text:
Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 2

Appearance overhaul
While we're overhauling this page, let's spruce up its appearance. This is supposed to be a portal to the finest articles in the Wikipedia, yet it's very ugly to read. Some ideas:

Wikipedia's article on Abberinth was written over the course of two years by over fifteen contributors, including Roger Daubach, professor of Abberinthology at the University of Australia, and also including six anonymous contributors.

 * 1) include brilliant pictures here when the pictures are in an article that's listed here.
 * 2) Some special div boxes (see the example to the right) highlighting particularly brilliant articles, with some anecdotes about the authors and the number of edits.
 * 3) Tables like on the front page?

DanKeshet

That sounds like a great idea to me. 168... 23:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I've implemented a couple real examples at Brilliant prose/temp, but I'd love to see my idea get hijacked by people who actually have talent. :) DanKeshet

 * I think this is a good idea. Perhaps we could limit the top-level headings (and possibly a few more) to the same ones listed on the Main Page and then use subheadings for more specific topics.  I think that would make the page more organized and as a result easier on the eyes. --Minesweeper 15:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Articles to be added
I've discussed the article Geyser with User:Eloquence on his talk page, and he has withdrawn his objection. The article needs to be added to the Philosophy, Mathematics, and Natural Science section

Redesign
Now that the voting on which articles to keep is done, could I redirect people to brilliant prose/temp? If there aren't further discussions at wikipedia talk:brilliant prose/temp, I will slowly start integrating the ideas that page features into the real page. DanKeshet 18:32, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's basically a face life of this page to make it look more like the main page. I don't like the idea for several reasons. First, it's too gaudy. Second, it isn't scalable. What happens when the number of BP articles doubles? Or triples? Third, (just like the main page) editing it becomes hard when you have all that extra HTML stuff to deal with. I can't say I like the idea much at all. →Raul654 19:04, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Answer at Wikipedia talk:brilliant prose/temp.  DanKeshet

Protection
Now that this page has been moved, it needs to be edited. Could somebody unlock it so that we can come up with some better introductory text? DanKeshet
 * I've temporarily unprotected it. →Raul654 19:32, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * This page has now been reprotected. →Raul654 06:20, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for permanent protection - Brilliant prose. I had to revert someone today who added an article that had not been voted, and I'm sure I am not the first. Obviously, he had not read the instructions at the top of the page. That not withstanding, now that it's linked to from the main page, it's only natural that it's going to happen more often. I see no reason why this should be the case. I suggest protecting it. Sysops can add the newly voted ones. →Raul654 05:35, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC) (also, just so no one is surprised, there's a name change/page move brewing for the BP).
 * I very strongly agree. We need to divert people to the candidates page first. --mav 05:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
 * I've gone ahead and protected it. →Raul654 19:40, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily unprotected so it can be edited following move to Featured articles →Raul654 19:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Following major reformatting, I have reprotected the page. Barring unforseen circumstances, I expect this to remain indefinitely. →Raul654 06:18, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * I fail to see why vandalism to that page is so vitally critical that it requires permanent protection. To give people advice, try using a combination of HTML comments and explanations, rather than page protection. Martin 20:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not vandalism that we're worried about, it's simple ignorance. People write an article, and they like it so much, they post it to the Featured Articles. They don't read the top of the page (which says not to post before going through the voting process). By protecting it, we're preventing this. It's happened before, and if you unprotect it, it'll happen again (more often now, too). →Raul654 21:15, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * The protection policy doesn't allow for page protection simply for reasons of sysop convenience. You've barely tried to make the note at the top of the page clear and explicit - if you'd tried that and still been bothered, I might be more sympathetic. Martin 18:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page should be unprotected ASAP and left unprotected. There is no reason for it to have a permanent protection. I'd go right ahead and unprotect it right now, but I appreciate due process. Kingturtle 03:41, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the changes Martin made - now it's downright hard for someone to add something here without being told to go through the nomination process. Let's leave it as it is, and see how successful it is. →Raul654 06:49, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

distinguishing these articles further
What do you all think about this idea....that we place at the bottom (or at the top) of each featured article a notice that says something like This article is a Wikipedia featured article. Kingturtle 19:33, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. I agree with you, but the consensus was to place it on the talk page instead. Tuf-Kat 04:48, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * But with the name change, you might get better support. I didn't like putting This article is Brilliant prose  on a page cause it seemed like a POV opinion, and like bragging.  However, an article being a featured article is a factual, verifiable piece of information.  Not really ready to support it yet, but I'm not opposed either. Gentgeen 07:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: I'm new here and I'm tring to understand this system. Ok. Can we talk about this item? Can we keep together our different versions here? Then we can talk more about this topic, and if you wish so, I can tell you more about my sources and my studies. And you too of course (about yours). Thank you so much.

Newbies without logins who come in and delete entire articles and replace them with their own work with no comments as to why are looked up with suspicion. If you have problems with the current article, please let us know what they are, and modify the article as you think it should be. But don't just replace the entire thing without any explanation. RickK 23:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's Ok! Now I've understood the procedure. I beg your pardon again. I'm not a vandal, of course. If you prefer the top of the page, for me it's not so important. I'd like to talk on what we are not agree about. This is my e-mail: conte@queendido.org. You're welcome, thank you.

Thank you
Just a thank you from me for putting History of the Netherlands on this page, just when I started to worry about none of the pages I created or substantially edited being on it. It was my first major page, if I recall correctly, back in March (maybe April) 2001. Andre Engels 13:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A new name, what about a new face??
I liked Dan´s idea of a new design, and i like his experiment in Brilliant prose/temp. What about implementing it?? Muriel 14:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * That design obviously looks quite a lot like the main page. Worth bearing in mind then that there is a revived movement afoot to redesign the main page - may be the redesigned featured articles should like the redesigned main page? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it is a bad idea to have a page mimic the main page so closely. It can be confusing to the eye. As for the name, it was changed three weeks ago from Brillant Prose. I liked the old name better, but this name (Featured Articles) will do. I'd rather not keep changing the name. Kingturtle 17:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * When the new Main page is installed (see Main Page/Test) the similarity issue with the Main page will be not be an issue. Bevo 15:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dont like the name either (missed the votation) but it shouldnt change now, of course. I was only suggesting the appearence change. Maybe you are right because it looks too close with MP, but i like the organized style. Muriel 14:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject prototypes
Would anybody be interested in the various WikiProjects choosing something to be their representative article? The one that includes everything an ideal article should, and is written well, etc. Perhaps to be a running list at Wikipedia:Featured articles (i.e. every WikiProject that has reached such a stage has the article listed at the top, with more added as the newer projects develop). Tuf-Kat 07:00, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * One possible place to put such a "standard bearer" article would be on WikiProject - the article could go in brackets after the project listing. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I add an example to that page to show what I had in mind. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * This is assuming all Wikiprojects will get advanced enough to have at least one article worthy of Featured Article status. Is that a reasonable assumption?  Also, what if an article is already Featured, and then gets swept into a Wikiproject?  For example, Hubble Space Telescope is featured, and may will soon be redone by WikiProject Telescopes.  I do like the concept of having a "standard bearer," although it could be redundant if we are making a template on the Wikiproject page.  --zandperl 23:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Many projects won't have one, probably (like WikiProject Music standards), but that's alright. I would rather see a section of this page (rather than what's happening at WikiProject that says something like Look at all the areas that we are working on!

