FANDOM


FFWiki forum logo
Forums: Index > The Labyrinth of Time > Featured Article- Changing Hands

FFIV-amano rydiachild
Winterwolf ff1 psp
FFIV-amano rydiachild

I have a number of suggestions:

  • No one is in-charge of the FA. Any decisions made is by consensus.
  • Have one fixed person to update the FA.
    • I'd prefer not have rotations of multiple people, while it does mean there are more people with fixed responsibility (and thus likely to remind each other if one forgets), rotations can become problematic since you not only have to remember to do something, but when.
  • Update the FA two days before the deadline.
  • If they fail to update the FA by the day before, then it is the job of everyone else to update it.

We don't need someone in charge per se, but in a normal system it would probably lead it to becoming everyone's own responsibility. And edit conflicts and disagreements arise. I don't think that would happen here, but it could.

And also, if we're going to change the person updating the FA, can we change some things:

  • Having the main page update automatically. The suggestion suggested on there works for the twice a month system, if we switch back to once a month then we can make it easier by just using the month name and year number in the name.
  • Looking over and reviewing the rules. The red link thing has annoyed me for some time.

JBed (talk) 15:49, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, you've brought up stuff we hadn't really considered. I suppose it would be a bit of a ballache having multiple people updating, but the reason I put in the Nominations section below is because I trust that the people who have put their names down actually know how to update the FA properly (I myself only found out how to do it today after I accidentally left out half the process and Some Color Mage had to finish it off). From there, we go to the most reliable and the best with timekeeping.
And yes, the rules are a bit outdated and silly now. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 15:54, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS
FFIV-amano rydiachild
VIIBCKatanaM

JBed may not know what is missing from an article that is of a game he has not played, but then that is the case with the current system as well: can't always make an informed decision even if you read all the nominees. I did not support moving to fortnightly updating schedule, but now I'm not sure it would reflect well on the wiki to change it back. Like we're moving backwards. I think we should just try deal with it now. At least we didn't go for the weekly features that was also talked about at the time.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 16:51, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

VIIBCKatanaM
FFIV-amano rydiachild

I'm just afraid of sending out the message that the wiki is on decline, which I don't think is true.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 17:13, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

FFIV-amano rydiachild
Edit conflict x2

I don't think I could fully agree with putting myself up as the sole decider. Sure, I would make a more informed decision than most, and thus I will be less pained by the nomination and subsequent "winning" of articles with flaws in.

But the idea did remind me of a past idea that we may seek success in: "Good articles". This sort-of doesn't change the current method: We would still be voting. But the articles that are voted will have been pre-checked for quality, so we don't have bad quality FAs. Which isn't the current problem, but I think now is a good time to change the system. It also encourages the "maxing-out" of articles, so any problem that anyone has (and not just me) can be cleared up before it's even okay for nominating. Of course, the entire system could fall on its face if the wiki doesn't participate in it. We'd need to be getting at least one more good article added per FA-timeframe, and even that would be insufficient. We'd probably have to trial "good articles" first, then shift the FA when it's well in-place if were to do it.

As for switching back to monthly, I agree with all of the above. As Kelt says, moving back to monthly is a regression. I'm pretty sure I said this once the idea of making FA weekly was suggested, or was something else similar: If we change it we can't easily go back. Despite that, I think we should go back. It won't look good on the wiki, but it just works better for the wiki. JBed (talk) 17:23, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS
FFIV-amano rydiachild
kainfinal.png
Winterwolf ff1 psp
Galbana-ffxiirw
AnotherSmug.png
Beatrix-battle
FFVII Cait Sith Battle
RedWizard-ff1-psp
Some Color Mage / Talk Contribs / Let's Stream Random PS4 Crap. / 10:42, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Vote SCM for Supreme Overlord of the FA
First of all, I agree with going back to monthly. Personally I don't think we generate 24 articles that I'd call FA quality a year, so keeping up the current schedule is just gonna exhaust the stock. That might explain the decrease in nominations/votes too. The automatic updater would also be nice, as long as we clearly say when votes are closed for the month. Definitely revise the standards, the no redlink rule is dumb (that's a reflection of the rest of the wiki's content, not that specific page) and some other rules could use with some polishing.

GAs? Well, I'm torn. It does seem like a good idea, but I do have the same reservations that Jimmeh has. I'll be cool for a trial of it.

Yuna-DissidiaGunner
FFIV-amano rydiachild

If we pick someone to do FA, I could write a JS script to remind you via a floating notice so forgetting becomes less of an option unless you don't go on the wiki. It could be time-based, and it could be dismissable but still come back around in a fortnight/month's time. JBed (talk) 19:49, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Let's Vote on Policies

You know the drill; pop your names wherever, and add a policy in if I've missed anything.

Fortnightly FA Updates

Monthly FA Updates

  1. This gives us more time to gather articles, or those that need a little work to improve, and means we don't run out of decent articles as fast as if we were doing fortnightly. Also, interest in fortnightly has dropped; there just isn't enough time. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 14:49, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Jimcloud 15:02, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 15:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  4. MirrorshardSceada 15:44, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Doreiku Kuroofangu 17:10, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  6. ScatheMote 19:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  7. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:04, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  8. 8bit 23:20, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  9. - BlitzballArtTidus357 06:24, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

"Good Articles" System

  1. It sounds a good idea in theory, but there's no real way to know for sure until it's implemented. Jimcloud 15:02, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 15:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  3. As a wiki-thing, recognising articles that meet standards as soon as they reach those standards sounds like a much better idea than only recognising articles that meet standards once a month/fortnight. Unlike FA, "good articles" can lose their status if we get new info. So if new info to be added becomes available, an article that is an FA will, by our sole quality-recognisation system, be perfect. FA is a snapshot at a moment in time, GA is permanent and requires maintenance of the articles. JBed (talk) 15:44, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Doreiku Kuroofangu 17:10, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  5. If it doesn't work after being implemented, then we can easily just go back to the old system. ScatheMote 19:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  6. 8bit 23:20, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  7. As a trial. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:04, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  8. - BlitzballArtTidus357 06:24, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic Updates

  1. We should be editing the main page as minimally as possible. And while we could go the FI route, updating automatically means only 1 edit to be made, and the update is consistently at the same time each FA. JBed (talk) 14:33, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Streamlines the system, so why not. Doreiku Kuroofangu 17:10, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  3. ScatheMote 19:38, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  4. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:04, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  5. 8bit 23:20, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Singular User Updates

  1. I want this, but I also don't want there to be an official back-up. Or we could, but I want everyone to be responsible if the person has missed the (first) deadline. So if someone notices that there's a day left and the person hasn't updated it, it is up to the person that notices to update, or try to get someone else to. JBed (talk) 14:33, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  2. I suppose it would be a bit of an arse if we had a few different users all in charge of it. If we go back to monthly, however, that's more time for people to forget things, and a few users might then be needed as backups. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 14:49, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Jimcloud 15:02, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  4. If it won't be bad to update in the stead of the person typically charged with the FA if that person couldn't make on time, then it's alright. Also, this person would need to visit the FFWiki quite often (I don't say every day, but once for two-three days is fine, but more is not) as this would ensure that the person in charge knows his/her/its (maybe there's a Qu somewhere out there ;P) way around the Wiki and is interested in keeping it up in shape.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 15:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  5. MirrorshardSceada 15:44, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  6. ScatheMote 19:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  7. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:04, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Rotational User Updates

FI/DNC-style Running/Updates (Committee)

Revision of the Rules

  1. Definitely. Removal of red-link rule (unless it is a child-link, in which case it still part of the page), and "enough" images? I also don't like "detailed enough", it should just have all the information it needs. It's not the detail, but the amount of helpful useful, and interesting things it says. And there should at least be a mention of maintenance templates. JBed (talk) 14:33, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  2. It's been a long time coming. A definite re-think is needed. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 14:49, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 15:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Has been overdue for a while, and might actually give people more clarity on what to look for in Featured Articles. MirrorshardSceada 15:44, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Hand-in-hand with the Good Article idea. Doreiku Kuroofangu 17:10, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  6. ScatheMote 19:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  7. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:04, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

For those who feel they would be able to regularly update the FA, now that Diablo has given the all-clear for us to take over, feel free to pop your names under here. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 12:47, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

  • That better be counting as you nominating yourself, Tia, we've got IRC logs that prove you want in! Anyway, updating the FA is pretty quick for me to handle (did the latest one) and I've got plenty of spare time, so I'll be happy to help out. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 12:59, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't like to toot my own horn, but yes, I'll throw my offer in here too, now I've seen how you do it. I have logs as well yano xD Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 13:03, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
I never said they were my logs :P -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 13:06, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • - I like doing things, helps keep me around and useful. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 13:37, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • - I may not be the most active guy around anymore, but I'd certainly be interested in helping out. After all, I still check the wiki pretty much daily (given I have internet of course) and help when I have time. Of course, if this is not enough to qualify, then that's perfectly fine with me, but, well... No harm throwing my hat into the ring, aye? MirrorshardSceada 14:48, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • - I'm around pretty often, but Tia and everybody will beat me to it :| - BlitzballArtTidus357 06:26, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Resolution

Seeing as how this has been dead a couple days and there seems to be large consensus, here's what I'm thinking needs to be done:

  • Create a project page for Good Articles, which JBed will oversee and there will be discussion on refining policies and guidelines for the page so come May 1st we can begin nominating articles.
  • Come May 1st, FA is back to once per month.
  • We inform Diablo of these decisions, even if he is absent he must be told so he is aware of it when he returns.

Does everyone agree to this? Doreiku Kuroofangu 05:39, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but, uh, who's updating the FA? I still vote JBed Jimcloud 08:39, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
Me two/too. And JBed seems like a good idea... Unless he gets bogged down with all the work he's doing :P - BlitzballArtTidus357 09:22, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
We at least should have a formal consensus about who we want to run it before spearheading forward with your own suggestion. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 10:30, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple months of coursework to do.

Before we do set-up Good Articles however, I want to get the MoS fully straightened out. So that means I might be investing some time into forum topics like these.

If we launch Good Articles then put through the updates could potentially mean all articles will have to be pulled immediately. --I really don't see May 1st unless we handle it in a more intensive way. But intensive is unrefined and unrepresentative though. We need Discussions lasting days.

As for updating, if we're going to be voting still then I think the person that updates the FA should be Tia. Updating isn't that difficult, but Tia has shown to be invested. 92.24.164.115 12:36, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not been able to access the internet for the past few days and my phone data allowance is all but kaput...invested? What do you mean by that? :) Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 17:37, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
You've cared to notice when the FA hasn't been updated. 92.24.164.115 17:40, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
I'd be pleased to take on the duty, but of course I don't want to take away the chance from any other users who might be better suited to the job than me. If there are any other suggestions I'd gladly hear them before we reach a final decision; and might I say guys, thanks so much for your input, your opinions and your proof that we as a wiki really know how to stand together ^_^ Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 17:48, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

The FA has been updated for this month

So what now, folks? I've successfully updated the FA, but now the info on the FA voting page needs changing, as do the rules and the "Diablocon has the final say in things" bit. I'm not going to take over the whole thing completely (not just yet anyway xD ) so we need to draw up what rules are officially now in place, put them on the page, and are we going ahead with "Good Articles?" EDIT- And just to clarify- just because I updated this month doesn't mean I absolutely must be the one to update every month. So for all those who put your names down as possible candidates for updating, I'm not stealing anything away from you, I just remembered it needed doing today. Anyway, we might go ahead with automatic updates, in which case none of us will be updating anyway :P input on the above is still appreciated though. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 12:43, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic updates just means that we don't have to edit the main page and it is instead automatically updated on the first of the month (providing someone created the page before that day). ---Someone will still have to create the page. JBed (talk) 15:02, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but let's go back to rules and stuff. I don't like to leave stuff unfinished, so if we can look at a rule revision soon we can update the introductory info on the FA voting page. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 17:44, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
I've made a tweak or two to the introductory info, since this has gone dead again, and put in a note on Diablo's talk bubble that the rules are under review. We really should get this done sooner rather than later. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 13:15, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
We should also remove Diablo's talk bubble. I don't get why it needs to be there. 2.102.230.95 14:42, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, but I didn't see any reason to take it down just yet, though you're welcome to yourself :) Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 14:50, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and draft up a project page tonight. But I might accidentally fall asleep, and I don't know how long it will take, so don't expect anything. JBed (talk) 19:41, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Take your time, and thank you! Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 19:48, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Lock and Labrinth now plz? :) Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 02:22, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.