Talk:Holocron:Featured Articles

From Holocron - Star Wars Combine

Jump to: navigation, search


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 November 2015

--Prard`aga Rono 00:27, 6 October 2015 (GMT)
--Venari Haliat 00:32, 6 October 2015 (GMT)
-Cuinn 00:18, 5 October 2015 (GMT)
-- Rupert Havok 02:28, 5 October 2015 (GMT)
- Ubis Vrand 09:40, 5 October 2015 (GMT)

Next featured article

The featured article for October 2015 will be Kaleena Rey. -- Cuinn 00:18, 5 October 2015 (GMT)

Selection process discussion

The Moderator-only selection process does not seem to be yielding the kind of variety that effectively demonstrates the scope of the Holocron. What I suggest is that we make some changes. Perhaps we use a two-tiered voting system. In the first tier, a nomination thread can be made on the Discussion Page for an article(either by the article creator or someone else). People then place their vote in the article's discussion thread in the same way we do here. After say, two weeks, the top 10 articles enter the second tier. In the second tier, the moderators review and vote for any of the top 5 articles(6-10 being alternates in case of policy violations by the top 5). The votes in the second tier are done as we do them now. I would also suggest that admins consider giving out CPs for voting, having your article nominated, and especially winning as a means to incentivize increased activity. -- Prard`aga Rono 08:58, 4 June 2015 (GMT)
I would support this. I've seen it utilized in other game wikis effectively. Articles are suggested on their talk pages and placed in a specific category; there are vote sections for, "FOR" and "AGAINST". After articles have met a certain vote threshold (e.g. 11 votes total, majority FOR) they are then added to a list. Moderators select each month's article based on the list. It would certainly serve as quality control. -- Kyran Caelius 22:30, 7 June 2015 (GMT)
I can't imagine it would be any better than the system we have now... people would still not vote. I did not know moderators had anything in particular to do with the Featured Article. I, for example, am not a moderator or authority figure here of any kind... the Featured Article section needed someone to keep it current because nobody else was doing it, so i took it upon myself to do it. That doesn't change the fact that people very rarely vote or even suggest any articles at all. Several times I have had to change my vote just because there were only three votes and all for a different articles. I would suggest some kind of addition to the Deathmatch or Grudge Match system though, where people could vote on it simply my clicking somewhere. This of course leads to the likelihood that people will simply vote for who they like more and not based off the merits of the article itself... but there will always be pros and cons to any voting type system. Making it more complicated would simply be a waste of time, as people would pay less attention to it than they do now. -- Fures Nocti 00:39, 8 June 2015 (GMT)
Not necessarily. I think it is a matter of incentives.This is is why I suggested CPs for people who vote, as well as for those whose articles win. what if there was a CP "Pot" each voting cycle based on the size of the "electorate". -- Prard`aga Rono 18:57, 7 June 2015
I still think people would simply vote on the person rather than the article. Would be much like clicking on the voting sites for CPs... no one actually reads anything there, they just click it and close it. The same would likely happen in this situation... people would see who was listed and instead of even reading the article, just click on a friend or someone they know/like or an underdog simply to get the CP reward. I'm not saying that this method should not be tried, just an opinion on the outcome. Maybe if some criteria were setup to even be nominated and then screened to give some quality control as Kyran suggested, then at least the articles would be Featured worthy, regardless of who ends up winning. -- Fures Nocti 01:11, 8 June 2015 (GMT)
If quality control without being affected by popularity, is a large concern, perhaps it should be left to the Admin entirely. People could publicly make suggestions for the featured article, and from that list, the Admin could publicly vote. There seem to only be 3 active holocron administration, so there is an odd number of votes. If necessary, additional admin could be added? I would rather have less personal power in the process (e.g. voting), knowing that only actual top notch articles will be chosen. -- Kyran Caelius 22:37, 13 June 2015 (GMT)
This is why I suggested a two tier process. In the first tier, individuals can indicate in an article talk pages whether or not they wish to nominate an article. Admins can then vote for one of the top 10 based on whether an article meets holocron standards. If we continue to rely solely on admins for nominations, then we may miss articles that truly deserve it. In my own opinion, this is why we have gotten the same meery-go-round of articles in the last few months(who cares if people nominate their friend's articles, as we admins have the final determination on what is quality.). It also why I suggested that there be some kind of incentive from the SWC admins for getting your article nominated, being a finalist, and winning(SWC admins already give out CPs for holocron content creation). We then add a rule that no article can be a finalist three months in row, to encourage variety. I would like a rule that the same type of article can;t win twice in a row(character wins in january, a non character article has win in february), but I realize that is pushing it. --Prard`aga Rono 14:21, 14 June 2015 (GMT)
I still support it. As featured articles have the white thumbs up, suggested featured articles could have a white question mark symbol or something similar, and its own category. You're right in that even if people nominate friends, the Admin would have the final call, thus avoiding the issue of favoritism. -- Kyran Caelius 21:20, 14 June 2015 (GMT)
So is everyone okay with me announcing that anyone can now vote for featured articles? Really would like to open this up for more variety. -- Prard`aga Rono 17:15, 28 July 2015 (GMT)

Moved this discussion to make the page easier to read.--Dreighton 04:10, 20 August 2015 (GMT)


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 it'll 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.
In regards to Nocti's suggestion of Tex Navos, I disagree due to the overly abundant number of broken (red) links. It should be cleaned up quite a bit before being accepted as a candidate for featured article. The same thing goes towards the Falleen Federation and New Imperial Order suggestions. --Tomas o`Cuinn 08:22, 15 December 2014 (GMT)
With the list and suggestions/options dwindling, I agree with Tomas about moderating suggestions a bit better. For example, the current 'next' featured article is the "Tex Navos" article. Prard`aga Rono had stated before, "Definitely agree with the sentiment that [the Tex Navos] 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. [...] In the meantime the Tex Navos article should be removed from featured, and even flagged, as it does not conform to holocron standards." No changes have been made to fix the many issues. There are entire sections which are written as an RP. Holocron featured articles should minimally meet general standards, and ideally, be polished beyond the bare minimum. --Kyran Caelius 07:40, 4 June 2015 (GMT)
I think the "Tex Navos" article should be removed from the nomination process, since it not only violates Holocron Standards but the concept Tylger proposed for renominating an article, since it not only STILL contains a massive number of red links, but also has not undergone significant edits since it was last "nominated". -- Prard`aga Rono 08:42, 4 June 2015 (GMT)
I stand with Prard`aga in his suggestion to remove it from the nomination list. -- Cuinn 13:25, 4 June 2015 (GMT)
Just saw this and removed it. I would also like to point out there are a lot of opinions here but nobody actually doing anything. Maybe a little more action to go with said opinions? I am only doing this because nobody else was bothering to do it, unless it was their own page in question, and am simply trying to ensure there is a Featured Article for people to see. I fully support someone qualified stepping up to handle it. -- Fures Nocti 02:40, 6 July 2015 (GMT)

I went with Falleen Federation as it does not have reference links to Wookiepedia like Colonies Ubis Vrand 08:07, 6 July 2015 (GMT)

I don't agree with the Falleen Federation nomination because it's a painfully short article for such an established government and has numerous broken (red) links. I also don't agree with the Colonies nomination because the page has almost no substance. Why should either of these articles be considered a good example to follow? -- Cuinn 04:18, 20 August 2015 (GMT)
I agree with Cuinn. In its current state, the Falleen Federation "stub" shouldn't be featured. My sentiments run deeper though: The Falleen Federation has one of the richest in-game backstories of any government in SWC, bar none. Its IC history spans The Shadowstone Affair to The Battle of Beta to the present. And yet, disappointingly, its current Holocron article is little more than a stub. Kinda sad that no Falleen Federation players have taken the time to write a proper article on their faction and its history. -- Rupert Havok 17:10, 20 August 2015 (GMT)

In regards to Cuinn's suggestion of Emilio Varga, I disagree due to the overly abundant number of broken (red) links. It should be cleaned up quite a bit before being accepted as a candidate for featured article. -- Fures Nocti 09:11, 20 August 2015 (GMT)

I've just cleaned up the broken links, Nocti. Not sure why I suggested it in that state while complaining about the broken links in the Falleen Federation article :P -- Cuinn 16:23, 21 August 2015 (GMT)
I threw the Falleen Federation as the featured article for August - they'll have to settle for having a half month as featured since nobody bothered to do it earlier than now. Their half month reign will reflect the half-assed article they've got. --Cuinn 23:45, 22 August 2015 (GMT)
Would anyone take issue with my suggesting Tomas o`Cuinn? My page has undergone a majority retcon since its previous featured status (previous version seen at Tomas o`Cuinn (featured) with a note). The current version has had the featured status removed and has not been featured. Also, not very many responses popping up in this discussion area... --Cuinn 00:21, 5 October 2015 (GMT)

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)

Suggested Clean-Up: Move the actual vote-casting to Vote:Holocron:Featured Articles and reserve this page for discussion.

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. -- Rupert Havok

Much easier if you keep the talk page for voting and clear it every month. Venari Haliat 03:49, 20 August 2015 (GMT)

Personal tools