 * Telescopes - Hubble Space Telescope
 * Cetaceans - Sperm Whale
 * IMO, these should be added to Featured Articles as normal, but then placed in a special section. Tuf-Kat 17:52, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a great idea! If the Wikiprojects are not advanced enough, now this is a good motivation to do so. I like the Look at all the areas that we are working on! idea, but something more like Ongoing projects. Muriel 14:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cross-listing
Should articles from the "Technology" section such as Hubble Space Telescope, nuclear weapon, and spacecraft propulsion be cross-listed under "Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics"? --zandperl 17:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism
I removed this article after there was a clear lack of concensus to keep it. It has now been reinstated. I clearly object. What is the prescice policy on removing articles from the featured articles list? At the moment it seems an admin can make it arbitrarilly. Sam Spade 03:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no precise policy. I'd suggest Featured policy as a place to the policies so they are spelled out and consistent accross both FP and FA. Gentgeen 17:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Combining candidates poll
A poll at Featured article candidates seeks to determine if the two featured candidates pages should be merged. Please go vote. Gentgeen 17:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Confused about process
According to the process at Featured article candidates, an articles are nominated, and then if approved, they are moved to the section Featured article candidates. I see that there is an article: bioinformatics, which is listed as being recently added, but is not on the actual list of articles, there is also an article, DNA that is Featured article candidates, that hasn't been removed from here. Is this simply an oversight, or am I confused about the process? --Lexor|Talk 08:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding DNA, I think it was still under the Nomination category because it hadn't enough time yet. However, today made the amount of time a week, so I removed DNA from Featured Articles, and made the appropriate change on the Candidates page. Kingturtle 02:09, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding Bioinformatics, I think it was simply placed in the wrong spot. The nomination has an objection, so I moved it to Nominations with unresolved objections. Kingturtle 02:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Auto updates
Jdforrester had a great idea that I was able to make reality. I created Template:February 26 and referenced it via  to get:

 * {{July_29}}

 * Is that cool or what? For the selected anniv queue I'm going to use the naming syntax MediaWiki:Month day selected anniversaries . MediaWiki:Month day featured article or even MediaWiki:Month day year featured article may be good for the featured article queue (if you decide to create one - although I think you would be daft not to! ;). --mav 06:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see much more of a rationale to do this for historical anniversaries, as these are likely to stay the same for each day of the year. For the featured article I like to have the history in one place.—Eloquence 06:55, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Why is it necessary to have the history in one place? I think it would be neat to have 366 of our best featured articles in a queue that could also serve as a set of galleries of only the best of our best work (organized like Selected anniversaries). The mere links on this page aren't very inviting, IMO (just like the old Main Page). It would also make updates much easier so that human update energy can be devoted to keeping the new articles and news sections current. --mav

 * As pretty much the chief maintainer of Template:Feature, I'd like to say that I'm not fond of the idea. I wouldn't mind creating one page to hold all of them (so that it becomes a cut and paste thing), but I very much dislike the idea of spreading them out over 366 pages. →Raul654 06:04, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * If it is the work of doing such a thing that you don't like, then be comforted by this: I will create all the 366 MediaWiki pages and all 12 subpages for this. I will also link to the MediaWiki page on each talk page of each featured article after a mention that the article is a featured article. Just as I've done with the day talk pages. See Talk:January 1. And what happens if you are on holiday and somebody else forgets to update? Auto updates from a human-created queue seems to be the most logical way to go. The galleries will also be very interesting for readers to read - thus generating more interest and development in the featured articles concept. --mav

I've thought a bit about this and I think I'm OK with the idea as long as we allow ourselves some room for switching upcoming FAs. I think there should be a fair chance for an article that has just gone through the candidate process to be on the MP the next day. I'd still appreciate some more time to think about it before making a rather big change that is unlikely to be reverted. I think the element of surprise is one key factor in how FA works, and a predefined list of articles would eliminate most of it.—Eloquence 08:45, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * Fair enough - this can wait a while. --mav

Ok, I'd like to explain my thought on the matter of the autoupdate.
 * 1) In principle, I like the idea of an automatically updating section. The more regular updates would be a benefit, and there wouldn't be a chance of someone (me) forgetting to update
 * 2) However, I think Erik has a point - it would lose that sense of randomness. As it is now, nobody really knows what's coming down the pike until it gets posted. This serves to make it interesting. Tangibly, I think it increases the number of edits an article experiences when it gets posted. Queuing them in a predetermined order takes some of that away.
 * 3) I'm not worried about actually creating the 366 articles. I'm worried about what would happen if we were to change the format, or if we need to do some big maintence later. IMHO, spreading them out creates a potential logistic nightmare.
 * In short, I can see the benefits of what you're proposing and I think I could live with it, but I'm not entirely sure of it. Erik also makes a very good point - I don't think it'd be wise to impliment it until we've had a little more time to fully think this through. →Raul654 05:05, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Yep.
 * 2) No reason why you can't swap things around the day before (moving the featured article that was there before to place a newer one on that page). Even if we didn't do that, then so what? The Main Page is a chance for us to show off some of our best work - it is therefore aimed toward readers, not really toward people like you and me who will become quickly familiar with the content of the 12 galleries.
 * 3) Each day MediaWiki page would have a MediaWiki mesage on it that would have contain the 'More featured article' message (perhaps one each for each month's gallery - just like with the selected anniv section). So if there is a formatting change, then, at most, 12 pages would have to be changed.
 * As I said, this can wait a while. --mav

 * What about using the Random page concept and the auto-update concept together on the queue of 366? Ancheta Wis 12:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) That could provide the surprise element.

msg:featured
Is there a msg:featured? If not, I'm thinking along the lines of:
 * This is a Featured Article, one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Even so, if you see a way this page can be improved still futher, we invite you to contribute.'

If not, any object to me creating one and putting it on featured articles? Please put further discussion at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki custom messages. --zandperl 05:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Funny I have just the same idea about msg:featured so I second Zandperl's proposal. Kpjas

 * Such a message would be good to have on each featured article's talk page. --mav 02:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I created Template:Featured and linked from every FA talk page. --mav

Can an Article be Delisted from Featured Articles?
My concern is about Sons of Noah. I found the following sentence in this article --
 * Also Aram the son of Shem not to be confused with the Aramean descendants of Arphaxad.

which not only makes little sense, but makes a claim that is not substantiated anywhere. So I removed it, only to find its author insists on restoring it with the comment "reverting Llywrch's deletion of ref's which contradict his religious beliefs".

