Difference between revisions of "Talk:Holocron:Featured Articles"

From Holocron - Star Wars Combine
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 12: Line 12:
* [[Falleen Federation]] --[[User:Nikai Tonnak|Nikai Tonnak]] 6:30, 11 May 2014 (GMT)
* [[Falleen Federation]] --[[User:Nikai Tonnak|Nikai Tonnak]] 6:30, 11 May 2014 (GMT)
* [[Hapes_Consortium|Hapes Consortium]] --[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 21:14, 1 June 2014 (GMT)
* [[Ankha Natanaele]] --[[User:Kyran Caelius|Kyran Caelius]] 14:58, 29 August 2014 (GMT)
* [[Ankha Natanaele]] --[[User:Kyran Caelius|Kyran Caelius]] 14:58, 29 August 2014 (GMT)
* [[Tomas o`Cuinn]] --[[User:Syn|Syn]] 04:37, 5 October 2014 (GMT)
* [[Tomas o`Cuinn]] --[[User:Syn|Syn]] 04:37, 5 October 2014 (GMT)

Revision as of 15:12, 2 December 2014

New Selection Process

As there was a general agreement that we need a more formal selection process (see below), from now on articles need to go through the following steps:

  • Everyone can suggest articles, please enter them in the "Suggestions" section of this page. Put a link and sign your suggestion.
  • On the 15th day of each month all current suggestions will be pasted to the "Vote" section. Every user can give support to one article every month. Every article can be discussed in the "Recent Discussion" section. The article that gets most votes on the 15th of next month will be featured next.
  • The article will be deleted from the "suggestions" list as soon as it is featured.--Dreighton 01:00, 17 April 2014 (GMT)


In this section you can post candidates to be featured. Please do not discuss the suggestions here, so that the list stays short and crisp. You can use the "Recent Discussion" section to talk about articles that are currently voted on.--Dreighton 01:00, 17 April 2014 (GMT)


This is the Vote for the featured article for January 2015

-Fures Nocti 23:58, 30 November 2014 (GMT)
-Dreighton 20:11, 2 December 2014 (GMT)
-Syn 23:36, 26 November 2014 (GMT)

Next featured article

The featured article for December 2014 will be Eric Jackson. --Fures Nocti 07:29, 25 November 2014 (GMT)

Recent Discussion


I have a few issues with both featured articles:

  1. Both articles that were featured so far had red links right on the main page, which is usually a bad style/example and one of the many things that stops articles from being showcased.
  2. Both articles were also imperial in their nature, and while they may be the most finished articles (due to being copied from somewhere else) I don't think it's a good for empire to "take over" the main page of the wiki.
  3. Nobody nominated any of the articles in question, Orphaea just did it on his own. At least I didn't see any discussion about it on the wiki. What's to stop anyone else with replacing any FAs with some other article, about their government or leader? There needs to be a nomination process, or we'll have an anarchy of all groups trying to get featured on main page. Or is "first come, first serve" desired outcome?

--Xanyarr Chyakk 12:06, 7 March 2011 (GMT)

Agreed. However, I think it's fair to say the Holocron is still in its infancy as far as content goes, and the main page reflects this more than anything. Once more people start contributing on a regular basis, especially people who have knowledge and insight in to non-Imperial matters, the Holocron will hopefully appear less "side dominated." I figure at that point it'll be easier to nominate featured articles from all sides/aspects of the game. --Alex Tylger 15:22, 7 March 2011 (GMT)
I think Orphaea did a great job by making a new start page that imitates the look and features of Wikipedia. That is what counts at this point. I think we do not have many excellent articles by now, so I don't blame him for choosing the ones he selected. He could have chosen the article on his own character, btw, which is quite impressive. :) "What's to stop anyone else with replacing any FAs with some other article, about their government or leader?" - NOTHING. That's the whole point. If you know of a great article then feature it. If you have a good idea how a nomination process should work, feel free to implement it and we can test it. I am not really scared about "first come, first serve" at this point. We have maybe half a dozen people who contribute to the holocron on a meta level right now. If every one of them finds two or three articles to be featured, that would be great. I think right now this discussion page is enough to agree on a few things, e.g. how long an article should usually be featured. But even with this I would trust the common sense of people lie you and Alex. If the wiki and the number of contributers grows, we may need a procedure, so implementing and testing it now would be a good idea, but for now it should work if any of us selects any half way decent article as featured article every few days. The idea is to showcase the wiki and encourage people to explore it. --Dreighton 21:01, 7 March 2011 (GMT)
The articles where obviously chosen because they where the most complete at the time, I take no issue with that, though the red link aspect is a definite no no. In terms of nomination of articles this talk page should be enough. They can be nominated and consensus achieved here. Horthon Gorthy 15:30, 8 March 2011 (GMT)
If you don't like the red links, there's these great 'edit' and 'create' features that the Holocron has...
The next featured article (which I'll put up later today) will probably be Siejo Kutol, which isn't an 'Imperial' page. With a little more content, I'd expect The Avance Coalition to be up in the near future as well. my own article is pretty good as well, but I've held off on making it a featured article for the moment, it might go up in a few weeks depending on what activity and development there is on other pages in that time. Orphaea Imperium 21:12, 13 March 2011 (GMT)
Siej's article is an apt choice. Your bio is also an excellent one that we should see in the coming weeks. Thank you for the comment on the avance one, however there is alot more work to go into it before itll be ready. Also, on another note I've created a template for selected pages to be put on their talk pages as a kind of reward. Horthon Gorthy 18:53, 15 March 2011 (GMT)

List Issues

Shouldn't featured articles be listed in reversed order on this page ? (most recent on top) Veynom 14:31, 13 March 2011 (GMT)

Article Suggestions - Discussion

Does anyone have article suggestions for the months of August, September, and October 2013? We need a few article candidates. =P -- Rupert Havok 22:27, 22 July 2013 (GMT)

We should consider a general theme for those months (like the three big galactic blocs) and then take the time before the month comes along to improve the candidates. This way first there is a pattern and second we can get together to improve one article at a time. --Raith Starlight 23:51, 22 July 2013 (GMT)
Hmm. I'm not sure if we have enough presentable articles to adopt a general theme approach yet. Most editors only write autobiographical articles instead of more useful articles about important events, alliances, conflicts, etc. I'm having difficulty finding articles for the upcoming January and February months.... -- Rupert Havok
Does anyone have any pages (other than their own biographies) that they wish to nominate as a Featured Article? So far, Vorsia Companion seems to be a decent candidate... -- Rupert Havok 01:04, 1 January 2014 (GMT)
Elvira Falston seems to be on her way to creating a solid biography, though it isn't complete. It's definitely something to watch for the future. The New Republic article also seems on its way. -- Kyran Caelius 20:56, 13 January 2014 (GMT)
Okay... I guess we can go with NR this month (February) and Elvira's next month? --- Rupert Havok 18:01, 1 February 2014 (GMT)
Either/or being first would definitely work. I think they're both good articles at this point (better than those which haven't been featured, and are available, that is). -- Kyran Caelius 18:56, 1 February 2014 (GMT)
So what do we have for next month? There's a few good ones out there. IMO it doesn't need to be a perfect article to be highlighted.-- Wolfgang von Schlavendorf 16:31, 21 February 2014 (GMT)
I don't know if it is up to the quality of a featured article, but I can propose the Baobab Merchant Fleet article. There is a lot of effort and research behind it. --Ruben Wan 16:03, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
Black Sun and Boabab are both good articles. Hmm. Both articles need a few more internal hyper-links. -- Rupert Havok 17:33, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
Black Sun is still a WIP, though I imagine it'll be done in a month's time. I intend to go through and add more internal hyper-links, and potentially images, once I've finalized the remaining couple sections. I also still think Elvira Falston is good, though I understand putting some distance between personal biographies. -- Kyran Caelius 00:52, 24 February 2014 (GMT)
Another month is finished, and we need a GOOD featured article again. Are we going for the Elvira Falston's? Who is in charge to update the featured articles? --Ruben Wan 12:16, 1 April 2014 (GMT)
The consensus process kind of broke down after the Tex Navos/Doc Jessa/Ignatius Paak incident. See the ongoing discussion below. I think we are waiting for Dreighton to implement the proposed selection system for featured articles. -- Rupert Havok 23:20, 1 April 2014 (GMT)
Let's use a prior featured article as a placeholder because that red link in the front page may just be tempting for some people to just add their own articles --Raith Starlight 00:00, 2 April 2014 (GMT)
I am for this as long as we use Feb's article. I think its best we erase March and put this unfortunate incident behind us, which reflects us collectively dropping the ball.

Changing the presentation style of this page

Rather than merely listing previous featured articles in chronological order, perhaps we should follow the example of Wikipedia's "Featured Articles" section. We could divide the articles chosen thus far into an Archive page and also a broader Categories page... Thoughts? -- Rupert Havok 00:37, 15 October 2013 (GMT)

It's an interesting idea. You sort of already did the Archive style, and though the broader categories would be a bit empty right now, over time that would flesh out a bit. So long as people are capable of finding featured articles with ease, I'd be supportive of it. -- Kyran Caelius 20:16, 13 November 2013 (GMT)
We're doing monthly featured articles so we won't have that much clutter compared to Wikipedia. Like Kyran mentioned, if the interface for browsing is as smooth as Wikipedia's, then I support it as well. --Raith Starlight 16:46, 2 March 2014 (GMT)

Should editors be allowed make articles on their own character a featured article?

