Halopedia talk:Featured/Article: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:08, June 3, 2019

To nominate an article go to the nomination page.

Randomisation?[edit]

Perhaps randomise the past featured articles so that we can have some variety in the Main Page? — subtank 07:56, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure how we could do that but I'll look into it when I get time. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 14:28, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

Change?[edit]

Should we change the featured article now. There has been an article nominated.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

Addition to nomination requirements[edit]

I feel there should be a time limit on how long an article nomination should last (one week, two weeks, etc.?). It would certainly move things along a lot faster. Any thoughts on this?--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:54, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

Sure, but only as long as someone on the staff makes sure it is known to every user on the wiki. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 02:14, 21 October 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

The limit used to be a month, but judging from the page history, one-two weeks appears to be the amount of time it takes for a nomination to be featured, though partially because those get nominated at the end of the month. As articles are featured based on quality, I see no problem with having more than one featured article each month, as it would mean more articles are at their fullest potential. Plus, we don't have that many featured articles anyway. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 03:17, 21 October 2013 (EDT)

So, along the lines of "A nomination will only be open for two weeks. If a consensus has not been reached, the nomination will be closed. Following this closure, the nominated article can only be submitted after four weeks after the date of the previous nomination"? I added that last sentence to avoid clogging, just in case. — subtank 14:25, 22 October 2013 (EDT)

Sounds reasonable, I'll add a bit to the requirements.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 2 November 2013 (EDT)

I'd like to propose a change to the time limit. Currently the pattern is that an article gets nominated, another one gets nominated sometime later, it gets a few votes the following day, and then it basically sits for two weeks waiting for the nomination period to end. The winning articles need time to be featured and not be immediately replaced, but the nominated articles that are quickly agreed upon should get better than gathering dust for weeks. So I suggest this change to the rules: after an article is featured, there's a one week waiting period before another article can be nominated. Then that nomination gets one week before approval, unless there is no consensus in which case it gets a second week before closing. This way, new FAs still get at least two weeks to shine, but the nomination moves faster. Does that sound better, or should we stick by the current rules? Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 18:26, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Sounds good. Realistically, we get about one nomination a month so this will just help speed up the process anyway. I'd also like to point out Wookieepedia's Featured article nomination process (see "How to vote", #6). Basically, the general idea is that an article can forego the nomination process if it has a certain amount of votes from normal users, admins, etc. That way, we can speed up the nomination process ever faster. Obviously, with less admins and active users here, the amount of admins/users/whatever to make a nomination end faster would be lower. Of course, we would want to avoid a problem Wookieepedia has: some nominations (such as the first one on the page, Revan) have been active for two years and are still up for debate. We would probably want to set a definite time limit. --NightHammer^(talk)^(contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

The average amounts of votes on nominations over the past year has been three to five, so if we were to have such a "skip the time limit by unanimity" policy, it should probably be at least seven votes. We shouldn't have the amount be too low so as to encourage users to vote. Currently the unwritten rule is "at least three votes, two by admins" for a pass. The Revan case appears to just a problem with the nomination policies letting it be kept perpetually open. Since we already have a closing policy and a re-nomination waiting period, I think we can avoid that. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

We do need more users voting, but I see your point. Your idea would be good to implement in any case, as we still won't have to rely on a high amount of votes to speed up the process. --NightHammer^(talk)^(contribs) 19:53, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

We could definitely use these changes to the procedures. Also, I think skipping the time limit altogether with a certain amount of unanimous votes would be a good idea to implement. As far as support percentage if there are oppose votes, around 75-80% would be a good number I think.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 12:17, 11 August 2015 (EDT)

Featured article nomination template[edit]

Should we create a template that tells users when an article is nominated? If an article is nominated to be a featured article, we place the template at the top of the "nominee's" page that alerts users that the article is being nominated and provides them a link to vote. A template like that would inform users when an article is nominated in case they don't look at the "Recent changes" page or regularly check the featured article page. - NightHammer (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2014 (EST)

