Forum:Nominations for featured articles

I have seen a few conversations around the place about nominating for feature articles but so far nothing to serious i think we need a voting system and page like on the star wars wiki or even the stargate wiki so we can deside what really qualifys to be a featured article Dark Lord Xander 02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's already one over here. -{Azes13 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)}-

I know about the one on the talk page but i was refering to an actual progect page like the other wikis have for the specific task of nominating and showing feature articles as well as guidlines as to what makes up a feature article Dark Lord Xander 02:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Some Expamples Here and Here -- Dark Lord Xander 06:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have created this page see it here: Tardis:Nominations for featured articles--Skittles the hog 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see Template:Featured article star, this places a star at the top of the page indicating it is a current or previous featured article.--Skittles the hog 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what Previous Featured Articles (now obsoleted) is for? --Tangerineduel 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but not many people (including myself) always checks the categories. Its just a convinience--Skittles the hog 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work i think we also need a template for previous feature articles which o longer meat feature article standards Dark Lord Xander 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also added some simple rules for nominating and Voting as well as adding an opposing section so users can have any objections herd Dark Lord Xander 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * you havent voted though, please vote.--Skittles the hog 08:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

At the Moment i am setting up the project page and if no one has any objections i will create a tab system for the project page navigation linking pages for FA's, nomination and manual style ect it may look like a mess but i would ask no one delete it until i ask thanks Dark Lord Xander 08:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * also i think the vote should be longer than a week so that a consensus can be reached Dark Lord Xander 08:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I have finished (bar tinkering with colours) although i take no credit for creating the idea i think it looks cool Dark Lord Xander 09:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

votes are regular so a conclusion is easy to come too. A week is a good period of time as this wiki has a large comunity. I like the tabs you made Dark Lord.--Skittles the hog 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All i am saying is i don't think we should have new featured articles for the sake of having one every week (looking at past FA's alot of them arn't really that well done) I think we should have New Fa's because they deserved to be featured and are the best that the wiki has to offer therefore i think we need a minimum number of votes of say nine or ten users and anything that gets objected needs to be fixed Dark Lord Xander 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From Now on any article going for featured should be chosen through the nominations page also i think we need a page to review past nominations to make sure they are still up to feature standard Dark Lord Xander 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just been changing the Featured Article near the end of each month based on what might be interesting to see. Like, Sladen this month because there hadn't been an actor as the featured article for a while... and I like Elizabeth Sladen. --Colleyd 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Woof.

Well That may have been the way of the past but i think from now on only articles that deserve to be featured should and if that means we have the same one for ages then so be it Dark Lord Xander 07:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your entitled to your opinion, but I think that's an incredibly silly way of looking at it. The Featured Article should be something that helps give a little insight to the universe of Doctor Who. Whether it be an actor, character, episode/story, tv crew member, technology, or what have you. While yes, the article should be done well enough to warrant being Featured (well written, good amount of information, and a picture), that doesn't mean we should just pick one and stick with it for ridiculously long periods of time. A month is plenty of time for an article to be featured.
 * On the last week or so of each month, some registered user find an article that looks intersting, meets requirements, and is different from the current article (If you select a TV story one month, do something other than a TV story the next, or if you do a companion, don't do the actor for that companion immediately after, ect.), and hop to it. It is a simple process. No need to over complicate it with polls and popularity votes. Otherwise, we'd probably be getting The Doctor every month, and where is the fun in that?
 * With the Featured Article, we at the wiki have a chance to show people something that they might not normally look at. A story they haven't seen, an actor they don't know much about, heck, a crew member for the show who doesn't get the props they deserve (If we had good enough articles on some of them... Originally I was wanting to do one of the music composers for the show, but the articles weren't fleshed out enough to warrant it.).
 * That is my viewpoint on it. Your mileage may vary. --Colleyd 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Woof.


