Halopedia talk:Monitors of Halopedia

Aww
I can't be a Monitor with a non-monitor avatar! I'm going to have to ask if I may be allowed to photoshop my own monitor avatar -- ED ( talk )(gaming) 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SPLARK! You can take mine, the H3 gray one. I'm snatching my favorite H3 pic of all time for my own avatar. The rest of the DEGMR cabal can just sputter. ;-) Cheers, Relen tless Recu sant 'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/halofanon/images/a/ac/Fleet_Admiral.jpg TALK • SPEAK 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well I got the one covered in Flood goo! :P --  Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|25px]] TalkundefinedCSV 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ED, you've been promoted to Quantum Assymetry Transmaterial Photonic Ring of Light to RelentlessRecusant v1.0 Avatar (c. November-December 2006). Manticore shall remain at Pool of Flood Pus until I decide otherwise. Cheers, Relen tless Recu sant 'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/halofanon/images/a/ac/Fleet_Admiral.jpg TALK • SPEAK 04:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Flood pus - LOL! Well if we're just going to pick our own, why don't I use my gamertag? It'd be nice to keep with the monitor theme, but there aren't enough images to use :( --  Manticore  TalkundefinedCSV 14:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Idea: Change in approach for MoH
Ok, let's face it: we suck at finding articles to nominate. I'm already asking people what they think might make a good nominee and I've only been here a week. However, we can still have the concept of a quality control board while at the same time enabling ourselves to get up to seeing several nominations a week. How? Put the onus of finding articles to nominate on the general public. Approving or rejecting the articles will still fall to the MoH.

Changes that would be made:
 * 1) Anyone can nominate articles
 * 2) We will approve or reject nominations in a timely fashion.  It's been a month for a lot of the articles and most of them don't have more than 2 votes.  I'd say 2 weeks for an up or down vote before its fate has been sealed.  After all, once it's been decided, the nomineer can suggest it nominate it again once changes have been made
 * 3) One thing I've noticed is that if you look at the list, it just says the location of the nomination page.  However, what we need is a status note on it (nominated, approved, rejected).  Then you can see at first glance what its status is.

Arguments for the change:
 * 1) Increases number of nominations we've made.  Aside from RR's first spree, there have been about 3 nominations over the course of a month.
 * 2) Increase activity on the MoH.
 * 3) Increase awareness of the MoH.  Seriously, I polled on IRC and there were two people who said "I think I've heard of it", though neither had a clue what we were about
 * 4) Increase awareness of the "Things to do" lists.  This way, the community may take them into consideration when they're doing the edits.
 * 5) Gives the community more awareness of what makes an article FA worthy.  If they think they have an idea about it, then they can ask us and we can say what it is and isn't missing so they can change appropriately.

Thoughts?

--Forgottenlord 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good overall, although I hope to have a new FA a week...this means that people need to work really hard every week, or the FA sucks, depending on how enthusiastic peeps are for an FA. I worked from Thursday until Saturday to improve UNSC Marine Corps along with Forgottenlord's help...we could quite honestly pull off some good stuff if we work hard for a weekly FA. ;-) Cheers, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 15:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is, the article with the most support votes gets FA each week, not whether it hits threshold or not. ^^ Cheers, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, it really should still be about attaining quarom. If an article can't attain quarom because of a lack of activity on the part of H:Monitors, we need to address that problem in a different manner - possibly expanding our ranks or cycling the monitors so the participants are there because their devotion is to making things FA worthy.  If the problem is because all the nominations just aren't FA worthy, then we shouldn't be putting up a new FA article.  If it ends up that we are unable to get one going out each week, then we shouldn't be aiming to get one out each week.  The last community I was in, its wiki was running on a 2 month cycle for FAs - and its community base was bigger than ours.  We are not Wookieepedia - they're far more popular and have far more well done articles....because they're far more popular and they have more source material.  We can't set our expectations on timeline at that level --Forgottenlord 18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. Halopedia has a lot of programs that need attention (HOTM, H:FAC, H:FQ etc) and it would be difficult to keep up with all of them without a much larger community. -- ED ( talk )(gaming)

Featured Image/Quote
Will the Monitors take care of these as well? it would make sense, but its a lot of extra work I think works better with more community support. -- ED ( talk )(gaming) 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy
According to Halopedia Official Policy[]. Since the Monitors aren't open to everyone they should henceforth be removed. I'm gonna give you guys awhile to say your case before I put up a Request for Usergroup removal. I will put this up to the community, not the Admins (btw)-- <tt>Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * it shouldnt have usergroup status if it wants to remain alive..... [[Image:1_I_am_saving_up_for_this_-1.jpg|20px]] <font color=Blue>Guitarplayer001 <font color=Black>Contact Me<font color=Green>See where I have rocked out! 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