I've made a rough draft of a possible template here on my Sandbox. Any thoughts? - NightHammer (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2014 (EST)

You like this. — subtank 11:36, 23 November 2014 (EST)

I like the idea of this. I say go for it.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:39, 23 November 2014 (EST)

Okay, cool. I will implement it now. - NightHammer (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2014 (EST)

Featured article nomination banner[edit]

Since we are sticky to only one FA nomination at a time, why don't we put what article is currently nominated in the banner so all users can see it throughout the wiki. That way, users don't have to end up looking directly at the nomination page or stumbling across the nominated article to learn about the nomination. If we ever go back to doing more than one nomination at a time again, then we can scrap this idea. Any thoughts? --NightHammer^(talk)^(contribs) 22:15, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Sounds solid.Sith Venator

(Dank Memes) 22:17, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-::: 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]]. [http://www.wowwiki.com/Main_Page/FA Wowwiki] [[w:c:masseffect:Mass_Effect_Wiki:Featured_content| 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. [[w:User:Angies|angies]]<staff /> ([[w:User talk:Angies|talk]]) 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+<center>''To nominate an article go to the [[/Nomination|nomination page]].''</center>
+<!-- Please do not remove the above -->
+==Randomisation?==
+Perhaps randomise the past featured articles so that we can have some variety in the Main Page? — <span style="font-size:120%; font-family:Palatino Linotype; font-style:italic;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 07:56, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
+:I'm not sure how we could do that but I'll look into it when I get time. -  [[User:Nicmavr|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod; font-weight:bold; font-family:Arial">Nìcmávr</span>]] <sup><span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">(</span>[[User Talk:Nicmavr|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod; font-weight:bold">Tálk</span>]]<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">)</span></sup> 14:28, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
-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....--[[User:Ajax 013|Ajax 013]] 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+== Change? ==
-::Yes, you would write a snippet for each featured article on a separate page and then just reference the template  (i.e  <nowiki>{{Template:FA/4}}</nowiki>) 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.
+Should we change the featured article now. [[Halopedia talk:Featured/Article/Nomination|There has been an article nominated]].--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}}
-:: 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 [[w:User:Angies|angies]]<staff /> ([[w:User talk:Angies|talk]]) 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+== Addition to nomination requirements  ==
-::: 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. [[w:User:Kirkburn|Kirkburn]] ([[w:User_talk:Kirkburn|talk]]) 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
+I feel there should be a time limit on how long an article nomination should last (one week, two weeks, etc.?). It would certainly move things along a lot faster. Any thoughts on this?--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 00:54, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
+:Sure, but only as long as someone on the staff makes sure it is known to every user on the wiki. --'''''[[User:Xamikaze330|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Halo;">Xamikaze330</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Xamikaze330|<font color="Blue">Transmission</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Xamikaze330|<font color="Green">Commencing</font>]]''''']</small> 02:14, 21 October 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330
-== Wow this is HORRIBLE ==
+The limit used to be a month, but judging from the page history, one-two weeks appears to be the amount of time it takes for a nomination to be featured, though partially because those get nominated at the end of the month. As articles are featured based on quality, I see no problem with having more than one featured article each month, as it would mean more articles are at their fullest potential. Plus, we don't have that many featured articles anyway. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 03:17, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
-Featured articles are a shell of what it used to be.
+:So, along the lines of "A nomination will only be open for two weeks. If a consensus has not been reached, the nomination will be closed. Following this closure, the nominated article can only be submitted after four weeks after the date of the previous nomination"? I added that last sentence to avoid clogging, ''just in case''. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  14:25, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
+:Sounds reasonable, I'll add a bit to the requirements.--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 12:55, 2 November 2013 (EDT)
-We used to get new ones EVERY WEEK, and now we have had the same one for almost OVER A YEAR.
