Forum:Large Number of Article Proposals

Proposal regarding the Monitors of Halopedia, article recognition and article standards, amongst other things:

For some time now, I've been slightly irked by the standard of articles here on Halopedia, which allow us to fall behind a large number of the developed Wikia world, far higher than the number of articles and editors on our Wiki should merit. This may sound offensive to some users, however this isn't meant in an offensive way, but a way in order to spur us on to even greater heights, through work and new policies, ideas and the like, some of which I'll be proposing now. This won't just be one proposal included in the proposals I'll be making below. This will be numerous ones, with separate, specific voting areas for each. I urge you to read each one individually, and to vote upon each one by it's own merit; the proposals may be very different from one another, and just because you don't support one doesn't mean you won't support another. So, I'll launch into it, and I urge you to read each individual one.

Proposal one:
My first proposal regards the Monitors of Halopedia, the group in charge of dealing with our featured articles, and a group that seems to be largely inactive, a fault both to them and to us equally. This, in itself, is a travesty; raising articles to this standard should be the aim of us all, and this has been negated by the terrible points system, which seems to be replacing it and being detrimental to Halopedia. I, myself, have noted my disapproval of the point system, but that isn't what this proposal is about. This proposal regards a reformation of the Monitors of Halopedia, and one I shall elaborate upon in the ensuing paragraphs of this proposal, and one I ask you to read fully, even if you're not in total agreement with what I'm saying; it may appeal to you later on.

Taking a look at the Monitors of Halopedia page, it would seem that many of the Monitors have been appointed simply because they're administrators, something that's totally wrong. Yes, the administrators are supposed to organize the Wiki effectively, and yes, they are trusted members of the community, but Wikia have said that administrators are just 'normal users who're trusted to have just a few extra buttons' (or words to that effect) and that seems to have been forgotten. The amount of administrators who've been added to that page simply because they're administrators is ridiculous; it nullifies the amount of community involvement in the Monitors of Halopedia, reducing them so that they almost seem to be an organization of their own, something that is most definitely wrong. Administrators aren't necessarily the best people for that job.

And so, one of the first of three proposals I'm going to make regarding the Monitors of Halopedia is that elections are held, similar to Requests for Admin rights, to get new Monitors of Halopedia; the Monitors shouldn't be an organization of their own, electing their own members without community involvement; this is a community Wiki, and should be treated as such. And so, in a nutshell, this proposal entails that elections would be held to elect any new members of the Monitors of Halopedia, so that the community can register their opinions regarding the appointment of new members. That is proposal one in a nutshell; I urge you to vote, and then to read on. --Darth tom

For (3/5)

 * 1) As the proposer, yes. --Darth tom
 * 2) As the reader, yes. ---kougermasters 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) As a reader and member of the community, yes. Jeanelle
 * 4) Kick ass, I'll read it for sure. User:SPARTAN-105

Neutral (3/5)

 * 1) I don't mind the Monitors being elected. I've always been of the opinion that appointing someone merely for being an administrator is quite ridiculous; I myself have done hardly any article work since becoming an admin, and certainly not since the introduction of the new features. I just don't have the time to do both. 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) As a reader of this proposal, id say this would be a case worth looking to, however the proposal if further investigated would most likely be debated by the monitors of halopedia and of course the administrator. I believe that if an election were to take place however, it would show a greater sense of democracy on halopedia, thus getting more attention by a wider public view on halopedia. But as a whole, im on either side of the shield repulsors here. 2401-Penitent-Tangent 18:52, 4 September 2008
 * 3) As per your comments towards Administrators, I don't know if you fully know the responsibility behind "normal users with a few extra buttons." First of all, Admins got to where they are for making excellent edits and improvements towards the articles in Halopedia. Second, the reason why Active Administrators might not edit as much as the normal Halopedians is because a) Because they have those "buttons," they are in charge of making sure Halopedia is structured safely and neatly; it is their responsibility to block/ban vandals; their responsibility to delete unnecessary blogs, quizzes, and polls; it is their responsibility to delete useless articles and images; and it is their responsibility to prevent Halopedia from turning into a spewing vat of chaos, mayhem, and pandemonium. b) It comparing number of edits, this is 7-10 users versus >10,000 users. But, in supporting your ideas of your proposals, I do not know if we should use your exact idea, but use something like that which could be tied into the Standards Council of Halopedia.  Lovemuffin  =[[Image:Dancing_master_chief.gif|30px]]= ~Wikipage~~Talk~~Edit Count~~Contributions~ 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Against (3/5)