I won't go into our disagreement (except to note that, as usual, the person who wrote this is wrong), but it leads to my question: can addition of enough questionable material result in having an article delisted? If so, what is the process? -- llywrch 05:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, there is a system in place. If you want to get an article 'defeatured', go to the Featured Article candidates page, go to the bottom "requests for defeaturing or something like that" and list it there. →Raul654 05:32, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Bolding articles
I'm not particularly fond of bolding articles that have been featured. It's not readily obvious what it means, and it's very distracting. If you want to find out which ones have been featured, you can check the archive. →Raul654 04:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is explained at the top. Plus, it makes choosing a new feature easier. — Timwi 06:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deus Ex Nomination
I think that Deus Ex is an excellent Wikipedia article. There are many things I know well and love, but rarely have I ever seen such a good synopsis of something. It is not long-winded but does not abbreviate too much either, clear and concise, and it has many handy links that I found useful, even ones, like UNATCO, created purely for the page itself. I would like to nominate this for a featured article- however, it does have spoilers, so probably isn't good to read for someone planning to play it. Does this present a problem? Aerothorn 03:22, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi. :)  I've copied your nomination and placed it on the candidates page, other people will read the article and comment on whether they think it's good enough to be featured: Featured article candidates.  That's the place to nominate any other great articles you come across.  :)  fabiform | talk 03:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks. Sorry, I'm new at this. 216.186.63.41 18:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV page
Just an idea - how about creating a page along the lines of Featured_articles that highlights the best of NPOV prose? L UDRAMAN | T 19:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe a section of Featured articles would be better than a whole new page? Angela. 19:05, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * What's the difference from FA now? If an article isn't NPOV, it's going to struggle to get supported. Ambivalenthysteria 00:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Space elevator" category
Could "Space elevator" be moved from "Physics, Astrophysics and Geophysics" to "Technology"? Physics is essential to understanding how a space elevator will work, but chemistry and materials science will be needed to produce a strong enough material. The space elevator is an application of these sciences.

 * Quite right. Done. --Andrew 07:45, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

How to vandalize the main page?
Today's Rock, Paper, Scissors feature got me thinking ... could someone vandalize the "protected" main page by editing an image that the main page links to? Shimmin 00:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes - they could upload a different image (required a login), or edit the mediawiki:feature message, or loads of other things. Our defense is known as security through obscurity ;) →Raul654 00:21, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes - the lack of Main Page vandalism indicates how awkward and unwiki editing MediaWiki messages are - you have to type a magic URL into your browser address bar for heavens sake. Usability and openness of the wiki has been gravely affected by their sudden proliferation. Maybe the 1.3 release of MediaWiki software will improve things... but don't hold your breath... the project has matured a lot and openness is going away. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spacecraft propulsion
Could people review Spacecraft propulsion please? It's on the list of featured articles, and I think it should be, but it's been more-or-less rewritten since it was put on. In particular, it was put on for its descriptions of many spacecraft propulsion methods, which are now on separate pages; it now has some general discussion and links to all those pages. --Andrew 17:28, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Article of the week
Regulars to this page might be interested in Article of the week, a new project which aims to bring one new article up to featured standard each week. Nominations can be made until Thursday of each week, when work will begin on a new article At this point, the previous week's one will hopefully be transferred to Featured article candidates. Angela. 11:46, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * great idea! to keep up with the pace of time, we need to work up to a new featured article a day by the time the supply of old ones runs out... or face the certain slow death of reruns... +sj+ 23:25, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

Impending reorganization
Just to let everyone know - sometime in the near future, I'm going break up the "biography" section and distribute the articles amoung their respect catagories. That whole section does nothing but cause crosslisting problems. →Raul654 04:15, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. Sam [Spade] 04:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me too.   —  Adam Conover † 13:14, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Images on front page
Right now, if a user clicks on the images in the front page corresponding to the day's special anniversaries or the featured article, they get an information page for that image itself. Would it be possible to make it so that if a user clicks on the image in one of those sections, they will get linked to the article itself? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:56, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but it is possible to redirect the image description page to the article. Angela. 16:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * This has come up on talk:main page before. It was decided that we should not break the standard for the rest of wikipedia just because it is the main page. And FYI - this should be on talk:main page as well. →Raul654 02:46, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Front page featured article
What is the process to decide which article should be on the front page? any vote? How could Greek mythology end up there in its current form? Thanks. olivier 13:00, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * At the moment, User:Raul654 picks a suitable candidate each day from the featured articles. Barring Raul disappearing, or posting something widely considered unsuitable, this is likely to continue - David Gerard 23:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A new method for putting articles on the front page
copied from wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates The endless bickering here, coupled with Anthony's antics on the main page yesterday and today (for which Danny banned him) have led to a proposal on Template talk:Feature for changing how articles go on the main page. Basically, everyone would get 24 hours notice. I think everyone should go there and voice your opinions. Personally, I think this could go a long way in appeasing some of the criticisms that have been voiced. →Raul654 21:22, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Too much prepuce
I've seen the Holy Prepuce article featured twice recently. This is an interesting article, but on a weird, fringe topic and I'd prefer to not see it on Wikipedia's home page more than once a year or so. It seems to trivialize Wikipedia, or introduce it as, well, the product of a bunch of weirdos. Could somebody dial down the frequency? Tempshill 20:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * To date, there have been no repeated featured articles. →Raul654 20:16, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have to differ with you. I saw the Holy Prepuce article featured on the main page last month as well as yesterday.  Tempshill 22:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, respectfully, you're mistaken - check the archive if you don't believe me. →Raul654 22:58, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I once went through a period where the browser cache or something was acting bizarre, and the front page stayed static for a week, no matter how many times I tried to refresh it. --User:rdb78

Chomsky

 * Why is he classified under "language"? He's done more than just linguistics. Perhaps a "people" category? I didn't see a better place to put it. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * We had a "people" category - I remove it because it caused innumeralble conflicts about where to put someone. Chomsky is a linguist first and foremost, so he goes into linguistics. →Raul654 02:17, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was just coming over here to say that! :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd almost put him under Philosophy. Filiocht 12:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * He's done a little bit of philosophical work,and his work has had a major impact on the philosophy of language, but it would be bizarre to classify him as a philosopher and not a linguist. Charles Stewart 11:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One million articles?
"At present, there are 389 Featured Articles, out of a total of 354282 articles on the Wikipedia." I thought there were over a million articles on Wikipedia now! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The 1 million is across all language versions, the 354000 is for the English edition only.Graham 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Restoration of an article
On 29 January of this year, the article Representative peer was promoted to Featured Article Status after receiving the necessary votes. I later removed the article, which had by then been merged with another article (Peerage), itself of featured status. (There was no formal removal vote; in fact, no one even requested the removal.) Now, however, the article representative peer has become its own article again. Its content is the same as that prior to removal, with a few minor grammatical changes. As the only reason the article was removed was its merger with another article, and because this reason no longer exists, I have re-added representative peer to the list of featured articles. I hope there are no objections. -- Emsworth 01:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom
Ah, what happened? It's blank. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When are the featured articles changed?
I noticed that the featured articles change every day, but when each day? Is it at midnight in a certain time zone?
 * Wikipedia operates on UTC. The featured article is automatically updated at midnight, UTC (8 pm US eastern time). →Raul654 15:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

Ever heard of the Manual of Style?
How can you write a Wikipedia: article about articles that are "well-written and complete", based on their "style, prose[sic] and completeness" without using the Manual of Style? For better reference go Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas.

Finally, I too would like to thank my parents, Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II. Moogle 00:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Moogle - uh, what the hell are you talking about? →Raul654 01:35, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I suspect that he or she refers to the failure to use a serial comma. -- Emsworth 01:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

War and history
I think that all historical articles from war sections should be added to history. ATM we already have some chaos here - for example, Warsaw Uprising is deemed history not war, Attila the Hun is history but Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson and Nazi generals are war...it is a very fuzzy distinction. Leave equipments and strategy concepts at war, but anything that is a biography or past conflict is history, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Can I interpret the lack of responces here as silent agreement with me? :> Please comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I will then begin moving some things around. There are other problems then war/history - for example, lol, Ferdinand Magellan is NOT geography or place (he is a person after all!), he should go to history as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this comment. I don't mind minor tweaking, but war was split off from history because it was large enough to warrant its own subcategory. Please don't remerge them. →Raul654 19:48, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. Come to think of it, we could move half of stuff over to history :>. Perhaps we should add a small definition what goes into what category - or at least a note to the history that 'it goes to history ONLY if it cannot be fitted into any other category'? and which sections should NOT have historical events in them (like geography)? The changes I did: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Warsaw Uprising moved from History to War
 * Byzantine Empire from Geography and Places (how did it end there?) to History, same with Congo Free State and Éire. Perhaps we can add subcategories like 'historical places'? Anyway, those things don't exist anymore so they belong more into history then geography
 * Ferdinand Magellan went same way as the above, he is an explorer, not a 'geography and place' thingy
 * 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens from Geology to history, it is a minor historic event, just as Galveston Hurricane of 1900 which already is in history
 * Alchemy from religion&beliefs to chemistry (see below talk for arguments why)
 * Julius Caesar from politics&government to history
 * Great Mosque of Djenné from Culture&Society to Geography (it is a place)
 * Baroque from Culture&Society to Art&Archeolog (it is a historic art movement)
 * History of the Peerage moved from history to Royalty, nobility and chivalry section
 * Notes: I am pretty sure Max Weber was featured already.
 * Suggestion 1) new category: Sociology
 * Suggestion 2) split art and archeology, they definetly make strange grouping, perhaps add archeology (back?) to history

Alchemy
Could alchemy go under chemistry, as that is the topic to which it most closely relates (even though alchemy is pseudoscience)? -- Emsworth 20:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how alchemy relates more to science (facts) than religion (belief)? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Solitude's line of thinking is exactly what mine was when I categorized it - Alchemy is more of a system of beliefs than it is a science. →Raul654 19:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, on the bright side, the section is entitled Religion and beliefs. Still, I don't think it is the right place for alchemy. As the article's very own lead states (ATM) it is a protoscience, which in turn sais: Fields such as astrology and alchemy prior to the invention of the scientific method can also be regarded as protosciences. With the advent of the scientific method, they rapidly produced the scientific fields of astronomy and chemistry respectively, leaving those who refused to adopt the scientific method to practice pseudoscience. While their is no perfect solution, I'd vote for including alchemy either in chemistry or history, as unlike 'religion and belief' it did adhere to the scientific method (most of the time) which is one of the important distinguishers between science and belief. Preferably in chemistry, as it is after all it's 'father-science'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As there are no further complains here nor on User_talk:Raul654, I am moving it to chemistry. Please comment before rv this change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Featured Articles often contain dead links
I would like to suggest that all featured article be complete, including links. Many featured articles contain links to Wikipedia articles which have yet to be created, and I don't feel this truly represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. Perhaps articles which are being considered for featured articles could be in the queue, and a call could go out for them to be fully linked prior to inclusion. What does everyone think of this? jimaginator
 * I couldn't agree less. Filiocht 13:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I'm afraid. The ideal red link is not an error or a mistake, but rather an invitation for an article that needs writing to be written. In general, I think such links should be encouraged, not discouraged. Whether or not article Bar has been written is not really relevant when judging the quality of Featured Article Candidate Foo. — Matt 13:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that it makes sense. Although I haven't written any red articles in a featured article, I have in other articles. Points taken. jimaginator

Paragraph 175 article excerpt is lame
66.167.139.105 10:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC): I think the phrase "greatly exacerbated its severity" doesn't belong in a featured article, particularly when that phrase is in the excerpt quoted on the main page. See Talk:Paragraph 175 for the details.

Article placement
I'd argue that presuppositional apologetics should be categorized under religion and beliefs rather than philosophy, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it (well, not enough to make a unilateral change). Anyone else have a comment? Or am I making too much of the categories? Jwrosenzweig 23:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Featured template in articles
Wouldn't it make more sense to put Template:Featured in the articles instead of on the talk pages?

Templates for articles listed for cleanup, with NPOV disputes, etc, are all placed in the articles, and even add category tags to the articles accordingly. Certainly we should be as eager to announce that articles are of featured quality :)

Of course, the template would be ugly at the top of articles, but why not place at the bottom? I believe something like this is done on the German Wikipedia.

While I agree that self references are generally a bad idea, a message at the bottom would be discreet, and the actual reference to Wikipedia is stuffed away in the template.

- Fredrik | talk 11:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * IMO we should move those other notices to the talk page. Pcb21| Pete 15:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree strongly about moving those other notices to the talk page. I'm not at all sure about adding the "featured" template to articles, but the others all serve as warnings that the article may be less than trustworthy, and I think it is very important for Wikipedia's credibility that those be prominently placed. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Any self-ref notice which is temporary in nature is OK for an article. The featured tag is not and makes 0 sense for third party users of our content. --mav 04:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reusing featured articles?
For 2005, I was thinking I might clear all the bolding on this page, and start reusing featured articles. My reason is that, IMHO, I think that most of the most interesting featured articles have already been featured. In fact, in general, most of the featured articles have been featured (I eye-estimated it at about 2/3's or more). Now, just to unstuff the strawman before he appears - we are *NOT* in any danger of running out of featured articles anytime soon; we're promoting around 8 or 9 new featured articles per week and we have a pretty big reserve to boot. So what do other people think about this idea?
 * I find it increadibly stupid a bad idea (refactored by User:Matt Crypto) and pointless, since we're not running out of subjects anytime soon. I strongly suggest against reuse, even in the case of running out of subjects. It should be motivation to fix up more articles, not become lazy and depend on past work. Alkivar 20:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the primary purpose of putting Featured Articles on the Main Page is to show off decent Wikipedia articles so that the project looks good to newcomers. To that end, it doesn't matter if we reuse articles that haven't been on the Main Page for a long time; so yeah, sounds OK to me. — Matt Crypto 20:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Although, having looked through the FA list again, there's still plenty of unused articles that I would be interested in reading. — Matt Crypto 00:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think reusing articles is a good idea. Particularly if they have improved, which I know is the case with quite a few featured articles. Fredrik | talk 22:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea. Like Alkivar says, this should rather be a motivation to fix up more articles. Re Matt Crypto: 'Looking good' might be a primary purpose for the FA's on the front page, it isn't the only purpose. Even if it was THE primary purpose, it would be better to fix up more articles instead of relying on old ones, since producing new ones has several pleasant side-effects.  — mark ✎ 01:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Could you expand on why you are finding the remaining unboldened ones less suitable than the boldened ones? A brief scan of the titles and a sample of the articles doesn't indicate that they are that different to me. Pcb21| Pete 19:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree with Pete. If you consider the presently unbolded and unused articles too boring for the Main page (I would agree that some of them are, but I also see some favorites that haven't been used), it seems to me a franker move would be better: to remove them from the list before clearing the bolding.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * There is a page for that very thing: WP:FARC. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Bad idea. That featured articles are candidates for the main page is a motive for contributors to polish an article to featured standard. By reusing articles it reduces that incentive, and we want more featured articles not less. It is also not clear to me that we are running out interesting articles having looked at some of them still to be featured. :ChrisG 19:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Chris, for all the reasons he gives.   —  Adam Conover † 06:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * What about incentive to polish the many existing featured articles which are not quite so good? - Fredrik | talk 16:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are right in pointing out the importance of improving existing featured articles, but I'd say that WP:FARC, WP:Peer review and WP:FAC would be the way to go for those. Incidentally, I think that the idea of reusing articles that have improved significantly is not as bad as simply unbolding all FA's; but still I'd say that creating more Featured Articles is of more importance in this case since it brings more diversity and helps counter the systemic bias of Wikipedia.  — mark ✎ 16:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This chart compares Wikipedia's coverage with other encyclopedias:

