RuneScape talk:Featured articles
- 1 Making Contact! a 2nd AoTM for January
- 2 ?
- 3 April's AOTM
- 4 Where to discuss?
- 5 What?
- 6 What Happened?
- 7 Featured articles
- 8 Ties
- 9 One-Vote-Per-Person Rule
- 10 Template not working
- 11 Nomination
- 12 Withdrawing, and double nomination
- 13 Archiving
- 14 One vote only
- 15 tie
- 16 50 edits required to vote
- 17 What happens to the losing candidates?
- 18 Project Page?
- 19 Can't Vote
- 20 Ips allowed to vote??
- 21 Removing numbered bullet points
- 22 Archives
- 23 'Support' and 'Oppose' sections
- 24 Nominating an Article, March 2010
Making Contact! a 2nd AoTM for January[edit source]
Quest article Contact! has been voted to be the Featured article of the month for February which is a little late for a new quest. I'd like to add it to this month's article of the month as it complements Pyramid Plunder in getting a bank for thieving. There's usually 2 quests each month and we have been doing well in getting quest articles up fast. So it might be a good idea to have a 2nd article of the month especially for quest articles. more comments or vote? Chrislee33 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- We might consider having an Article of the Week soon. We have a number of good articles; we could probably stretch to it. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you vote? I tried for ages, but i can't get it to work. I'm a new user. And how come your username and time and date appear there?
K, I get it now. Thanks!Gambler 10 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who doesn't, you have to type four tildes after a message.Gambler 10 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
April's AOTM[edit source]
We need VOTES!!!!!--Whiplash 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Where to discuss?[edit source]
Hey there, I have a comment regarding the current system in place. It looks as if many people are putting their comments on each article on this page. However, the AOTM nomination template links to subpages for each article. How, then, can we consolidate the two? Should we ditch the links on the template and just link to this page? Endasil (Talk) @ 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone actually consider the things listed on this page when picking articles for "article of the month"? I've looked through past featured articles and very few of them actually follow these guidelines... →Evin290 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What Happened?[edit source]
Why did stuff like Range, etc disappear and some things like Cold War remain?
Featured articles[edit source]
I think it would be better if featured article were a status like it is on Wikipedia rather than the temporary designation it is here. Right now, only one article can become "featured" every month while there are likely dozens more that deserve it. There should still be a vote to decide on one for the main page every month, though, it just shouldn't be the only way to designate high-quality articles. Skill 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
For the past 2 Uotm's, we have had ties. What should we do if we have a tie? Wait?22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- There could be a rule based on the day of the week of the 1st, for example maybe Tuesday means the first alphabetically, or something like that. Skill 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
One-Vote-Per-Person Rule[edit source]
I think this rule should be removed. This is the only voting thing where voters may only have one vote, and the only reason that I see why it should be kept is that 'in real elections people only get to vote once', or something like that. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 05:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Template not working[edit source]
I'm stuck on the second step. It says click "this article's entry", but it's blue and just goes to the nomination page here. Butterman62 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawing, and double nomination[edit source]
1. Withdrawing a nomination
OK, not that I have any intention to do so, I was wondering if an editor is able to withdraw a nomination if others have already voted on it. Would the nominator just revoke their support, or remove the proposed article from the candidates list?
2. Double nominating
Secondly, I just noticed that an editor has nominated two articles for AOTM, since "The nominator's vote is included in the "support" section." and "As of 1 August 2007 users may only support one candidate."1 and the proposed articles have already been voted on, what happens now?
Thanks, CFLM Talk # Sign 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- If an article has received votes by other than the nominator, and the nominator withdraws support, then the article shoud stay. Because of the other support(s). But if they are the only supporter it should be ok if they pull it.--Varthlokkur 10:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that certain months contains All the candidates for the feature articles, while others only have the winning candidate. Which format do we use? I would prefer if all candidates are included in the archives, so that we can keep track of previous candidacy.10:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Archives, by definition, should contain all relevant information. It is most likely an oversight or misunderstanding that has been replicated after the first oops as others look to previous months for examples.--Varthlokkur 10:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
One vote only[edit source]
- If they have a valid reason to oppose the other article(s), then I don't see why they cannot. Just because they supported an article doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to oppose a badly written article/nomination. 18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
50 edits required to vote[edit source]
I normally edit using my IP address, does this mean I won't be allowed to vote here until I have 50 edits on this account also? Wartortle28 18:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Try using the Automatic login setting so you won't be on your IP the whole time. C Teng talk 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
No. You do not. I don't know if we just forgot to remove it at the time or if someone unilaterally decided to restore it but the topic was raised in the Yew Grove (in archive 2) and the consensus was, save for the User of the Month, there would be no editing requirements in these other types of pages.--Diberville 19:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot; is that just for UOTM and AOTM? C Teng talk 01:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's everything BUT user of the month. The reason is in all others, a consensus is required and you can voice opposition and consequently it is not just the amount of supports that win it but the one that has greater community agreement. However, since User of the Month only allows support votes and no other comments, then there is a risk of sockpuppets skewing the results and so a 50 edit minimum.--Diberville 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
What happens to the losing candidates?[edit source]
This happened in November 2008:
- "History of Varrock" edged "Wise Old Man" by 1 vote.
