|
|
| (267 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==New Selection Process== | + | ==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: | | 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: |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | * Everyone can suggest articles, please enter them in the "Suggestions" section of this page. Put a link and sign your suggestion. | | * 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. | | * 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.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 01:00, 17 April 2014 (GMT) | + | * The article will be deleted from the "suggestions" list as soon as it is featured.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 01:00, 17 April 2014 (GMT) |
| | + | * Articles that have previously been featured should not be nominated again unless they have undergone ''significant'' changes since they were last featured. --[[User:Syn|Syn]] 02:24, 23 November 2017 (CST) |
| | | | |
| | ==Suggestions== | | ==Suggestions== |
| Line 11: |
Line 12: |
| | 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.--[[User:Dreighton|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.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 01:00, 17 April 2014 (GMT) |
| | | | |
| − | * [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]]--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 01:00, 17 April 2014 (GMT) | + | Please try to clean up red links in featured article suggestions, and nominate articles that have only minimal red links. -- [[User:Syn|Syn]] ([[User talk:Syn|talk]]) |
| − | * [[Baobab Merchant Fleet]]--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 01:00, 17 April 2014 (GMT) | + | |
| | + | *[[Battle for Derra IV]]: [[User:Paul Luz]] |
| | + | *[[Anzatan Commonwealth]]: [[User:Venari Haliat|Venari Haliat]] 00:35, 22 August 2016 (CDT) |
| | + | *[[Third Imperial Civil War]]: [[User:Ubis Vrand|Ubis Vrand]] 06:44, 24 November 2017 (CST) |
| | + | *[[Belloq Tull]]: [[User:Belloq Tull|Belloq Tull]] 10:27, 5 December 2017 (CST) |
| | + | *[[Gabriella Storm]]: [[User:Ubis Vrand|Ubis Vrand]] 12:41, 29 March 2018 (CDT) |
| | + | *[[Jaydon TaVolarian]]: [[User:Spree Razzix]] 11:42, 28 November 2018 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | ==Vote== | | ==Vote== |
| | + | This is the vote for the featured article for next month: |
| | | | |
| − | This is the Vote for the featured article for July 2014
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]]
| |
| − | :Supporter:
| |
| − | ::--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 11:28, 10 May 2014 (GMT)
| |
| − | ::--[[User:Evelyn Reighner|Evelyn Reighner]] 14:30, 10 May 2014 (GMT)
| |
| − | ::--[[User:Raith Starlight|Raith Starlight]] 17:22, 10 May 2014 (GMT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * [[Baobab Merchant Fleet]]
| |
| − | :Supporter:
| |
| − | ::--[[User:Prard`aga Rono|Prard`aga Rono]] 14:51, 10 May 2014 (GMT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Since it's May, I presume that means [[Elvira Falston]] is the featured article --[[User:Raith Starlight|Raith Starlight]] 03:20, 2 May 2014 (GMT)
| |
| | | | |
| − | The idea was that votes should be open for 1 month and that polls are closed mid month, so that we know the next featured article in advance. But we still have to get into this rhythm. My suggestion is that the current article (Elvira Falston) stays up until July 1st and the votes for the next featured articles start now and are closed on June 15th.
| + | ==Next featured article== |
| − | | |
| − | ==Recent Discussion==
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Selection==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I have a few issues with both featured articles:
| |
| − | # 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.
| |
| − | # 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.
| |
| − | # 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?
| |
| − | --[[User:Xanyarr Chyakk|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. --[[User:Alex Tylger|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. --[[User:Dreighton|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. [[User:Horthon Gorthy|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. [[Orphaea Imperium|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. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|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 [[:Template:Featured Article|a template]] for selected pages to be put on their talk pages as a kind of reward. [[User:Horthon Gorthy|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) [[User:Veynom|Veynom]] 14:31, 13 March 2011 (GMT)
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Article Suggestions - Discussion== | | ==Article Suggestions - Discussion== |
| − | Does anyone have article suggestions for the months of August, September, and October 2013? We need a few article candidates. =P -- [[User:Rupert Havok|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. --[[User:Raith Starlight|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.... -- [[User:Rupert Havok|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... -- [[User:Rupert Havok|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. -- [[User:Kyran Caelius|Kyran Caelius]] 20:56, 13 January 2014 (GMT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::: Okay... I guess we can go with NR this month (February) and Elvira's next month? --- [[User:Rupert Havok|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). -- [[User:Kyran Caelius|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.-- [[User:Wolfgang von Schlavendorf|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. --[[User:Ruben Wan|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. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|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. -- [[User:Kyran Caelius|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? --[[User:Ruben Wan|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 [[Talk:Holocron:Featured Articles#Should editors be allowed make articles on their own character a featured article?|ongoing discussion below]]. I think we are waiting for Dreighton to implement the proposed selection system for featured articles. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|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 --[[User:Raith Starlight|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== | | ==Changing the presentation style of this page== |
| Line 96: |
Line 36: |
| | :: 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. --[[User:Raith Starlight|Raith Starlight]] 16:46, 2 March 2014 (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. --[[User:Raith Starlight|Raith Starlight]] 16:46, 2 March 2014 (GMT) |
| | | | |
| − | ==Should editors be allowed make articles on their own character a featured article?== | + | == Suggested Clean-Up: Move the actual vote-casting to Vote:Holocron:Featured Articles and reserve this page for discussion. == |
| − | | |
| − | 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.--[[User:Dreighton|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. <br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br>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. -- [[User:Kyran Caelius|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates Wikipedia's featured article candidate nomination] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria 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. --[[User:Raith Starlight|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. --[[User:Evelyn Reighner|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. -- [[User:Prard`aga Rono|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. -- [[User:Kyran Caelius|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. --[[User:Raith Starlight|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. --[[User:Evelyn Reighner|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. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|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? --[[User:Kyran Caelius|Kyran Caelius]] 01:31, 4 April 2014 (GMT) | + | Perhaps we should move the actual vote casting to [[Vote:Holocron:Featured Articles]] and reserve this page ([[Talk:Holocron:Featured Articles]]) solely for discussion/debate? Currently, this page is quite messy with the balloting process haphazardly occurring in the middle between other conversations. If we create [[Vote:Holocron:Featured Articles]], a "Vote" tab will automatically appear at the top of this page as a shortcut link, alongside the existing "Page," "Discussion," "History" tabs. I'm not suggesting a rule change, but a cleaner division between the voting and the debating. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]] |
| | + | : Much easier if you keep the talk page for voting and clear it every month. [[User:Venari Haliat|Venari Haliat]] 03:49, 20 August 2015 (GMT) |
| | + | : I'm all for cleaning this page up. [[User:Kyran Caelius|Kyran Caelius]] 14:15, 24 May 2016 (CDT) |
| | + | :: I removed some of the outdated sections. Really, there's more content here that doesn't serve much purpose to keep, but we long as we're keeping the voting at the top and the discussion down below, this should be an improvement. --[[User:Syn|Syn]] 02:24, 23 November 2017 (CST) |