Reusing featured articles would solidify this unfortunate trend. A better direction for the featured articles section would be to include more articles from this list -- Xed 17:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't understand what this table is supposed to represent? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I am against reusing older articles, unless it is an anniversary of some kind. There are people who check Wiki page every day for featured trivia, and they may become less interested when they find sth they already seen. Also, reusing older articles means that earlier articles would be featured more often, and newer one would have a diminising chance of being featured. On the side note, I was wondering if we can vote on what article should be featured when? This would allow us specific argumens like 'this was featured once, but I think it should be featured again because...', thus allowing us to decide on this problem on individual article basis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm also very much against reuse for many of the same reasons others have stated. Oh, if it is an anniversary, then it would go in Selected anniversaries instead. :) --mav 02:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Given that most people are against it, I'll table the idea until we are actually running low on featured articles. →Raul654 06:36, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd say use ALL of them then remove the bolding and start again. Also, I would give preference to newer articles. J OHN C OLLISON (An Liúdramán) 10:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Raul, several people asked you pointedly above why you thought the unused (=at present not-bolded) FA's were less suitable for the Main Page than the ones you have already sent round there once, and you haven't replied to these questions, whether time-savingly or pointedly is hard to tell. The impression left by this Sphinx demeanor plus your original comment, "most of the most interesting featured articles have already been featured", is that you consider the other FA's or their subjects too boring for the Main Page, and will shun them if you can. I'd like to know if this is the message you intend to send. Naturally it would be a discouraging one for the people who worked on these articles. I'm not myself very eager after this proposal and the way you handled it to try to bring more articles up to Featured standard, or to list them on FAC. (Getting the strawman out of the way, no, it doesn't make a lot of difference that you tabled the proposal.) Noticed the FAC list getting shorter lately...?--Bishonen | Talk 17:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I did not say less suitable. The articles themselves are quite good (and the FARC has been doing a good job of pruning the ones that are not) And it's not that I consider them boring, but many of them are from related areas. Looking at the list of featured article, we have a great many on british royalty, or the beatles, or geology, or battles. It *is* boring when you have many of the same types of articles being featured, even if the articles themselves are good. On the other hand, we've long since exhausted the supply of food articles, or transport articles, etc etc. There weren't many of those to begin with, and we're not promoting any new ones along those lines. I don't think my idea was an unreasable way of solving this problem, but since most people disagree, I'll drop it. And I don't appreciate the accustatory tone, either. As far as the FAC not getting as much traffic, I think that can be attributed to the holidays more than anything else. →Raul654 17:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * And I don't appreciate the injured innocence. But thank you very much for explaining.--Bishonen | Talk 23:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


text:
File:League of gentlemens apocalypse.jpg

Fair use in The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a Film Poster / VHS or DVD Cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the film in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the artwork/image.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image  is significant because it was used to promoted a notable film.

Source
http://www.impawards.com/2005/league_of_gentlemens_apocalypse_ver2.html

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

The Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant (Olkiluodon ydinvoimalaitos, Olkiluoto kärnkraftverk) is one of Finland's two nuclear power plants, the other being the two-unit Loviisa Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is owned and operated by Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), and is located on Olkiluoto Island, on the shore of the Gulf of Bothnia, in the municipality of Eurajoki in western Finland, about 20 km from the town of Rauma and about 50 km from the city of Pori.

The Olkiluoto plant consists of two boiling water reactors (BWRs), each with a capacity of 890 MW, and one EPR type reactor (unit 3) with a capacity of 1,600 MW. This makes unit 3 currently the most powerful nuclear power plant unit in Europe and the third most powerful globally. Construction of unit 3 began in 2005. Commercial operation, originally scheduled for May 2009, began on 1 May 2023.

A decision-in-principle for a fourth reactor to be built at the site was granted by the Finnish parliament in July 2010,  but in June 2015 TVO decided that it would not apply for a construction license for Olkiluoto 4.

Units 1 and 2
Units 1 and 2 consists of two BWRs, each producing 890 MW of electricity. The main contractor was ASEA-Atom, now a part of Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB. Turbine generators were supplied by Stal-Laval. The units' architecture was designed by ASEA-Atom. The reactor pressure vessels were constructed by Uddcomb Sweden AB, and reactor internal parts, mechanical components by Finnatom. The electrical equipment was supplied by Strömberg. Unit 1 was constructed by Atomirakennus and unit 2 by Jukola and Työyhtymä. Unit 1 achieved its initial criticality in July 1978 and it started commercial operations in October 1979. Unit 2 achieved its initial criticality in October 1979 and it started commercial operations in July 1982.

The original power of the reactors was 660 MW. They were uprated to 710 MW in 1983–1984, to 840 MW in 1995–1998, and further to 860 MW in 2005–2006. Major upgrades were carried out to the units in 2010 and 2011, including replacement of turbines and generators, isolation valves, electrical switchgear and seawater pumps. The upgrades increased the net electrical output by 20 MW to 880 MW each.

In 2017, unit 2 was upgraded and modernized, increasing the output further to 890 MW from the beginning of 2018. A similar upgrade to unit 1 was performed in 2018. The extended maintenance was also made to prepare for a license renewal application. The license extension was granted in September 2018 and allows the reactors to operate until 2038.

In 2023, TVO announced it is considering seeking another license extension of at least 10 years and a power uprate of 80 MW to 970 MW. The environmental impact assessment program, published in January 2024, investigates options to extend the lifetime by 10 or 20 years at the current power or uprating to 970 MW (in 2028 at the earliest) in addition to the 10 or 20-year extension.

Unit 3

In February 2005, the Finnish government gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one. The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010, but has been pushed back several times only starting regular production in 2023, 18 years after the start of construction.

Olkiluoto 3 is the first EPR, which is a type of third generation PWR, to have begun construction. It will have a nameplate capacity of 1600 MW. Japan Steel Works and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries manufactured the unit's 526-ton reactor pressure vessel.

At the start of construction, the main contractor was Areva NP (now Framatome, after the sell-off mentioned below), a joint venture of Areva and Siemens. However, in 2009, Siemens sold its one-third share of Areva NP to Areva, which is now the main contractor. Siemens remained on the project as the subcontractor with the main responsibility for constructing the turbine hall. Areva sold its majority stake in Framatome (previously Areva NP), its nuclear reactor and fuel business, to Électricité de France.

According to TVO, the construction phase of the project would create a total of about 30,000 person-years of employment directly and indirectly; that the highest number of on-site employees has been almost 4,400; and that the operation phase would create 150 to 200 permanent jobs. A 90 MW battery storage is scheduled for 2022.

On 8 December 2021, the company submitted its application to Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority asking permission to start up Unit 3 and to move forward with initial testing of the unit. This was granted on 16 December 2021. First criticality of the OL3 EPR plant unit was reached on 21 December 2021. An unplanned automatic trip occurred on 14 January 2022, delaying connection to the national grid to February 2022. The electricity production of Olkiluoto's third nuclear power plant unit started on Saturday, 12 March 2022, at 12.01 p.m. In May 2022, foreign material detached from the steam guide plates was found in the turbine steam reheater, and the plant was shut down for about three months of repair work.

