I'm intentionally trying to keep the number of pages listed here small, so as to avoid confusing newbies with too many featured article related pages.

• I've removed the link to 'featured articles in other languages' - after looking at that pages history, I conclude that it's basically a ghost town, with less than a half-dozen substantive edits in January. Raul654 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Also, I've removed the "former featured articles" link. I've left the FARC link, because that's relavant (to removing currently featured articles which are bad), but I don't think a list of former featured articles is particularly relavant. the FARC page still links to it, so if people are really interested, they shouldn't have much trouble finding it. Raul654 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

== Combine? ==bra

I recently changed 'fapages', 'fpipages', 'flpages', and 'fpopages' to relocate the navigation links between the different 'featured' content types to Template:FCpages, which is then called by each page to produce the same results that the four templates showed previously. I think this will be helpful for consistency and ease of updating if/when 'featured topics' and 'featured sounds' are added. Please let me know what you think and whether the remaining content from the individual templates should be merged in. It would be possible to have 'fcpages' do everything that the four individual templates do now, but then users who wanted to update the 'tools' sections would need to edit within the conditional logic that determines what to display on each page. --CBDunkerson 12:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The shortcut to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests has been removed from this page until consensus is reached that we want to have long-term requests. For discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Long range requests. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:this - sorry for the edit summary, that was firefox's autocomplete. The calender messes up the display of this template. Raul654 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re [1] Gee, one would think that a page which has been around since 2005 with contributions from a dozen different editors would be given a bit more weight and consideration than "somebody's personal advice, no idea where that page came from". -- œ^™ 06:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never seen it before, it's out of date, and as far as I know, never enjoyed consensus. There are dozens of such pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Featured articles is designated via ((Reader-facing page)) (and by its language and link from the Main Page) as a reader-facing page. As such, it really shouldn't have editor-only links such as Script to track TFA recent changes or Mentoring for FAC, or at the least those links should be collapsed/hidden. This is part of the larger problem we have separating reader-facing vs. editor-facing areas, as well as the severe bias we have toward designing the encyclopedia around the needs of editors rather than readers. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We would need a separate version of the FA template for just that page. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mockup at ((FApages (reader facing))) (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sdkb, Buidhe, Template:FCpages exists, for Wikipedia:Featured content, perhaps it could be used for the FA, FL, FT and FP pages? Aza24 (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. At featured articles, I do think you should include a link to FAC, FAR, and TFA because otherwise it's left a mystery to readers where the featured articles come from. (t · c) buidhe 09:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]