Forum:CT:Removal of featured article status

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Removal of featured article status


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was create a Featured Article review system. See Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius —Xwing328(Talk) 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar to Wikipedia, we should have some sort of page where people can nominate currently featured articles for "de-featuring". While I am not so familiar with the current stock of featured articles, certainly, at some point, some featured article will no longer heed the demands for its kind. I therefore propose we make Wookieepedia:Featured article review (or WP:FAR). There are other changes to the FA system I'd like to see, but let's start with this one. --Imp 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For

  1. Imp 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. For. If an article on the FA list, falls behind it should be taken off the list. But we should strive to keep articles up to prevent this. -Fnlayson 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong for. In fact, I can already think of a few articles that I would nominate for this. As the wiki grows and gets older, articles will not necessarily remain at the same quality. - Breathesgelatin 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Adamwankenobi 08:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Articles do fall out of good status, theres no denying it, by doing this were making sure that were keeping our pages looking there best. Jedi Dude 19:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cull Tremayne 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. --IG-Prime(Sentience Core)CIS roundel 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes please! .... 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 04:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strip an article of its featured status if it fails to keep up. MyNz 6:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Per comments below. —Mirlen 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. For now, we'll see what the mofference brings. --Xwing328(Talk) 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Groan... I'm sad about this, but it makes sense. Just like Order 66 :)---Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) 14:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Havac 08:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Breathesgelatin here. Some of the older articles tend to look a little bit sub-par when compared to the latest FAs. General Skywalker 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Volemlock 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC), sorry put my vote in the wrong list!

Against

  1. This was already discussed and shot down a long time ago. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is not right to do to an article, see comment. Jabbathehuttgartogg(Rancor pit) GrappasTattoo-CrimsonEmpireII 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Roron Corobb(My EVIL talk page, MUHAHAHA!) LukeVersusShimrra 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Against removal, as per my comment below. -- beeurd talk 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. SFH 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. It feels immoral to do that to an article.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core)CIS roundel 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC).
  7. Just because it may no longer match up to some other articles, that does not take away the fact that it has been featured at some point. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. I was against it when it was first brought up, I'm still against it now. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Ditto. Just like Jaymach said. Chack Jadson 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Patricksheridan 7:39pm, January 5, 2007

Comments

  • Then, StarNeptune, we should no longer call FAs the "best Wookieepedia has to offer" as they aren't, they were just featured on the main page at some point. --Imp 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How so? An article has to be good to get nominated and only the best of the nominated ones get enough votes to be a featured article. Featured article. -Fnlayson 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I think what Imp is trying to point out is that at the certain time it was nominated and passed the process, it was indeed the best Wookieepedia has to offer... But after several years, there might be few articles out there that might not be up-to-date with the latest Standards and not exactly in F.A. quality. After all, as all wikis are living encyclopedias in the fact that no pages are ever freezed to remain the same. Considering how much smaller the content of interest is for Wookieepedia in comparison to Wikipedia, I don't think there'll be too many articles below F.A. quality that were once upon a time the best Wookieepedia has to offer — but it would be untrue to deny that all F.A. articles here are of the same high quality as it was when it was featured on the main page in the past. If the majority of the Wookieepedia community is against stripping down F.A. status, then what about the creation of an improvement drive for F.A. and/or G.A. articles? I know we already have an improvement drive, but the pages that'd get the first priority would be that of stubs and of the like. The F.A./G.A. articles that are in need of being up-to-date with their status would never have a sort of publicized, wide, and focused collaboration between masses of [voluntary, willingly unpaid] editors, which is primarily what being part of a wiki is about. —Mirlen 02:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think we should remove FA status... But we should make it our priority to keep FAs updated to the standard required. -- beeurd talk 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
          • If you work hard to get an article featured and have it's FA title eraticated, that's not right. N-O. -- Jabbathehuttgartogg(Rancor pit) GrappasTattoo-CrimsonEmpireII 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I can see the logic though. For example; while Yoda may be a top quality article right now, if we fail to keep it updated and it would no longer be of the FA standard, which is why I think keeping FAs completely updated should be a priority. -- beeurd talk 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mirlen got my opinion just right. I guess I'm a little too linguistically minimalist to be comprehensible at times... Anyway. Yes, beeurd, I agree with you that we should strive to keep FAs of FA quality. --Imp 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, as time has gone on, our standard for detail has gotten stronger. For example, Leia Organa Solo was considered a FA in late 2005, but now that we have more editors and many more details in most of the movie character's pages, she is up for Improvement Drive. What sense does that make? - Breathesgelatin 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Breathesgelatin makes a point that is hard to dispute. Over the years, Standards for FA usually grow stricter and more restrictive. Articles (especially those of mid to low importance) that were nominated FA in the past tend to remain untouched because it is of mid or low interest to most fans, it remains un-updated; therefore, it no longer fulfills FA current standards. Also, if the article covers a subject that is of mid or low interest to majority, then those editors tend to assume that is in good shape because of its FA status and so it does not remain updated. Or articles that cover a vital or key topic (such as Leia Organa Solo), minor details to the point of fancruft even for a wiki usually are added over the years after its reward of FA status. (The First Corellian Insurrection section in the Anakin Solo article is a good example of that.)
A possible solution...?
  1. FA articles that no longer meet the current FA criteria overall undergo an improvement drive for FA and/or GA articles
  2. If the FA article goes through more than 3 improvement drives, then it can be nominated to be stripped of its FA status.
  3. When the article is nominated to be stripped of its FA status, the nominator must explain why the article should be stripped of its FA status, and those who have majorly contributed to that article may defend it. If there is majority (2/3rds perhaps?) among those who were not heavily involved with the article agree that it is not up to current standards, then the article should be removed of its FA status.
If this is not a favorable alternative to the Wookieepedia community, then I'll vote for either for or against. —Mirlen 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about just changing the description of FA status so it's clear that it was, at the time it was chosen, among the best Wookieepedia had to offer? Then, no stripping would be necessary. jSarek 06:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Mirlen's ideas and am in agreement with him. I think his first and third suggestions are more workable than the second, however. - Breathesgelatin 19:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To Jabba and CountDooku: Imagine an article you've written that reaches FA status and is featured on the main page. Now, imagine the same article two years later, filled to the brink with fanon and inaccuracies due to being edited. Is the article still worthy of the FA title? --Imp 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, but would there be a vote to remove its status?--IG-Prime(Sentience Core)CIS roundel 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, kinda lik a review, it wouldn't just be stripped, but things do fall out of status, alreayd looking back i can see FA's that just don't reach standard. Jedi Dude 21:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm female. :) But importantly, should we include the first and/or the third suggestion(s) in as a proposal to the poll, or leave it as it is? --Mirlen 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh cool. Me too (on the female thing). I think the vote is to establish some sort of review procedure. The specific review policy can perhaps be proposed later...? - breathesgelatinTalk 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To those that say this is a bad idea because articles were that were once featured should be remembered, the articles will still be tagged on their talk pages as former featured articles. It's not about demeaning anyone's work or denying that the articles were ONCE good. It's just admitting to a fact that a wiki is living and articles can sadly either deteriorate if they are not carefully watched, or simply get "passed by" when overall wiki standards rise. I guess I'm just having trouble understanding why so many people object to this. If an article is your pet and you get it to FA status, just keep watching it to make sure it stays there. I think that having poor, outdated FAs is misleading and dishonest, especially to new users. Yes, we should keep a record that an article was featured at one point, but why claim that a featured article will always maintain its quality regardless, when a wiki is constantly changing? - breathesgelatinTalk 00:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is most definetly needed. I know of a certain article that a lot of people like, but is just written in a very unencyclopedic fashion, and should be stripped of FA status until repairs are made. .... 07:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am working on a complete revamp of the FA system. I'll present it at the November Mofference. --Imp 07:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. I'll see if I'm free on the next Mofference (after I have the whole IRC thing figured out :P), but if not, I'll read the transcript to see how it went. —Mirlen 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Breathesgelatin: You're right, it's probably best to discuss the specifics after we get some sort of consensus, which is why I am now going to add in my support since specifics should come later. —Mirlen 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.