Difference between revisions of "Team Fortress Wiki talk:Featured articles"
m (→Possible overhaul) |
Focusknock (talk | contribs) (→Possible overhaul) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I therefore propose an overhaul of the current system with the possible implementation of the following: | I therefore propose an overhaul of the current system with the possible implementation of the following: | ||
| − | *Only open up featured article candidacy at the end of a month, with a possible grace period, where people may make submissions and vote on the page candidates. Less pages will appear in limbo waiting for a vote, and it sets a regime for when the featured article will change. | + | *Only open up featured article candidacy '''at the end of a month''', with a possible grace period, where people may make submissions and vote on the page candidates. Less pages will appear in limbo waiting for a vote, and it sets a regime for when the featured article will change. |
| − | *The winning page with the most votes should be featured for a month only, until the next voting period begins. | + | *The winning page with the most votes should be featured '''for a month only''', until the next voting period begins. |
| − | *Put all previous candidate discussions in an archive, so as not to clutter up the page or imply the discussion is still ongoing. | + | *Put all previous candidate discussions '''in an archive''', so as not to clutter up the page or imply the discussion is still ongoing. |
| − | *Have the featured article template on the ''main page'' of candidates. This is a more observable space and will encourage editors to vote. | + | *Have the featured article template on the '''main page''' of the candidates. This is a more observable space and will encourage editors to vote. |
| − | *Rework the entry requirements. If policy decisions are a key requirement, it should be listed as such. If all pages have an equal chance of being featured, then it should be specified as such. Currently the requirements are vague on this point. | + | *'''Rework''' the entry requirements. If policy decisions are a key requirement, it should be listed as such. If all pages have an equal chance of being featured, then it should be specified as such. Currently the requirements are vague on this point. |
I feel these are all simple suggestions that require little expenditure from moderators or administrators to upkeep, whilst bringing quality and organisation to the project. --<span style="color:purple">'''''Focusknock'''''</span> 10:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | I feel these are all simple suggestions that require little expenditure from moderators or administrators to upkeep, whilst bringing quality and organisation to the project. --<span style="color:purple">'''''Focusknock'''''</span> 10:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:{{c|support}} Makes sense to me. I do not know if it is currently the case (it may be), but it might be a good idea if one of the bots added the feature article to the Main page automatically, rather than requiring a staff member to "promote" it manually. The bot would simply select the article with the most votes, which would help to automate the system and ensure that, even if only six people out of the entire Wiki voted within the nominated period, the candidate with the most support would be automatically selected. I do not know how feasible this is, but I thought that I would submit it for consideration. [[User:Esquilax|Esquilax]] 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | :{{c|support}} Makes sense to me. I do not know if it is currently the case (it may be), but it might be a good idea if one of the bots added the feature article to the Main page automatically, rather than requiring a staff member to "promote" it manually. The bot would simply select the article with the most votes, which would help to automate the system and ensure that, even if only six people out of the entire Wiki voted within the nominated period, the candidate with the most support would be automatically selected. I do not know how feasible this is, but I thought that I would submit it for consideration. [[User:Esquilax|Esquilax]] 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:{{c|support}} Not a bad idea at all. [[User:Pierow|Pierow]] 07:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | :{{c|support}} Not a bad idea at all. [[User:Pierow|Pierow]] 07:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: I believe the following things need further clarification: | ||
| + | *The 'grace period', in which editors are able to vote on candidates. Essentially this needs to open up before a featured article is made, and should be sufficiently long enough so that enough votes are collected. At the minute, I'm considering '''a week''' to be ample enough time. | ||
| + | *The backlog of featured articles from the unofficial TF Wiki '''needs cleaning'''. I'm sorry, but the current pages differ greatly from what they once were, and do not help in showing viewers that this wiki is completely segregated from the unofficial one. | ||
| + | *Expanding on Esquilax's point, an automated featuring process would be beneficial. However, there may be certain issues regarding whether the bot can actually tell the difference between votes for and against, and whether general comments would be taken into account. There's also the issue of whether the staff are willing to update the featured article on their own. | ||
| + | Please bear in mind these are only ''suggestions'' of my own. If you feel you have a better idea or believe something I have stated is in question, put forward your opinion.--<span style="color:purple">'''''Focusknock'''''</span> 10:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:41, 21 March 2011
Possible overhaul
As recently highlighted on the discussion page, the featured article project needs help. Currently anyone who feels a page is eligible can simply make a tiny submission under 'it's awesome' or to that extent, without placing the required template on the article's talk page. Additionally, voting on these candidates is sparse and no general discussion is made. In fact the discussion appears to stray from the required 'is it in good form/layout' to 'do we really want people to see this on the front page?', a form of policy which is not even considered in the guidelines.
I therefore propose an overhaul of the current system with the possible implementation of the following:
- Only open up featured article candidacy at the end of a month, with a possible grace period, where people may make submissions and vote on the page candidates. Less pages will appear in limbo waiting for a vote, and it sets a regime for when the featured article will change.
- The winning page with the most votes should be featured for a month only, until the next voting period begins.
- Put all previous candidate discussions in an archive, so as not to clutter up the page or imply the discussion is still ongoing.
- Have the featured article template on the main page of the candidates. This is a more observable space and will encourage editors to vote.
- Rework the entry requirements. If policy decisions are a key requirement, it should be listed as such. If all pages have an equal chance of being featured, then it should be specified as such. Currently the requirements are vague on this point.
I feel these are all simple suggestions that require little expenditure from moderators or administrators to upkeep, whilst bringing quality and organisation to the project. --Focusknock 10:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Me likey. Shock394 22:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Makes sense to me. I do not know if it is currently the case (it may be), but it might be a good idea if one of the bots added the feature article to the Main page automatically, rather than requiring a staff member to "promote" it manually. The bot would simply select the article with the most votes, which would help to automate the system and ensure that, even if only six people out of the entire Wiki voted within the nominated period, the candidate with the most support would be automatically selected. I do not know how feasible this is, but I thought that I would submit it for consideration. Esquilax 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)- Support Not a bad idea at all. Pierow 07:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the following things need further clarification:
- The 'grace period', in which editors are able to vote on candidates. Essentially this needs to open up before a featured article is made, and should be sufficiently long enough so that enough votes are collected. At the minute, I'm considering a week to be ample enough time.
- The backlog of featured articles from the unofficial TF Wiki needs cleaning. I'm sorry, but the current pages differ greatly from what they once were, and do not help in showing viewers that this wiki is completely segregated from the unofficial one.
- Expanding on Esquilax's point, an automated featuring process would be beneficial. However, there may be certain issues regarding whether the bot can actually tell the difference between votes for and against, and whether general comments would be taken into account. There's also the issue of whether the staff are willing to update the featured article on their own.
Please bear in mind these are only suggestions of my own. If you feel you have a better idea or believe something I have stated is in question, put forward your opinion.--Focusknock 10:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
