UDWiki talk:Featured Articles/Good Articles: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) |
Pestolence (talk | contribs) (moving clutter to talk page) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Sure. How would it be done? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:38, 1 May 2009 (BST) | :Sure. How would it be done? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:38, 1 May 2009 (BST) | ||
::I don't know why such stuff can't be added to the main page. Perhaps after for and against a Ways to improve this article section? Or a link onto the talk page? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:23, 1 May 2009 (BST) | ::I don't know why such stuff can't be added to the main page. Perhaps after for and against a Ways to improve this article section? Or a link onto the talk page? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:23, 1 May 2009 (BST) | ||
== From New User Template voting == | |||
# <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 04:03 1 May 2009 (BST)</small> | |||
#:Reason please, Boxy.{{unsigned|The shoemaker|00:35, 3 May 2009}} | |||
#::I'm going to cross it out if you don't give a reason by May 05, 2009. Can I do that?--{{User:The_shoemaker/Sig}} 01:46, 4 May 2009 (BST) | |||
#:::I don't think a reason is required for these. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 02:18, 4 May 2009 (BST) | |||
#::::Technically it is, and Shoemaker can, but I suggest he leave the vote there, lest boxy is forced to say why this article ''truely'' shouldn't be here, as opposed to my merciful comment. I would assume the comment would be along the lines of "The article fails to meet the criteria for a good article. It isn't well written (it doesn't have particularly sophisticated or even plausible grammar, paragraph structure and formatting, making it very hard to read) and it isn't generally awesome. Even this new page we are on right now has 3 times more views that [[New user template]] has, which, might I add, doesn't even have correct grammar in its ''title''". {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 07:51, 4 May 2009 (BST) | |||
#::It's title isn't descriptive, and the content is confusing and badly formatted. It's mostly a duplicate of content already in the [[Help:Editing|help section]], and what isn't could be covered with a few lines being added to [[Help:Basic Formatting|the basic formatting]] page <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:08 4 May 2009 (BST)</small> | |||
Fair enough. I think its been seven days since I added it, and according to that, the voting is over. So, I'll go ahead and move it to the concluded section; or if that's for ones that pass, I'll just delete it. Whatever works. <(O_o)> --{{User:The_shoemaker/Sig}} 22:06, 4 May 2009 (BST) | |||
:Um, it's only been 3 days, I believe... and this is really crowding up the page, I'm going to move these commments to the talk page. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:29, 4 May 2009 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 21:29, 4 May 2009
I've added {{GoodArticleNom}} to the top of all pages that have been nominated. Should increase community participation. Linkthewindow Talk 12:00, 30 April 2009 (BST)
- There's {{GA}} too, for when we get a few pages through. Linkthewindow Talk 12:03, 30 April 2009 (BST)
Voting/Discussion
Should we not make this page more discussion oriented? FA's are good for votes since people are choosing their favourite for the FA. But here we should probably have a more discussion based element. It makes people elaborate on their reasons a little more, and also frees us from pigeon-holed responses. -- 
RoosterDragon 
16:28, 1 May 2009 (BST)
From New User Template voting
- -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:03 1 May 2009 (BST)
- Reason please, Boxy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The shoemaker (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 May 2009.
- I'm going to cross it out if you don't give a reason by May 05, 2009. Can I do that?--The Shoemaker Talk Red Faction
01:46, 4 May 2009 (BST)
- I don't think a reason is required for these. --Pestolence(talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (BST)
- Technically it is, and Shoemaker can, but I suggest he leave the vote there, lest boxy is forced to say why this article truely shouldn't be here, as opposed to my merciful comment. I would assume the comment would be along the lines of "The article fails to meet the criteria for a good article. It isn't well written (it doesn't have particularly sophisticated or even plausible grammar, paragraph structure and formatting, making it very hard to read) and it isn't generally awesome. Even this new page we are on right now has 3 times more views that New user template has, which, might I add, doesn't even have correct grammar in its title". DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:51, 4 May 2009 (BST)
- I don't think a reason is required for these. --Pestolence(talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (BST)
- It's title isn't descriptive, and the content is confusing and badly formatted. It's mostly a duplicate of content already in the help section, and what isn't could be covered with a few lines being added to the basic formatting page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:08 4 May 2009 (BST)
- I'm going to cross it out if you don't give a reason by May 05, 2009. Can I do that?--The Shoemaker Talk Red Faction
- Reason please, Boxy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The shoemaker (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 May 2009.
Fair enough. I think its been seven days since I added it, and according to that, the voting is over. So, I'll go ahead and move it to the concluded section; or if that's for ones that pass, I'll just delete it. Whatever works. <(O_o)> --The Shoemaker Talk Red Faction
22:06, 4 May 2009 (BST)
- Um, it's only been 3 days, I believe... and this is really crowding up the page, I'm going to move these commments to the talk page. --Pestolence(talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (BST)
