Notice: We are aware that many of the Chewiki’s images are still broken. We promise: we will try our best to fix it, but we don't guarantee that the fix will be trivial.
Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Featured Articles"
From Chewiki Archive - YouChew:
1% Funny, 99% Hot Gas
NinjaCoachZ (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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) | 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]] | :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) | ||
Revision as of 13:16, 23 March 2010
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. 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. NinjaCoachZ 16:16, 23 March 2010 (CDT)
