Do you ever browse Bulbapedia via a mobile device? Would you like to help us out? Check out this month's improvement drive, Mobile March!
Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on

Bulbapedia talk:What is a featured article?

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search


I think there should be requirements for FAC, such as no stub, been around for a certain time, etc. Anyone agree or disagree? ht14 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the no stub requirement, but not with the been around for a certain time requirement as sometimes articles are very good, but have only been around for a short while. Turtwig A Contributions Talk 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Not a stub" should be fairly obvious, as well as "no incomplete/cleanup" tags". Maybe I'll write it down, but I really shouldn't have to... It's just common sense. --electAbuzzzz 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so it is. But as for the time requirement, I think it's best to add this. One, most articles can be edited for improvement. I say most to ignore disambigs. Maybe not time then... maybe edit requirement... I'm not sure. ht14 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any codified requirements are needed. If it looks good, feel free to nominate it. If it actually is FA-worthy then it will pass the test with no trouble at all. If not, we should hopefully establish a list of improvements to be made. —darklordtrom 23:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Should there at least be a no stub or incomplete article rule as someone nominated an incomplete article. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't {{Merge}} also be there? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, the merge template is merely suggesting discussion on the subject, it does not necessarily means something's wrong with the articles. The templates I listed all clearly point out specific issues with the article. We will never feature an article that has the merge or move templates without first addressing that issue and reach a decision on the said merge or move. --electAbuzzzz 15:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Final request then. I think there should be a limit of how many FAC's are being requested per month/every two months/etc. This may get out of hand and everyone will start picking random articles to be possible FACs. ht14 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. CuboneKing 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
See, the problem with that is that we never had a problem with the number of articles. CK, both articles you mentioned were the first ones nominated in their month, so such a limit wouldn't have solved it. I don't want to limit FACs, I just need people to think about what they're nominating. --electAbuzzzz 08:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)