Forum:Remove supporters and time requirements for featured articles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Remove supporters and time requirements for featured articles
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 May 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

I just closed three featured article nominations. The current rules state that nominations must be open for between two and four weeks and that for a positive consensus to exist there have to be at least seven supporters. This seems a bit strange ludicrous to me, since FA is an underused portion of the site. For all three that I closed (all were over the maximum time limit), none had the seven supporters needed to even mandate a consideration of consensus. In fact, in over a month, the first two did not even have anyone besides the nominator comment on them.

For such an underused portion of the site, a requirement of seven supporters in such a short period of time essentially means that we have a de facto ban against any new articles being featured. Who regularly checks FA? The nominations regularly go for weeks without any activity. Per Forum:Have you ever seen the snow?, we already have a minimum of one week for discussions, which I think should be sufficient, and if more than one month is needed for a discussion then I don't see a problem with letting that happen.

As for the supporters count, having such a high minimum is pointless. I think the administrators here are smart enough to figure out a consensus if they only get six supporters and no opposers (such an article would currently be rejected due to the lack of the seventh supporter).

I probably could have made this more concise, but oh well. --LiquidTalk 23:43, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 23:43, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I forgot we had FA, and it seems rather idiotic to neglect adding new articles because few users remember we have it and check on it. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:09, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - The current time restraints may not allow for enough time for a discussion to take place. And consensus is good enough for an article to pass a FAN, we don't need seven supporters. Smithing 00:21, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

What are you recommending? - One potential problem arising from removing the time requirement is that if we leave it up for too long the article could change too much, and become crap. In which case the first few supporters might have not supported it. If you want to change it, what are we changing it to? --Degenret01 01:28, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm recommending that we remove the time limit altogether. I see your concern, but I decided that administrators would know well enough to get this done in a timely fashion, and not let a discussion sit for many months. --LiquidTalk 01:31, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
@degen: That same problem exists as much for existing featured articles as it would exist for articles that run a longer nomination. So far, I have rarely seen any articles go from featured article quality to regular article quality. I don't see why it would be a bigger problem when that happens to articles in a FA nomination than when it would happen to any of the current FAs. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:24, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Nothing can pass at the moment simply because not enough people comment on them. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:09, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty sad that we don't get enough participation in this feature. It seems like the Featured Images draw all the attention. Which makes sense to a point, they are simple easy "click" pics, maybe add some transparency, and bam, done. Articles take a lot of work and combined effort, especially when they need a cleanup. We seem to lack the attention span to make that happen.--Degenret01 07:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure what exactly makes a good article. There isn't any kind of criteria list that I've found..? I've never voted in a featured article, probably won't any time soon since I've no idea what to do/say. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 13:11, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
Different people have different criteria as there isn't anything set in stone. Maybe it is time to hijack this thread and make it about trying to find some guidelines? Personally, I always wanted it to be primarily a well written article first. A lot of our stuff has an awful lot of sentence fragments, run-on sentences, information repeating itself, or presented in a disorganized fashion. The subject matter is also important. It should be interesting to read about. Check out this. It is about a mine. Many supporters were going to oppose, just because the article is about a mine. But then we read the article. You should check it out. Featured article was once one of the proudest features of the wiki and garnered much attention. It could be again.--Degenret01 01:00, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. Perhaps we'd get more supporters and less of a time lag if people had an idea of what to do. (: That mine article was amazing, btw - very interesting nomination. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:12, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered whether the inactivity is a sign would should scuttle the project as opposed to lessening our standards for it? (wszx) 06:54, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

"scut·tle: A metal container with a sloping hinged lid and a handle, used to fetch and store coal for a domestic fire." I no comprehendo Matt (t) 07:54, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
To scrap; discard: "a program President . . . sought to scuttle" (Christian Science Monitor). (wszx) 15:27, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Lol Matt (t) 21:32, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - FA seems to have gotten a lot more active over the past few days than it previously was. Adding this now seems kind of redundant. Matt (t) 21:03, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it has a temporary burst of activity, but how long will that last? And besides, your suggestion doesn't deal with the fundamental issues with the rule. --LiquidTalk 22:17, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The time and support requirements will be removed. Suppa chuppa Talk 16:05, May 10, 2011 (UTC)