Anonymous user
Forum:Allowing featured articles to be re-featured: Difference between revisions
Forum:Allowing featured articles to be re-featured (edit)
Revision as of 06:12, 5 July 2019
, 4 years agoadding to discussion
imported>LostInRiverview |
imported>Auror Andrachome (adding to discussion) |
||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions}}I think we could alleviate the frequent issue of not having current [[The Sims Wiki:Featured article|featured articles]] to display, by allowing previously-featured articles to be featured again. To do this would involve a simple change to the rule.▼
▲I think we could alleviate the frequent issue of not having current [[The Sims Wiki:Featured article|featured articles]] to display, by allowing previously-featured articles to be featured again. To do this would involve a simple change to the rule.
I propose that we allow an article that has been previously featured to be re-nominated and re-selected as a featured article (provided the article is still good enough to warrant being featured). Re-features would be considered in the same manner as new features are. I'd just add two stipluations:
Line 6 ⟶ 5:
:2. If multiple articles are queued to be featured (i.e. two or more articles are successfully nominated and voted on for FA status), any newly-featured articles take precedence over any re-featured articles.
Regarding the first point, I'm not sure what a satisfactory length of time is before allowing a re-feature. I feel like anything shorter than a year is just too short. But anything beyond two years just, to me, feels too long. So my thinking is that we should set this limit somewhere in between one and two years. But that's just my opinion.
Are there any thoughts regarding this proposal? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 03:46, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
Line 13 ⟶ 12:
That may kill the initiative of quality-control: articles of significant subject would remain indefinitely looking crap that are messy and require serious copy-editing (not just grammar, but organization and alike), as for articles that allowed to be re-featured would be prone to being unfairly... well re-featured as many times people see it fit. Re-featuring doesn't seem like a good idea, because it doesn't give much motivation to fix/clean other articles that been left messy for far too long. [[User:DrakonoSkerdikas|DrakonoSkerdikas]] ([[User talk:DrakonoSkerdikas|talk]]) 19:33, June 23, 2019 (UTC)
:Re-features would go through the same nomination and approval process as newly-featured articles. If an article was not of high-enough quality to warrant being re-featured, the community could (and should) vote down a re-featuring request. Articles would not be re-featured automatically, and an article's prior featured status would not give any special status or consideration if it were brought up for re-featuring. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 01:21, June 24, 2019 (UTC)
::I like the stipulations and I have no issue with articles being featured more than once. Articles that have been featured already, like [[Bella Goth]], have gone through '''significant''' revisions that would completely warren a second feature. I support this proposal overall. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 06:12, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
| |||