UDWiki talk:Featured Articles: Difference between revisions
Extropymine (talk | contribs) |
The Rooster (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:::::I can understand why active groups shouldn't be featured (unfair to other groups to advertize one on the main page), but what about dead and especially historical groups? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | :::::I can understand why active groups shouldn't be featured (unfair to other groups to advertize one on the main page), but what about dead and especially historical groups? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Well, here's a question: what is the purpose of the FA? Is it just supposed to be fluffy? Or it it supposed to be a resource to show people pages they might not stumble upon? I mean, a really interesting location article is neat and all, but (and no offense to anyone)... who cares? Featuring a well-written article on [[the Lawson Arms]] isn't honestly going to enrich anyone's wiki or gameplay experience, it's just a five-minute distraction and maybe it gets a laugh. Now, if that's the point, then fine-- I'm on board. But if the purpose is to enrich wiki-goers' UD experience, then we shouldn't be so squeamish about letting group pages go on the list. After all, they still have to pass a vote to become an FA. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | Well, here's a question: what is the purpose of the FA? Is it just supposed to be fluffy? Or it it supposed to be a resource to show people pages they might not stumble upon? I mean, a really interesting location article is neat and all, but (and no offense to anyone)... who cares? Featuring a well-written article on [[the Lawson Arms]] isn't honestly going to enrich anyone's wiki or gameplay experience, it's just a five-minute distraction and maybe it gets a laugh. Now, if that's the point, then fine-- I'm on board. But if the purpose is to enrich wiki-goers' UD experience, then we shouldn't be so squeamish about letting group pages go on the list. After all, they still have to pass a vote to become an FA. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I can't see why we can't have pages ranging from interesting locations articles to awesome backwater pages to some interesting write-up of history. Active group pages would just create so much damned drama though, totally not worth the effort. Historical groups I wouldn't have a problem with, though I can't imagine many of their pages are actually that interesting, the group and their history might be, but the FA is only going to direct your to their page. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 22:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:57, 18 March 2009
Nomnomnominations
Lets get the show on the road, I guess. Anyone nominate a beautiful article for featured status?
I'll throw a few into the mix that I enjoyed reading.
Maybe even First Siege of Caiger Mall - I think from a historical standpoint it is a good read. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll throw in NecroWatch, because I think it's a good mix of fluff, encourages survivors to take risks and be proactive, and in its mission tries to get more people to contribute to the Wiki. ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
We should probably wait 'till we have the criteria up, and the voting page before nominating things. Silly peoples! -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oops? Sorry! ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 03:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, no, no - it has to start with Om, and then you go nomnomnomnom (i.e. omnomnomnomnom)! --ZsL 05:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly need some criteria, though nothing too stringent, if it's generally awesome, throw it in there. Also, this voting business, are we going to vote for articles that are of a FA quality, and then choose one each week? Or are we going to have a pool of random articles people collect, of which somebody chooses a couple to be voted on each week? Or something else, or what? We have no system goddamnit! PS: DRR, are you sure you mean RNG, or do you mean RNG (Old Testament)? Just to clarify for my benefit, as I think the current RNG page is kinda crappy TBH so it seems odd to suggest it. -- RoosterDragon 16:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The old one has NPOV and it not-being-an-article kind of problem. For FAs we could:
- Certainly need some criteria, though nothing too stringent, if it's generally awesome, throw it in there. Also, this voting business, are we going to vote for articles that are of a FA quality, and then choose one each week? Or are we going to have a pool of random articles people collect, of which somebody chooses a couple to be voted on each week? Or something else, or what? We have no system goddamnit! PS: DRR, are you sure you mean RNG, or do you mean RNG (Old Testament)? Just to clarify for my benefit, as I think the current RNG page is kinda crappy TBH so it seems odd to suggest it. -- RoosterDragon 16:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Vote FAs from a pool each week, the winner being the FA article. (the Pool of articles aren't FAs yet)
- Create a pool of FAs, then have a vote for which one will be on the ComPort/Main Page.
- Have two votes, one to determine FAs and the other to determine which/when they get to be on the ComPort/Main Page.
- Yar? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined towards method 1. People could just add to the pool at will, or just add it to a pre-pool list which then gets pooled if nobody adds any substantial objections after a week or something. -- RoosterDragon 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- 1 as well. Of course, the pool will have to be set before being voted on. So Pool A is created, voting starts, but some people want some other articles in the pool. Therefore, it would go in Pool B, which would be voted on next week. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- 1. But what to nominate? Do i want informative/historic/or ALIM? Peer reviewed buildings?, The Fall of Monroeville Mall, Danger Alley? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Main Namespace articles. If it's an information page, like a location, glossary item, suburb, historical events etc then it should be included. Groups, user pages and things like projects shouldn't be included.-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- How boring! There are some pretty awesome group pages out there. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Main Namespace articles. If it's an information page, like a location, glossary item, suburb, historical events etc then it should be included. Groups, user pages and things like projects shouldn't be included.-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- 1. But what to nominate? Do i want informative/historic/or ALIM? Peer reviewed buildings?, The Fall of Monroeville Mall, Danger Alley? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, here's a question: what is the purpose of the FA? Is it just supposed to be fluffy? Or it it supposed to be a resource to show people pages they might not stumble upon? I mean, a really interesting location article is neat and all, but (and no offense to anyone)... who cares? Featuring a well-written article on the Lawson Arms isn't honestly going to enrich anyone's wiki or gameplay experience, it's just a five-minute distraction and maybe it gets a laugh. Now, if that's the point, then fine-- I'm on board. But if the purpose is to enrich wiki-goers' UD experience, then we shouldn't be so squeamish about letting group pages go on the list. After all, they still have to pass a vote to become an FA. ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see why we can't have pages ranging from interesting locations articles to awesome backwater pages to some interesting write-up of history. Active group pages would just create so much damned drama though, totally not worth the effort. Historical groups I wouldn't have a problem with, though I can't imagine many of their pages are actually that interesting, the group and their history might be, but the FA is only going to direct your to their page. -- RoosterDragon 22:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)