Forum:Randomising "Featured article"
I have been toying around with this idea for some time, and I think it's about time we discussed whether this should be implemented or not. I was thinking whether we should randomise the "Featured article" section, similar to the way the "Featured image" section is randomised.
Proposal: Randomise the "Featured article" section on the Main Page.
- Visitors are exposed to a variety of featured articles on the Main Page, instead of one every month.
- Featured articles need not to "compete" to become this/next month's featured article.
- The article is featured based on its merit, not because it outdid the "other" articles.
- Users may support more than one candidate.
- Previous nominations will not be confined to the archives.
- A late nomination may still have the potential of becoming a featured article.
- See Pro #1.
- The current nomination system needs to be looked into.
- The archiving system needs to be revamped.
- [[Template:Featuredarticle]] may become complicated and difficult to edit. See Template:Featuredimage for comparison.
- The featured article may no longer meet the featured article requirement, hence the additional work to always keep it up to mark.
If possible, I would also prefer if we used the same randomisation system for the "Featured user" section. The pros and cons are similar to the ones stated above.16:35, August 25, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - So, have the featured article use the same system as Featured Image? I do see how that would diversifythe Main Page, but I'm still unclear about the determination proccess and the requirements. Also, I don't think the discussion about doing the same with featured user would be a good idea, as it might get more confusing and harder to achieve consensus. Doucher4000******r4000 17:58, August 25, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - this could work. Looking at the the templates for "featured article" and "featured image" each entry would end up being about the same size since images have more formatting code. Anyone could propose adding or deleting an article to the featured article category and the template would just pick one at random. This has the potential to encourage any editor to help make some quality articles that could be featured, it might help establish a "gold standard" for article quality. How would we handle intermediate edits to the proposed articles? (it might not matter) Would we want to semi-protect the featured articles? I would imagine that there would be a lot of proposed in the first round, and it might taper off after that. I also think that we should have some basic criteria for featured articles, so we don't get as many shoddy submissions. I think this is worth discussing further, good idea!00:49, August 26, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - That would really work. The first featured articles that are randomised could be the ones that have already been featured: we know that they're good, if they've been featured. I really like this idea. Oil4 Talk 07:11, August 26, 2009 (UTC)
Support - This is something that [[wikibooks:Main Page|was done on Wikibooks]] to replace the "Book of the Month" feature. I was one of the original template designers that got the system going on Wikibooks, including [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations|the nomination process]] that got books put onto the queue for potential books to show up on the front page. One advantage of going this route is that it got rid of the politics of trying to see what book would be selected for that month's selection, and instead concentrated on simply trying to improve quality instead. For here on RSWiki, this would imply that once an article has achieved some sort of general criteria for quality (to be determined through consensus of interested wiki users), it could be featured "immediately" instead of having to wait for the next opening on some sort of queue. If the overall quality of articles has been improving to the point that some of the earlier articles just don't seem to "cut the mustard" for FA quality status, there is even a process to remove the article from the queue. Frankly, I think this is a good idea and something that should be strongly considered. --Robert Horning 22:25, August 26, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Per above. After a while of seeing the same article it seems stale so this would be great and just about anything that will reduce politics is great for the wiki. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 22:32, August 26, 2009 (UTC)
Support AOTM, not UOTM - I see the logic with ATOM, but the user of the month does not serve the same function, and therefore should not be changed as such.01:48, August 27, 2009 (UTC)
Support - I think using this system for both AotM and UotM would be interesting.13:13, August 27, 2009 (UTC)
Support UOTM, Neutral AOTM - I made a topic before about doing this with UOTM, but closed it because it wasn't going anywhere. I don't know about article of the month being randomized, that'd mean a lot more work. Instead of just keeping one article at it's best for a month we'd be maintaining twenty or thirty. With featured image and featured user it's different, because rarely would another version of an image be uploaded and no one is going to change the UOTM page, but articles receive dozens of edits everyday. — Enigma 14:40, August 29, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I have a new idea on UOTM. We make it random, but users can be made user of the month more than once (so long as they wait a while before being nominated again).19:21, August 30, 2009 (UTC)
- Um, wouldn't that be a little pointless? The idea is once someone is nominated for Featured User they're never taken out of the randomized cycle... — Enigma 23:02, August 30, 2009 (UTC)
- It would also not be random then. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 00:10, August 31, 2009 (UTC)
- I must not have my idea across. say three people are nominated for UOTM an dall three pass. Then all three of them are in the cycle for that month. after that, some new people are put into the cycle for that month, and a month later one of the people from the orgional cycle are put back into it for another month. 10:16, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Weak support randomised aotm, Strong oppose uotm - While I can see the logic behind randomising aotm, uotm is much different. Users go inactive, editors change (for better or worst) and randomising this seems unnecessary.
- UOtM (currently)
- Inactive-----12 (What point in saying someone was a great editor? Featured users should be current and promote the conventions of our day.