+I'd like to propose a change to the time limit. Currently the pattern is that an article gets nominated, another one gets nominated sometime later, it gets a few votes the following day, and then it basically sits for two weeks waiting for the nomination period to end. The winning articles need time to be featured and not be immediately replaced, but the nominated articles that are quickly agreed upon should get better than gathering dust for weeks. So I suggest this change to the rules: after an article is featured, there's a one week waiting period before another article can be nominated. Then that nomination gets one week before approval, unless there is no consensus in which case it gets a second week before closing. This way, new FAs still get at least two weeks to shine, but the nomination moves faster. Does that sound better, or should we stick by the current rules? [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 18:26, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
-This is a travesty and genocide to the once good name of halopedia--[[User:76.173.255.40|76.173.255.40]] 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
+:Sounds good. Realistically, we get about one nomination a month so this will just help speed up the process anyway. I'd also like to point out [[wikia:starwars:Wookieepedia:Featured_article_nominations|Wookieepedia's Featured article nomination]] process (see "How to vote", #6). Basically, the general idea is that an article can forego the nomination process if it has a certain amount of votes from normal users, admins, etc. That way, we can speed up the nomination process ever faster. Obviously, with less admins and active users here, the amount of admins/users/whatever to make a nomination end faster would be lower. Of course, we would want to avoid a problem Wookieepedia has: some nominations (such as the first one on the page, Revan) have been active for two years and are still up for debate. We would probably want to set a definite time limit. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 19:05, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
-I agree we need a new one. --[[User talk:Heroicpotatoe|Heroicpotatoe]] 17:55, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
+::The average amounts of votes on nominations over the past year has been three to five, so if we were to have such a "skip the time limit by unanimity" policy, it should probably be ''at least'' seven votes. We shouldn't have the amount be too low so as to encourage users to vote. Currently the unwritten rule is "at least three votes, two by admins" for a pass. The Revan case appears to just a problem with the nomination policies letting it be kept perpetually open. Since we already have a closing policy and a re-nomination waiting period, I think we can avoid that. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 19:33, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
-:You want a new Featured Article? Then I suggest you go through all of our articles and work on one. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig}}
+:::We do need more users voting, but I see your point. Your idea would be good to implement in any case, as we still won't have to rely on a high amount of votes to speed up the process. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 19:53, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
+::::We could definitely use these changes to the procedures. Also, I think skipping the time limit altogether with a certain amount of unanimous votes would be a good idea to implement. As far as support percentage if there are oppose votes, around 75-80% would be a good number I think.--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 12:17, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
-It has been over two years now. I like ODSTs and all, but seriously? -[[User:DinoBenn|<span style="color:red">DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,</span>]] [[User talk:DinoBenn|<span style="color:blue">Never Give In"</span>]] [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 03:54, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
+== Featured article nomination template ==
-:If we want a new featured article I guess we will have to do what CT said. How about the [[Type-25 Assault Gun Carriage|Wraith]]?[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith-venator Wavingstrider</span>]] [[File:ODST Crest.png|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Commlink</span>]]) 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.[[User talk:Fire Eater|Fire Eater]] 00:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
+Should we create a template that tells users when an article is nominated? If an article is nominated to be a featured article, we place the template at the top of the "nominee's" page that alerts users that the article is being nominated and provides them a link to vote. A template like that would inform users when an article is nominated in case they don't look at the "Recent changes" page or regularly check the featured article page. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 15:03, 22 November 2014 (EST)
+:I've made a rough draft of a possible template [[User:NightHammer/Sandbox|here on my Sandbox]]. Any thoughts? - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 11:33, 23 November 2014 (EST)
+::{{Like}} — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  11:36, 23 November 2014 (EST)
+:::I like the idea of this. I say go for it.--{{User:Spartacus/Sig}} 11:39, 23 November 2014 (EST)
+::::Okay, cool. I will implement it now. - [[User:NightHammer|NightHammer]] ([[User talk:NightHammer|talk]]) 11:53, 23 November 2014 (EST)
-:Look at my comment above....frakkin' lazy idiots. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|February 28th, 2010}}
+== Featured article nomination banner ==