In September 2022, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) granted a licence for the Olkiluoto 3 reactor to increase its power output to more than 60 percent to a full 4,300 MW of thermal capacity. On 30 September 2022, the reactor achieved its design output power. In October 2022, damage was discovered in the feedwater pumps and unit 3 was shut down for an investigation, delaying the end of commissioning testing. On 28 October, it was announced cracks a few centimetres long had been found in all four of the feedwater pump impellers. The feedwater pumps are larger than in other nuclear reactors. In January 2023, it was announced that new more robust impellers will be installed in all four feedwater pumps, and test operation at full power should restart in February. The plant started regular electricity production on 16 April 2023 after test production and commercial operation on 1 May 2023. Unusual for nuclear reactors in Scandinavia, OL3 reduced production in May 2023 due to negative market prices during the spring thaw when hydropower was unable to absorb surplus.

Construction delays
The first licence application for the third unit was made in December 2000 and the date of the unit's entry into service was estimated to be 2010. However, since the start of construction, several delays to the schedule have been announced. In July 2012, TVO announced that the unit would not go into service before 2015, five years after the original estimate. In a statement, the operator said it was "not pleased with the situation" although solutions to various problems were being found and work was "progressing", and that it was waiting for a new launch date from Areva and Siemens.

At the end of 2013, TVO said that the Areva-Siemens consortium plans to reduce workers and subcontractors on the construction site and says that it expects the contractor to provide details about the expected impact on the project's schedule.

In February 2014, TVO said that it could not give an estimate of the plant's startup date because it was still waiting for the Areva-Siemens consortium to provide it with an updated overall schedule for the project." Later the same month it was reported that Areva was shutting down construction due to the dispute over compensations and unfinished automation planning. According to Kauppalehti, the estimated opening was delayed until 2018–2020.

In July 2019, TVO announced that regular electricity generation is expected to start in July 2020. The delay was caused by slower than expected modification works. In August 2020, TVO announced that regular electricity generation was delayed to February 2022 due to slow progress in system testing, technical problems found in the testing, and delivery time of spare parts to replace faulty components.

The delays have been due to various problems with planning, supervision, and workmanship, and have been the subject of an inquiry by STUK, the Finnish nuclear safety regulator. The first problems that surfaced were irregularities in the foundation concrete, and caused a delay of months. Later, it was found that subcontractors had provided heavy forgings that were not up to project standards and which had to be re-cast. An apparent problem constructing the reactor's unique double-containment structure also caused delays, as the welders had not been given proper instructions.

In 2009, Petteri Tiippana, the director of STUK's nuclear power plant division, told the BBC that it was difficult to deliver nuclear power plant projects on schedule because builders were not used to working to the exacting standards required on nuclear construction sites, since so few new reactors had been built in recent years.

In 2010, Jukka Laaksonen, Director General of STUK at that time, analyzed reasons for the delay:
 * Many nuclear power plants were constructed in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. After that there was a long break in the construction, and experienced experts retired.
 * Areva did not have experience in construction of nuclear power plants. In all the earlier projects in which Areva supplied the reactor, Électricité de France was responsible for the construction management. Many experienced subcontractors had left the business, and Areva had to find new subcontractors and to coach them in nuclear manufacturing.
 * The original schedule, four years from construction start to grid connection, was too ambitious for a first-of-a-kind plant that is larger than any earlier reactor.
 * The project started very slowly because Areva was not adequately prepared. When the construction permit was given in 2005, parts of the detailed design were not yet available. Areva did not recognize how much additional work was needed to complete it. The construction started to proceed in a controlled manner two years later.
 * Areva was not used to STUK's regulatory approach with an early focus on the quality of structures and components. Manufacturing information and a quality control plan must be approved by both the licensee and STUK before manufacturing of the most important components is allowed to start. Inspections with hold points are made during the manufacturing.
 * The large size of the reactor and the application of new technologies brought major challenges. Some manufacturing technologies had not been used before. For instance, new welding techniques were used in the reactor pressure vessel. Many large components, such as pressurizer forgings and some reactor internal parts, had to be re-manufactured once or twice to achieve the specified quality.
 * TVO's key persons did not have experience from management of a large construction project.

Construction of the turbine succeeded better under the responsibility of Siemens. Installations of the main turbine equipment were completed about one year behind the original schedule.

After the construction of the unit started in 2005, Areva began constructing EPRs in Flamanville, France, and in Taishan, China. However, as of 2019, the construction of the EPR in France is ten years behind schedule. Taishan 1 in China became the first EPR to start power generation on 29 June 2018, and the second one (Taishan 2) came online in 2019.

Cost
The main contractor, Areva, is building the unit for a fixed price of €3 billion, so in principle, any construction costs above that price fall on Areva. In July 2012, those overruns were estimated at more than €2 billion, and in December 2012, Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor would be about €8.5 billion, well over the previous estimate of €6.4 billion. Because of the delays, TVO and Areva both sought compensation from each other through the International Court of Arbitration.

In October 2013, TVO's demand for compensation from Areva had risen to €1.8 billion, and Areva's from TVO to €2.6 billion. In December 2013, Areva increased its demand to €2.7 billion. On 10 March 2018 French newspaper Le Monde announced that Areva and TVO had reached an agreement. A day later, TVO confirmed that Areva would pay it €450 million in compensation over the delays and lost income. The agreement would settle all legal actions between the two companies. With the settlement, TVO disclosed its total investment to be around €5.5 billion. Areva had accumulated losses of €5.5 billion. The total cost of the project, therefore, is estimated to be €11 billion.

Between 2013 and 2017 OL1 and OL2 produced between 13,385 GWh and 14,740 GWh per year at capacity factors between 87.2% and 96%. OL3 is expected to produce an additional 12,000–13,000 GWh annually. Even taking into account all OL3 construction delays the long-term target for operational production cost (not including investments and subsidies) for all three plants is 33 €/MWh. Production cost for the OL3 reactor alone is estimated at 49 €/MWh, as OL1-2 had a production cost of app. 18 €/MWh during 2016-2020, prior to OL3 entering service.

Criticism
In 2009, Stephen Thomas wrote, "Olkiluoto has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors," and that Areva and the TVO "are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default." The project has also been criticized by STUK because "instructions have not been observed in the welding of pipes and the supervision of welding." STUK has also noted that there have been delays in submitting proper paperwork.

Olkiluoto 3 was supposed to be the first reactor of 3+ generation which would pave the way for a new wave of identical reactors across Europe that were safe, affordable, and delivered on time. The delays and cost overruns have had knock-on effects in other countries.

The construction workforce includes about 3,800 employees from 500 companies. 80% of the workers are foreigners, mostly from eastern European countries. In 2012 it was reported that one Bulgarian contracting firm is owned by the mafia, and that Bulgarian workers have been required to pay weekly protection fees to the mafia, wages have been unpaid, employees have been told not to join a union and that employers also reneged on social security payments.

Operations
The first annual maintenance outage started on 2 March 2024, and was expected to take 37 days. The outage was delayed from the original plan due to the shutdown process and inspections of the fuel elements taking longer than expected, and technical problems identified during the maintenance. The outage lasted 74 days, and the plant resumed electricity production on 16 May.

Unit 4
On 14 February 2008, TVO submitted an environmental impact assessment of unit four to the Ministry of Employment and Economy. On 21 April 2010, the government of Finland decided to grant a decision-in-principle to Teollisuuden Voima for the fourth reactor in Olkiluoto. The decision was approved by the parliament on 1 July 2010. If constructed, the fourth unit would be a PWR or a BWR with a power output of 1,000 to 1,800 MW.