 * 1) The MoH has been inactive largely in part due to technical difficulties that occured from the new systems going into place. A proposal was given to the admin team last month and it is my intention to put it into effect within the next two weeks to revive the MoH utilizing the existing system but overcoming the present technical difficulties.  The system was intended to ensure that Halopedia was not overrun by a list of poor FA choices as happened a few times before the MoH's existance - as proven by the half dozen of FA's that were stripped.  As for electing new members, we can barely get people elected for usergroup leadership posts..... enough said.  BTW: I'm pretty sure the MoH you'll have to get admin, not community, approval on as the MoH was shoved through without community consultation or support and I don't think the mindset behind it has changed. --forgottenlord 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I just don't see a need to and also per forgottenlord. - Mr. Halonerd  [[Image:Ajax-loader.gif|20px]]  My Talk  | My FanFic 22:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree that MoH members shouldn't be picked just because they're an admin, but I don't think a public election is the right answer. I think the MoH members should be picked by the MoH/Admins, otherwise is just another set of "lesser admins". Also, as you say, Admins are trusted members of the community, most of them have been at Halopedia for a long time, and know who's a good choice for the place. People only have to be here one month to vote, and as I've seen on RfAs, most of these newcomers don't know what they're going on about. Banana Cat [[Image:1213452567 Cat-facts.jpg|20px]] Message MeEditsStats 15:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal two
After the first proposal regarding the Monitors of Halopedia, my second one is linked in very heavily with that too; it regards the Monitors and the members of the board who judge upon our articles. However, before launching into this proposal, I'll just break off for a moment in order to explain what I hope to achieve with these proposals, what I hope to achieve if they're successful. Well, I hope to achieve a higher standard of articles here, by allowing the Monitors to be more active, and us to work towards that, but I also aim to improve the community involvement regarding articles, thus improving the articles and community aspects in a double move. This I believe to be very important, and would raise the bar here by a significant amount; it's time we gained a lot of respect in the Wikia world.

And so, what's proposal two, what is this other one that seeks to achieve the aims I've mentioned above? Just what would it entail, and what would it do? Well, my previous proposal would tackle any new members of the Monitors of Halopedia, but what about the old ones? What about the ones in office right now, the ones who're serving their time right now, the ones who haven't been keeping the activity up? What would be my proposal to deal with them? Well, this proposal would seek to deal with the current ones and sweep clear those who aren't adequate and of the necessary standard for what I feel the job needs, and this would allow you to vote on those who you feel don't meet the needs, allowing community involvement so that all Monitors have gone through community review.

So, in a nutshell, what this proposal would do, would be that it means all members of the Monitors go under a review, initiating a clean-up where voting would begin upon the various members, votes on whether they should retain their status or not. We have a large number of inactive monitors, such as ED and Guesty-Persony-Thingy, to name but two, and a clean-up is needed in order to improve the standard of Monitors. So, in short, this proposal is to initiate a clean up, in which votes on who should retain the rank of a Monitor, and who shouldn't. --Darth tom

For (3/4)

 * 1) As the proposer, yes. --Darth tom
 * 2) Yes!! --kougermasters 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes sir! Jeanelle

Neutral(1/4)

 * 1) Im afraid Neutralism is also in this for me as well as proposal one, as the proposal has a point, however Halonerd147 does have a definitive point as well, demonstrating a case where the monitors do not always have to be in a state of sufficient cleanups, but instead including a voting system requiring minimum votes to the MoH. However, even if the monitors do have sufficient understandings to the article qualities within halopedia, there at least should be a system where there should be an inactive limit, so that monitors dont stay monitors if incontributors to the vast amount of articles on halopedia, thus ending my neutral argument on this proposal. Feel free to send me a message, ill be glad to clear up my neutral ideas of yer proposals Darth tom --2401-Penitent-Tangent 19:02, 4 September 2008

Against(1/4)

