41,705
edits
MarioWiki talk:Featured articles: Difference between revisions
m
Reverted edits by RustyLionsLLC (talk) to last revision by Swallow
m (Reverted edits by RustyLionsLLC (talk) to last revision by Swallow) Tag: Rollback |
|||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
*'''How many reasons will we keep, with all others after them being deleted?''' Having only one reason from the original nominator is reasonable, IMO. | *'''How many reasons will we keep, with all others after them being deleted?''' Having only one reason from the original nominator is reasonable, IMO. | ||
*'''Will it be obligatory for the nominator to give a ("valid") reason?''' I'd tend to say no, but for the sake of the compromise, I would agree to require a reason for the first supporter that in some way relates to the quality of the article. However, when we're in doubt, we should assume good faith in the nominator (i.e., "I like it" would be sufficient, no need to repeat each and every FA condition). | *'''Will it be obligatory for the nominator to give a ("valid") reason?''' I'd tend to say no, but for the sake of the compromise, I would agree to require a reason for the first supporter that in some way relates to the quality of the article. However, when we're in doubt, we should assume good faith in the nominator (i.e., "I like it" would be sufficient, no need to repeat each and every FA condition). | ||
*'''How do we inform users of the changes?''' It would probably be sufficient to edit the [[MarioWiki:Featured | *'''How do we inform users of the changes?''' It would probably be sufficient to edit the [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|FA]] page, and the message that appears when one tries to nominate an article (don't know how it's called, it's at the top of [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3APreload%2Ffa&editintro=Template%3AFAintro%E2%80%8E&title=MarioWiki%3AFeatured+Articles%2FN%2FToad&create=Nominate this] page). The reasons that will be added regardless of those notices can be removed manually. | ||
*'''Should we make a proposal before we amend the changes?''' I'd say no, since there have not been any objections to the basic idea. Also, it's really just an administrative issue, those are usually handled without proposals. | *'''Should we make a proposal before we amend the changes?''' I'd say no, since there have not been any objections to the basic idea. Also, it's really just an administrative issue, those are usually handled without proposals. | ||
If you have any objections to my suggestions, please state them. Thanks. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 11:05, 15 February 2010 (EST) | If you have any objections to my suggestions, please state them. Thanks. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 11:05, 15 February 2010 (EST) | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
:No, each vote needs a valid reason there, no matter if support or oppose. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 06:05, 28 February 2010 (EST) | :No, each vote needs a valid reason there, no matter if support or oppose. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 06:05, 28 February 2010 (EST) | ||
::Ok, thanks :) Is that specified in the rules? --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 10:41, 28 February 2010 (EST) | ::Ok, thanks :) Is that specified in the rules? --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 10:41, 28 February 2010 (EST) | ||
:::Yes, it's all in the rules: at the top of the [[MarioWiki:Featured | :::Yes, it's all in the rules: at the top of the [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|FA page]], it says that the new rules do not apply to Unfeature nominations; and in the [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature|Unfeature sub-page]], it says that "not only opposers, but also supporters need to give reasons for their vote". {{User:Time Q/sig}} 11:28, 28 February 2010 (EST) | ||
==Archiving== | ==Archiving== | ||
We decided through a proposal to archive FA and Unfeature nominations that have not passed. In which way will we do this? {{User:Time Q/sig}} 08:29, 8 March 2010 (EST) | We decided through a proposal to archive FA and Unfeature nominations that have not passed. In which way will we do this? {{User:Time Q/sig}} 08:29, 8 March 2010 (EST) | ||
:My suggestion would be to number them in case there are multiple failed ones. What I'm not sure about is the letter we would use. We could just go with "A1" and "A2" while saving "A" alone for the nomination that passes, or use "F" for failed nomination or something similar. For example, a failed nomination for Mario may be {{ | :My suggestion would be to number them in case there are multiple failed ones. What I'm not sure about is the letter we would use. We could just go with "A1" and "A2" while saving "A" alone for the nomination that passes, or use "F" for failed nomination or something similar. For example, a failed nomination for Mario may be {{fake link|MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A1/Mario}} or {{fake link|MarioWiki:Featured Articles/F1/Mario}}. --{{User:Marcelagus/sig}} | ||
