Memory Alpha

Talk:Featured article nominations

Back to page

41,943pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

This is a discussion page for the format and wording of the nominations page. To discuss the nomination policy, please visit Memory Alpha talk:Featured article policies.

Who makes pages "featured"?Edit

This is more of a question of curiosity than a complaint, but I just noticed that both Hirogen and USS Enterprise-D were given "featured"-status with only 2 votes, or less. That is hardly a consensus, in my mind. Is it the admins job to decide and "hand out the medals" or can any standard member do it if they feel/decide that its achieved the requirements? To me, that is what seems to have just happened. --Gvsualan 22:54, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

I think a nomination simply has to be seconded without objection with in seven days. If objected it is given ten days to reach consensus, if it does not it is rejected. Tyrant 23:08, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

Uh, I still think it should be the responsibility of the admins though. Anyway, Hirogen appears to not have even been proofread yet. All 44 of the "VGR"'s should be "VOY"'s and the are a number of typographical and grammarical errors in it. I think, at minimum, a article should pass those requirements before they pass nomination. --Gvsualan 23:18, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

BlueMars moved them, he has done so in the past without objection. Just check the Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles history. I don't think this is something he needed the admin to hold his hand for, the requiremints are straightforward. See: Memory Alpha:Featured article policies If you had a problem you should have been more proactive in the voting process. Tyrant 23:24, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
Tyrant is right. At the moment, a nomination only has to be seconded (=one supporting vote, no objections). If, after 7 days, this is the case, any user may move the suggested article. If you think that another procedure would be more appropriate, feel free to suggest it on the relevant talk page - but keep in mind that we are a small community and that "administrator acceptance" isn't really necessary in all cases... -- Cid Highwind 00:32, 2005 Jan 25 (CET)

shameless self-promotion Edit

Would it be considered crass and shameless self-promotive for someone (coughmecough) to nominmate their own articles for "Featured Article" status? | THOR 05:52, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)

Not really. It's been done several times in the past... as long as everyone else agrees it's worthy of featured status, there's no problem. -- SmokeDetector47 06:02, 2005 Feb 5 (CET)

Before I do such a thing though; I'm trying to find some criterium for what qualifies as a featured article. I have written what I consider to be a (very) few pretty good articles; but none of them are paticularly important or infamous, just well-written with lots of good information on, albeit, limited subjects. Could I get/find some general 'rules of thumb' regarding what constitutes Featured Article material? | THOR 06:17, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)

You may want to start here, although a featured article doesn't necessarily need to incorporate all of the things mentioned there in abundance. Personally, my guidelines for approving or suggesting a Featured Article require it to be a complete or nearly-complete account of everything knowable, relevant, and/or important about a topic. The article should also be more than a few sentences long, conform to style, and be reasonably well proofread. This applies to obscure topics too... if the article is complete, well-written, with good info, it's definitely worth consideration. I would suggest browsing through some of the accepted articles, especially on topics with which you're familiar, to get a feel for what a featured article is about. Even if this isn't helpful, it really can't hurt to simply suggest the article anyway... if it isn't featured material, the worst that can happen is for it to be rejected; even so, you'll get helpful feedback about why it was rejected so the article can be improved and submitted again. -- SmokeDetector47 06:58, 2005 Feb 5 (CET)

featured article candidacy Edit

In the actual voting page, BlueMars makes note on the nomination of Telek R'Mor that while he supports the article, he is unsure as to whether "guest characters should or can be featured at all." I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to, there is no criterium for a Featured Article that dictates that it has to be about an important or paticularly lengthy subject.

I brought up a very similar discussion when I was contemplating self-nomination for an article or two of mine; immediately above this one. Basically from the input I've received, and what little SOP I can find on the subject; it seems that the quality of the article, not the subject of the article that should dictate whether or not it constitutes Featured Article material. | THOR 18:04, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Galaxy class, featured article or not?Edit

There seems to be some controversy about this article...

I suggested this article as a "featured article removal candidate". According to the new policy regarding the FA-category, I removed the template {{featured}}. On the same day, this was supported by SmokeDetector47. This should have started a discussion period of seven days. (Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates).
Ottens prematurely suggests the article as a FA-candidate again, although its removal is still being discussed. (Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles).
The first possible date for the removal discussion to end, either way. At this point, consensus was to remove.
Balok supports the suggestion for FA.
BlueMars adds the {{featured}} template to the article and removes the discussion. The removal discussion goes unnoticed.