 * 1) The MoH doesn't require an overall majority but a minimum votes in support for an article to be classified as an FA. As such, the MoH can afford to have members who are inactive to remain on the MoH.  The people that have been put on the MoH team were considered to be members who had a sufficient understanding of article quality to be able to judge Featured Articles.  Unless they demonstrate poor understanding of article quality after the fact, they are still worthy of being members of the MoH --forgottenlord 21:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) again, i don't see a need to, and very well written Darth tom. Mr. Halonerd  [[Image:Ajax-loader.gif|20px]]  My Talk  | My FanFic 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Is this vote a public vote? Banana  Message MeEditsStats 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a public vote, whether it'll mean anything is another story. See my earlier comment. --forgottenlord 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Wow, I read that wrong.  I believe it'll be as public as the first proposal. --forgottenlord 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How did you read it wrong? The vote I was refering to was the one proposed. Banana Cat [[Image:1213452567 Cat-facts.jpg|20px]] Message MeEditsStats 21:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal three
My final proposal regarding the Monitors of Halopedia regards the number of Monitors; so far, I've aimed to tackle the fact that the community has no say on who's appointed and who isn't - something that's absolutely terrible considering that this is supposed to be a community wiki - and a proposal to initiate a clean-up, which would enable the Monitors to have a better, more efficient and active team, improving the standard of voting and articles on Halopedia. Even if none of these proposals do pass, something I hope doesn't happen, I at least hope that these proposals will have brought the Monitors to light once more, and breathed life into them. However, my work right now is in making sure these policies do pass, and so I'll introduce my second proposal.

My second proposal regards the number of Monitors, so that we don't end up with a massive amount, which would be detrimental to voting, slowing up the rate at which article's could be reviewed, in turning leading for Monitors to rush and not do their best job, and meaning more articles of a lower quality pass. This is something that none of us - Monitors or otherwise - wish to see here on Halopedia; I'm sure that the large majority have only the interests of Halopedia itself at heart, and so should we all. So, in order to combat such a problem, proposal three would hopefully deal with the aforementioned problems, meaning we have a higher standard of articles, a more respected and enjoyable Wiki, and an efficient, hard working team of Monitors.

So, in a nutshell, this proposal would mean that a maximum of eight Monitors would only be in office at any one time, allowing the aforementioned problems to be purely hypothetical, and something that wouldn't happen. This also ties in with proposal two, as it means that not every single administrator can be a Monitor, meaning we get a more selective and, subsequently, higher standard of Monitors - improving our articles which, I reiterate, is something we all want. And so, I hope you'll please vote upon this proposal, as you have the others, before moving on once more. --Darth tom

For (3/6)

 * 1) As the proposer, yes. --Darth tom
 * 2) I agree! The MoH are very inactive and just not what we need as a community. --kougermasters 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I feel that this is well overdue SpartanSeries2 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral (2/6)

 * 1) I would prefer to see something like at least a 50/50 split amongst members. Assuming that we have six active admins (which we do right now) that would all serve as Monitors, we should also have at least six elected community members. 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I again refer to my neutral statement on Proposal 2, however, there could be at least a simple democratic say on the matter so the admins can then further debate on whats best for the admins, and the entire community itself. 50/50 splits arent always the best solution sometimes even a 48/52 split could cause problems in the future. --2401-Penitent-Tangent 19:06, 4 September 2008

Against(2/6)

 * 1) Again, the MoH isn't based upon a majority vote, it's based upon "getting the article to 4 votes". Once it has 4 votes, it is immediately and FA.  As such, this proposal is useless. --forgottenlord 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) As per my other votes and Forgottenlord. Mr. Halonerd  [[Image:Ajax-loader.gif|20px]]  My Talk  | My FanFic 23:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal four
So, after the first three proposals, of a total five, my fifth proposal moves away from the subject of the Monitors and, instead, onto the articles themselves, featured articles, as they're called. From the name, it's obvious as to why they're actually called featured articles - the site showcases, or features, them as the highest quality of articles available, and so they should be. To ensure a higher standard of articles, we need a higher standard of featured articles; it's irrelevant how much effort you put into something, if it still turns out to be of poor quality, then it can't be showcased as an article of such a high degree. And so, proposal four shall aim to combat this, in the ways I shall explain below.

My proposal would raise the bar in featured articles, and stop friction and argument between the Monitors as to what a featured article actually is, and what the name itself entails. What exactly is a featured article? How are we to know, so as to be able to raise articles to the said standard? How are the Monitors to know, so that they all have a clear idea and don't demand things that are completely the opposite of what others have said? This is a key flaw in the already breaking make-up of the Monitors, and I say again that this, and the others, aims to set out to combat this. And so, a set of standards needs to be in place, both for the Monitors and general users, for the good of the Wiki.