 * I some what prefer Colleyd's methods than what we're up to at the moment (though what we're doing at the moment with the voting, changing, deciding is at least showing changes and fixes to the articles that had minor problems). Colleyd's is a more fluid system, which is good until the current system gets up to full speed ...and votes for something. --Tangerineduel 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, if anything, the nominations has at least pointed out things in articles that need refinement and work, so some good has come out of it. I still think voting is a bit silly, but in all fairness, a nomination page would be rather useful.
 * Like Tangerineduel said, it's showing where articles can be refined and made better. That's a big plus because it betters the wiki, which is always a good thing.
 * Also, in all truthfulness, there's been a couple times when looking to pick a FA, that I was a bit stumped. A page of articles people have nominated would be rather handy for situations like that. Nice list of choices. Though right now it looks like the nominations are currently all villians, and since Davros was last month, personaly I'd like to see something different for the change at the end of August. Though, with that in mind, I believe I shall make a nomination. --Colleyd 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Woof.


 * While i strongly believe (as most of you already know) that only articles that are complete or that are of a high standard should be feature articles i see no reason not to have a honeymoon period so to speak to allow articles to be chosen what i think is for the next two or so months continue to choose articles from interest to allow a build up of two to three articles ready for being featured through the nomination page so we always have a backlog of feature articles and the transition from one to the next can be easy. Dark Lord Xander 06:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While I basically agree with Xander on this one — things shouldn't be featured just because they're "interesting", they should be featured because they're written well — I think we're putting the cart before the horse. We need to concentrate on finishing the MOS before we can decide whether an article is an exemplar of the MOS.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading back through this, it sounds like Xander and Colleyd may be talking at cross purposes. Colleyd seems to be talking about those articles that go on the front page, and Xander's talking about genuine featured articles, in the Wikipedia sense. An article doesn't have to meet the standards of a featured article to appear on the front page. We may want to consider a Did You Know? section on the front page so that those articles that have some interesting content can get a wider audience, while retaining the title "featured article" for those that actually do pass a proscribed set of standards. But, as I said above, we really need to spend some time finishing up with the MOS — as well as defining the Featured Article voting process —before we can really get any of this functioning. I mean, right now, we don't even know how the voting works. Does a simple majority "pass" an article? Or does it have to be, as on Wikipedia, without objection? Is there a time limit attached to the voting process? Are we even agreed on the criteria listed? Is it a single step process (you're either a featured article or your not?) or is it a multi-tiered "grading" system whereby an article gradually makes progress from a stub to a B-class to an A-class to a Featured article? There are a lot of questions about this whole process that need to be answered before we just start proposing and voting, I think. I haven't seen a single featured article here that would really pass muster on any other wiki, much less wikipedia proper. And it's no detriment to the editors who worked on those articles, but just to the fact that there's very little in the way of clear instruction on what steps need to be taken to improve an article to featured status.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 14:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yeah,I was referring to the "Featured Article" on the front page, which is what I thought was the subject of discussion. Misunderstanding on my part then. --Colleyd 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Woof.


 * Just to clarify what I am trying to o is reform our feature articles so that only articles that deserve to have feature status do so. As for what appears on the front page i am all for showing pages of interest provided it isn't done under the feature article banner which should only be for the best articles that the wiki has to offer.


 * on the voting the rules i wrote up were only meant to be a starting point and by no way the finished product. while i took them for a more build up wiki with a functioning feature article section i only selected rules which i thought applied to our wiki. so i think the best way would be to create a forum page, place the current list of criteria and let users make suggestions and improvements.


 * on CzechOut's comments on whether an article is a feature or its not. i think we have two options we could just have feature articles which would involve less work to ensure that new nominations are "good enough" and check that previous articles still meet the standard or we could (as other wikis do) have both a feature and good article status meaning both decent and excellent articles have a sort of recognition or ranking system but that would require more commitment both in the creation of articles and in the monitoring of nominations and current featured and good articles. Dark Lord Xander 08:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Isnt it going to take too long for 8 votes to be done, i have changed it to 6 for now, it can of course be changed back if other uses disagree but i personally think this is a better...idea.--Skittles the hog 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of time its a matter of getting quality articles 6 will be ok but there still has to be no objections and must have atleast spent a week or to in the nominations page so users have had time to view and vote if they wish.Dark Lord Xander 08:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not reguarly come to this wiki or go to the nominations page and so they may never delete there objection. Howcan this be solved, anyone?--Skittles the hog 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

well chances are if they are not regular uses i doubt they will use the page to object but otherwise contacting them on their talk page when things have been fixed should get through Dark Lord Xander 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)