Forum:CT Archive/Removal of featured article status

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Similar to Wikipedia, we should have some sort of page where people can nominate currently featured articles for "de-featuring". While I am not so familiar with the current stock of featured articles, certainly, at some point, some featured article will no longer heed the demands for its kind. I therefore propose we make Featured article review (or WP:FAR). There are other changes to the FA system I'd like to see, but let's start with this one. --Imp 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For

 * 1) Imp 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) For.  If an article on the FA list, falls behind it should be taken off the list.  But we should strive to keep articles up to prevent this. -Fnlayson 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong for. In fact, I can already think of a few articles that I would nominate for this. As the wiki grows and gets older, articles will not necessarily remain at the same quality. - Breathesgelatin 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Adamwankenobi 08:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Articles do fall out of good status, theres no denying it, by doing this were making sure that were keeping our pages looking there best. Jedi Dude 19:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Against
style="color:orange;">Roron Corobb ]] (My EVIL talk page, MUHAHAHA! ) 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) This was already discussed and shot down a long time ago.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This is not right to do to an article, see comment. Jabbathehuttgartogg ( Rancor pit ) [[Image:Grappa's Tattoo.jpg|20px]] 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:Roron Corobb|<span
 * 1) Against removal, as per my comment below. -- beeurd  talk 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Then, StarNeptune, we should no longer call FAs the "best Wookieepedia has to offer" as they aren't, they were just featured on the main page at some point. --Imp 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? An article has to be good to get nominated and only the best of the nominated ones get enough votes to be a featured article.  Featured article.   -Fnlayson 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what Imp is trying to point out is that at the certain time it was nominated and passed the process, it was indeed the best Wookieepedia has to offer... But after several years, there might be few articles out there that might not be up-to-date with the latest Standards and not exactly in F.A. quality. After all, as all wikis are living encyclopedias in the fact that no pages are ever freezed to remain the same.  Considering how much smaller the content of interest is for Wookieepedia in comparison to Wikipedia, I don't think there'll be too many articles below F.A. quality that were once upon a time the best Wookieepedia has to offer &mdash; but it would be untrue to deny that all F.A. articles here are of the same high quality as it was when it was featured on the main page in the past.  If the majority of the Wookieepedia community is against stripping down F.A. status, then what about the creation of an improvement drive for F.A. and/or G.A. articles?  I know we already have an improvement drive, but the pages that'd get the first priority would be that of stubs and of the like.  The F.A./G.A. articles that are in need of being up-to-date with their status would never have a sort of publicized, wide, and focused collaboration between masses of [voluntary, wilingly unpaid] editors, which is primarily what being part of a wiki is about. &mdash;Mir  len  02:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should remove FA status... But we should make it our priority to keep FAs updated to the standard required. -- beeurd  talk 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you work hard to get an article featured and have it's FA title eraticated, that's not right. N-O. -- Jabbathehuttgartogg ( Rancor pit ) [[Image:Grappa's Tattoo.jpg|20px]] 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see the logic though. For example; while Yoda may be a top quality article right now, if we fail to keep it updated and it would no longer be of the FA standard, which is why I think keeping FAs completely updated should be a priority. -- beeurd  talk 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mirlen got my opinion just right. I guess I'm a little too linguistically minimalist to be comprehensible at times... Anyway. Yes, beeurd, I agree with you that we should strive to keep FAs of FA quality. --Imp 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, as time has gone on, our standard for detail has gotten stronger. For example, Leia Organa Solo was considered a FA in late 2005, but now that we have more editors and many more details in most of the movie character's pages, she is up for Improvement Drive. What sense does that make? - Breathesgelatin 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Breathesgelatin makes a point that is hard to dispute. Over the years, Standards for FA usually grow stricter and more restrictive.  Articles (especially those of mid to low importance) that were nominated FA in the past tend to remain untouched.  Or articles that cover a vital or key topic (such as Leia Organa Solo, minor details to the point of fancruft even for a wiki usually are added over the years after its reward of FA status. (the Anakin Solo article is a good example of that.)


 * A possible solution...?
 * *FA articles that no longer meet the current FA criteria undergo an improvement drive for FA and/or GA articles
 * *If the FA article goes through more than 3 improvement drives, then it can be nominated to be stripped of its FA status.
 * *When the article is nominated to be stripped of its FA status, nominators and supporters of that nomination must explain why the article should be stripped of its FA status, and those who have majorly contributed to that article may defend it. If there is majority among those who were not heavily involved with that article who agree that it is not up to current standards, then the article should be removed of its FA status.


 * If this is not a favorable alternative to the Wookieepedia community, then I'll vote for either for or against. &mdash;Mir  len  00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)