Obviously, the suggestion and removal procedure has to be changed to help avoid these errors in the future. I will try to work something out tomorrow. However, the article shouldn't have been resuggested while its removal was still under discussion. I think it would be best to remove the featured status now (consensus of 02-06), then have another discussion about its resuggestion. This would be a very clean approach. Any objections? -- Cid Highwind 17:04, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

My apoligies I resuggested it for featured again, I wasn't aware it's removal from FA-status was still under discussion at the time. No objections regarding your suggested policy. Ottens 04:05, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

No problem, I guess this had to happen without any form of notice on the article. I created the additional template {{featuredremoval}}, so it probably won't happen again. If there are no further objections by anyone else, I will clear this up as suggested above tomorrow. -- Cid Highwind 14:31, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

Done. -- Cid Highwind 04:49, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Sorry I didn't post on this sooner... I had a response back on the 21st but was unable to post it due to the cookie problem. I think {{featuredremoval}} is definitely a good idea, but the {{featured}} tag should also be left in place during the discussion, for consistency's sake. My problem with the old procedure is that it seemed like the article was instantly removed from featured status and stayed that way unless someone opposed the removal. I also object to removing and renominating the Galaxy class article; I think we can grandfather it in. Even though it was renominated before the appropriate time, there was still no objection or even discussion about the nomination, leading me to believe that there is no problem with the article as-is. Seems to be a waste of time to go through the whole song and dance once again. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 18:51, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)
The {{featuredremoval}} seems a good step to make readers of an article aware of it status being discussed. But I think this still leaves the problem what if {{featuredremoval}} is removed prematurely or for that matter the otherway around when its discussion status is in concensus to remove, even past its seven or ten days, but the {{featured}} is still in place. What has priority, concensus or its already featured status ? In my opinion its consensus to remove, that is why I removed Galaxy Class from featured articles the second time. The concensus to remove was there a month or so old. -- Q 13:05, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Length/Actor articles Edit

Two questions: How long do articles have to be to qualify as a potential featured article? And can articles on actors be nominated? --From Andoria with Love 22:30, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Those are both good questions. As for length, I felt like it was a slap in the face to people who go into such painstaking detail (namely Defiant and Shran) on their summaries when "Paradise" was featured with two votes, one of which came from Toby (no offense). --Schrei 01:18, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
In all honesty, I don't like reading episode pages that are nominated for featured status, hence why I don't vote on them. Articles on people and things I enjoy reading and making critiques on. Regardless, I think we are far too lenient on our voting here, and wish it would be more stringent, but I dont think that will ever happen.
As far as length goes, if the article is that short, then it probably doesnt have that much information to it anyway and really shouldnt be considered, in my opinion. Sometimes I think people here think that every article made on this site has the potential to be featured, and unless the character is featured in more than half an episode or a piece of technology has more than 1 minute of camera time, I don't see that happening.
As for performers pages up for featured, I don't see why not -- and personally I am interested in what Shran has in mind. In all honestly, I too would think that for an actor page to be considered it would have to be absolutely mindblowing. --Alan del Beccio 02:05, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"Mind-blowing?!" Oh, wow... talk about putting one under pressure, lol! I'm almost afraid to nominate any of them now. Not that I have doubt in the ability of this community to write a mind-blowing actor or actress article, mind you. ;) But should I place any potential nominees here first for discussion, or just go ahead and nominate them? --From Andoria with Love 04:52, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This place needs a peer review thing like wikipedia. While we're at it, how bout some formal criteria for being featured 1985 04:55, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and nominate one now. *crosses fingers* :) --From Andoria with Love 07:58, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles reading like episode summaries? (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward Edit

I can understand ojections to some articles becoming featured articles due to the fact that they may read like an episode/movie summary (or at least part of one). What I don't understand, however, is that some articles that read like episode/movie summaries are featured while other articles on a similar topic also read like episode/movie summaries don't become featured even though you could argue that both articles are as well written. I think the best example of this practice is with the articles on the Battle of the Bassen Rift and the Battle of the Mutara Nebula. Both go in to good detail of events and both read like summaries yet the former is featured and the latter isn't. I'm not complaining about the failure of the Battle of the Mutara Nebula, per se, to become a featured article but rather about how one of two articles on similar events written in similar styles with similar levels of detail became featured while the other one didn't. I won't accuse anyone of double standards but it really looks this way to me. Better yet, should I just take this matter to the featured article removal page and nominate the Battle of the Bassen Rift?--Scimitar 13:39, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"Anyone may nominate any article for inclusion in the list of featured articles"Edit

