Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of the English penny
History of the English penny edit
- Article is no longer a featured article.
Article appears to have become the frontpage for a series since its featuring - no longer contains much information at all. The series at large is great, but that specific article, not so much. Snowspinner 16:26, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Remove from fac or re-consolidate the series into one article. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:02, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
- This is so the wrong way to go. We should not re-consolidate to satisfy the whims of the featured article process. It was separated for a reason (its size). But it seems mad that when some text is spread across one long page it is worth featuring but when spread across several it is suddenly not. The obvious solution is to feature sets of articles in their own section. Pcb21| Pete 08:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I implemented this - what do you think? Pcb21| Pete 09:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's not going to get used enough to be worth having as a policy. As for this article, I think that it shouldn't be featured. Not every good thing in Wikipedia needs to be a featured article. Indeed, not every good thing in Wikipedia needs a medal at all. Snowspinner 12:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- If past experience is anything to go by, things do get used even if initially you think there is not that much scope for them (indeed FAC and FARC are themselves examples of this). What harm is it doing? Note of as now, the article isn't featured specificially, but the series of which it is part is featured. Pcb21| Pete 13:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's not going to get used enough to be worth having as a policy. As for this article, I think that it shouldn't be featured. Not every good thing in Wikipedia needs to be a featured article. Indeed, not every good thing in Wikipedia needs a medal at all. Snowspinner 12:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I implemented this - what do you think? Pcb21| Pete 09:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- This is so the wrong way to go. We should not re-consolidate to satisfy the whims of the featured article process. It was separated for a reason (its size). But it seems mad that when some text is spread across one long page it is worth featuring but when spread across several it is suddenly not. The obvious solution is to feature sets of articles in their own section. Pcb21| Pete 08:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support removal. There's problems with this article even a series; the "root" article doesn't introduce the "sub articles". There should be a lot more pictures and illustrations. — Matt 17:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- support removal. It really looks terrible, now. And article is an article. A featured article without information, but a series of links? -Pedro 13:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support removal. Simply moving text to other articles and saying it is then part of a series has got to be one of the most useless and brain dead ways to split an article that there is. Good sized summaries should be left for each new article created. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Peerage had the same problem but was fixed. --mav 22:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support removal, on the article's merits (not on its division of text). It was a borderline case to begin with. And, for the record, support use of Wikipedia:Long article layout to combine that series into a coherent read, including a proper summary on the first page. +sj+ 20:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)