List of Former Nominations

I think we should have a place to nominate new Fetured Articles. - User:Scrimgeour

I think this talk page is fine. John Reaves (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok so is there a set pattern for nominating an article? and shouldn't there be a link from the main page to here to nominate articles?--Thai420Whats up? 01:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I kind of redid the pattern they were in to follow it easier. Just a thought what does a page need to become featured? Does it need a certain amount of votes, or the most by a certain point, etc? Also, since I put vote counts in the title, it'd make sense to update them if you vote. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What if we did a featured article every week then we would be able to keep it fresh and people won't get bored looking at the same one all the time.--user: Weasleytwins19

  • I agree with Weasleytwins19, if more users became active in the nomination process we would be able to put the featured article on a weekly rotation.-- user: JayLupin38
I think its a good idea. I always thought it was strange that Voldemort was the featured article for so long. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Both Minerva McGonagall and Peter Pettigrew have been nominated for at least a week, if not more. I thought that they were supposed to only be nominated for a week and then a decision is made. Is there a reason they have not been either promoted or not promoted. Just wondering! Iluvgracie129 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Highlighted Time

I realized that the Featured Articles Nomination has become rather rigorous. Many people are participating, and many articles being nominated. I wonder if it'd be a better idea to shorten the time each article is highlighted, maybe to a week. Just a suggestion. Quidditch Lover (My talk) (contribs) 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. ----ÈnŔîčö Ravenclawcrest(Send me an Owl) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


I voted for Ariana Dumbledore to become a featured article. I did sign it with four tildes, but a few weeks later it shows up as 72. something, and there's a strike through it. Am I allowed to fix this?

Also, is it possible that somebody instead of putting in an against vote just subtracted my support? Hermione524 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The numbers that showed up were your IP address. When you aren't logged into your account, any edits you make will be attributed to your IP address (e.g., 12.345.67.89), rather than to your username (e.g., Harry Potter). The reason your vote was struck out was because it was cast under your IP address and only registered accounts are allowed to vote. Re-voting shouldn't be an issue, just as long as you remember to log in, so that your username appears as the signature and in the page history. Starstuff (Owl me!) 18:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have too many FAs?

I wanted to point out that we now have featured articles selected until October 2010. I think that's just too far ahead. I tried to come up with a few possible solutions:

  1. Close the Nominations for a while.
  2. Make the standards for the FA's stricter so that we have less featured articles.
  3. Make the Featured time shorter.

What do you think? QuidditchLoverSnitch 2(My talk)(contribs) 20:38, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

I think that there's nothing wrong with having featured articles selected until this time next year. It is a bit farther than I would have thought, but one cannot deny that it greatly simplifies having to find suitable articles every so often if we have the majority of them planned already. What's the problem with having everything planned very far in advance? --Parodist 21:36, October 4, 2009 (UTC)