::I like Garlic's idea. (Is it OK to still call you Garlic?) --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 16:51, 8 March 2010 (EST) | ::I like Garlic's idea. (Is it OK to still call you Garlic?) --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 16:51, 8 March 2010 (EST) | ||
==Post-unfeatured Featured Article Nominations== | ==Post-unfeatured Featured Article Nominations== | ||
I recently noticed a minor quandary that we could potentially encounter. Since we haven't run into this problem yet, it's probably best to discuss it now. Hypothetically speaking using [[Luigi]] for the purposes of this example, let's say the article is nominated. Once the nomination passes, the nomination page is moved from {{ | I recently noticed a minor quandary that we could potentially encounter. Since we haven't run into this problem yet, it's probably best to discuss it now. Hypothetically speaking using [[Luigi]] for the purposes of this example, let's say the article is nominated. Once the nomination passes, the nomination page is moved from {{fake link|MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/Luigi}} to {{fake link|MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Luigi}}. Months later, let's say that someone realizes major flaws in the article and the article ends up becoming unfeatured. However, somebody else works on the article to the point where it is nearly flawless, and decides to nominate it again. | ||
There's the problem; where would this new nomination page be located? It seems the easiest way to handle this would be to move the original archived feature nomination page ({{ | There's the problem; where would this new nomination page be located? It seems the easiest way to handle this would be to move the original archived feature nomination page ({{fake link|MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Luigi}}) from "A" to "A1" once a featured article becomes unfeatured. This way we don't get confusion with failed nominations (which currently uses "N1"), and in case we do get this "Featured --> Unfeatured --> Refeatured" situation, we'll have a place to create new nomination pages each time. This also applies to Feature nomination pages of currently unfeatured but formerly featured articles. What do you guys think about this? Approve? --{{User:Marcelagus/sig}} | ||
:Sounds like a good solution to me. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 10:34, 25 May 2010 (EDT) | :Sounds like a good solution to me. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 10:34, 25 May 2010 (EDT) | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
Like this: | Like this: | ||
<inputbox> type=create default=MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/ width=50 buttonlabel=Nominate preload=Template:Preload/fa editintro=Template: | <inputbox> type=create default=MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/ width=50 buttonlabel=Nominate preload=Template:Preload/fa editintro=Template:FAintro break=no </inputbox> | ||
{{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) | {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
==Talk Page Proposal: DPL Table== | ==Talk Page Proposal: DPL Table== | ||
{{SettledTPP}} | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|green|use the dpl table 8-0}} | |||
Has everyone seen the table at the very bottom of the page? In the section [[MarioWiki:Featured_Articles#Failed_Nominations|Failed Nominations]]? Well that table is currently "experimental" but what it should (and, if you look at it, does) do is list any nominations that have failed, when they failed and when they can be renominated. When an article can be renominated, it disappears from the table. The template was coded by 2257 (with absolutely no help from me though I'll still take some of the credit for it :P) and it uses "DPL coding" which is...complicated. Basically it is self-updating and will minimize the user's workloads. However it also makes it a necessity for archivers to use {{tem|FANOMFAIL}} and {{tem|UNFANOMFAIL}} when archiving failed nominations. | Has everyone seen the table at the very bottom of the page? In the section [[MarioWiki:Featured_Articles#Failed_Nominations|Failed Nominations]]? Well that table is currently "experimental" but what it should (and, if you look at it, does) do is list any nominations that have failed, when they failed and when they can be renominated. When an article can be renominated, it disappears from the table. The template was coded by 2257 (with absolutely no help from me though I'll still take some of the credit for it :P) and it uses "DPL coding" which is...complicated. Basically it is self-updating and will minimize the user's workloads. However it also makes it a necessity for archivers to use {{tem|FANOMFAIL}} and {{tem|UNFANOMFAIL}} when archiving failed nominations. | ||
| Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
Is it a good idea to put archives for FA nominations that have succeeded as well? It's quite difficult to access these archives at this time of writing. {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 00:01, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | Is it a good idea to put archives for FA nominations that have succeeded as well? It's quite difficult to access these archives at this time of writing. {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 00:01, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | ||
