Wikipedia talk:Stabilizing featured articles

Some thoughts[edit]

I think this is a neat idea. It says "I am featured, you can see why here ->", but it continues to say "if you want to fix your first comma, with that slightly breathtaking "surely I can't do that" feeling, you can". A couple of questions:

Why transclude an individual template for each article? Parameters would do. Or is the concern that these paramters could be edited, and it is hard to tell which of the crytpic revision numbers is the original one?
"And, as always, there's still a brass ring to reach for", is not a phrase in my vocabulary. What does it mean?
The re-certification process. I wonder if the point of sending it all the way back to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is minimal. Perhaps there could just be a consensus on the talk page for a given article, or at least a "no objections" approach. I think it likely that FAC will more-or-less nod these through, probably without the scrutiny normally given FAs, and so talk-page agreement is a more rigorous test given the continuing existance of Wikipedia:Featured article review. One supposes that this'd occasionally run into talk-page disagreements, but there must be an a priori condition of reasonable agreement to have passed the "stability" test for the original FAC nomination to have succeeded.
How might this interact with removal of FA status? Would the whole article need to be removed, or could individual revisions be 'de-featured'? Can a talk page consensus de-feature back to a previous still-featured version? This would seem most sensible, reserving FA Review for the final road to removal. If edit wars result from this process then there would be a presumption of going back to the very first featured version of the article; thee must be an assumption that any subsequent version is little different to it, or it would likely have been de- and re-featured.
We should be clear that this does not involve locked forks of article nor splitting of edit histories: two of the key weakenesses in the other proposal.

Some of this fairly hypothetical, but it's worth trying to work out how it might pan out in practise. (As an example to the approach taken at the other stabilization process of "it might be rubbish but I want it anyway so here it is".) -Splash - tk 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reply:

1. There'd have to be individual templates because somewhere there has to be a manually recorded Featured Version which would be different for each article. I can't think of a way of recording the specific "Certified" versions without creating them separately somewhere, either directly on the article page or in template space. If you have a simple solution to this, I'd obviously love to hear it.
2. A brass ring is a goal to reach for, something elusive and slightly out of reach. I'm surprised, frankly, we don't have an article on it. The best description I found of the source of the phrase is at Flying Horses Carousel. But you're right, it's a bit obscure of a reference for a proposed policy, and I've changed the language.
3. I agree that the recertification process probably does not need to be a big deal. I'd suggest a sort of Recertification Bulletin Board, where there would be a brief summary of the changes made and a link to the diffs between the old certified version and the new, proposed certified version; articles could stay up there for a day, maybe two, and then get recertified. I'm personally of the mind that it's always good to get a fresh pair of eyes on an article. But you're right: it could also be done by consensus on the talk page.
4. I suppose that, yes, if for some reason (I can't think of a realistic scenario off the top of my head), an article were certified featured and then suddenly needed to be uncertified, it could either revert back to a previously certified version, or the objectionable content could be removed and the article could be recertified.
5. You are correct: the preservation of the history and the lack of forking are both strengths which I will mention in the proposal. JDoorj a m Talk 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but not perfect[edit]

I'm still not convinced that this is a good idea, but it's clearly much less of a bad one than the original proposal is. It still has some of the same problems, but I think if it were put forward in a less imposing manner I wouldn't object to it (i.e., abstain instead of oppose in a straw poll). What I'm envisioning is just having a small and simple link at the top of a featured article, next to the FA star, that says something like "original" or somesuch simply indicating that the version linked to happens to be the version of the article when it attained featured status. As phrased now, the proposal seems to imply that future versions of the article aren't featured in the same sense as the "original", and I don't like that policy. Featured articles can, and often do, continue to improve once they become featured. siafu 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that FAs continue to grow and get better even after reaching FA status. If you have a change in the wording that implies, "This version is good, and below, we're hard at work making the article even better," I'd like to hear it. I agree that the "certified" version need not be intrusive, so long as it's not an Easter Egg you need to be "in the know" to find. The perfect balance would be for a new user to come to a featured article page, understand that there's a certified version available (but not be overly distracted by the presentation of that information), and still trust and be engaged in the dynamic article. If you have formatting or language suggestions that'd help this proposal reach that goal, please share them. JDoorj a m Talk 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I think the recertification aspect is the most troubling. It implies, IMO, that the certified version and only the certified version is the featured version. What I would be happier with is the elimination of the "certification" aspect; the link at the top (which I don't mean to imply should be Easter Egg-like) would merely direct a user to the actual version that was originally elevated to feature status. This would provide a version to users who are investigating a topic for research purposes and need to be very clearly assured of accuracy. The current, dynamic, version would still be the "certified" version. siafu 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What concise language would you use to refer to the stable version, and are you saying that the stable version should not be updated? JDoorj a m Talk 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the "stable version" would be nothing more than a link to that version in the page history that made it through FAC. siafu 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, that works for me -- it seems like a rhetorical change more than anything, and I think I see your point about not deriding the dynamic version. Would you want that link to be updatable if the article gets even better? JDoorj a m Talk 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Benefit"[edit]