- semi-active-- 3-5ish (We want to promote activity not be great at editing for a while and then coast.) (fairly blurred line between active and semi-active I'm afraid)
- Active------- 16ish (*Insert insightful comment here*)
- Now, while we can create a process similar to the featured image process, (in that those featured can be removed at any time) I must ask what the point of it is. Why add another layer of bureauracy to a simple process that doesn't require it? While I wont give my opinion on utom itself, I believe that we should leave something that is working fine alone and as the old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".-- 19:44, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
- Also, we'd have to re add the ability oppose on uotm, as it's unfair to take one's ability to voice an opinion away, at least under the current system a user can simply support/nominate another candidate should they feel the other candidate does not represent the spirit of the wiki, under randomisation, there would be no counter balance unless the option to oppose was re added. And we need not be reminded, I should hope, of the amount of conflict created by direct opposition within Featured users.-- 19:52, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - We can choose not to include inactive and semi-active users. Or we could start the randomised UotM process afresh... We don't need a process to remove a featured user.. imagine someone getting inducted into a hall of fame. They don't get removed from it because they died, or become inactive in whatever they were doing. While I have personal issues with the "Featured users" system, I find this randomisation system less rigid than the current system we have. Anyone should be able to be nominated provided they have the support of the community, and they would not be restricted by the number of votes, and don't have to withdraw just because of the timing of their nomination was not right. (Late nominations have no chance of winning, so typically a user chooses to withdraw.)
- If you're saying the current system isn't broken, how come a user (User A) who deserves to be a featured user "lose" to User B because User A won by a meagre 1 vote? This is not a democracy. If both are deserving, then both should be "Featured users". We shouldn't be relying on the number of votes to decide which user is more deserving this month. I find that annoying. And what if someone feels that both user A and user B should NOT be nominated. That person has no way of expressing their opinion other than by abstaining from voting. I find this even more annoying.
- We have the ability to "oppose" in RfAs, so why not in UotMs? Maybe I wasn't around when there was a time where opposes were allowed, or when there was major conflict within "Featured users"... So remind me. If "Oppose" is too strong a statement, a "Not yet" vote would be sufficient to stall/nullify a nomination.
- I strongly feel that the UotM system is kinda broken, and I think it's about time we looked into it. 14:52, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. If a user has 5 "supports", and 10 "not yets", then the user will not automatically be a featured user. The user will have to wait for re-nomination, similar to an RfA. Besides, why nominate if you don't want them to be a featured user? Featured user is about recognising the efforts of a user. It is not about winning. If 5 users deserve it in a month, then so be it. 05:16, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Support - The "Featured Article" box does get kind of stale after the first week or so. Randomizing it to a set list of different articles would be very nice. Chaos Monk Talk • Sign 23:20, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - For featured user would it be possible to have it like features image, but limit it to randomising the last 6 or so users to be featured?? This keeps the the featured users active, while keeping the pros that Azliq pointed out. It might result in there being a flurry of features users for the first few weeks where you don't stay in the first 6 for long, but once it has died down it will probably function fine. Evil Yanks talk 05:35, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty good compromise to that particular issue. I would prefer that the featured article go into rotation for all of the high quality articles that are currently on the wiki (those should be staying fresh), but for the users of the month... that seems like a more reasonable alternative. Yeah, I'd be dropped from that list, but I don't mind (really!). I would like to get something going on this too, rather than just discussion of it. Give me a day or two, and I'll get some templates up and going to get this all worked out. --Robert Horning 10:50, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Support/ Comment - It would be nice to have it be random maybe change it once a week instead of once a day or once a month -- Cheese012 05:54, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
I've randomised the featured articles template. It's now in [[Template:Featuredarticle]]. I modified/updated some of the earlier text so that it doesn't sound dated. Please look through the list and see if I missed anything. Thanks.16:51, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
For featured users, the template is at . It lists the last five featured users.17:20, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
I feel that some of the articles are not up to current Article of the Month standard. There is currently no means to "denominate" articles from rotation, so I am placing my suggested articles for denomination and reason why here.
Miscellania and Etceteria - The Managing Miscellania section probably should be split from the page. This would result in a majority of the mass of the article being lost and the article becoming a hollow shell of its former self.
Desert Treasure - Needs cleanup. I read through it and found it confusing. I did a tiny bit of work adding headings but much more is needed.
Trouble Brewing - Doesn't have any advice on how to play the game well, just the features of the game. So, needs strategies, tactics, etc. Also all the images on the page are SD.
I think that all Skill pages need something on the history of the skill, like Summoning history. It would be an important part of the page, and something that few other fansites would have. This would result in Fishing, Magic, Hunter and Mining not being included. I feel that the Hunter page is in need of clean-up anyway.
Fairy ring - Possibly add a history section since Jagex keep on adding new rings. Maybe.
East Ardougne - As the template says, more should be added to the history template. While the history section is ok, it is not up to the standard of most of the other articles on the wiki.
Armour - Apparently it is not updated with the newest armour according to the cleanup tag. If the article is not up to date, then it probably should not be featured.
Baxtorian - There might be more info about Baxtorian after you complete within the light. If there isn't, then scratch this.
While Guthix Sleeps - "it's cluttered with all those unnecessary images, keeps switching from 2nd person to 3rd person"
I was hesitant to suggest Quest guides since it has been so long that I did most of the quests that I found it hard to judge.
I would add While Guthix Sleeps to the list, it's cluttered with all those unnecessary images, keeps switching from 2nd person to 3rd person, and it makes me feel claustrophobic... — Enigma 07:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Lol, I took a lot of those photos in the WGS article. Anyway, I added it to the list. Evil Yanks talk 05:27, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
Support denomination - Just how the Featured Image has a denomination section, Articles should also be given the option. As you stated, article condition may go down in quality over many edits, and some aren't up to par now. ~MuzTalk 00:50, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
Closing This has been put into effect for some time now, except for removing no longer with featured articles. New YG topic started to cover that specifically.--Degenret01 00:13, January 4, 2010 (UTC)