Oh well obviously not, the page is sprotected-- 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be changed to read that any registered member can nominate. I believe it is only protected from edits from anons, like yourself. --OuroborosCobra 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what sprotection is, semi-protection, never realized they exported it here, it's relativly new on, but I was always under the impression it was never to be used for extended periods of time, and only in cases of severe vandalism. Not that it has been, en.wikipedia has taken a very anti-anon turn lately. At least MA still allows anons to create pages -- 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it any registered user who's been a member for a certain length of time, or has a certain number of edits, or something? I don't know how it is on Wikia/MA... --CoffeeinthatNebula 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Objections" DiscussionEdit

Moved from the Featured Article Nomination of Operation Fort Knox as this appears to be a policy question and not a comment or discussion related to the article in question. -FC 12:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why is everyone so fast at opposing FAs, but nearly no one seems to care about nominations without objections (See above)? --36ophiuchi 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I can't speak for everyone else, but the only reason I haven't commented on the Federation history nomination is because I haven't had time to sit down and read the Federation history article. It's a wee bit longer than Operation Fort Knox, and I need to have both the time and the will to sit and read a specific article. I'll get around to it soon, though... hopefully before the nomination ends. :P --From Andoria with Love 23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I don't generally vote on these because I am generally not impressed with what's offered and would rather avoid creating any more issue than is necessary if some medium-quality FA's sneak through. As an aside, I "commented" in this case because I was especially not impressed with this article nor the various comments that seem to suggest that any complete article is automatically FA-worthy. --Alan 00:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply: So, then please enlighten us with your idea of a FA ;-) As far as I am concerned, I cannot think of a way to improve Federation history right now (aside from minor grammar issues perhaps - I'm not a native speaker), but I'd welcome any constructive suggestions. Several Users talk about this "Wow-effect". Well, it definitely seems to be something relative based on one's personal perception. To be honest, there are numerous FAs which indeed trigger a certain Wow-effect while reading them, and some don't... --36ophiuchi 10:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Could we have policy discussions and discussions about other FA candidates in other places, please? :) For the record, Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria states that "Featured articles are supposed to be examples of Memory Alpha's best work". -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the entire above thread should probably be moved to the talk page as it doesnt have anything to do with the current nomination. To answer the question, though, I've declined voting on Federation History simply because I dont think its FA material but dont have any particlar objection which would be worthy of an oppose vote. -FC 12:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. --Alan 19:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From Nominations for AotW Edit

Archive of Article of the Week nominations.

New year...same articles? Edit

So are we going to just re-use the existing articles of the week? The whole process we used to have seems to have disappeared. I for one suggest we get it rolling again so we can showcase fresh articles, that may have been missed last year, or are new.

If changes are desired to the process, we should probably consider them now.– Cleanse 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The AotWs can and should be changed. I just implemented a mechanism for them to be automatically changed on a weekly basis, and populated the weeks with articles going back several years. I did that so we wouldn't end up with the same AotW for a month or more at a time (which we've had before). The main AotW page has empty article slots that can hold an old article that's replaced by a new one. -- Renegade54 06:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Restart Edit

From what I gather, the last time we actually discussed the Article of the Week was in October 2007. Since then, we've had recycled AotW from the template.

So I'm going to nominate a few articles to hopefully get this process restarted. :-)

This time, I propose several changes to what I see as the previous process (I wasn't really active during it's prime):

  • Summaries will be shorter (1 or 2 short paragraphs) to accomodate the main page changes. As several people commented on Portal talk:Main, they should be a teaser only, to invite readers to check out the article.
  • No citations for summaries, again to minimise length.
  • Nomination by the Weeks assigned by the template rather than dates. For simplicity.
  • I also propoose we ignore the rule to not nominate previously featured ones (those bolded on MA:FA) because some of the bolded ones were on the main page only years ago, and there's not that many unbolded ones left. But for the first few I'll suggest newer FA that haven't ever been featured.

Cleanse 12:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename Edit

Mainly to have the title start with "featured article," like pretty much all the other featured article pages and the shortcuts. This title would remain a shortcut. - Archduk3 07:06, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Can't sign my nomination Edit

I have created a nomination for the Maquis article, but I cannot add my signature at the end of it. I've inserted four tildes as recommended, but they don't get converted into a username and a timestamp. My apologies if I'm missing something obvious -- this is my first nomination. --Pat Berry (talk) 05:59, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

I finally gave up and created a signature by hand, pasting in the username and talk page link, and typing out the timestamp manually. --Pat Berry (talk) 06:21, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki