UDWiki talk:Featured Articles

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.

• You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when
• Groove Theory
• RNG

Maybe even First Siege of Caiger Mall - I think from a historical standpoint it is a good read. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (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:

1. Vote FAs from a pool each week, the winner being the FA article. (the Pool of articles aren't FAs yet)
2. Create a pool of FAs, then have a vote for which one will be on the ComPort/Main Page.
3. 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? --Rosslessness^{Want 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 Dignam^{IS DEAD} 21:27, 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? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 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. ~ 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)

But this is a wiki for a game about a zombie apocalypse. Any truly NPOV articles are scarce and probably not that exciting. The beginning of the ALIM page isn't NPOV. Even building and suburb pages have a backstory that was made up by somebody. The RRF page is very well written, as is the Randoms page, etc. It's a shame not to have these eligible for featured article status, although creating criteria would become a lot harder. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's worth the potential drama, but if others think it worthwhile, well, that's the whole point of generating consensus from discussion. :) Hopefully it would work out. NPOV-wise, I think it's as big a problem as you say, there are plenty of articles that don't even have significant NPOV concerns in the backwaters of the wiki. Several articles might be better with some sort of obvious bias anyway. If people don't think it's worthy of being FA because it goes too far or whatever, then it won't get voted in. Finally, is ALIM the best we can do for interesting UD related pages? Surly there's better things than a disturbingly thoroughly complied list of cock jokes out there. --  RoosterDragon  23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Groups I suppose, though I don't know how many will make it. I'm sure we'll find FA quality articles, or perhaps we'll make them. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Featured Articles are considered to be the best articles on the Urban Dead Wiki, as determined by the Wiki's users. Before being listed here, articles are voted on according to our featured article criteria, which include strong writing skills, neutrality (for NPOV articles), originality, style, stability (article is not subject to ongoing edit wars) and all-around awesomeness." How's that for criteria? Too many adjectives? It would cover all the articles, at least. I understand the concern about drama, but like I said before, there are some sweet pages out there that deserve a spotlight. Can you prevent a group from stacking the ballot box? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I like those criteria. As for stacking the ballot box, I don't know if it could be prevented. Maybe we could try something like a rotating format? What I mean is, we could be express in the voting rules that the FA must follow the pattern of pro-zombie, neutral, pro-survivor, historical, repeat? So even if a group wanted to ballot stuff to promote their group or agenda, they could really only get their way once a rotation? How long does an article get FA props on the front page, anyway? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 04:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A week by the sound of it, but I'm more inclined to go for a month, at leased while its trialed. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Added some stuff. I know it's missing stuff, but what kind of "style" are we looking for in an article? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't penalise long articles, the article should be comprehensive IMO. I would also add a caveat to the NPOV bit "where applicable", not all articles are bound to be NPOV, and some don't even the possibility of having a typical POV bias. Anyway, picking on some of Paddy's adjectives, I'd add

• Well Written: The article uses good English and is written in a clear and highly readable style.
• Generally Awesome: Here at the wiki, we're after stuff that's awesome.

--  RoosterDragon  22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Protectionism

Here's an issue: Will we be forced to protect articles that make it onto Featured Articles? I'm assuming we will. What if it is something that is subject to update or change? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Damn good question. Obviously we can't protect NPOV articles, but maybe we compare the article that was voted on and featured to the same article when it rolls around to be featured a second time? Make sure all changes conform to the FA criteria? Assuming we use NPOV articles at all. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should satisfy the FA criteria first, before becoming FAs. Protection, semi, or full is unnecessary for the current FA unless it is being targeted for vandalism. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We probably should semi-protect it as a preventative measure. I don't think we want a 3-page goatse-ing the thing. --ZsL 17:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We're talking temporary protection in most cases though, right? --  RoosterDragon  19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary protection makes sense-- but if FA articles are up for a month, that might be a downside. If they're up for a week, the protection for that time isn't so dangerous. At the same time, if they're only FA for a week, casual wiki-goers might not see them like regulars would. I'd say one way or the other, we should incorporate a "Previously Featured..." aspect, even if those pages were no longer protected. That way casual users could browse. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, lots of wikis do that. It would have to be a link underneath the FA though, otherwise clogging issues. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say weekly seems good for FA. A month is damned long and we'd get a mere 12 articles a year from it. --  RoosterDragon  22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking temporary protection as well. The page's editing should be limited to the autoconfirmed users, the FA could get messed up by vandals or inexperienced newbies. --ZsL 01:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Limit the editing to autoconfirmed users, perhaps sysops only (I would prefer the former, but the latter may be a necessity sometimes.) Once we get our Mediawiki upgrade, we should haz ability to set timelimits on protections. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking for trouble

