SmashWiki talk:Featured content

Page Name

Why is this page not named "Featured Articles"? Zixor (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Many wikis also have featured images/media. We might as well, so I wouldn't mess with it. Miles (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Propositions

For the suggestions/proposed FC, must we write it out, or can we simply say something such as Final Destination (SSBB)?Smoreking^(T) _(c) 16:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Give a detailed explanation for why you think the page is worthy of becoming an FA. Don't give the snippet for Main Page usage. Miles (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Questioning Snake (SSBB) page

If Snake's page is considered a featured article, why is there a comment on the page that clean-up of the trivia page is required? Thought featured articles would be clear of any requests like that. --Aximill (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added after the page was featured. And other than the trivia section, the page is very high-quality. Miles (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree it is high standard for the remainder portion. Just that on wikipedia itself articles with the star don't have any of those comment boxes.--Aximill (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

This page is a mess. Someone really needs to clean it up and make it look better. Maybe start actual votes on articles and set it up to look nice with a section per article. For example:

== [[Article Name]] ==
Explain why nominated.

=== Support ===
#Why I support it.

=== Neutral ===
#Why I think it may or may not be featured.

=== Oppose ===
#Why I oppose it.

that will look much better than the current standard it is. Solar Dragon (Talk) 20:14, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
Also, maybe use the month names as well to split it up even more. e.g. Nominations for October. Solar Dragon (Talk) 20:16, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

i have put an example up on the page if anyone wants to see how effective it is. Solar Dragon (Talk) 20:22, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix this system before, and to no avail.  :/ BTW, Lucario (SSBB) looks pretty good. Miles (talk) 20:54, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if we were to make this a forum instead, it will be found more easily. Any more nominations should be changed to that format as well. Solar Dragon (Talk) 05:13, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Should there be written standards for featured article? Right now, I don't see any sort of base that we can work on. All we have is "accuracy, completeness, and style", which really needs to be defined. Right now, I don't know what makes an article "accurate" and "complete". Also, what is "style"? It is very vague and I wish these terms are more precise.

Also, would it be a good idea to create an option to remove a previously featured article from the list? Standards can change, so a previously featured article might later be seen as a bad article due to increased standards over time. Green Mario 20:17, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Some of the featured articles are indeed bad and shouldn't have been featured in the first place (i.e. Ganondorf (SSBB)). However, they were featured nonetheless, and we shouldn't be rewriting our history.

As for standards, we can't really write those. What constitutes a featured article is completely subjective, and is up to us on a case by case basis to determine if an article is something we should feature. Omega Tyrant 08:04, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Name Entry glitch or Master Hand glitch

I'm going to make one of these featured articles, which should be given the nod? Omega Tyrant 17:21, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

I think you should go with the latter page because I think it's very detailed, especially the "What works" section and it's more detailed than the Name Entry Page ----- Conanshinichi 17:34, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

Obvious bias here, but I say the latter as well. DoctorPain99 17:38, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

The latter I guess. Explains what it is, how to do it, an explanation of why it happens, Master Hand's moves and what commands are used to perform them, what it does in certain modes, and even some more notes. Scr7 13:11, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

Featured articles on competitive play

We can also propose having competitive play articles and smasher pages such as Mew2King too right? Dots (talk) The Disc 21:25, 19 December 2013 (EST)

Any mainspace article can potentially be featured, as long as it's pretty much complete and is of adequate quality. Smasher articles though I'm iffy about. Omega Tyrant 03:58, 31 December 2013 (EST)

Revamp

I honestly believe that we need to find another, more consistent method of selecting a featured article. We've had three unique ones since the start of last year, and I really feel that we should change the featured article on a more frequent and consistent basis (monthly? bimonthly?). I think that it might be a good idea to create a more formal discussion system. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 16:28, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Bump, and I totally agree. This is way too underused and, compared to other wikis, it isn't as good at "featuring" articles, which is the goal.

I've always liked the way MarioWiki does it - have an RfA-like system for requesting featured article status, and then weekly (or monthly or whatever) feature a different article with this status. Worst case scenario, some articles get featured more than once a year, but if we start by claiming all of the previously featured articles as "featurable", then start nominating, it could keep us full for awhile.

Then you could also vote to remove articles from the featured article rotation if they fall into disrepair.

What does everyone else think about this system? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:51, 24 December 2015 (EST)

That's the system I had in mind. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 22:14, 24 December 2015 (EST)

Bumping this. Does anyone want to draft up how it would work? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 23:41, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Soo....