6 monitors?
Shouldnt there be 7?--User:JohnSpartan117 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For Deletion

 * 1) As per deletion tag.-- <tt>Canis Lupus</tt> [[Image:Wolf paw.jpg|30px]] - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete per JWR--AJ 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete per JWR.--Jargner 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Wow teh admins not following teh policy...teh rulez don't lie, delete it--ChurchReborn 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) why not Delete per JWR if it's not open to the community then how is it suppose to help the community <font color="Red">FistofthEmperor (<font color="Gold">For the Emperor )(<font color="Green">For the Inquisition )
 * 6) JWR has the reason. <font color="Black">Clavix2 [[Image:Halo2emblemClavix.jpg|30px]] <font color="Red">SPAM COME HERE <font color="Black"> NEVER DO THIS 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Article length
Alright, there's this message I've seen on a few pages now: "WARNING: This page is XX kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections."

With a couple of recent debates on issues of article length and Relentless was holding Battle of Installation 05 as the example of a correct size and level of detail on a battle article. The problem I have with this is that the Battle of Installation 05's section on the First Battle of High Charity is AS LONG as the actual article itself (which is also a Featured Article). I remember we've had similar debates about pointless information on pages like Flood and the Marines. In my experience with previous wikis - particularly wikis that aim for encyclopedic quality - we reduce the amount of bulk on the main page with a large number of sub-pages with BRIEF summaries on the main page. As such, there shouldn't be such an extensive amount of information on Battle of Installation 05 about the First Battle of High Charity. For example, talking about his diversion to get the marines or that they fought in the Hanging Gardens isn't needed on the Main page - put those details on the sub-page.

I think we should start considering an article being too long and too detailed on things as a strike against an article for FA status - if for no other reason that it's stated by the wiki-software that it can be a problem. --forgottenlord 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

New Featured Article Process
Hey guys, Not sure if you saw my posting on the FA Talk Page. Adopting this new FA template system is pretty important for getting Halo's best content featured on Gamespot. Here is a screenshot of how Gamespot will be pulling in the FA feed. The plan is for Gamespot to launch this tomorrow! If you guys don't write "snippets" the feed will just pull the first 200 characters which for some articles doesn't read well at all. Please let me know if this is something you guys can work on today! angies (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping Featured Articles Fresh
Hey guys, Any chance you could add 1-2 new FA's each week to the list so there is always new content being featured? 68.124.23.161 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of System Order
Seeing that the Featured Articles along with the current members of MoH being inactive in doing their duty, I am proposing a shift of power. Normal procedures are to follow like the old traditions.

I am suggesting that the group would just be composed of 7 members. Two Admins are to be in it and the other 5 would be based of votes of the community. This way, the system would flow much easier and if such problem occurs again, another shift of power should be implemented. I know this may be so much of a hassle but solving it now would prevent any future conflicts. H-107 Subtle Tank 19:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, see, the code doesn't work anymore. The code that we use on the page, reminiscent of the forum, has failed since the skin revamp. Even if we elect this new group, they couldn't do anything. I think we've been waiting for Wikia to fix it. --<font color="#4D56B1">Dragon<font color="#F28500">c laws (<font color="#4D56B1">talk ) 18:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying the the new features and new skin is preventing those changes? I really missed the old Featured Quotes and Featured Articles... I hope Wikia fixed this... (Out of the topic: So, if HaloFanon were to undergone similar changes, would this affect the entire system of HaloFanon?) Overseer of Halopedia 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At least the forum would be affected. I believe, however, that Wikia will work out the kinks here before implementing it elsewhere. --<font color="#4D56B1">Dragon<font color="#F28500">c laws (<font color="#4D56B1">talk ) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that Wikia is planning to implement a new skin in the near-future, are they going to fix the code for this usergroup? I really miss this group!! (I sound like a maniac now...) - <font color="#0000FF">H107<font color="#0090FF">SubtleTank 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Updates
I am getting usergroup updates for the Oracle. If anything interesting is going on in the MoH feel free to message me or post here. -- Andrew-996  "Radio Frequency 9.96""Confirmed Kills" 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to join
I, Spirit of Fire, make this formal request in order to join the Monitors of Halopedia, to help in the improvement and maintainance of Featured Articles. Please let me know if any requirements are needed, thank you. 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article?
I propose we remove this as I featured article. It may be good. But Featured articles are supposed to be articles that say, "Hey, this is what happens when all the great minds on this Wiki come together to make something great!" We wouldn't want to give a newcomer a bad first impression that this is the best we got. Vegerot ( talk )  10:46, 14 April 2011 (EDT)!!!!!!!