk page? -- how do you turn this on 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue with that is that the star links to WP:FA, which is pretty important considering the average reader won't initially know what the star is. We can't have it do both (which is why I wish we could make headway on that sighted versions thingy.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of every FA and GA has a link to the reviewed version of the page. Gimmetrow 19:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

They do??? Where?? Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They're quite obscurely hidden in a show/hide box in small text. -- how do you turn this on 15:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, in articlehistory, note that most of the dates are linked to the relevant diff for that event. We shouldn't provide any more than this. The diff of the featured version of Tourette syndrome, for example, is inferior to the current version because I keep the article updated. The diff is only one moment in time, and it would be misleading to have our readers think that diff is better than the current article. Also, articlehistory was explained in a Dispatch: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches. I do hope most of the FAC/FA community reads the Dispatches, because they take a ton of my time :-( They can all be found at {{FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I must admit I had either never realised, or forgotten. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It does. The fact it's on the talk page, in a show/hide box is the problem here. Who other than regular editors look at the discussion page? I don't know, but I doubt nearly as many do. The point in putting it on the star is so it's easier to find. It took me a while to find where the diff was located. -- how do you turn this on 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think most people even know that multiple versions of the same article exist. Adding a link to a diff would confuse many people as they would wonder why they are seeing a different version of the same article. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No reason to link to the diff of the version the day an article was featured: some improve, some deteriorate, that diff has little global meaning, and would just create a bunch of work for someone. Anyone have spare time, I've got a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)