Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Featured pages/Archive 1

Initial discussion
You guys think we should maybe create subpages for each article so we can vote on them? -- Shadowphoenix  18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will be necessary as most article will be featured once anyway ~ Kurd [[Image:User Kurd sig.png]] 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How else are we going to decide which article gets featured? -- Shadowphoenix  [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px]] 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to create a section on this talk page for each page and discuss whether or not we think it should be featured. The initial wave of suggestions might get a bit big, but it should settle down after that. If discussions get lengthy, like regarding improvements to an article necessary before we feature it, that discussion can be moved to the article's talk page. Why are people obsessed with voting? - Tanetris 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They're obsessed with a bad system of government, and/or are new to a wiki and the idea of consensus. This whole featured page thing is a bad idea overall, but I can't find where the discussion on that took place. Then again, we do have birthday project pages, so I guess the "it's worthless" isn't a valid argument anymore. -70.95.69.64 04:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed by Emily on her talk page because she wants to do some tie-ins from the official website. Also briefly discussed on Community Portal talk. - Tanetris 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't like the idea because I can't really see that much value in featuring pages on this wiki, it's not quite like wikipedia where you might go "Ooooo Cherenkov radiation! What does that look like? Wow, so pretty, how does it work!", it's more like "These are the formulae for how armor reduces damage." I created the project page because I wanted to see what people thought should be featured to get an idea of whether or not doing it is even worthwhile, it wasn't an approval of the project by any means, feel free to keep discussing. Misery  16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stubs
I think we should make a note on the project page that stubs aren't allowed, since those pages are not complete nor perfected. Any thoughts? -- Shadowphoenix  15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually don't want to exclude anything for now, if people can come up with a good reason to feature stubs, then we should feature stubs. I just wanted to see what people wanted featured to see if the whole thing is worthwhile at all. If we took the current list to be complete (I doubt it is) we have 2 years worth of monthly features or half a years worth of weekly features. Starts to give an idea of whether it's worthwhile at all as we are unlikely to be creating a whole lot of new content pages any time soon so we can project pretty accurately how long before we have to start repeating. Misery  16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having stubs placed on this list may encourage people to flesh out the articles in question.--Pyron Sy 16:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Requirements
We should think of the requirements to become a featured page. In the simplest option, we vote on each page and no further requirements except passing the vote are needed. In case we do not want a vote or want to more strict, we could demand additional requirements. --Xeeron 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or we could use discussion and consensus, I hear wikis use that all the time! Misery  14:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a Requirements section on the project page. I think we should spend some time developing what the requirements should be for a page to be featured and have it clearly outlined on the project page. Everyone jumped right in to nominating pages, with little or no discussion on what makes a page good. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse not, because discussions take fucking years on here.
 * Also I am adding something to the requirements. Mini Me  [[Image:User Mini Me sig.png|19px|talk]] 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the requirements over to the talk page. Feel free to revert me if you believe it should stay on the main page. I just didn't like the messy look of the section and the lack of discussion; it started to look like the GW2 suggestions page. Feel free to discuss below. As I see it, many of the proposed requirements can actually be merged. &mdash; Why 13:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Requirement discussion
Feel free to add additional requirement suggestions here. &mdash; Why 13:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * consist of editorial content. Pages that only contain lists of skills or are made up from game quotes only are not a good base for featured pages.
 * Imo, a good requirement, though obvious. A page which only documents one skill is not something I would support to be featured with or without this requirement anyway. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 13:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is too obvious; at least when looking at some of the proposals. Of course we can't restrict that too much because we are documenting a game after all, and all information is somehow taken from the game.. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * use proper grammar and spelling. Change the grammar and spelling if you want to add it to the list.
 * This also is one of the more obvious, but perhaps one of the more needed requirements too. Featuring pages that incorporate grammar failure just doesn't look good on the community. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 13:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is really obvious and not required to list at all. Getting a page featured will get enough attention that editors will read it, and I think we have enough clever people that will fix any errors. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * if numbers and equations are involved, they must be verifiable or agreed upon by consensus
 * All our content is somehow verified, otherwise it would be reverted. This does not only apply to equations which have most probably a far more complex research history than some other comments. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * yes but. e.g. the animal companion and dmg calculation articles have caveat lector labels or disputes. i mean yeah, as long as the calculations pan out, it's great. -- VVong | BA 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * stable. no disputes or stubs
 * I fully agree with the disputes one but for stubs the nomation of the page, or the process until it gets featured, could be the chance to make the article complete. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * i think disputed pages should still be open for nomination. they should just have the disputes resolved before getting featured. -- VVong | BA 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * comprehensive. it should hit all important points of subject
 * We have articles here not autobiographies with lots of redundant things. I think it is obvious that the article has to be good to get nominated in the first place. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * appropriate structure. use hierarchies correctly
 * obvious; good articles are based on a good structure. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * length. needs to stay on topic. trivia should not constitute a major portion of the article.
 * I disagree. If the trivia are relevant, a page with a lot of info in the trivia section should be able to be featured. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 13:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See two points before; and if the Trivia section is really good, I don't see how that would be something against it. For example our inscription trivia page has a lot interesting facts (most of the trivia is approved) and would qualify for a featured article, too. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the part i'm concerned about is exactly that only "most" trivia is approved and that the information content doesn't really refer to guild wars. but if this is dropped, i don't see it being a big deal. -- VVong | BA 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * if game tips are involved, they must be verifiable or agreed upon by consensus
 * These are basically written in the form of a guide, and in that case I think the article really has to be good that people will vote for it getting featured. The other place are the notes-section in articles and those are often improved, and will probably also be improved when the article gets nominated. poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * my take is that these sections can be messy even if they have great info. i'm specifically thinking of the minigame articles that i tend to edit. that's one reason i nominated the jade quarry. i wanted to see what would happen to that article once it got nominated. -- VVong | BA 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