How about guests spots? An evening with (Insert name here) get a well known guest speaker in to speak on a subject. people can ask questions, and the lecturer can decide which he answers (Yes. Ignoring trolling.) Wonderful. Rooster hosts an evening on parsing etc. A DEM representatvie to talk about why there so maligned. A helpful little gnome presents an urban dead mini game workshop. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested something like this in the very beginning, and was totally ignored because I'm so good-looking and clever and everyone hates me for it. You're not as good-looking and clever, so maybe now they'll listen. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I wasn't around back then, I would get behind this. Though, just to be safe, I am going to completely ignore Paddy's support of it ;) ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what would it be called? And how would it be set up? Would it be announced on the Main Page and CP, possible elsewhere? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Featured User," to compliment "Featured Article?" Or if it's more about someone expounding on a topic, something like "Featured Topic?" I just wonder if it would be a trial-by-fire for any civility policy we might adopt. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Topic sounds good. I think a month would do for that, though. I don't think we'll be able to make as many as Featured Articles. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A month seems a tad long, fortnightly or twice monthly perhaps?--  RoosterDragon  22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion about how it would work: people can suggest a topic that they want to "moderate" (not in the forum moderator way, but more like a academic moderator way). These suggestions are collected one cycle in advance, and just like suggestions, people can vote on them-- but each cycle, users are asked to only vote once. So, let's say that there are four topics suggested for the upcoming cycle. We close the page for new suggestions and open it for voting. Each user can only vote for one keep (the one they want), and one kill (the topic they are most opposed to). Votes are tallied, the highest vote-getter will be the FT for the next cycle, and the one with the most kills is now ineligible to be re-suggested (I'm getting to that in a moment).

The user who suggested the topic "owns" the topic; they will start off the conversation and then moderate. The topic page itself should be created as a sub-page of their user talk page (so, for instance, if I won for the topic of "Bananas," I would create User_Talk:Extropymine/Bananas to host the topic) so they have the right to remove offensive comments and trolling and drama without breaking wiki rules. It is the responsibility of the moderator to balance allowing dissenting opinions with removing trolls. Since it's on their user talk page, there is no arbitration (though if we have a civility policy, there might be mediation). The topic is their property, so what they risk by handling it badly is that the discussion will die and no one will vote for their suggestions in the future.

Any suggestion that did not win (but was not killed) can be re-suggested again in a future cycle. Would that work? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagined it working as such. During the voting period for the next featured article a user could say "I'd like to run a discussion on blah" If thats voted as the feature, they run it, if not its up to them if they want to reapply. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I love stealing stuff from Wikipedia

I've just uploaded this file from Wikipedia (located here, and because it's pretty darn smalls File:LinkFA-star.png. We can use it to detonate a featured article, ether here or on general listings.

Sadly, this policy prevents us using a version of this template to place a "FA star" outside the page area. However, does a featured article show a "clear need to violate the policy."? Then we may be able to place that star after all (and it will make it a lot easier to recognize for casual browsers.)

Also, a star like they have on Wikipedia is a lot less ugly then a big template saying "Featured Article," and doesn't interrupt the flow of the page as much.

