MarioWiki talk:Featured articles/Archive 2

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? - 06:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Obviously asked this before seeing this. This page is in hiatus until that system starts if approved. 16:22, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Jump Starting The FAs Again
Moved to Proposals/Archive

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. 23:46, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
 * So what will happen exactly? I guess many are confused now. - 06:55, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

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 PAIR to some extent. -- Sir Grodus


 * What happens to the Yoshi article then? ♥♪!? 18:36, 28 July 2007 (EDT)


 * If all happen well, it will be (re)featured.

Gofer

Yoshi
Didn't the Yoshi article pass the PAIR reviews? Talk: Yoshi has reviews over 18 by both reviewers. Does it get featured now? - 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. 13:01, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Explain, please
These Reviews are very complex to me. Can someone explain it clearly for me? Anyone?

Strong?
What's with these phrases like "Strong Support" and "Very Strong Oppose"? Do they matter in any way? Should they even be allowed? - 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. 11:52, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

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. - 07:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Sub-pages
they should be added. This page is way to long.


 * They could be. I think Wayoshi was going to take care of that this weekend. -- Son of Suns

Oh, OK.

Featured Version
Shouldn't we link to the Featured Version of the King K. Rool article instead of the current one? - 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

Mario
I nominated Mario and he didn't appear on the nominated article list! Where is his name? Super   Yoshi10 | Lookey This

How long
How long does it take a nominated article to actully become fetured (given that it's has alot of support?)
 * 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. - 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.

Blitzwing

Thanks --HyperToad 15:48, 28 November 2007 (EST)

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"
 * - 15:59, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Archiving past nominations?
As mentioned here, I'm asking myself whether we still archive the nominations of featured articles. - 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.

Blitzwing
 * Then we need to stop the archives from appearing in the list of currently nominated articles. - 08:41, 16 December 2007 (EST)
 * Anyone have an idea how to handle this problem? - 06:44, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * The nominations of now-featured articles are archived (see e.g. Featured Articles/A/Goomba and 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) :) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (EST)

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? 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.

Blitzwing
 * Yeah, that would make sense, thanks. Too bad Son of Suns isn't around here at the moment... 20:17, 29 December 2007 (EST)

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... :( 01:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think any of the Paper Mario series games are mainstream games.
 * I didn't think that it mattered how little a character (or place, etc) appeared in a game; I thought that an article had to be 4,000 bytes at least, to be featured. 20:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
 * This topic came up prior to that rule, and the events I was referring to were several of the reasons I proposed the rule. :) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

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?

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. --

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.) 08:21, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree with both points. - 17:22, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Me too. To justify my removals, I was attempting to prove this fault by quickly removing votes. We need a different system.

Minimum of 4,000 Characters
Sorry to bring this up again so shortly after the proposal has passed, but anyway: I think we should increase the number of characters required for FAs (currently, 4,000 characters are required, not including templates, images and stuff). To illustrate my point: The currently nominated article Alien (Club Nintendo) has 4,027 characters, not including templates etc., making it a valid nomination. However, I do think the article is too short to become featured, and that an article with only 4,000 characters can hardly be notable enough for becoming FA. How about a minimum of at least 5,000-6,000 characters, what do you think? 17:08, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, good! I saw this header and thought you were coming after another of my proposals with an ax!  I just wanna ask: since the point of the 4000 characters was to prevent a single user from stopping the FA process with no hope of revival, what would you think is major enough?  Ie, where do you draw the line?  I agree that we may want to up the limit.  02:52, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Nah, no ax this time, I like the idea of adding a required minimum of characters to the rules ;) I don't know where to draw the line, that's the problem. I just know that when I look at an article with 4,000 characters (and as mentioned above, Alien (Club Nintendo) is a good example), I intuitively think that it's too short (and, if it can't be expanded, not notable enough) for becoming featured. That's why I'd like to get more opinions of users on what they think is appropriate. 14:47, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * 5,000 would be reasonable, IMO. 15:06, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Deanna Mustard and the "Anti-Featured Article" Process
Recently there has been a problem with the Deanna Mustard article, which has less than 4,000 characters but became an FA prior to the new rule stating that articles must have that number of characters. TimeQ is hoping to remove the article, but before we do that, I'd like to bring it public. I'm thinking of adopting a new part of the FA system, where if a user can point out, specifically, a policy that the FA does not meet, it can be put to a proposal-style vote as to whether or not to keep the article under featured status in light of the policy. This would mean that Deanna Mustard could be taking out of FA circulation because of a rule that passed after it became an FA. In other words, because the new policy passed and users did not change the article in light of it (which is understandable right now), the article could no longer be featured. What would everyone think of such a concept? 20:11, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, we definitely need such a system. This would also keep us from "accidentally" featuring articles (i.e. there are no opposers in time) and not being able to remove their FA status (several people have complained of Luigi's Mansion being an FA, for example. Nothing can be done about this at the moment). Here's what I'm proposing: We introduce a new system that works exactly like the FA nomination system. That is: Someone nominates an FA to lose its FA status, and needs four more people who support the nomination. Opposers may interfere, and as long as there's a single (valid) oppose vote, the article will keep its FA status. Only difference to the FA nomination system would be that supporters too must bring up good reasons for their vote (they're opposing the FA status of an article, after all). What do you think of this idea? Do you see any problems with it? Since (I think) the only thing to do to introduce this system would be to copy the existing system, modifying it a little, I could try and implement it - but if it's harder than that, someone else would have to do it. 19:06, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Although we can't just remove the nomination like that, we need something like a voting system. This seems like a pretty good idea. There will now be TRUE FA's in the MarioWiki now.
 * Doesn't Deanna Mustard have another problem? I remember there was a proposal that ruled out having in-depth biography of real persons, and yet this article has just that.
 * IIRC, Walkazo removed those sections, making it too short for FA. FD09 added them again, making it invalid according to the proposal. Oh well... 19:26, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Not to be biased, but I would be sad to see it leave FA status when regardless of length it is much better than many other featured articles. What I think is weird is you, Stumpers, are the person other than myself who basically put the article up for nomination in the first place.. FD09
 * I understand it would be sad for you, but having FAs that are worse than "Deanna Mustard" is exactly the thing that could be prevented when using the new system. 19:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I was always thinking about a Feature-Removing process; Look at Baby Mario; there's a bunch of bad sections (look at the sports section; it's not even bulleted). Also, the Deanna Mustard article, not only does it have an unsufficient number of characters, most of the "characters" have nothing at all to do with Mario (Like this here...) I do think Deanna Mustand should be "Un-Featured". Completely unrelated, (I'll probably bring this up at the Proposal talk) but I think 7 days for a proposal is just way too short to decide anything... ...Which is why I like to gather opinions on the Main Talk.
 * FD: I was hoping that people would want to do make an exception for the article. I want to.  Maybe having the same length standards for both real and fictional persons is a bad idea.  I still love the article and will still think of it as one of the best articles on this Wiki.  17:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't see why proposals can't just be made to un-feature an article. It seems quite simple. 04:40, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Sounds like a good option too. But somehow I doubt people would make use of this. Nobody ever tried to un-feature an article by a proposal - why should they do now? Also, I think having an individual "un-feature process" would be constructive (improvement of the article) rather than destructive (loss of FA status). I explained what I mean by this on Wayoshi's talk page. 06:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
 * That's actually a pretty good idea. 17:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I just want to say that I like Time Q's idea.
 * Recently, White Knight pointed out the fact that Yoshi, being a featured article, had the Template:Trivia template on the page. I looked for more, and Super Mario RPG also has it on there. And, one of the requirements of an FA is to not have templates as such. So, is this discussion dead, or are we going to implement the un-feature process soon?
 * If someone feels (s)he can do it, please go ahead. I have really little knowledge of coding, so it would be very hard for me. 10:21, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Luigi's Mansion has an imcomplete story section. It would need a sectionstub template. And articles with that templates can't be FAs. However, instead of simply discussing that it could be removed from the FA list, we could go ahead and expand it anyway. - 11:43, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
 * IMO, this is exactly what could be achieved if we had the system I'm proposing. 14:03, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
 * And this would be a comfortable system on my side...

All right guys, time to actually start implementing the Unfeature system. Here's what I'm thinking would work best: We make a subpage of Featured Articles, i.e., linking to there from the Featured Articles page of course. Here's a draft of what we could put on this subpage. Don't worry about the not yet working list of articles proposed to be unfeatured. At the moment, this is only a copy of the actual FA nomination list and needs to get updated. What I'd like you to check is the subject matter of the page. Do you think the system will work as I put it, or do you see any problems? Comments are welcome :) 15:42, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I see no problem with it. --Blitzwing 15:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Seems good. Of course, there are some changes I'd like to the example page you made, but the basic idea seems effective.

Again, seems like good idea to me.
 * If you see my version of the Unfeature page (basically a tweaked version of Time Q's), you will see the bottom DPL is now "UANOMSTAT", thus nothing is appearing. UA = Unfeatured Article, obviously. I wanted to keep it 2 letters for it to be simple. Here is the preload page I made, that will be used if my draft is applied. Obviously, there is no UANOMSTAT template yet, but will be created in due time(again, only if my idea is used).

Waluigi
I don't know if this should go here, but I notice that the Waluigi article is featured although it has almost no info on the Mario Party games. For example it only says he appeared in every installment since the third one, but it gives no info of Mario Party 4, 5,6,7,8 and DS. Or maybe it's in another section that I can't find... Javier12345 20:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Also the Mario Kart section doesn't mention his special item in Double Dash, or his special kart. I think more info could be added to the Golf games section since it's only about two lines. Javier12345 20:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Wario article has similar problems with the Mario Party games... Javier12345 20:54, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * That might be another article that would benefit from the "Anti-FA" treatment I'm discussing just above. 20:58, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

For Wario, the other events section doesn't mention Mario Party 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, DS, or Mario Hoops 3-on-3. The Mario golf secition is only about two lines. Javier12345 21:00, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Protect
Should we protect this page? It doesn't really need to be edited, only sysops should add stuff into it