FANDOM


Question

  • Plkrtn just made an edit (link) that either moved or removed the nominations text. Questions:
  1. Are we going back to the old format, which was rejected? (In this format, nominations are linked to a particular week, and do not roll over). A return to the old format is implied by plkrtn's new text: PLEASE VOTE FOR WEEK 39 BELOW, where the link below is a link by week.
  2. Is there something I'm missing? I click on week 39 and it is empty.
  3. Is this a reorganization in progress by plkrtn?
-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 03:56, 18 September 2006 (PDT)


I think we should discuss this first. However, I am going to remove the first nomination of Sri lanka video to rejection cause its taking up room. Anyway, back to topic, I don't know why it was removed but I've reverted it and we can just discuss it now --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:46, 18 September 2006 (PDT)

Missing AOTW

Did you notice that no Article was selected to feature during this week; week 44 (Oct 30 - Nov 5) -2006 ? When I checked the Project page today, I have noticed two nominated articles with no votes at all. Consequently, the AOTW section in the Main Page is currently empty, which looks rather strange, as if it is a section that is still under construction...I do not know if it is acceptable to have a missing AOTW, but I generally believe that we should come up with a corrective action to prevent such an event from repeating in the future. -- 06:59, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Its sorted now, thanks for pointing it out --Nickb123 (Talk) 07:07, 30 October 2006 (PST)
  • Great. Re-adding a great article as Electromagnetism was a great solution for the time being. However, I hope an alternative long-term policy is to be considered for the future, other than repeating previously selected AOTW. I suggest, for example, to encourage more people on improving existing articles and nominating them, so you would a have a queue of at least 3-4 accepted articles to choose from every week. I believe lots of great articles are out there, only requiring some good improvements to make a great AOTW...but Users need to be encouraged into taking this task.

Thanks again for your prompt response-- 08:32, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Sorry but, what? I didn't "re-add electromagnetism" - it was the next one, there is no repeating --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:26, 30 October 2006 (PST)


  • My Mistake. Electromagnetism was not repeated indeed, as I found later from the archived list. I must have thought it did, after reviewing its nomination progress so many times last week, that gave me the feeling of "Didn't we already do this before?". Anyway, I am just leaving my posted suggestion for encouraging more rewrites and nominations, to have a large stock to choose from. I notice every week there is usually 2-3 articles nominated, as with the acceptance criteria we set for ourselves, I feel we might easily end up one week with no articles to approve for selection.
Hence, instead of the small number of nominations per week, due to the little shortage in high-quality articles with different themes that we are experiencing, I suggest, without lowering our criteria, to spread the motivation for nominating articles and encourage ourselves on improving different articles to live up to the standards we set, and even encourage users to review nominated articles and learn from the experience. It might be a hectic to review several nominations posted per week, but if we were able to organize it, I think it might be really a good idea to improve the quality of our portal dramatically.
Hope this suggestion might be useful, as it was a personal motivation for me to improve my edits.
Thanks-- 10:46, 30 October 2006 (PST)


AOTW and Attack Article

Reflecting on my earlier discussion, posted above; I have visited lately the Article Attack page (to be up soon), which was obviously created before I even start making my above suggestion. According to its objectives, the Attack Article is really a great idea, to enhance the quality of tacky articles on Lostpedia, and provides a good solution to the problem I was describing.

This motivated me with more ideas, aiming for even a higher quality. Please follow to my suggestion, posted at Article Attack talk page.

