|
|
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
| |
|
| 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 | | 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) |
Revision as of 21:20, 12 April 2007
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)