I think that "The dynamic version is the default version" is the key difference with the other proposal, with some seeing it as a benefit and others as a drawback. While I don't mind that the text is sympathetic to the proposal, simply labelling it as a benefit is unfair in my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'm trying to think of a way to word that one that summarizes the benefits that everyone can agree putting the dynamic version first would have. Suggestions? JDoorj a m Talk 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I agree with Maurreen below that the page seems a bit excessive for adding an extra link to some templates. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, etc.[edit]

Template:GA was recently improved to include a link to the reviewed version of the article. The same thing could be done to Template:featured and FLs if there is consensus. I don't think there is any need for a page about it. And "Stabilizing" can rile people up. Maurreen 07:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's great to hear about the GAs. I agree: the concept of article stabilization is highly controversial. "Linking to reviewed versions" is a far less controversial way to say basically the same thing. JDoorj a m Talk 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the template change and possible related matters could be gradually introduced. For instance, FLs might be good as the next goal after GAs, because the FL system is younger than the FA system.

Also, once consensus is established for any of these, I'd be willing to work with others to add the link to a reviewed version on previously approved articles. We could start with the GAs, because FAs and FLs already have a link to a discussion or log. The GAs' history is more work to find. Maurreen 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the name of this page should be changed to "Linking to reviewed versions"? Maurreen 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea[edit]

As I said on the Wikipedia:Stable versions now talk page, I think this is an excellent idea. To respond to the folks who think it's making too much of it to put it on a seperate page, the point is as an alternative to Stable versions now, and as a intentional step on having stable, consensus, reviewed versions of pages; this is a big enough change that it deserves a seperate proposal. I'm glad it's finally been written up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think it would be good to change the name. My understanding is that this would not stabilize, but link, and could (should?) apply also to FLs (and does apply to GAs?). Maurreen 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still stable version because there's a consensus process for selecting a specific version as "confirmed good". The only difference is that the default view of the article is the most recent version, rather than the stable version. And it's not like the term "stable version" has cooties... At Wikimania, Jimbo said he thinks that stable versions will probably happen, with this being one obvious possible implementation... [1] --Interiot 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea... and some thoughts[edit]

The problem this guideline seeks to assage is a very real weakness of Wikipedia -- that there is no way to benchmark an article. I would also suggest using the word Static and not Stable in describing these articles, since stable has a positive connotation that is unnessasary and by converse slightly negative towards the dynamic version, something I do not think we want.

I'd also like to see consideration of how this would fit into the Wikipedia 1.0 plan. I do not profess anything but an amateur knowledge of 1.0 or 0.5, so I cannot say how such an interaction would occur, but it seems to me that the two ideas are redundant in areas based on what I know.

I would also go on to say that instead of picking a particular edit, a new article called Linus Pauling (Static) would be created, with a template box at the top explaining what the article is and a link to the dynamic version. This article would be fully protected.

Templates could say:

(In dynamic) A prior version of this article has passed through a rigorous peer review process as a Featured Article, meaning it has reached high standards of quality. That prior version is viewable here as a benchmark of this article's progress.

(In static) This is a static version of a featured article which has passed a rigorous peer review. The dynamic version, still under construction, is available here.

--Wslack 23:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved with the release version work. Linking to the reviewed versions could help and can't hurt. Maurreen 03:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wslack, one of the nice simplicities of this idea is to not create a seperate page marked "static", but to use our existing static versions. Please see Wikipedia:Stable versions now to read copious discussion on just such a proposal. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I thought that was a petition, and never looked.--Wslack 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All old versions are stable and static. It would be good in my opinion to link to the featured or good version of Good Articles and Featured Articles, but not to create a separate page. We could easily start, without changing policy or taking polls, by making a dummy edit at the time an article becomes featured, with an edit summary to the effect that the article has attained featured status. If that becomes popular.... User:Pedant 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A technical change that would be nice[edit]

To handle the issue of people acidentally reverting back to the static version, by clicking on the "edit this page" link on it - a flag could be added to the URL, e.g. static=true, which would make interface look like the page was protected, i.e. a "view source" rather than "edit this page" link. We might also apply this to the links generated by "Permanent link". On the other hand, this may be too little of a problem to worry about, and it is a slight irriation to people who mean to be reverting back to the static version. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps articles with stable versions could have a link in the side bars to the stable copy, rather than including a tag within the editable page? On the stable page it might also be useful to have a comparison tool to show the differences between the stable and the editable versions? — RJH (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote anyone?[edit]

Read headline... 216.58.91.187

I like this[edit]

As in the discussions for Wikipedia:Stable versions now, I expressed a great prohibition to the default state of 'protected' of an article. I also stated I didn't mind a notice at the top of the page stating that a particular version was esspecially good, and that you should check that version out. For the fact that this proposal is based upon seeing the default state as editable and an updatable 'good' version available. It does need some work yet, however:

Article space doesn't have subpages enabled.
Should the stable/good version be protected? It can't be edited or POV forks are introduced.
Should FAC move to feature a certain version, or should the editors of a page decide to endorse a specific oldid?
Should the FAC groups decide on 'updates'?

A few issues left here, and they are all in the handling. Also keep in mind the living persons biography issues with libelous/false statements, which would be a bad thing to 'super-endorse' false statements. Kevin_b_er 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, there is no need for subpages. The tag could just link to the reviewed version. Maurreen 11:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can be fixed.
ofcourse or whats the point....
what?
I think there should be a request page where u post which information needs to be updated to a page with sources. Administrators then can handle it. 216.58.48.30 11:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your points:

The banner links to a old version of the page, not a seperate subpage.
It should be feasible to have that version appear as protected (instead of 'edit this page', 'view source')
The static version will be the one around when the article became an FA.
Articles (I expect) can be renominated for FA status like normal, and the new version will be linked to.

I hope that clears it up. —D a niel (‽) 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Should this be changed to "Linking to reviewed versions"? Maurreen 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should only be doing this with FAs. There are many kinds of reviewed articles (GAs, the numerous WikiProjects reviews, PR, Feedback reviews, Article assessments such as WP 1.0, etc) in Wikipidia and we don't need to have stable versions for all. Joelito (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles that should be stable (are factually correct, notable, essentially complete) but will never be featured (lack images, not long, etc.); stabilization should be broader than just the few "featured" articles. dml 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? Only throughly reviewed articles should be stable since we can ensure a high level of quality. Joelito (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from the project page is that this is less about freezing a page than linking to a version generally accepted as being clean and reliable.

The word "Stabilizing" is misleading to me. And it's likely to put many people off.

Only about 1 percent of articles are FAs. But many of the rest are at least decent, and people should be able to see an "approved" version, if one exists, so they have less concern about potential for problems in the article at any given moment. Maurreen 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how will we decide this "approved" version for articles which are not FA? Joelito (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly thinking of FLs and GAs. Maurreen 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLs are usually well-reviewed however GAs are not. GAs do not go through a rigorous review. The review is minor for some GAs and major for others. Hard to "approve" a version when only one or two people reviewed it. Joelito (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there can be a review for stabilization, as suggested on the project page, which is not as stringent as FA, but better than nothing. dml 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Print version[edit]

How about renaming to "Print version" ... this helps get over the notion of static pages that have been verified, without the idea that the dynamic wikipedia is deprecated.dml 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be rather confusing. I'd expect "Print version" to refer to something like the "Printable version" in the toolbox (the toolbox is at the bottom of the column to the left of the article in the standard view). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]