Halopedia talk:Featured/Article


 * hey there, not sure if there is a place I can talk to all of you about this (if so let me know) but while you are revamping FA's would it be possible to adopt the new FA system we are promoting. I created a page that describes the process and copied it here- Featured article process. Wowwiki Mass Effect, Tabula Rasa, and Call of Duty are all using it and we are hoping to get all gaming wikis to use this. The benefits are being able to send this content out to partners (i.e Gamespot, Curse) via an api feed. angies (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So instead of the having the breif section about the FA on the front page we put that onto a seperate page? This seems all very overly nessacary....--Ajax 013 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you would write a snippet for each featured article on a separate page and then just reference the template (i.e   ) on the main page to pull in the for the teaser text (so you can switch them out or rotate them easier). This will keep a record so you don't have to re-write it if you want to feature it again in the future.


 * Second benefit is so that other site will be able to pull the featured articles into a feed using our api. Gamespot wants a feed of Halo's Featured Articles (with teaser snippets and pictures)but they can't get one right now. This is prob the major reason for having the separate pages for each article angies (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wish to agree with Angie here - I work with Wikia on their gaming wikis, and came to them from WoWWiki. Having featured article snippets can really help cut down on the work of featuring, and (if you wish) allow you to feature articles more frequently. Kirkburn (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is HORRIBLE
Featured articles are a shell of what it used to be.

We used to get new ones EVERY WEEK, and now we have had the same one for almost OVER A YEAR.

This is a travesty and genocide to the once good name of halopedia--76.173.255.40 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need a new one. --Heroicpotatoe 17:55, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * You want a new Featured Article? Then I suggest you go through all of our articles and work on one.

It has been over two years now. I like ODSTs and all, but seriously? - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"   03:54, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want a new featured article I guess we will have to do what CT said. How about the Wraith? Sith-venator Wavingstrider ODST Crest.png ( Commlink ) 22:37, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is utterly ridiculous. The ODSTs have been the featured article for far too damn long. Seriously, it's time for a new featured article. Otherwise, you guys might as well do away with this feature altogether. There is no point in keeping around a feature nobody's ever going to use again.Fire Eater 00:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at my comment above....frakkin' lazy idiots.

Preston Jeremiah Cole
An excellent article, excellently written with solid sourcing and notes per the new sourcing guidelines. Evolutions has provided a lot of new information for him and I think the article warrants some time as a featured article. -  S.B.44    [Talk] |undefined 01:12, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support (Won)

 * 1) - per nomination -   S.B.44    [Talk] |undefined 01:12, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) - I was just thinking this the other day. It's very well written, very detailed and well sourced. It's featured article material in my book. - Black Mesa.jpg  Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  01:16, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) - Hell yeah! The article is very well witten, and we have not had a new fetured article in almost 2 years I think. --"We are not backing down now. Besides, I dont like losing, remember?" User: Yugiohtipman34 01:19, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) - And it's done.
 * sweet. -  S.B.44    [Talk] |undefined 01:40, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Being a picky bastard right now; sources should be well cited; that includes page numbers and what chapters they were mentioned/appeared in and formatted properly. Some of the content looks legit but potentially well made-up. Citations would clear things up. And yes, I'm just voicing my opinion on how to further improve the article and am not going to do it right now.外国 人 (7alk ) 01:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC)