|
|
| (14 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
| |
|
| Please discuss... -- [[image:km1.png]] | | Please discuss... -- [[image:km1.png]] |
| *Bi-weekly works.--[[User:Xanos|Xanos]] 09:07, 16 March 2007 (MDT) | | *Bi-weekly works. Might help if the Clans promoted it more too... not many in CNS knew the voting page existed until a few days ago, I'm guessing its the same in most places. I'm still partial to the idea of featured articles getting a DSS or something to try and encourage more people to tune up their articles.--[[User:Xanos|Xanos]] 09:07, 16 March 2007 (MDT) |
| | *I agree with bi-weekly. Gives clans time to realize what the featured article is, promote it, use it as an example, blah blah blah. Just works, especially with the number of articles we currently have. [[User:Aabsdu|Aabs]] 15:18, 12 April 2007 (MDT) |
| | |
| | == 'Empty' support and opposition == |
| | As apparently the article page itself is not the proper place for discussion, I'll move it here. I can agree that vacuous lines such as 'Go XXX' and 'XXX rox' are patently useless, as is support without comment (it's not hard to write a line or two on why you like or dislike a certain article). To prevent this 'that support doesn't count!' from being applied arbitrarily, perhaps it should be included in the rules that any support must be substantiated if it is not to be discounted completely? -Timeros |
| | |
| | :You are correct. This should not be an arbitrary enforcement. The Wiki Tribune Staff is discussing the matter, and I'm sure we'll have a rule in place soon to the degree of the following: |
| | <pre>Support or Opposition must include a valid reason.</pre> |
| | :I'll keep everyone posted on the results of the discussion. -- [[image:km1.png]] |
| | |
| | To add to that, might I suggest using the term 'topical' rather than valid? With 'topical' being meant as referring to the article and its content. Valid would again be arbitrary, as what is 'valid' to some is less so to others. Some, for example, might think 'XXX rox' is valid in the sense that they really do consider it to be valid. -Timeros |
| | |
| | Gotta love loopholes :Þ Yes, some other word besides valid would probably be better, since valid simple refers to what that person thinks is valid, not what the Wiki Staff thinks [[User:Aabsdu|Aabs]] 15:20, 12 April 2007 (MDT) |
| | |
| | Negative. If you '''Support''' the article, you do NOT need to give your reasons. Why? It's quite simple. By stating your support you are thereby acknowledging that you have done all that is required of you under the sub-headings: ''How to nominate'' and ''How to vote'' and therefore you agree that it meets the criteria under the sub-heading ''An article must…''. Opposers are the only ones who need say why they do NOT agree with how the supporters have reviewed the article, perhaps picking out a point that was inadvertently overlooked by the imperfect eye. Now I won't tell you here what the criteria are, but it is quite plainly listed at the top of the [[DJBWiki:Featured article|project page]]. I request that all who have given support of the articles to please re-review said articles following the criteria to confirm that it is in-line with said criteria. --[[User:Tron|Tron]] 04:58, 13 April 2007 (MDT) |
| | *Except that wasn't the point. The point was a proposed change of that very rule, and you reply by saying 'but the rules say..'. Truly a first order nonsequitur. Now let me reiterate in more simple terms: Simply writing 'support' is vacuous and meaningless. Saying someone 'meets the criteria' is not a stretch...a few comments on why the article is well written or what exactly is particularly well done about it isn't either, if only for the sake of showing people your reasons other than 'I really really like this person'. The current manner implicitly encourages just that form of favouritism. It is not a stretch to make people back up their words. The earlier comments with Oberst are a fine example of that...people gave useful comments even on support. Timeros 09:58, 13 April 2007 (MDT) |
| | |
| | == Length of Featured Articles == |
| | |
| | I would like to re-establish discussion on how long we believe a Featured Article should be displayed. Obviously while I was in New Orleans and had no time to update it, [[Kieran Kodiak Falor]] went from May 13th to June 24th. Wookiepedia goes by the week, as we have done since I initiated this feature to our wiki, however, I have noted on other wikis that they go by 2 weeks or in some cases one month. What would you prefer? --[[User:Tron|Tron]] 14:13, 25 June 2007 (MDT) |
| | |
| | * well, I think Kieran's stayed up so long because no other article qualified yet.. but, two weeks I think would be best.--[[User:Korras|Korras]] 14:46, 25 June 2007 (MDT) |
| | |
| | * I agree, Two weeks sounds the best offer there. --[[Image:Vladek.png]] |
| | |
| | *I'll second that... third... fourth it... whatever --[[User:Aabsdu|Aabs]] 10:20, 7 July 2007 (MDT) |
Featured Timeframe
Should we push out the "featured article" timeframe? It seems like a week is just too short, but a month might be too long. Possily bi-weekly?
