Editing Category talk:Featured Articles

If you ask me, I believe that an updated version of this idea could work... while the old idea failed because articles were selected seemingly at random, perhaps we could have some kind of system where people could vote for articles that could potentially be featured. For a page to be featured, it'd have to be complete, informative, written somewhat formally, and humourous at the same time (less so on the latter for pooper/source articles). There are a few articles on here that are really great. [[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 14:36, 23 March 2010 (CDT)
:Personally, I think that it can lead to bias towards certain articles, so I vote it down. The possibility of abuse means that it isn't worth trying. -[[Yoshit]]
::It would have to be something that people can agree on. If it's done on a bad article, then it stands little chance of being featured. [[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 16:16, 23 March 2010 (CDT)<br>
EDIT: Also, the purpose of this idea is not to create bias, but to simply highlight the best work this wiki has to offer. It is simply giving credit where credit is due. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 11:24, 4 April 2010 (CDT)
:::Do you mean like a poll-like thing for whether you like this article or not and you want to see it featured on the main page in the near future or something like that? 'Cause if it's not like that, then I'm not sure what you were going for here. - [[User:Crazy Luigi|Crazy Luigi]] 16:22, 23 March 2010 (CDT)
::::I'm just saying this hypothetically, not that I'm really going for it. But what I was suggesting was perhaps a system where somebody could write on one particular article's talk page suggesting that it would be featured, and other people could contest/agree with it, and if it gets much more positive than negative votes in a certain time span (perhaps, say, one month), it would be featured. These featured pages would be put in a category that would be linked to on the main page, possibly saying something akin to, "These articles are the Chewiki's best. Check them out!" [[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 16:29, 23 March 2010 (CDT)
:::::I guess that it could be something that can work, but I think that for a special rule, the creators of the articles that were made, such as myself and [[:User:Yoshit|Yoshit]] on most of the [[Punch-Out!!]] characters and [[NinjaCoachZ]] on... well, anything [[Transformers]] related don't have a say on that matter. The reason why that should be a rule is that we don't want any unfair advantage towards the original creators, now would we? - [[User:Crazy Luigi|Crazy Luigi]] 16:35, 23 March 2010 (CDT)
::::::Exactly. We wouldn't be biased towards our own articles, as that would just be egotistical. Instead, we would nominate other people's works. [[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 16:39, 23 March 2010 (CDT)
:::::::I'm glad you see that. Just between you and me, what would you choose from ''my'' articles for something like that if it were to ever materialize? For me to you [[NinjaCoachZ]], I would choose [[Chun-Li]] and [[Jackie Chan]] becuase I had some good laughs involving Chun-Li, while Jackie Chan had two special things that made me laugh at him. Also, we already did have someone kind of nominate [[Dracula]] due to him saying that that article was so funny that he laughed at his business school or something like that. - [[User:Crazy Luigi|Crazy Luigi]] 16:54, 23 March 2010 (CDT)
:I support this idea. Just hope Billion or whoever was it last time doesn't start yelling again. - [[User:PSE1nf0|PSE1nf0]]
::Any more opinions...? (By the way Crazy Luigi, of your articles I'd probably pick [[Chester A. Bum]] because I love the way the opening is written.) --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 12:13, 2 April 2010 (CDT)
:::I think we still need [[AbsoluteBillion|Billion]]'s opinion on this. Although I do think articles involving random things like [[Lamp Oil|lamp oil]] and [[Soda]] are forbidden to be featured articles unless their unique to be able to stand out of the crowd. The reason is that they're basically speaking the same things like who likes them, who dislikes them, and (optional) links involving them. - [[User:Crazy Luigi|Crazy Luigi]] 17:11, 2 April 2010 (CDT)
:::: Yes. The articles need something going for them. Even if they detail something important (i.e. Link or The King), they must have ''quality'' in order to be featured. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 17:51, 2 April 2010 (CDT)

Though this is somewhat off-topic...<br>
''[[NinjaCoachZ]] on... well, anything [[Transformers]] related...''<br>
I don't mind this comment because it's actually true. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 09:25, 5 April 2010 (CDT)


All right, now that I'm a sysop, I'm assuming that I can go ahead and make this. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 13:38, 24 April 2010 (CDT)

== Improper Use ==

I feel that some of these articles are featured for reasons that are beside the quality of the articles. For example, [[Youtube Poop]], which I believe was featured because it is about Youtube Poop, and not because it is a well-written article, judging by the discussion quote:
 "Will anyone object if I go right ahead and feature it? <b>This article is top-importance for this wiki</b>, after all. --NinjaCoachZ 20:24, 27 April 2010 (CDT)"
I feel that we should reconsider some of these articles, and nominate/feature those that are truly of the best quality. I'm not saying that we should dis-feature all of them, because there are likely some that are truly worthy of being nominated, but I am saying that we should reconsider them, and dis-feature those that are not of excellent quality.

Furthermore, I feel that we should have written standards for what is to be featured, so that we do not have articles nominated and featured for the [[wrong]] reasons. -[[User:Yoshit|Yoshit]] 19:44, 20 June 2010 (CDT)

:But... it really is of good quality. Not to mention, I got positive feedback from others.

:If anything, I agree with some points. For example, I actually felt that with some of them (like "[[Mario]]") that I was just doing it so people would be happy, rather than that they are actually good. Similarly, I wouldn't say "[[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]" and "[[TV Tropes]]" are good nominees either, since they are mostly irrelevant to the scope of this wiki and not very well-written. I've actually been considering ''de-''featuring some of them but it kept slipping my mind. And as for the standards? I can just bring those up when someone wants to feature an article for the hell of it. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 20:08, 20 June 2010 (CDT)

::Personally, I do agree with Yoshit about some of the things he said, yet disagree with the others. Although I do think the problem is finding out ''what'' guidelines are necessary for it. - [[User:Crazy Luigi|Crazy Luigi]] 20:10, 20 June 2010 (CDT)