Halopedia talk:Featured/Article: Difference between revisions

Halopedia talk:Featured/Article (edit)

Revision as of 11:08, June 3, 2019

2 bytes added , 5 years ago

m

Text replacement - "[[w:c:" to "[[wikia:"

Porplemontage

Bureaucrats, Developers, Administrators

23,034

edits

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 I'd like to propose a change to the time limit. Currently the pattern is that an article gets nominated, another one gets nominated sometime later, it gets a few votes the following day, and then it basically sits for two weeks waiting for the nomination period to end. The winning articles need time to be featured and not be immediately replaced, but the nominated articles that are quickly agreed upon should get better than gathering dust for weeks. So I suggest this change to the rules: after an article is featured, there's a one week waiting period before another article can be nominated. Then that nomination gets one week before approval, unless there is no consensus in which case it gets a second week before closing. This way, new FAs still get at least two weeks to shine, but the nomination moves faster. Does that sound better, or should we stick by the current rules? [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 18:26, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
-:Sounds good. Realistically, we get about one nomination a month so this will just help speed up the process anyway. I'd also like to point out [[w:c:starwars:Wookieepedia:Featured_article_nominations|Wookieepedia's Featured article nomination]] process (see "How to vote", #6). Basically, the general idea is that an article can forego the nomination process if it has a certain amount of votes from normal users, admins, etc. That way, we can speed up the nomination process ever faster. Obviously, with less admins and active users here, the amount of admins/users/whatever to make a nomination end faster would be lower. Of course, we would want to avoid a problem Wookieepedia has: some nominations (such as the first one on the page, Revan) have been active for two years and are still up for debate. We would probably want to set a definite time limit. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 19:05, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
+:Sounds good. Realistically, we get about one nomination a month so this will just help speed up the process anyway. I'd also like to point out [[wikia:starwars:Wookieepedia:Featured_article_nominations|Wookieepedia's Featured article nomination]] process (see "How to vote", #6). Basically, the general idea is that an article can forego the nomination process if it has a certain amount of votes from normal users, admins, etc. That way, we can speed up the nomination process ever faster. Obviously, with less admins and active users here, the amount of admins/users/whatever to make a nomination end faster would be lower. Of course, we would want to avoid a problem Wookieepedia has: some nominations (such as the first one on the page, Revan) have been active for two years and are still up for debate. We would probably want to set a definite time limit. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 19:05, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
 ::The average amounts of votes on nominations over the past year has been three to five, so if we were to have such a "skip the time limit by unanimity" policy, it should probably be ''at least'' seven votes. We shouldn't have the amount be too low so as to encourage users to vote. Currently the unwritten rule is "at least three votes, two by admins" for a pass. The Revan case appears to just a problem with the nomination policies letting it be kept perpetually open. Since we already have a closing policy and a re-nomination waiting period, I think we can avoid that. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 19:33, 10 August 2015 (EDT)