This was brought to my attention as a reaction to the article on Tex Navos being featured. I am putting my ideas here, because it is easier to discuss this as a group here than through DM or IRC.

Actually one of my earlier postings to the talk page can me read as a clear indication that editors are allowed to do just that. ("I think we do not have many excellent articles by now, so I don't blame him [Orphea Imperium] for choosing the ones he selected. He could have chosen the article on his own character, btw, which is quite impressive.") I still see no reason, why an editor should not select his or her own article, at least I would not consider it a problem in itself. As far as there is an outcry right now, it is the effect of several players being told (by whom and why?) or assuming (why?) that they are not allowed to make their own article the featured article. So we now have an outcry, because someone else has done just that. So regarding the current situation with the Tex Navos article I see it as an unfortunate result of a situation where several people involved made assumptions on a situation that was not clearly defined so far. In other words: It is pointless to discuss, if anyone did anything wrong at this point, instead we should decide how to handle this in the future and move on. The selection process for the featured article is not clearly defined yet. I felt so far that we were doing well enough without it. Actually we didn't have many controcersies about featured articles in the three years that the Holocron exists now, and this without having a tight protocol. Actually I still don't see many suggestions or much of a discussion on this page even now. But maybe people just don't know how to go about having an article featured. So my suggestion is this: I'll add a section to the guide page that suggestions for featured articles should be put on this talk page in a specific section. In another specific section we could have a simple vote process (like Wikpedia has it for requests for deletion): Everyone can speak in favour of ONE of the currently suggested articles and the one with the most votes will be featured next (and the article will be taken off the suggestion list and the voting section will be wiped clear). How often do we want a new fetaured article? Monthly?

And just to be clear: Everyone may suggest the article on his or her character. What will change is that we have an established process for selecting the article.--Dreighton 12:55, 2 March 2014 (GMT)

I agree with the outcry, from a contributor standpoint. I absolutely think it should be against the rules for anyone who is not a Holocron administrator to unilaterally feature an article without consensus. Further, I think someone unilaterally featuring their own article should be completely disallowed. Previous character, or current character, I think it sets a horribly messy new precedent. Do I think people should be able to suggest their bios? Absolutely. However, Lilith spoke to Rupert to get approval and advice. I did the same. Others are doing the same. A precedent was already set, and not followed.

The holocron is ultimately about community and consensus. There was no community involvement in this decision, and there was no consensus. This leads to the ability to "feature" articles which can be very poor examples of proper editing, roleplay, construction, etc. It removes the polishing aspect, which I believe is exceptionally important if these articles are supposed to represent the best we've got. For example, excluding very few things within the Tex Navos article (Dark Skies Gearworks, her relationship with some PCs), 90% of the article content post-character creation was entirely made up without ever being roleplayed or established. There is an entire section godmodding the Galactic Empire having abandoned a Destroyer, and Renegade Imperials attacking her that was never RP'd in an Empire approved scenario. She managed to godmod the Galactic Government, and we're saying this is okay. Had this article been examined by Holocron administration, I'd like to think that would have been a major issue. For a community based on proper RP, this definitely is not an example of, "the best articles the Holocron has to offer." It's an example of what people should not do. But there was no ability for people to point that out, because a unilateral decision was made.

As to the holocron lacking a process for making this decision, it does not. The primary Featured Article Holocron page states, "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. Before being listed here, articles should be reviewed as for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style. To suggest a featured article, please post a message on the discussion page." The discussion page, is of course this one. People are already expected to lobby or suggest articles they think are worthy. People are already given an outlet to suggest their work, and the work of others. People are already allowed to discuss ideas with the Holocron admin and their fellows. The process works - this is just an instance of a community member thinking they're above it.