In September 2014, with unit 3 still unfinished, the Finnish government rejected TVO's request for time extension of the unit 4 decision-in-principle. Economic Affairs Minister Jan Vapaavuori referred to the long delay of the 3rd reactor and to unsatisfactory assurances by TVO that the 4th unit would ever be built. Nevertheless PM Stubb stated that the rejection didn't spell the end for the OL4 project, and that TVO would have the opportunity to apply for a construction license before the decision-in-principle expires in June 2015.

In June 2015, TVO decided not to apply for a construction permit for the Olkiluoto 4 unit because of delays with unit 3, however saying they are prepared to file for a new decision-in-principle later.

Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository

The Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository is a deep geological repository for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the first such repository in the world. It is currently under construction at the Olkiluoto plant by the company Posiva, owned by the nuclear power plant operators Fortum and TVO.

Agriculture
The waste heat, an output common to all thermal power plants, which heats the cooling water (at 13 °C) is utilized for small-scale agriculture before being pumped back to the sea. The power plant hosts the northernmost vineyard in the world, a 0.1 ha experimental plot that yields 850 kg Zilga grapes annually. Another use is a pond for growing crabs, whitefish and sturgeon for caviar.

Incidents
In April 2014, a turbine steam condenser of unit 1 had a small seawater leak, at a rate of two litres per hour. According to the operator, the leak forced to limit the plant output down to 300 MW, but was not serious and was to be repaired in a day.

An incident occurred at unit 2 on 10 December 2020 at 12:22. Because of valve repair work, excessively hot water flowed to the reactor water clean-up system filters. The hot water dissolved materials from the filters. When the clean-up system was restarted, the dissolved materials flowed to the reactor core, where they became radioactive. This caused the radiation levels in the steam line to momentarily rise to 3–4 times higher than normal. The increase of the radiation level activated safety systems, which operated as planned and triggered reactor scram, closed containment isolation valves, and started the containment spray system. The operators followed procedures and declared a site area emergency at 12:32. The event caused a full-scale emergency response at the power plant and at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. There was no radioactive release to the environment, and the workers were not exposed to radiation. The event was categorized as 0 on the INES scale, which means that it was an exceptional event with no safety significance. The reactor was restarted on 19 December, nine days after the incident.

On 3 June 2024 at 11:41, electricity production of unit 3 was briefly interrupted due to a turbine malfunction. An immediate investigation found the cause to be a failure in the differential pressure measurement of the generator's sealing oil and hydrogen coolant. The unit returned to normal production on the following night. The incident had no impact on nuclear safety.

title: Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant


text:
Andreas P. Pittler

Andreas P. Pittler (born 21 November 1964 in Vienna) is an Austrian writer.

After his school years Pittler studied history and political science in Vienna and received an M.A. and a Ph.D. degree. After some years working as a historian he became a journalist. Today he works as a civil servant in the Parliament of Austria.

Since 1985 he has published 28 books, mostly nonfiction. These include biographies on Bruno Kreisky, Monty Python, Rowan Atkinson and Samuel Beckett He has also published books on the history of Cyprus, Malta and the Czech Republic.

In 2000 his first novel "Der Sommer der großen Erwartungen" (The Summer of Great Expectations) appeared, a coming-of-age novel dealing with the problems of adolescence and first love. Later Pittler focused on crime novels and created the private investigator Henry Drake. Drake appears in the novels "Der Sündenbock" (The Scapegoat, 2000), "Tod im Schnee" (Death in the Snow, 2002), "Serbische Bohnen" (Serbian Beans, 2003) and "Das Dokument" (The Document, 2006).

In spring 2008 his sixth novel "Tacheles" (Plain talking) was published, where for the first time police-officer David Bronstein has to investigate. The story is set in Austria in 1934, and Bronstein, although considering himself as not religious, is constantly confronted with his Jewish background. In March 2009 Bronstein is again the main character in Pittler's seventh novel "Ezzes" (Good Advice). In March 2010 Bronstein reappeared in Pittler´s 8th novel "Chuzpe" (Impudence). In March 2011 the fourth Bronstein-novel "Tinnef" (Trumpery) was published, for which he was nominated for the "Friedrich Glauser-Prize" for crime novels. In March 2012 appeared the fifth Bronstein-novel "Zores" (Troubles), which will be published in an English translation in spring 2013.

Currently Pittler is working on the novel "Der göttliche Plan" (The Divine Plan).

Apart from his novels Pittler also wrote short stories, poems and essays. His works are translated into Slovenian, Serbocroatian, Ukrainian and English. Pittler is married and lives in Vienna.

title: Andreas P. Pittler


text:
Humanitas

Humanitas (from the Latin hūmānus, "human") is a Latin noun meaning human nature, civilization, and kindness. It has uses in the Enlightenment, which are discussed below.

Classical origins of term
The Latin word humanitas corresponded to the Greek concepts of (loving what makes us human) and  (education) which were amalgamated with a series of qualities that made up the traditional unwritten Roman code of conduct (mos maiorum). Cicero used humanitas in describing the formation of an ideal speaker (orator) who he believed should be educated to possess a collection of virtues of character suitable both for an active life of public service and a decent and fulfilling private life; these would include a fund of learning acquired from the study of bonae litterae ("good letters", i.e., classical literature, especially poetry), which would also be a source of continuing cultivation and pleasure in leisure and retirement, youth and old age, and good and bad fortune. The word occurs also in other Latin writers of the Classical period. For example, cultus atque humanitas ("culture and humanity"), meaning "civilization", appears in the opening sentences of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (1.1.3), where Caesar calls the tribe of the Belgae the bravest, because farthest away from Romanized Southern France (Provence). It also occurs five times in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, for centuries erroneously attributed to Cicero but which in fact predates him. However, the concept was most fully elaborated by Cicero, who uses the word 299 times, accounting for about half of the 463 occurrences in all the other Classical Latin writers together. See Renato Oniga, L'Idea Latina Di Humanitas in Tulliana (2009) II. On the distinctly Roman cast of Cicero's adaptation of the concept of humanitas from the Greek, Oniga cites a 1973 study by the German scholar Wolfgang Schadewaldt:"...l’essenza della humanitas romana sta propriamente nell’essere l’altra faccia di un insieme ordinato di valori molto precisi e severi, che facevano parte del codice di comportamento del cittadino romano fin dalle origini, e sono pressoché intraducibili in greco: la pietas (che è qualcosa di diverso dalla ), mores (che non coincidono esattamente con l’), e poi la dignitas, la gravitas, l’integritas, e così via. L’idea di humanitas riassumeva in sé tuttiquesti valori... ma nello stesso tempo li sfumava, li rendeva meno rigidi e più universali." "...the essence of Roman humanitas is that it constitutes one of the aspects of an orderly complex of very distinct and severe values that had been part of the code of conduct of a Roman citizen from the outset and are virtually untranslatable in Greek: pietas (which is different from ), mores (which do not coincide exactly with ), and dignitas, gravitas, integritas, and so on. The idea of humanitas subsumed all these values... simultaneously blurring their outlines, rendering them less rigid and more universal." See For further discussion of Schadewaldt's essay, see also

Insofar as humanitas corresponded to and, it was particularly applicable to guiding the proper exercise of power over others. Hence Cicero's advice to his brother that "if fate had given you authority over Africans or Spaniards or Gauls, wild and barbarous nations, you would still owe it to your humanitas to be concerned about their comforts, their needs, and their safety." Echoing Cicero over a century later, Pliny the Younger defined humanitas as the capacity to win the affections of lesser folk without impinging on greater.