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we want to detonate articles ;). There isn't really a need to do this, so using "clear need to violate the policy" would be stretching it. However, I doubt there'd be much opposition to a policy allowing page information icons (such as featured article, protected etc) as an exception. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As do I. I don't really see if it's really worth the effort to go through here for what's really only going to effect a few pages. I may however. Protection icons could be quite useful. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to violate the page area policy. If it's just stuck in the top right of the page area for instance? Am I missing something obvious? --  RoosterDragon  12:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. Anyway, on Wikipedia (example article,) the FA star is placed in the upper right right next to the title - it's outside the page area. That said, if someone can figure out a way to have this star in the far upper right without violating the policy (ie: it's still within the page area, just below the title,) the free cookie for them.

Or we could just conduct a straw poll here and see if the community's okay with the policy being violated. It means we can bypass A/PD and still get our star. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You could stick it in the top right (of the page area) very easily with a div I think. I'm going to go double check though because you've made me very uncertain all of a sudden. --  RoosterDragon  12:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem to put it there, but it could easily disturb the page layout. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the div wouldn't get stuff to wrap around it, in that case, what about just floating it to the right using a table? If called at the top of the page it ought to work fine I think. --  RoosterDragon  12:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why A/PD should be bypassed. If we're going to vote about it anyway, why not do it there? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are just doing it for featured articles, it's too much bother. However, if we want to go for protection icons, other administration icons, etc, the we probably will need a policy. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the bother. At least three days of discussion (which can be spent on discussing whether to also put protections there) and then voting. Pretty much what would happen here. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to add a little image icon on the top right of the page, that policy doesn't exist to prohibit that. It exists for these things. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it exists to prevent all that annoying image spam they have on user pages on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone would mind if we had a star like this, but it would violate the letter of the policy (although not the spirit.) Might as well get consensus here or on A/PD first. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, don't think anyone will complain. There's a way, on this wiki, to get that image to link to the article without a redirect. I figured it out stole it once, but I've forgotten. edit: it's in this code, figure out later--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, by the way. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:52, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Types of Articles

What type of articles would you look to put here? Is the page supposed to be dedicated to useful, informative, or flat out amusing articles? If this were to start getting heavy use, personally, I'd prefer to not see user and group pages come up. Would event pages be eligible even though there's the nice historical events section? --Johnny Bass 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're still trying to figure that out. Some are leaning toward NPOV articles only, others think active group pages should be included. Check out the Nomnomnominations heading for the conversation so far. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick group and user pages up as long as they agree with the criteria we put together. There are several very well done pages out there, particularly things like the RRF pages and Gnome's user page, that deserve a wee gold star in the corner. -- Cheese 16:07, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Ball Rolling

Ok, things seem to have hung up for a little while. So, a quick summary of the discussions above:

• Articles (Not-yet FA standard) would probably be entered into a pool, with the winner of a vote becoming a FA and and featured on this page & main.
• Articles would probably be featured for a week, though maybe a month trial until things get going.
• Articles would likely be semi-protected as a precautionary measure, and fully if that becomes necessary.
• We'll probably use those FA stars you get on the English wiki, if people don't mind a minor addendum to the content outside the page area policy.
• People are split over articles being NPOV/minimal bias and allowing group pages (which are obviously biased) since some are of good quality.
• There's a few notes on the FA page header about criteria we're after, these can still be changed though.

I figure we may as well start putting in a few nominations since we've got an outline of where we're going. We can fix things on the fly and we're under no time limit so things can still be fixed if there is a big problem. Since we're still not sure about group pages yet, I think people should add them to the pool for now so we have a few ready if consensus suggests they're permissible. So chuck down some nominations and raise any other issues, and maybe we'll put FA/V to use in due course.

To start with, here's a few from the above discussions:

• You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when
• Groove Theory
• RNG
• First Siege of Caiger Mall
• NecroWatch
• The Fall of Monroeville Mall
• Danger Alley
• The Lawson Arms

--  RoosterDragon  21:33, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Right. I don't think Lawson arms is "good enough". "You know you've..." is already linked on the new CP. However, I always liked groove theory. 2 of the others I wrote, so my vote must go to the Battle of Blackmore --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:59, 2 April 2009 (BST)

OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Trenchcoater! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Nah, it's a bit unprofessional, if funny. My vote goes to NecroWatch (once we get this rolling.) Linkthewindow  Talk  07:09, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Wait till we smash the FA/V page open. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:33, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Just want a pool of stuff Link, no need to cast votes for anything yet.

