MarioWiki talk:Featured Articles
From the Super Mario Wiki
| Talk Archives for Featured Articles
|
|---|
|
[edit] No more peer reviews
After the peer reviews feature has been removed, how will articles now be nominated? Completely after the old system? Or will there be changes? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 06:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
- Obviously asked this before seeing this. This page is in hiatus until that system starts if approved. Wa
TC@ | Just July 08 2008 00:00:00 EDT left to vote! 16:22, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Jump Starting The FAs Again
Moved to Mariowiki:Proposals/Archive#FAs Reback
OK guys, I'm going to implement the new system, inspired from Uncyclopedia, this coming week. Eventually the old system will come into play at the end, but qualifications will be necessary before being able to be nominated. Wa TC@ | Just July 08 2008 00:00:00 EDT left to vote! 23:46, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
- So what will happen exactly? I guess many are confused now. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 06:55, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Reviews
How do we keep track of reviews? And what happens when two reviewers give an article a high score? ♥♪!? 17:18, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
I think its explained in MarioWiki: PAIR to some extent. -- Sir Grodus
- If all happen well, it will be (re)featured.
[edit] Yoshi
Didn't the Yoshi article pass the PAIR reviews? Talk: Yoshi has reviews over 18 by both reviewers. Does it get featured now? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:49, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
- For a week I have been mostly out of commission due to vacation, but now it needs to be nominated as before. Momentarily I'll set it up. Wa TC@ | Just July 08 2008 00:00:00 EDT left to vote! 13:01, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Explain, please
These Reviews are very complex to me. Can someone explain it clearly for me? 
Pokémon DP
Anyone?
[edit] Strong?
What's with these phrases like "Strong Support" and "Very Strong Oppose"? Do they matter in any way? Should they even be allowed? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 11:39, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
- It's another one of those Wikipedia customs, suggesting that a weak support/oppose can easily be turned around with improvement and a strong support/oppose will stay. Either way, I don't think we need that here – a support is a support and an oppose is an oppose, no matter how weak or strong. Wa TC@ | Just July 08 2008 00:00:00 EDT left to vote! 11:52, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Uhm Who
Some people aren't putting their signature. How are we supposed to know who opposed/supported and tell if it counts if we don't know who opposed/supported? User:Fixitup
- We'll simply remove all unsigned votes, it's their fault not putting their signature. We don't need additional checking of every edit in the history. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 07:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Sub-pages
they should be added. This page is way to long. Max2 (C)
- They could be. I think Wayoshi was going to take care of that this weekend. -- Son of Suns
[edit] Featured Version
Shouldn't we link to the Featured Version of the King K. Rool article instead of the current one? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:20, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
- No, because that version will become out of date really quickly. FAs should be monitored more than other articles, to make sure any edits only add to the quality of the article. -- Son of Suns
[edit] Mario
I nominated Mario and he didn't appear on the nominated article list! Where is his name?
Super Yoshi10
Lookey This
[edit] How long
How long does it take a nominated article to actully become fetured (given that it's has alot of support?)
The preceding unsigned comment was added by HyperToad (talk).
- In the best case, that is when it quickly gets five supports and no oppose, an article can become featured in a week of time. However, keep in mind that as long as there is a single oppose, it cannot become featured, no matter how many support votes there are. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (EST)
- Also, if a nomination is stagnant (Nothing is done to fix what the opposers brought up), it will be deleted a month after it's creation.
Thanks --HyperToad 15:48, 28 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] Automatic
If an article has 5 supports and no opposes, does it become fetured automaticly? --HyperToad 15:48, 28 November 2007 (EST)
- Not exactly automatic, an administrator have to manually put it on the Main Page.
Blitzwing, but if it's one week with at least 3 supports and no opposes, yep, it get featured.
- It's at least five supports:
or the article has five supports and no objections after at least a week
[edit] Archiving past nominations?
As mentioned here, I'm asking myself whether we still archive the nominations of featured articles. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (EST)
- In the old system (Before that "A Link To the Past" guy came and changed it) The nomination pages were archived. I don't know about now, but since this system is pretty much like the old one, I would say Yes.
- Anyone have an idea how to handle this problem? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 06:44, 24 December 2007 (EST)
- The nominations of now-featured articles are archived (see e.g. MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Goomba and MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Yoshi). Cobold, are you talking about the nomination for Hammer Bro. still appearing on the list? That was because the nomination page for Hammer Bro. had not been updated (I've just done it, see edit history) :) Time Questions 17:13, 28 December 2007 (EST)
[edit] Explain please...
Could someone please explain this sentence?
Note that a previously featured article cannot be featured on the Main Page again; however, it can be restored to featured status if there are no other featured articles in queue.
What exactly is supposed to happen if there are no featured articles in the Main Page Rotation queue? What means "restored to featured status" - is King K. Rool, for example, not featured anymore? Time Questions 10:44, 29 December 2007 (EST)
- I think it mean that a previously featured article can't be featured if there are newer Featured articles nominations that have passed, but are not featured yet. However, a previously featured nomination can be featured if there isn't any new FA. That's how it worked in the old sytem, anyway.
[edit] How Minor is Minor?
I was editing MC Ballyhoo, and his page got to be considerible length for a one game subject, but it's nothing compared to Princess Daisy, right? Anyway, two things: first, can someone find an article that is the bare minimum for minor-ness? I know we got Dimentio on here, but I didn't want to look at it because of spoilers, but I know he was argued for because he was a major villain in a (single, but that didn't matter) mainstream Mario game. So, where's the cut-off point? The second question is, doesn't this importance thing encourage a lack of effort on more minor topics? They need all the help they can get... :( Stumpers! 01:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)
[edit] Rotating FAs
Are we going to start rotating FA articles again like we did before? or if there's nothing on this week's queue, we need to do something about this since the SMRPG FA is on the main page for like a month?F g
[edit] FA standart
I think a sysop should add that articles that are gonna be split should have their FA nomination page deleted/put on hiatus. I remmember that a FA nomination was deleted because the article that it was nominating was going to be split in two. I would add that, but I'm not sure if "normal users" can add/modify rules like on this page. --Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)
[edit] Problem with New Rules
Recently Stumpers' FA modification proposal passed, allowing users to remove votes they feel are invalid (check proposal for details). According to the proposal, a vote gets removed as soon as there are three users who feel that it's invalid. There's one big problem about that. If those users are too fast, users who feel that a vote shouldn't be removed get no chance to oppose. For the proposal process, we don't have this problem, because there is one week to vote. But here it's unfair to those people who aren't online 24/7. Several votes already got removed from Smithy and Princess Peach, even though I would have opposed if I got the chance. We certainly need a set time in which votes are cast, and only after that time votes should get removed. (It would be much more rational, in my opinion, to drop this new system completely, but I fear that's out of question.) Time Questions 08:21, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