Who's getting tired of amiibo? Serpent King 23:01, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Hah, let's do Dragon King instead. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 23:03, 1 January 2016 (EST)

...that may not be the best idea, considering the page has been suggested for deletion, then for merge twice. All failed, but still. Serpent King 23:06, 1 January 2016 (EST)

I mean it'd give it good exposure, I presume many Smash fans do not know about it. We could archive the talk page hehehe Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 23:13, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Now that Marth isn't protected, would it be fine to make it a featured article? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 10:20, 23 January 2016 (EST)

I see no reason not to. BaconMaster331 talk 11:20, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Why is "amiibo" still in "Proposed Featured Articles"?

It's been a featured article for a long time. So why is it still considered a candidate when it's already resolved? -- Ethan(Discussion) 22:51, 24 January 2016 (EST)

So now that what I mentioned above is fixed, is there an archive for the old discussions? -- Ethan(Discussion) 23:44, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Just wondering that. If not, there should be. Serpent King 23:52, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Here. Disaster Flare (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Nonono, the discussions not the FAs themselves. Serpent King 00:21, 25 January 2016 (EST)

New FA system

Ok so this system we can agree on is most ineffective, so here is my proposition:

• FAs will be chosen quarterly: on the first of January, April, July, and October.
• FAs will be chosen based on vote count alone.

• The article with the highest vote total (supports being +1, opposes being -1, neutral to support/oppose being half votes) will be chosen.
• In the event of a tie, an admin picks which article gets used.

• Suggestions expire a year after they are given, should they not be chosen.
• There may be no more than 10 suggestions at any one time.
• All suggestions will be archived when they pass or fail.

Discuss. Serpent King 00:37, 25 January 2016 (EST)

Support

1. Support I will agree the old version is flawed, and it makes it difficult to figure out a vote that way. This is neat and orderly, so it's much easier to see what everyone's opinions are, and we already use this version for most proposals as it is. Disaster Flare (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2016 (EST)
2. Support, per "Trip". Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 08:24, 25 January 2016 (EST)
3. Support Sounds good to me. As long as we change the article every couple months, it'll be better than what we do now. ScizorSteelix 08:45, 25 January 2016 (EST)
4. Support I think something like every two months would be better, but this is leaps and bounds better than the current system. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 10:08, 25 January 2016 (EST)
5. Support. I don't see any problem with this at all. Tepig (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2016 (EST)
6. Support amiibo was on there WAYYY to long Nintendofan1653 (talk) EZMONEY!! 15:01, 25 January 2016 (EST)
7. Support seems better than how it is now. And FA won't be the same for a long time. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:26, 25 January 2016 (EST)
8. Support, if not only for all the above listed reasons. --BaconMaster331 talk 16:27, 25 January 2016 (EST)
9. Support Good deal. Dots (talk) The Achiever 18:03, 25 January 2016 (EST)
10. Support Not what I was thinking but definitely works. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 13:45, 26 January 2016 (EST)

Comments

• What if the're constantly 10 candidates so no one can add new candidates? Or have to wait a year just to purpose a new candidate? -- Ethan(Discussion) 15:55, 25 January 2016 (EST)

I highly doubt that there will ever be 10 candidates. If there are though, one would have to expire, or you'd have to wait for the next FA to go up. Serpent King 16:19, 25 January 2016 (EST)

Okay. People could troll and make tons of FAs, but that isn't a problem now so hopefully it shouldn't be a problem. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (EST)

In order to avoid that, we could have a rule that says only one FA per user. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2016 (EST)

What, like...ever? Or per FA period? Serpent King 16:30, 25 January 2016 (EST)

Per FA period, like you cannot make another until the one you previously requested is no longer on the list of proposed FAs. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2016 (EST)

Idk, I don't want to put too many restrictions on suggestions yet, for fear that we may run into the problem of having no suggestions when it comes time to pick an FA. Serpent King 16:34, 25 January 2016 (EST)

I don't think it should be a problem. If it is we can decide what to do. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:39, 25 January 2016 (EST)

So I was thinking, maybe suggestions should only expire after a year if they have a negative vote count? Otherwise, we may be throwing out good suggestions. (I mean 4 per year isn't a ton of movement, a good one could easily miss its opportunity) Serpent King 22:55, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Hmm, yeah, that seems like a good idea. But then even more candidates may rack up. Also, one year seems a little too "long term" in my opinion. -- Ethan(Discussion) 23:48, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Remove candidates with a score of X.