Please discuss... -- 
- Bi-weekly works. Might help if the Clans promoted it more too... not many in CNS knew the voting page existed until a few days ago, I'm guessing its the same in most places. I'm still partial to the idea of featured articles getting a DSS or something to try and encourage more people to tune up their articles.--Xanos 09:07, 16 March 2007 (MDT)
- I agree with bi-weekly. Gives clans time to realize what the featured article is, promote it, use it as an example, blah blah blah. Just works, especially with the number of articles we currently have. Aabs 15:18, 12 April 2007 (MDT)
'Empty' support and opposition
As apparently the article page itself is not the proper place for discussion, I'll move it here. I can agree that vacuous lines such as 'Go XXX' and 'XXX rox' are patently useless, as is support without comment (it's not hard to write a line or two on why you like or dislike a certain article). To prevent this 'that support doesn't count!' from being applied arbitrarily, perhaps it should be included in the rules that any support must be substantiated if it is not to be discounted completely? -Timeros
- You are correct. This should not be an arbitrary enforcement. The Wiki Tribune Staff is discussing the matter, and I'm sure we'll have a rule in place soon to the degree of the following:
Support or Opposition must include a valid reason.
- I'll keep everyone posted on the results of the discussion. --
To add to that, might I suggest using the term 'topical' rather than valid? With 'topical' being meant as referring to the article and its content. Valid would again be arbitrary, as what is 'valid' to some is less so to others. Some, for example, might think 'XXX rox' is valid in the sense that they really do consider it to be valid. -Timeros
Gotta love loopholes :Þ Yes, some other word besides valid would probably be better, since valid simple refers to what that person thinks is valid, not what the Wiki Staff thinks Aabs 15:20, 12 April 2007 (MDT)
Negative. If you Support the article, you do NOT need to give your reasons. Why? It's quite simple. By stating your support you are thereby acknowledging that you have done all that is required of you under the sub-headings: How to nominate and How to vote and therefore you agree that it meets the criteria under the sub-heading An article must…. Opposers are the only ones who need say why they do NOT agree with how the supporters have reviewed the article, perhaps picking out a point that was inadvertently overlooked by the imperfect eye. Now I won't tell you here what the criteria are, but it is quite plainly listed at the top of the project page. I request that all who have given support of the articles to please re-review said articles following the criteria to confirm that it is in-line with said criteria. --Tron 04:58, 13 April 2007 (MDT)
- Except that wasn't the point. The point was a proposed change of that very rule, and you reply by saying 'but the rules say..'. Truly a first order nonsequitur. Now let me reiterate in more simple terms: Simply writing 'support' is vacuous and meaningless. Saying someone 'meets the criteria' is not a stretch...a few comments on why the article is well written or what exactly is particularly well done about it isn't either, if only for the sake of showing people your reasons other than 'I really really like this person'. The current manner implicitly encourages just that form of favouritism. It is not a stretch to make people back up their words. The earlier comments with Oberst are a fine example of that...people gave useful comments even on support. Timeros 09:58, 13 April 2007 (MDT)
Length of Featured Articles
I would like to re-establish discussion on how long we believe a Featured Article should be displayed. Obviously while I was in New Orleans and had no time to update it, Kieran Kodiak Falor went from May 13th to June 24th. Wookiepedia goes by the week, as we have done since I initiated this feature to our wiki, however, I have noted on other wikis that they go by 2 weeks or in some cases one month. What would you prefer? --Tron 14:13, 25 June 2007 (MDT)
- well, I think Kieran's stayed up so long because no other article qualified yet.. but, two weeks I think would be best.--Korras 14:46, 25 June 2007 (MDT)
- I agree, Two weeks sounds the best offer there. --
- I'll second that... third... fourth it... whatever --Aabs 10:20, 7 July 2007 (MDT)