Randomisation?Edit
Perhaps randomise the past featured articles so that we can have some variety in the Main Page? — subtank 07:56, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
Change?Edit
Should we change the featured article now. There has been an article nominated.--Spartacus Talk • Contribs
Addition to nomination requirementsEdit
I feel there should be a time limit on how long an article nomination should last (one week, two weeks, etc.?). It would certainly move things along a lot faster. Any thoughts on this?--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 00:54, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
- Sure, but only as long as someone on the staff makes sure it is known to every user on the wiki. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 02:14, 21 October 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330
The limit used to be a month, but judging from the page history, one-two weeks appears to be the amount of time it takes for a nomination to be featured, though partially because those get nominated at the end of the month. As articles are featured based on quality, I see no problem with having more than one featured article each month, as it would mean more articles are at their fullest potential. Plus, we don't have that many featured articles anyway. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 03:17, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
- So, along the lines of "A nomination will only be open for two weeks. If a consensus has not been reached, the nomination will be closed. Following this closure, the nominated article can only be submitted after four weeks after the date of the previous nomination"? I added that last sentence to avoid clogging, just in case. — subtank 14:25, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
- Sounds reasonable, I'll add a bit to the requirements.--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 12:55, 2 November 2013 (EDT)
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? Tuckerscreator(stalk) 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 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. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 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. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
- We do need more users voting, but I see your point. Your idea would be good to implement in any case, as we still won't have to rely on a high amount of votes to speed up the process. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 19:53, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
- We could definitely use these changes to the procedures. Also, I think skipping the time limit altogether with a certain amount of unanimous votes would be a good idea to implement. As far as support percentage if there are oppose votes, around 75-80% would be a good number I think.--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 12:17, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
- We do need more users voting, but I see your point. Your idea would be good to implement in any case, as we still won't have to rely on a high amount of votes to speed up the process. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 19:53, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
Featured article nomination templateEdit
Should we create a template that tells users when an article is nominated? If an article is nominated to be a featured article, we place the template at the top of the "nominee's" page that alerts users that the article is being nominated and provides them a link to vote. A template like that would inform users when an article is nominated in case they don't look at the "Recent changes" page or regularly check the featured article page. - NightHammer (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2014 (EST)
- I've made a rough draft of a possible template here on my Sandbox. Any thoughts? - NightHammer (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2014 (EST)
Featured article nomination bannerEdit
Since we are sticky to only one FA nomination at a time, why don't we put what article is currently nominated in the banner so all users can see it throughout the wiki. That way, users don't have to end up looking directly at the nomination page or stumbling across the nominated article to learn about the nomination. If we ever go back to doing more than one nomination at a time again, then we can scrap this idea. Any thoughts? --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 22:15, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
- Sounds solid.Sith Venator
(Dank Memes) 22:17, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