I say we should remove any candidates with a score of X or under after each quarter. I don't see any need to keep candidates that nobody really thinks are good right now. What about positive candidates? -- Ethan(Discussion) 15:00, 27 February 2016 (EST)

I agree. Maybe make it anything less than 0. Serpent King 15:04, 27 February 2016 (EST)

Sure, anyone who post it automatically counts as +1, so it would take 2 votes disqualify it. -- Ethan(Discussion) 15:06, 27 February 2016 (EST)

April 1st... wait a second...

The new featured article goes up April 1sy. Wait, no it won't. Because it will be pushed off until April 2nd due to shenanigans. Can't fool me! Anyway, I was wondering if the select by date should be moved to the day following, or perhaps not. Hey, it would be a joke in and of itself now that I think about it. RobSir zx 08:10, 1 March 2016 (EST)

:x Serpent King 08:17, 1 March 2016 (EST)

Suggestion

I feel like we should close additional suggestions starting one month before the selection date, then they would open back up as soon as the selection was made. That way we can focus the votes on the current candidates. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 13:06, 1 March 2016 (EST)

Yeah, I could get behind that. Others could still vote on current ones, though, right? Serpent King 13:15, 1 March 2016 (EST)

Right. But that would be all they could do. Like the Smash Arena suggestions are right now. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 18:08, 1 March 2016 (EST)

Yeah that could work. Let me finish up these cheers and I'll give this some more attention. Serpent King 18:24, 1 March 2016 (EST)

Don't remove year old candidates

Before, User:Serpent King said we should remove candidates only if they have a negative score. Now that we changed it to remove any candidates with a score below 0 after each cycle, we could remove the part where they get removed a year after regardless of their score. We may lose some good candidates if we have more than 4 good choices at once. -- Ethan(Discussion) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

A "good article" system?

So wikipedia does this thing where they mark articles with a green icon that have a strong chance of being feature worthy. I understand this is both smaller than and not wikipedia, but we could have a similar system. For example, Roy gets featured in june, the Fox article could get marked for being about a subject of such notoriety. It was also be a good way of indicating when an article is pretty much complete and would need no major edits in the future. RobSir zx 00:03, 8 April 2016 (EDT)

Personally, I think the system we have going now works out well. Serpent King 00:06, 8 April 2016 (EDT)

Someone talked about my suggestion outside of the main FA page! Too cool! Swagman, the Green Swordsman 00:43, 8 April 2016 (EDT)

An idea

Since there's featured articles can we start doing featured images? TabuuandMasterCore 15:04, 8 July 2016 (EDT)

Soft protect the current featured article?

So after the Roy vandalism that occurred yesterday, I started doing some research on the other featured articles in the past. As I expected, most, if not all of them were larger hot spots for vandalism around the time they were featured. What I'm proposing is that from now on, every featured article in the future gets soft protected so that way only autoconfirmed users can edit it, and once it comes time to make the switch, the protection gets lifted on the previous one and is put on the new one, hopefully combatting most of the vandalism that featured articles do see. Thoughts? Disaster Flare (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

I support this. Featured articles are smack on the main page, making them quite possibly the most easily accessible page on the wiki, which can also leave them to be the most vulnerable to potential malicious acts. Aliks-Odev (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Seems reasonable to me. Many wikis do this. Miles (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Bump. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Eh why not? fine with me. Serpent King 20:21, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Isn't this kind of early to bump? Anyways, I'm neutral. -- Ethan(Discussion) 22:27, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Move

Support. Easier to locate the article when it matches up with the official name. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 20:40, 13 November 2016 (EST)

As the tagger, I personally think this makes the most sense. If we ever do decide to do featured images and such, we can deal with it then. Serpent King 01:14, 14 November 2016 (EST)

Support until/unless we ever do featured images. John PK SMAAAASH!! 09:30, 14 November 2016 (EST)

Don't bother; the suggested move target could easily just be a redirect and the open-endedness of this title saves us a hassle later if we want to add types of featured content. It's not like there's anything wrong with the current title. Miles (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2016 (EST)

By that logic we could move Mario to Jumpman and have it redirect. Serpent King 11:31, 14 November 2016 (EST)

...That really does not make any sense at all. Mario is unambiguously the character's name in near-100% of contexts except for the original Donkey Kong, in which his name was retconned. This is talking about something completely different in type: the labeling of an overarching category that right now only has one part of it that's being used. What's the issue with the current title? It's not misleading in the slightest, just more general than is immediately necessary, in a way that's completely harmless. Miles (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2016 (EST)