- Both articles had no Oppose votes.
Fortunately, "Wise Old Man" got nominated again in December. But, what if the article does not get nominated again? Would it be forgotten.. even if it is a good article that obtained high Support votes, and minimal Oppose votes (i.e. consensus)? Some of these losing candidates are not even included in the archives.
For this month (December 2008), we have 4 potential candidates:
- Wise Old Man - "leading" at the moment
- Grand Exchange - good article; but nominated a little bit late (mid-December)
- Knight Waves Training - vote changed because "Wise Old Man" is leading
- Money making guide - high Oppose votes
It seems that the first "good article" to be nominated always wins the nomination, and the second and third best articles seem to be left out, and cannot be voted on because of the clause "users may only support one candidate".
New format[edit source]
I think that this system needs to be revised, and I have an idea. This idea may be sound ridiculous, and I'll try my best to explain it.
My suggestions are as follows:
- Close the voting on an article's candidacy after 30 days (from the date of nomination).
- For the losing candidates:
- If the Oppose votes outnumber the Support votes, it is removed from the candidates list after the 30 days.
- If the Support votes are strong (and the Oppose votes are minimal), the voting process is closed after 30 days. However, the candidates remain in the Candidate list.
A good analogy would be the football/soccer league table.
- The season lasts 30 days - a month of voting
- The team in first place wins - Winner of AotM
- The teams in mid-table retains its position in the league - strong Support, minimal Oppose
- The teams at the end of table gets relegated - minimal Support, strong Oppose
- Sorting is based on points: +2 points for Support, 0 points for Neutral, -2 for Oppose.
This way a "good article" does not have to go through the nomination process again the following month (if it is nominated late, or if it obtained second place).
04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there need to be a new format. However, the "30 days after nomination" seems strange - nominations would be ending all over the place. I propose that:
- Aricles are nominated for AotM in the second month before the month they are nominated for (either the whole month, or the last two weeks of).
- Then, the articles nominated are voted upon for the entirety of the month before the month they are nominated for. If a lot of articles are nominated, a shortlist may have to be made.
- The article with the comunity consensus would then be AotM.
Thats a bit wordy, here's an example:
- As it is now December, articles would be nominated for Feburary's AotM.
- A shortlist of articles is made, if needed
- The articles are then voted upon throughout January.
- The one with community consensus is AotM Feburary.
Yay/Nay?17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Project Page?[edit source]
Can't Vote[edit source]
How come I can't vote? I have over 50 edits. -- Blackhole252 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ips allowed to vote??[edit source]
I just noticed that 2 IPs have voted in this months AOTM, one didn't sign their comment and the other signed as an account he was not logged in as. I don't know what to do with it since I thought that ips were not allowed to vote though it doesn't say anything about it in the rules. (I might be confusing this with UOTM or admin requests) Evil Yanks talk 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure about the current thing (it's quite unclear, TBH), but once this thread reaches consensus, IPs cannot vote. 09:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Removing numbered bullet points[edit source]
I am about to remove all numbered bullet points due to them just making everythying more confusing. They are easily interupted by signatures/talking and count opposes and supporters as one, giving n incorrect total. It is not very hard to count up the votes manually. Evil Yanks talk 02:22, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be titled like "RuneScape:Article of the Month/December 2009" instead of what we have now, "RuneScape:Article of the Month/archive41"? It's simpler, and easier to link to, and it's the way RuneScape:User of the Month is archived. C Teng talk 21:54, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
'Support' and 'Oppose' sections[edit source]
Why do all supports and all opposes go in their own sections? I think that it would be better to have them mixed (just like they were only two months or so ago), because then it will be easier for people to react to each other's arguments for supporting or opposing. Oil4 Talk 20:50, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I just merely set it up as I was told to in this article Gr33nday345 07:14, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Nominating an Article, March 2010[edit source]
I'm not really how to nominate an article, the instructions were kind of unclear to me. I wanted to nominate the article Elvarg. If someone could nominate it on my behalf that would be great.