actual display of disputed and stubbed articles
i don't have a problem w/ ppl nominating articles w/ disputes or stubs. it may be that these are important articles that should get featured b/c they have good info for players once the article is complete. but as a rule i think they ought not actually become featured articles until the stubs and disputes are removed. there's simply no reason we need to highly promote an article that is obviously controversial or incomplete. agree or disagree? -- VVong | BA 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was figuring we'd eventually be classifying them in one of three ways: accepted articles that are ready to go up as featured at any time, rejected articles that pretty much no matter what are never going to be featured, and potential articles that their subject matter would be good for a featured article, but need cleaning up/expanding/whatever before they're actually featured. The potential articles could then be revisited as necessary to see when they're up to standards, and in the meantime they'd be listed in a fairly visible place for people who want something to work on. - Tanetris 16:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 16:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Add another type: featured, so it is marked as already featured :P poke | talk 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

voting
so several days have passed with no activity either in nominated pages or requirements. should we vote on requirements and then vote on accepting the nominated articles? -- VVong | BA 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should somehow discuss how we want that process of a nominated page getting featured to work. Do we just want to have a list with votes for each page and then do that every week/month/timespan, or do we want to make a numbered list (by favor) of the articles and then we put each page each week/month/timespan into the process of getting featured, improve it to the best and then mark it as featured? What do you think? poke | talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that since it's impossible to have a different page every day of the month/year we're going to have to make a rotation of selected pages. That being said. It really doesn't matter what comes first or last as long as it's qualified. One question: It the page with "Featured article" going to be on the wiki or the main site? ~ Kurd [[Image:User Kurd sig.png]] 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Afaik it is yet to be decided what will happen with it on the wiki, but Emily said she wanted to do something with the featured pages on the GW website too. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bump
^ I'd like to get this off the DYK (not because there's anything else important going on, but because stagnation sucks). Vili &gt;8&lt; 06:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)