In a nutshell, it's these standards that I'm proposing be made the official standards for featured articles, which would enable us all, including the Monitors themselves, to have a clear idea of what an article needs to become featured, and so the Monitors, and us users, don't conflict over various details. Leaving it up to the Monitor's own judgement is a very precarious and not altogether well planned idea, and one that needs to be challenged, as this proposal is doing here. --Darth tom

For (3/5)

 * 1) As the proposer, yes. --Darth tom
 * 2) The Spiker has been the featured article for too long, Halopedia staff is lax. --kougermasters 22:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with you on this one, we should all have a vote in whats going to be a featured article. Mr. Halonerd  [[Image:Ajax-loader.gif|20px]]  My Talk  | My FanFic 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree here as well Jeanelle

Neutral(1/5)

 * Ah, quite a good point indeed reclaimer Darth tom, iam more on the for side for this, however its only in theoretical bounds currently I presume, this has only been put up by you a few days before my statements, and i doubt the admins could possibly agree this quickly on the matter. I believe standards should be put up, but until this is given considerable thought by the admins and possibly the MoH, I cant really oppose nor 100% agree on this, however 87.46% of my approval is quite good to me, when i finish reading the proposal, ill most likely be on the For side. --2401-Penitent-Tangent 19:13, 4 September 2008

Against(1/5)

 * 1) This is less of an opposition to the proposal - I like it in theory. Problem is that I think it needs considerably more discussion rather than going straight to vote. --forgottenlord 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Points correspond with those in your list.
 * 2: NPOV = Neutral point of view, not non
 * 7: I'd prefer zero. Also, a page like Battle of Installation 05 would find 3 to be a pitiful number but First Battle of High Charity I'd consider should not see more than one (mind you, I wouldn't like ANY of them to have any red links, but still).
 * 8: I'd prefer that things like the biography be specified in the Manual of Style, through the SCoH
 * 9: Duplicate of 3
 * 12: Again, Manual of Style
 * 15: Pretty freaking hard to determine. I've tended to ballpark by whether hitting Page Down twice gets me anywhere, but that's a pretty variable measurement.  A much easier to much less accurate is using Byte count for the page so, say, 10000 bytes.

--forgottenlord 23:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal five
And so, I come onto the topic of my fifth and final proposal, and one of a long list of what seems many, with the length of this overall forum page. By now, your attention will be beginning to waver, if it hasn't done so already, however I urge you to give this just as much detail as if it were the first, and this is a relatively fresh idea, with this proposal. Moving even further away from the topics of the Monitors and featured articles, this does pertain to articles, but it's something different from what has been discussed before. This will, hopefully, still improve the standard of the Wiki in such a large way, and so please give it your full attention, as it will, hopefully, merit.

This proposal moves into uncharted ground for Halopedia, one that I don't believe had been proposed before. If it has, then it hasn't been enacted before and, either way, it's poor that it hasn't, for a Wiki of this size. Not every article has enough detail about the subject so as to be able to reach the level of featured. Not every article is fantastic enough to merit being a featured article, but is far better than the average article here. It's pretty dispiriting if you work for months upon an article and then have it turned down to fall to the same standard as an average article, and this would be detrimental, as it would lessen the resolve of people to work. And so, many of you will have guessed by now where I'm angling with this new proposal, and so I shall, with no further ado, propose it.

The introduction of good articles would solve the above mentioned problems, allowing such resolve not to be lessened, and articles to have something lesser to reach to. The introduction of good articles that anyone in the community could vote upon would allow us, the community, to have an input on articles and their standards, and so allow a better community air, a better standard of articles and a way of seeing just who would be a good candidate for the position of a Monitor. --Darth tom

For (2/0)

 * 1) As the proposer, yes. --Darth tom
 * 2) All of these ideas work well. --kougermasters 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral(1/0)
I don't really know what to choose. Mr. Halonerd   My Talk  | My FanFic 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Against(0/0)

 * 1) At this time, no. We're busy trying to revive the MoH and the SCoH is currently in RfU status - the only two groups that are qualified to build an explanation for "What is a 'Good Article'".  Once they get up and running, I'll be much more amiable to this proposal --forgottenlord 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ending
And so, thank you for reading this far into the proposals, and thank you, if you have, for voting upon these, proposals which I hope will benefit you, me, and Halopedia itself. Any queries can either be placed in the relevant sections for each proposals, but ones regarding myself can be left on my talk page. Thanks once again. --Darth tom