Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Standardisation of Featured Articles (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

I just want to get the community's opinions on a subject I think needs addressing here on Memory Alpha. The FA list as it currently is, has articles on there that have a ton of well-written information on the subject matter. For example, Beverly Crusher, Jean-Luc Picard, James T. Kirk, Leonard McCoy, Q, William T. Riker and Benjamin Sisko. However, it is my opinion that there are also some articles on there that don't stand up to the standard and quality of the aforementioned. Examples include, Duras, son of Ja'rod, Hugh, Landru, Telek R'Mor and Tal Celes. Now I understand that the FA list is is in the process of being cleaned up, and I completely agree that these articles may be well written, however, I don't believe you can say that the same amount of effort, hard work and research has gone into the likes of Hugh as opposed to Jean-Luc Picard or Telek R'Mor as opposed to James T. Kirk? It's just impossible considering there's simply not the information available on them. Therefore, it's my proposal that we create a new "class" of featured article that is created specifically for these well written, but not necessarily "best of the community" articles. This would no way impeed the current FA process, and FA's would still get their place on the main page, these well written articles would simply get a little recognition on their page. On other wikis, they have a similar system called "Good articles" but we don't have to call them that here. Any thoughts? --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:01, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

I am open to changes in this area, but when it has come up in the past the consensus seems to have been that article length and episode appearances do not really play into a FA, as long as it is well written and comprehensive- it is not the subject's fault it was not featured in many episodes. FA status is not meant to indicate the amount of effort that goes into an article, or how many episodes the subject is in, it is only to indicate well-written, comprehensive articles. --31dot 02:17, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I understand where you're coming from, I do. But when someone comes along and sees Landru featured alongside Jean-Luc Picard, it kinda presents a double standard issue. Furthermore, if we were simply going by how well-written an article is, Basilar arterial scan could potentially be a featured article. It is well written and includes all references on the subject so why not? This is just an extreme example to illustrate my point - in no way would I consider that article to be featured. I'm just saying that there should be consistent standard across MA for featured articles, and, while I'm aware it's not the "article"'s fault for lack of information, it would still be very short. Which is where the "good article" idea comes in. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:24, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Introducing any "class system" into what is a FA is in my opinion just an attempt, in part, to circumvent the failed FA removal discussion for Telek R'Mor. ANY article should be able to be a FA, and anything other than that is a slap in the face to anyone who contributes to articles that couldn't be one under a class system, which is almost the entire encyclopedia based on what I just read. - Archduk3 02:40, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that my reasoning for this may have come from the Telek R'Mor discussion, it's not my intent to "slap" anyone in the face. I thought I would bring up my point in the forum as it relates to the featured article process as a whole not just one article. Like I said at the beginning of the discussion, this is simply my opinion and I wanted to gauge the community's opinions on this subject. If everyone decides that Landru, for example, is just as good as Jean-Luc Picard then that's fine. It is not my intention AT ALL to circumvent anything. I don't see why you are getting so heated over this. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:48, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

What's got me "so heated over this" is that your suggested change to the policies is exactly one of the reasons you gave for removing Telek R'Mor from FA status, and this would do exactly that, which is circumventing the spirit of the part of the policy that says you shouldn't keep renominating the same article for removal without major changes being made to it. Nor is this the first time that when something you've suggested failed, you've almost immediately then suggest we change the policy so that your original suggestion wouldn't have failed. I find all of that suspect.
None of that even covers that the FA criteria never even suggests that FAs should or need to be compared to each other, since they should only be compared to the English language and canon/permitted bg sources of info. So, what you're suggesting boils down to only having "hero" articles be considered FA material, since really, how many other articles cover something that has had as much screen time as Picard? Might as well get rid of the entire FA system before doing something as unhelpful as that, since creating featured articles is neither required or a goal of Memory Alpha; especially if it's only going to cover a mere fraction of the database.
That is flat out saying the majority of the work here is, and now always will be, of a lesser quality then these, few selected articles. How does that not constitute a slap in the face to those that worked on them, and how else should I have worded this so you get your wanted response from me, a member of the community, when my response is indignation?- Archduk3 05:13, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I bring it up here because only 4 people commented on the actual removal of Telek R'Mor and I wanted to get more of a general feel from those who don't view or choose not to comment on the removal candidates page. Secondly, you find the fact that I want to voice my opinion "suspect" just because it may not conform to your own? Wow, to be honest, that is very arogant. Thirdly, like I have said previously, those are valid points and the whole reason I bring the conversation up is to gain the views of others in the Memory Alpha community, not to purposely try and destroy anything. Finally, and perhaps on an unrelated point, I would like to comment that over the 4 years I have been visiting and contributing to MA, I have seen some harsh and demeaning words said to new and established users, even to the point of sarcastically ridiculing them because they may not know a Memory Alpha policy inside out. I think this has to stop and everyone has to realise that, at the end of the day, Memory Alpha is a website and Star Trek is not real. This is something we all work on in our spare time for something to do and using a link instead of a template, or linking to a disambig page instead of the article intended, is not the end of the world! Sometimes it feels like there is too much of an "in crowd" here that wants MA to be the way they want it and nothing more. I proposed my opinion with my reasoning believing we could have a polite and civil discussion about this and in the end decide. However, what I have got instead, is someone "suspecting" me of wanting to pursposely disrupt and damage this site and "slap" it's contributors in the face. What perfect example is there of my prior comments than this? --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:21, February 28, 2011 (UTC)