Revival in Early Italian Renaissance
The concept was of great importance during the re-discovery of classical antiquity during the Renaissance by the Italian umanisti, beginning with the illustrious Italian poet Petrarch, who revived Cicero's injunction to cultivate the humanities, which were understood during the Renaissance as grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and moral philosophy.

In 1333, in Liège, Belgium, Petrarch found and copied out in his own hand a manuscript of Cicero's speech, Pro Archia, which contained a famous passage in defense of poetry and litterae (letters):

Petrarch liked this quotation and referred to it often, and where Cicero used the phrase "litterarum lumen", "the light of literature", Petrarch in the margin wrote lumen litterarum alongside and drew a sketch of a lamp or candle. The Liège manuscript is lost and so is Petrarch's copy, but Petrarch's copy "can be shown to be behind all but one of the later manuscripts" and preserves Petrarch's marginal annotations. Petrarch, in many respects a Medieval man, regretted that Cicero had not been a Christian and believed that he certainly would have been one had he not died before the birth of Jesus. To Petrarch and the Renaissance umanisti who immediately followed him, Cicero's humanitas was not seen as in conflict with Christianity or a Christian education. In this they followed the fifth century Church fathers such as Jerome and Augustine, who taught that Greek and Roman learning and literature were gifts of God and models of excellence, provided, of course, they were filtered and purified in order to serve Christianity.

Humanitas during the French Enlightenment
According to historian Peter Gay, the eighteenth-century French philosophes of the Enlightenment found Cicero's eclectic, Stoic-tinged paganism congenial: The ideal of humanitas was first brought to Rome by the philosophic circle around Scipio and further developed by Cicero. For Cicero, humanitas was a style of thought, not a formal doctrine. It asserted man's importance as a cultivated being, in control of his moral universe. The man who practiced humanitas was confident of his worth, courteous to others, decent in his social conduct, and active in his political role. He was a man, moreover, who faced life with courageous skepticism: he knows that the consolations of popular religion are for more credulous beings than himself, that life is uncertain, and that sturdy pessimism is superior to self-deceptive optimism. Man becomes man as he refines himself; he even becomes godlike: “Deus est mortali iuvare mortalem,” wrote Pliny, translating a Greek Stoic, “To help man is man's true God.” Finally, the man who practiced humanitas cultivated his aesthetic sensibilities as he listened to his reason: "Cum musis,” wrote Cicero, “id est, cum humanitate et doctrina habere commercium". Peter Gay's citation of the phrase, Cum musis, etc., refers to an anecdote in the Tusculan Disputations, in which Cicero recounts how during a visit to Syracuse, in Sicily, he had chanced to discover the tomb of Archimedes, at that time unknown to the inhabitants of the city, but which he, Cicero, recognized from its description in a line of poetry he had memorized; and he contrasted the enduring fame of Archimedes, the mathematician, to the obloquy of the notorious Sicilian tyrant Dionysius the Elder, buried nearby: “Who is there who has had anything at all to do with the Muses, that is, with humanity and learning, who would not prefer to be this mathematician rather than that tyrant? If we look into their manner of life and employment, the mind of the one was nourished by seeking out and pondering theories, accompanied by the delight in his cleverness, which is the sweetest sustenance of souls, that of the other in murder and wrongdoing, accompanied by fear both day and night” (TD 5.64–5). This anecdote is one of the sources for the humanist commonplace that poetry is a more lasting monument than stone. See The incident is recalled by Wordsworth: Call Archimedes from his buried tomb Upon the plain of vanished Syracuse, And feelingly the Sage shall make report How insecure, how baseless in itself, Is the Philosophy, whose sway depends On mere material instruments;—how weak Those arts, and high inventions, if unpropped By virtue.—He, sighing with pensive grief, Amid his calm abstractions, would admit That not the slender privilege is theirs To save themselves from blank forgetfulness!

— "The Parsonage" William Wordsworth The Excursion (Book Eighth, lines 220–230) Virtue, Cicero insisted, is nothing but nature perfected and developed to its highest point, and there is therefore a resemblance between man and God: "Est autem virtus nihil aliud quam in se perfecta et ad summum perducta natura; est igitur homini cum deo similitudio" ...

Cicero's humanitas... reappeared in the first century in Seneca's claim – made in the midst of a lament over Roman bestiality – that man is a sacred thing to man: “homo res sacra homini”; and reappeared once more in the eighteenth century in Kant's call for human autonomy and in Voltaire's stern injunction: “Remember your dignity as a man.” In the beginning of his Meditations, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius elaborated a veritable catalog of qualities which, all together, made up the virtues which Cicero had called humanitas and which the hoped they possessed in good measure: modesty, self-control, manliness, beneficence, practicality, generosity, rationality, tolerance, and obedience to the dictates of nature.

Revival in 18th- and 19th-century Germany
During the Aufklärung (the German version of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment), the term "Humanität" was used to designate the intellectual, physical, and moral formation of "a better human being" (or Humanism). It was used, for example, by theologian Johann Gottfried Herder in his Briefe zur Beförderung der Humanität (Letters for the Advancement of Humanity), 1792, and by Friedrich Schiller, among others."Herder's Humanität is a broad concept he defines variously as the gradual fulfillment of best human potential, the achievement of reason and fairness in all classes and in all affairs of men, and the joint product of the creative actions of legislators, poets, artists, philosophers, inventors, and educators through the ages."

Although Herder is considered the originator of ethnic nationalism, he was no chauvinist. He maintained that each person loves his own nation, family, language, and customs not because they are better than other peoples' but because they are his. Love for one's own individuality ought to lead to respect for that of others. For Herder, the image of God was imprinted in each human being, along with an internal impulse for self-improvement and growth. Historian William McNeil writes that Herder boldly proclaimed that:"each age and every people embody ideals and capacities peculiar to themselves, thus allowing a fuller and more complete expression of the multiform potentialities of humankind than could otherwise occur. Herder expressly denied that one people or civilization was better than another. They were just different, in the same way that the German language was different from the French."

Humanitas as benevolence
In Roman humanism, benevolence (benevolentia) was considered a feature of humanitas. This is particularly emphasized in the works of Cicero and Seneca. In this context, benevolence drives the idea of humaneness and is understood as a feeling either of love or tenderness that makes "someone willing to participate, at the level of feeling, in whatever is human." Such participation entails a willingness to engage both in human suffering and joy. This was echoed in the Kantian position on love, which cited a so-called rational benevolence driven by natural sympathetic joy and pity.

Others have also discussed benevolence in modern humanism. Max Scheler, for example, used it in his discourse on sympathy. In one of his works, he linked benevolence and the concept of "fellow-feeling," which allows self-love, self-centred choice, solipsism, and egoism to finally be wholly overcome. Scheler equated benevolence with humanitarianism, explaining that these concepts — along with fellow-feeling — embrace all men, "simply because they are men."

Humanitas as benevolence is also a cornerstone of the credo of Freemasonry and constituted one of the bases for its position that nationality and religion do not matter, only universal humanity. Some orders of Freemasonry are called "Humanitas".

title: Humanitas