:It's always good to have archives. --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 00:27, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | :It's always good to have archives. --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 00:27, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | ||
::So, when is a good time to have those archives? {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 19:56, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
:::Whenever you (or anyone else, for that matter) want. The change is a no-brainer and void of any undesirable consequences, so it's not like you need to bother with a TPP. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 20:16, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
::::OK, but if people want to help, they should use this image for easy access because it's found in successful nominations and failures: | |||
::::[[File:Smg2 icon bronzestar.png]] {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 20:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
Well, in some pages, I can't edit it, such as [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A1/Baby Mario]], I'll leave it to those who can access it. {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 20:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
:Actually, scratch that. Most of the pages are protected. -_- {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 20:32, 12 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N/Mario_Tennis_%28Nintendo_64%29 This] page needs to be categorized. {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 17:47, 22 August 2013 (EDT) | |||
== New rule == | |||
As of [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_Articles&diff=1580774&oldid=1577695 this] revision, the staff reserves the right to remove any nomination they deem unfit. Okay, but we have another rule that is supposed to limit a user's nomination to prevent spam. | |||
I'm wondering since staff can remove nominations prematurely, this can render this limit moot since it can make a situation where a user makes a junk nomination, a staff removes it, the user makes another junk nomination, a staff removes it, and so on. Technically, the user is still under the limit, so there should be something to address this potential problem. <br>{{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 14:50, 19 November 2013 (EST) | |||
:How do you mean? If a user makes a junk nomination, and it's removed it no longer counts as one of their nominations, the limit is only for active nominations. {{User|Yoshi876}} | |||
== Rewrite? == | |||
I was thinking about making some edits to this... look below. These are some examples though, it should be applied to everything. Xs are putted here for not copying the dates. And the format could not be exactly the same of now. Feel free to modify the format as you think it's better. Headers are bigger. | |||
=== Currently === | |||
==== Featured Articles/Lists ==== | |||
<big>Goomba</big> (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) <br> | |||
<s><big>Yoshi</big></s> (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)<small> ''(unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)''</small> <br> | |||
<big>King Boo</big> (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)<small> ''(unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)''</small> <br> | |||
<s><big>Princess Daisy</big></s> (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)<small> ''(unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)''</small> <br> | |||
[others unincluded in this example] | |||
=== Proposed === | |||
==== Featured Articles/Lists ==== | |||
{| class=sortable cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 border=1 align=center width=100% style="border-collapse:collapse; font-family:Arial" | |||
|-style="background: #ABC;" | |||
! width=30% | Name | |||
! width=30% | Date of Featuration | |||
! width=40% | Possible date of Unfeaturation and Refeaturation | |||
|- | |||
!<big>[[Goomba]]</big> | |||
!<span style="color:#ccac00">'''Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx''' | |||
!None</span> | |||
|- | |||
!<big>[[King Boo]]</big> | |||
!<span style="color:#ccac00">'''Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx'''</span> | |||
!<span style="color:#7b4c1e">Unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx</span><br> <span style="color:#ccac00">Refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx</span> | |||
|- | |||
![others unincluded in this example] | |||
|} | |||
==== Unfeatured List/Examples ==== | |||
<description> | |||
{| class=sortable cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 border=1 align=center width=100% style="border-collapse:collapse; font-family:Arial" | |||
|-style="background: #ABC;" | |||
! width=30% | Name | |||
! width=30% | Date of Featuration | |||
! width=40% | Date of Unfeaturation and possible Refeaturation | |||
|- | |||
!<s><big>[[Princess Daisy]]</big></s> | |||
!<span style="color:#ccac00">'''Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx'''</span> | |||
!<span style="color:#7b4c1e">Unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx</span><br><span style="color:#ccac00">Refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx</span><br><span style="color:#7b4c1e">Reunfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx</span> | |||
|- | |||
!<s><big>[[Yoshi]]</big></s> | |||
!<span style="color:#ccac00">'''Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx'''</span> | |||
!<span style="color:#7b4c1e">Unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx</span> | |||
|- | |||
![others unincluded in this example] | |||
|} | |||
If you others agree, I'll try to make this work myself as faster I can. Oh, another thing? How about adding [[File:Smg2 icon bronzestar.png]] at Unfeatured articles previously Featured? {{User:Tsunami/sig}}<br> | |||
I saw you asked Glowsquid about putting the articles in alphabetical order, though it is actually organized: by the date it became an FA on. So I don't know about reordering. I also am unsure about the tables as well. I definitely think no UNFA Star, though, because they're really no different from standard articles and I don't think they're unique or special because they were ever featured before. {{User:'Shroom64/sig}} | |||
:OK, that start was one of my worse ideas. But I sincerely don't know if it's better organized by date or name... I personally got a bit lost. And FA and UNFA articles toghter make all more confusionary. If you don't like tables, I think the format can be keeped, but I mainly proposed this because UNFA should be in another section, under FA. {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | |||
== I have a question == | |||
About unfeaturing articles. That happens when it doesn't meet the requirements anymore, right? Well if that happens, could we not just ''fix'' the page again? --{{User:Koopakoolklub/sig}} 21:57, 25 November 2014 (EST) | |||
:Huh? Could you clarify? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:54, 25 November 2014 (EST) | |||
::@BabyLuigi Think of the question as "Since unfeaturing FAs happens when they don't meet all the requirements anymore, can't we just fix the article up?" I thought it was obvious that UNFAs can fail if before the article didn't meet the requirements anymore, UNFA is proposed and in the meanwhile all requirements are met. Only that if more people denote the bad FA status, there is often not much time to fix everything. {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | |||
== Paper Mario unfeature time is wrong == | |||
It says that the article got unfeatured in 2005. How is that possible when the article first got featured in 2009? – [[User:Owencrazyboy9|Owencrazyboy9]] ([[User talk:Owencrazyboy9|talk]]) 09:02, 27 March 2017 (EDT) | |||
:My mistake, I must've absentmindedly hit the wrong key when originally doing all that stuff. Fixed it now. {{User|Yoshi876}} | |||
== Header == | |||
Shouldn't this article have a {{fake link|MarioWIki:Featured articles/Header}}, like [[MarioWiki:Proposals]] and [[MarioWiki:Staff noticeboard]] (and probaly more) have? {{User:YoshiEgg1990/sig}} 13:57, 18 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
==More media== | |||
Per the comments on [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Super Smash Bros. Melee|this unfeature nomination]], should we make it a rule that improvement tags made and added to an article after the article's featuring, like {{tem|more media}}, don't count towards the "thou shalt not have notice templates on FAs" rule? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 16:27, August 11, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:Well, better late than never. | |||
:Technically, not necessarily. Sometimes issues are found post-nomination that require a tag to be written up and stamped to point out its flaws. I remember unfeaturing Mario Kart 64 and adding a rewrite-expand tag as it was featured since I thought it lacked information, which slipped through the cracks. However, for the multi-media tag, that was mass post-humously added to a lot of articles, including featured ones, and I think unfeaturing every single article that has that tag would needlessly destroy Featured Articles. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 00:09, September 16, 2020 (EDT) | |||
== [[Super Mario 3D World]] == | |||
Why is Super Mario 3D World not featured yet? {{User:Wynn Liaw/sig}} | |||
== On page, or off page? == | |||
Why are (un)feature article nominations on separate pages than their talk? It would remove the hassle of having to move and delete it. {{User:DarkNight/sig}} 19:29, September 28, 2020 (EDT) | |||
:It's cleaner and easier to manage and take a look through than be another header in their respective talk page articles. Moving isn't that much of a hassle to begin with, since newer wiki software lets me delete redirects as soon as I move the page. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 19:44, September 28, 2020 (EDT) | |||