I think the outcry is fitting, given that others have followed the outlined process, and spoken with the community and with Rupert. The outcry is fitting, given that those who followed the rules were not featured, and someone who tossed the rules to the side was featured without pause. The precedent this instance sets is that the process is broken, and that this one community member is above the others who have followed the rules dilligently. Neither of these things are true. Honestly, I think the current Featured Article should be removed, the editor given a slap on the wrist, and the community suggestion process - which has successfully progressed thus far under Rupert's watchful eye - be allowed to persist. -- Kyran Caelius 14:42, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
Looks like we need to formalize the criteria (point to the guidelines if they already exist on the Holocron on issues that Kyran mentioned like godmodding), nomination and selection process. For reference, see Wikipedia's featured article candidate nomination and Wikipedia's featured article criteria. Wikipedia's featured article candidate nomination allows for support/oppose votes along with comments on the same issues that should have been caught with the current featured article. --Raith Starlight 16:46, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
I agree with Kyran on a number of things. The selections thus far have been wonderful, with bios including numerous descriptions of real events in appropriate detail (no or very little godmodding). I believe that the selection process should be clearly defined and each article should be selected a few weeks in advance to prevent a blank Featured Article section at the start of a month. Each suggested article examined for errors and godmodding. I also like the idea of your selection process Jennifer, having people vote on it. --Evelyn Reighner 16:53, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
Definitely agree with the sentiment that this article DOES NOT meet the standards we want to set for a holocron article. A few months ago, one of the other editors(Orph or Tylger) lobbied for one of their own articles. We all accepted that article because it met holocron standards for style and quality. This article does NONE of that and reads more like a badly written RP. I like Dreighton's suggestion about the process and that we should adopt it. In the meantime the Tex Navos article should be removed from featured, and even flagged , as it does not conform to holocron standards. -- Prard`aga Rono 16:57, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
Is is okay if I remove the article from Featured until we have a new article?
I'd say yes. The current article is a terrible example. I've suggested Elvira Falston a couple times. It could be a good filler if we don't want a blank page. But I'd rather a blank page than the current RP-fest. -- Kyran Caelius 17:14, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
I'm in agreement that the current one should be removed. No complaints about Elvira's article. --Raith Starlight 02:35, 6 March 2014 (GMT)
I believe it should be. As a side note this player has put his another of his articles up before without asking about it here: Ignatius Paak. Although he could have gotten permission by asking a staff member. I think a new Holocron: page should be made for voting and the criteria. --Evelyn Reighner 05:26, 7 March 2014 (GMT)
I agree with Dreighton's suggested process for Featured Articles. I also agree with most of the concerns posted here by others. As for me, my primary worry was that — unless a protocol is established — we eventually might have a large number of random editors warring over whose character will be featured for a certain month. -- Rupert Havok 21:07, 7 March 2014 (GMT)
Given that it's a new month, perhaps the section should be created for suggestions, voting, etc? --Kyran Caelius 01:31, 4 April 2014 (GMT)

Being Featured Multiple Times

The Hapes article has already been featured, but is listed to be potentially featured again. It's first time, was a little over a year ago. Should we allow articles to be featured more than once? If so, should there be a maximum amount of times which an article may be featured? Should there be a requisite time period between each time? I'm just curious if we should set a precedence for this, before its necessary. --Kyran Caelius 20:48, 18 August 2014 (GMT)

On the RL wiki, articles tend to be rated and put in to categories based on their quality, yes? And they can decline in quality over time due to rewrites and so forth. Since we don't have that there isn't really anything determining, apart from the votes we give when an article is nominated, whether or not an article truly qualifies to be featured. In my personal opinion, if an article is to be featured for a second (or third, etc) time, then there ought to be a discussion - or proof put forth - regarding what significant changes have been made to the article to improve or expand upon it since the last time. I figure part of the reason the Hapes article was featured in the first place was due to the fact that it was one of the first longer in-depth articles put up on the Holocron (probably before we even voted on such.) But at the moment there are many other articles that surpass it in quality. Not to mention the fact that the Hapes article has not undergone any real major changes since 2011, and is quite outdated on several key points. To even warrant being featured a second time - and this time actually earn it - it would need a serious overhaul. --Alex Tylger 23:52, 18 August 2014 (GMT)
Totally agreement with Alex here. As long as we apply the metric "Has this article undergone significant changes since last nominated/was featured?" we do not have to mess with tracking the time between articles. If someone wants to feature Hapes again, they should include an explanation of why it meets the "significant changes" condition and then we all vote as usual. If you are not convinced by that person's argument, or are persuaded that one of the other nominated articles is better, than do not vote for Hapes. In my opinion, this should be done for ALL articles nominated. -- Prard`aga Rono 01:04, 19 August 2014 (GMT)
Do we have a stub to immediately check whether an article is previously featured (there's a star on the upper right side for Wikipedia if I'm not mistaken) and when? This should at make nomination a bit easier.--Raith Starlight 01:33, 19 August 2014 (GMT)
There's a white Thumbs Up image at the top right of the page; you can see it on the Hapes page so that really shouldn't be included in the vote without justification. The feature date is only listed if you actually click on it but it was only about a year ago. --Syn 09:38, 1 September 2014 (GMT)