Thanks for the effort-- 15:24, 31 October 2006 (PST)

  • I don't think a Good award is needed. Articles will either be outstanding (good for AOTW), good, or poor (good for AA). Theres no need for an award which states that the page meets Lostpedia's standards, just for one that shows that it exceeds the standards, or it does not meet them and needs work.-- Paladine<c.t> 16:14, 31 October 2006 (PST)


Hi Paladine. I don't think it must be an award, I just meant a template, just like the Re-write template which states that an article is in strong need for re-write, but this time is a template to denote an article as qualified by Lostpedia standards to be a good article. What I actually care more about than a "good" template, is to pass the right for judgement publicly, for everyone to say that an Article Attack is done by now, and no need for more attacking of a certian poor article, and I thought the best way to do that is through a nomination / judgement cycle, that checks if the article is "done" or not, otherwise, how would we know..Right now, I think the initial thoughts are initially nominate an article for attack, which great, but how can we say "stop attacking" ? How will the Sysops are to determine that alone ? without a judgement cycle where everyone can contribute ? I don't really think it is a good idea to start attacking an article, and never stop, until it is accepted as an article of the week..this way tons of previously poor articles will be pending, with everyone thinking they might still need rewrites..I hope you got my point. Thanks-- 16:27, 31 October 2006 (PST)


  • Note: I highly suggest to continue the discussion in one place, to be the Article Attack talk page if possible, accessible through the link above.

Tagging pages as nominated

Would it be worthwile to mark on pages that they've been nominated as a featured article, just to draw traffic towards the voting? I was thinking something like this at the bottom of the page- just to raise awareness. This one was done quickly, so if someone wanted to make a prettier one, that would be lovely. -BearDog 17:06, 21 November 2006 (PST)

Hey, why not

ARTICLE of the YEAR? Pick the best page for the whole year! Jcc1033 14:57, 23 December 2006 (PST)

Featured Article Review

How about some type of mechanism/review system that allows featured articles to be de-listed? There are a few out there, specifically Leadership and Fail-Safe, that I wouldn't consider featured quality. Maybe I'm just overly critical, maybe you disagree with my article examples, but I don't think articles that have fallen into POV/length issues should be permanently starred. Critique the idea, please. :) -PsychoYoshi 15:44, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Where did they go?

Are the featured articles ever coming back? Did we give up on them, or was this a project primarily organised by a user gone MIA? Seems we should do something to try and bring and them back, or else remove the box from the main page.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:40, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

I liked the featured articles - I think it'd be a great idea to bring them back and then keep them around.--Mr couchman 06:11, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

I'll do them in the interim until the sysops who regularly maintain this section are freed up from their responsibilities. Keep your nominations coming. Robert K S (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Charladay featured

I selected this article for this week's feature not because it is an article of extraordinary quality or because it represents the best of Lostpedia, but because it was the right combination of quirky and timely, and it got a large positive response on the nomination page with only two forceful objections. For those who objected, I didn't intend the selection to set a precendent of choosing "Fanon"-type articles to be featured. If you hate the selection, nominate and lobby for a better article to feature next week! Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Limit?

I think that there should be a limit the the amount of nominations at one time. I think, at most, there should be 15. Also, is there a way to get more people to vote? I know I sound like a broken record most of the time, but there are some important sections of the wiki that are underexposed. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  11:19, 6 August 2008 (PDT)

In general we have a problem of too few nominations and (as you point out) not enough overall activity on the nominations page. I would also like to see more work toward consensus on nominations which involves both making valid points about why a page should be nominated in order to convince others, and improvement of articles in order to address criticisms. Since I started awarding the featured status from the noms, I haven't made any article featured that had an unaddressed, reasonable objection to its nomination. Robert K S (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2008 (PDT)
I was covering an unnecessary issue with the limit. I agree. I would like to see more effort put towards these nominations as well. There are very few, maybe five, regular voters on this page. How could we go about getting more voters? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:20, 6 August 2008 (PDT)
Spread the word! Invite active editors with simple messages to their talk pages. (Of course, try to stick to notifying about the page and not canvassing for a particular nomination.) Robert K S (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2008 (PDT)

Formatting

The centering on this page is really starting to anger me. Can an admin or the admin fix this? Thanks. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:55, 6 October 2008 (PDT)

I'm fairly certain its due to improper coding in someone's sig, but I have no idea how to necessarily trace it. --Blueeagleislander 23:56, 6 October 2008 (PDT)

I removed the FA Selection banner; the centering is gone.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:13, 7 October 2008 (PDT)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.