Forum:AOTM changes

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > AOTM changes
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 October 2008 by Azaz129.

These are really a few disconnected ideas regarding the current AOTM process, so I'll list them in bullet points:

  • On the RS:AOTM page, each candidate is given its own subpage for voting at the moment. While this is a relatively minor point, I'd rather have the discussion on the page itself. It really is one big discussion in a way, and the page length wouldn't be very long if this were done. Combining the discussion would also make the page easier to maintain and organize.
  • [[Template:Featuredarticle]] should incorporate the entire lead section of the featured article, or for leads longer than about two paragraphs, significant parts of it. This draws more focus to the article itself and hopefully gets more readers interested in its content. (As was mentioned on the UOTM VFD the AOTM text is generally very short compared to the UOTM text, and I agree that this should be changed.) If the article featured doesn't have a substantial lead, it shouldn't be the AOTM!
  • This is a bit off topic, but I posted above in the section about an "article of the week" regarding a focus/collaboration article that could be chosen every week and listed on the main page. I really think this could improve the overall quality of some of our "core" articles, articles that could go on to be featured. If it looks like there's some interest in this I'll try to write up a more detailed proposal.

Any thoughts? (If anyone would like to list some ideas of their own I wouldn't mind.) Skill 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, Whoa, are you saying changing "month" to "week"? If that's the case, then no.I really don't think that would help because we don't have that many articles to show (or at least good quality ones) every week. Wikipedia can do one every day just because they have so many articles. I don't think this would work out in the long run. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really what I was suggesting, see the comment I had written in the linked section... it's more of a "collaboration of the week". I do recognize that it would be impractical to have a weekly featured article for the moment, but that's not the idea here. Instead, we link an article from the main page in an effort to improve its quality. It really doesn't need to be too formal, it could be changed by whoever thinks a particular article could be improved, given a few guidelines that we can post on a project page. The idea is to target potential featured articles that aren't ready yet, and articles that most readers would find essential to a complete RS resource. Skill 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I can haz edit helps? I love this idea better than the AotW idea (which as i had suggested above, would just rotate previous AotM but would have to repeat after a half of a year. Realising that what Skill is saying is that some of the AotM morph over time with exposure to the masses, I have to concur with the idea of having mediocre articles improved upon through a CotW as being a better idea than the variations of AotW suggested thus far.
However, the wily nily aspect of how the CotW would be picked concerns me slightly but only in the fact that someone someday will somehow go off about their pet article being constantly neglected, so in order to circumvent such whinings I would suggest some mostly informal voting-like page (one that isn't really a voting page) that lets anyone/everyone state whatever it is that they feel should be next up for CotW.
Another thought - I would recommend new RS features (e.g., DnD this week) be explicitly excluded since they will already be getting plenty of attention regardless. I'm out of thoughts now. ~kytti khat 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry about the late response, I've been a bit busy lately.) I'm fine with the exclusion of new features and the like. On the informal voting page, I'm thinking that we could just have a list of candidates, and if there are no complaints for a given candidate, we post it on the main page during whatever week happens to be free. Does that work to prevent any problems with the feature being used to unnecessarily direct attention to certain articles?
Also, does anyone have any other thoughts on this, or should I start writing up the detailed proposal? Skill 20:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that should work to mostly circumvent any foreseeable issues.
Just one last comment from the peanut gallery; I totally love this concept for the simple fact that it encourages casual perusers of this wiki to become an active part of it as opposed to just being passive mouse potatoes. ~kytti khat 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)