-::I know a new FA was declared recently, but I think the users above were trying to say that there are articles on the wiki that are worth FA status (hence the new one), but haven't been declared so by whoever makes such ... declarations. Or were you suggesting they find an article of such a caliber and nominate it? - [[User talk:Lord Hyren|Lord Hyren]] 07:00, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
+Since we are sticky to only one FA nomination at a time, why don't we put what article is currently nominated in the banner so all users can see it throughout the wiki. That way, users don't have to end up looking directly at the nomination page or stumbling across the nominated article to learn about the nomination. If we ever go back to doing more than one nomination at a time again, then we can scrap this idea. Any thoughts? --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 22:15, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
+:Sounds solid.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith Venator</span>]] [[File:Mega Blastoise.gif|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Dank Memes</span>]]) 22:17, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
-:::In the time that people have brought concerns of an FA drought I have not seen a single request for an FA approval come across my "desk". {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|March 2nd, 2010}}
-::::The FA should be a monthly basis operation where articles would be nominated and the best will be chosen as the featured article, similar like the FOTM process.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 16:56, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
-==[[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. - [[User:ShadowBroker44|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier New;font-size:10pt;color:white;">''' ''S.B.44'' '''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ShadowBroker44|<span style="color:black;">[Talk]</span></sup>]] 01:12, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
-===Support (Won)===
-#{{Support}} - per nomination - [[User:ShadowBroker44|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier New;font-size:10pt;color:white;">''' ''S.B.44'' '''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ShadowBroker44|<span style="color:black;">[Talk]</span></sup>]] 01:12, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
-#{{Support}} - 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. - [[File:Black Mesa.jpg|28px]] [[User:Halo-343|<span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 128%;">'''Halo-343'''</span>]] [[User talk:Halo-343|<font color="red"><nowiki>(</nowiki>'''Talk'''<nowiki>)</nowiki></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Halo-343|<font color="orange"><nowiki>(</nowiki>'''Contribs'''<nowiki>)</nowiki></font>]] [[Special:Editcount/Halo-343|<font color="green"><nowiki>(</nowiki>'''Edits'''<nowiki>)</nowiki></font>]] 01:16, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
-#{{Support}} - 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)
-#{{Support}} - And it's done. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|February 28th, 2010}}
-:::sweet. - [[User:ShadowBroker44|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier New;font-size:10pt;color:white;">''' ''S.B.44'' '''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ShadowBroker44|<span style="color:black;">[Talk]</span></sup>]] 01:40, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
-===Neutral===
-#{{Neutral}} 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.<b>[[User:-Ascension-|<font color="#5D8AA8">外<font color="#9BDDFF">国</font>人</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:-Ascension-|<font color="#5D8AA8">7alk</font>]])</sup></b> 01:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
-===Oppose===
-==[[Catherine Elizabeth Halsey]]==
-Dr. Halsey is an integral part of the Halo canon. From her development of the MJOLNIR armor system, to the augmentations performed on the Spartan-II's , and even the creation of Cortana, Halsey has indirectly saved humanity many times. She has not been directly mentioned in any of the games but it is clear that she is one of the most important characters in halo universe and warrants featured article status. In addition to this it is a well written article, and fits all of CommanderTony's new criteria for featured articles. - [[User:ShadowBroker44|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier New;font-size:10pt;color:white;">''' ''S.B.44'' '''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ShadowBroker44|<span style="color:black;">[T]</span></sup>]] 03:47, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
-===Support===
-#{{Support}} - Per nomination, - [[User:ShadowBroker44|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier New;font-size:10pt;color:white;">''' ''S.B.44'' '''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ShadowBroker44|<span style="color:black;">[T]</span></sup>]] 03:47, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
-#{{Support}} It's a well written, and sourced, article. There's a few places, currently, where inline citations are scarce (working on that), but those are far and few between. If FA's are to be a regular event this would be a good one to move on to. -- [[User talk:Lord Hyren|Lord Hyren]] 04:29, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
-#{{Support}} - What ShadowBroker said. :P --''"Why am I here and what the hell are you?"''[[User: Yugiohtipman34|The guy who hates his username.]] 05:31, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
-===Neutral===
-===Oppose===