A bunch of obvious ones:

• Civilian & Civilian skills
• Military & Military skills
• Scientist & Science skills
• Zombie & Zombie skills
• Zombie Hunter skills --  RoosterDragon  16:28, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I made some changes. Mmm? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:30, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Im still not sure about NPOV. You lose a lot of great pages. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:41, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I think that's worked in under the criteria. It's basically just a guideline, the criteria is. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:51, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Yoda you are. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:57, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Unintentional, it was. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:01, 3 April 2009 (BST)

My opinion: I have nothing against pages that need a certain amount of POV in order to have a flair and style to make them interesting. But we shouldn't go around ignoring the issue because NPOV is key to many areas in the wiki and so articles who can manage it without compromising the article are likely to be good, so we wouldn't want them shunned because people prefer to vote for articles with bais towards their preferred side.

Anyway, I'm not buying into the changes on FA/V. A Yes/No vote suggests we're just promoting articles to FA-standard but not featuring them. An article with the most yes votes wins (I assume, you need to make this clear), but if even one person has a damned good 'no' vote because the article is unsuitable, then featuring it is a bad idea. My impression was going to be a "One vote per user, vote for your favourite" system with people flagging up pages they think are unsuitable for FA (pages they dislike, but are FA-worthy, don't get any 'No' votes or anything). I don't have anything against a Ye/No vote to promote an article pool into FA-class articles with another vote for the FA-class to be featured this week, but that seems much more effort. --  RoosterDragon  21:11, 3 April 2009 (BST)

So, like 'crat elections? Except articles, not people. I'd prefer if people got the article to "FA quality" before nominating it, though. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:47, 3 April 2009 (BST)

In a sense. More effort but allows good articles to be identified as such at any time (Say a week's worth of voting after submission by any user). The articles which are later featured are picked from any good article not yet featured. If we do this, my only request is that we standardize some terms fastish so we know what the fuck we all mean with these different article qualities and voting statuses and stuff. --  RoosterDragon  00:48, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, yeah. Updated. Feel free to make any tweaks. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:19, 8 April 2009 (BST)

So are we going with method 1 or 2?

Method 1:

• A bunch of articles are pooled.
• Articles from the pool are voted on.
• Article with most votes becomes FA.

Method 2:

• Articles are submitted whenever for consideration to be good articles.
• Articles over which no major issues are raised and show support are promoted to good articles.
• Some good articles are pooled.
• Articles from the pool are voted on.
• Article with most votes becomes FA.

--  RoosterDragon  15:24, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I'd say method 1. Much simpler and easier to get things going. (Sorry for the late joining in of discussion, I've been meaning to come and say hi for a while =)) -- Cheese 15:59, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually after reading the bit above a bit more thoroughly I quite like the second one. That way we can weed out the crap articles and avoid any meatpuppetry that could arise in Method 1. Fair enough we could get some in Method 2 but it would be on "good" articles as opposed to any random one. -- Cheese 16:04, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Page Ownership

How are you planning to get templates and categories onto owned pages when the owners can remove them at will? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:55, 3 April 2009 (BST)

They aren't going on user pages or group pages (that aren't historical) so there shouldn't be a problem. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:56, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Even historical groups retain page ownership, they could even remove the historical template if they chose to. My point is, unlike wikipedia where every candidate page is considered a community page, you are very likely to run afoul of page ownership guidelines fast. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)

While I guess they could do that, I can't imagine a rational reason to object to it. In the case a group does have some bizarre reason for not wanting a small and out-of-the-way star on their page, being listed in a category and being listed here, then they can just not add their own page as a nomination or note their objection if nominated by another user. --  RoosterDragon  21:37, 3 April 2009 (BST)

You are answering your own question. Let them remove it if they want, no one says its necessary to keep it on. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 05:43, 5 April 2009 (BST)