Battlestar Wiki talk:Quality Articles - Revision history

April Arcus: name change

2020-04-13T23:58:07Z

name change

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:58, 13 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

	:I concur with ~~Peter~~ here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		:I concur with April here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

	::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)		::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)

	::: I concur, ~~Peter~~. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day\|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)		::: I concur, April. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day\|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)

	::: I concur, ~~Peter~~. If we could change it before it appears too many more places, that'd be great. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:09, 25 April 2006 (CDT)		::: I concur, April. If we could change it before it appears too many more places, that'd be great. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:09, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

	==Quality vs. Featured==		==Quality vs. Featured==

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:19Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

JubalHarshaw: /* Question on qa diff template use */ - thanks

2007-05-20T18:24:27Z

Question on qa diff template use: - thanks

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 20 May 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:

	Ok, [[Cylons (RDM)]] is now a quality article. According to the QA page, [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]] needs to be archived, and the {{tlp\|qa diff}} template used. How would one go about doing this? Thanks. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 00:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)		Ok, [[Cylons (RDM)]] is now a quality article. According to the QA page, [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]] needs to be archived, and the {{tlp\|qa diff}} template used. How would one go about doing this? Thanks. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 00:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
	:* Also need to do it for [[The Colonial Gang]].		:* <strike>Also need to do it for [[The Colonial Gang]].</strike>
	::Basically, all you have to do is remove the {{tl\|qa talk}} tag, and replace it by {{tlp\|qa diff\|''pagename''\|''oldid''}}, where pagename is the name of the article in question (e.g. Cylons (RDM)), and oldid the revision ID of the article's current revision. You can get this ID by visiting the page and clicking "Permanent link" in the left sidebar. Your browser's address bar now reads http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cylons_%28RDM%29&oldid=122402 which means you need to fill in 122402 as the second parameter. I have done this for [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]]. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 03:18, 20 May 2007 (CDT)		::Basically, all you have to do is remove the {{tl\|qa talk}} tag, and replace it by {{tlp\|qa diff\|''pagename''\|''oldid''}}, where pagename is the name of the article in question (e.g. Cylons (RDM)), and oldid the revision ID of the article's current revision. You can get this ID by visiting the page and clicking "Permanent link" in the left sidebar. Your browser's address bar now reads http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cylons_%28RDM%29&oldid=122402 which means you need to fill in 122402 as the second parameter. I have done this for [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]]. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 03:18, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
			Thanks much, Catrope, this is exactly what I needed. Will do for [[The Colonial Gang]] right now. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 13:24, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Catrope: /* Question on qa diff template use */ explanation, done for Cylons (RDM)

2007-05-20T08:18:50Z

Question on qa diff template use: explanation, done for Cylons (RDM)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:18, 20 May 2007
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Ok, [[Cylons (RDM)]] is now a quality article. According to the QA page, [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]] needs to be archived, and the {{tlp\|qa diff}} template used. How would one go about doing this? Thanks. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 00:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)		Ok, [[Cylons (RDM)]] is now a quality article. According to the QA page, [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]] needs to be archived, and the {{tlp\|qa diff}} template used. How would one go about doing this? Thanks. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 00:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
	:* Also need to do it for [[The Colonial Gang]].		:* Also need to do it for [[The Colonial Gang]].
			::Basically, all you have to do is remove the {{tl\|qa talk}} tag, and replace it by {{tlp\|qa diff\|''pagename''\|''oldid''}}, where pagename is the name of the article in question (e.g. Cylons (RDM)), and oldid the revision ID of the article's current revision. You can get this ID by visiting the page and clicking "Permanent link" in the left sidebar. Your browser's address bar now reads http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cylons_%28RDM%29&oldid=122402 which means you need to fill in 122402 as the second parameter. I have done this for [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]]. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 03:18, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

JubalHarshaw: /* Question on qa diff template use */

2007-05-20T06:14:49Z

Question on qa diff template use

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 20 May 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:

	Ok, [[Cylons (RDM)]] is now a quality article. According to the QA page, [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]] needs to be archived, and the {{tlp\|qa diff}} template used. How would one go about doing this? Thanks. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 00:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)		Ok, [[Cylons (RDM)]] is now a quality article. According to the QA page, [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]] needs to be archived, and the {{tlp\|qa diff}} template used. How would one go about doing this? Thanks. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 00:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
			:* Also need to do it for [[The Colonial Gang]].

JubalHarshaw: helped needed using qa diff template

2007-05-20T05:47:37Z

helped needed using qa diff template

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 20 May 2007
Line 31:		Line 31:
	::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
	:::I'll try to pull something appropriate out of the podcast for an official statement or two. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:27, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		:::I'll try to pull something appropriate out of the podcast for an official statement or two. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:27, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

			==Question on qa diff template use==

			Ok, [[Cylons (RDM)]] is now a quality article. According to the QA page, [[Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM)]] needs to be archived, and the {{tlp\|qa diff}} template used. How would one go about doing this? Thanks. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 00:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

JubalHarshaw: /* Quality vs. Featured */ - there are other potentials in the quality article candidate category

2007-05-18T19:40:06Z

Quality vs. Featured: - there are other potentials in the quality article candidate category

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 18 May 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:
	:::I created the current site notice to try to draw some attention to this process, as I find it a worthy one. In a perfect world, featured articles would go through the quality article process first (not that it is truly necessary). I do think, however, we should be identifying quality articles any which way. I've added a few potentials but have yet to see much commentary on them. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 11:49, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		:::I created the current site notice to try to draw some attention to this process, as I find it a worthy one. In a perfect world, featured articles would go through the quality article process first (not that it is truly necessary). I do think, however, we should be identifying quality articles any which way. I've added a few potentials but have yet to see much commentary on them. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 11:49, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
	::::Yeah, this sounds like something we should do. I tried thinking about some articles, but nothing comes immediately to mind. Maybe we could start by finding the best (or just really good) main character article, episode guide page, technical article, etc... --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:55, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		::::Yeah, this sounds like something we should do. I tried thinking about some articles, but nothing comes immediately to mind. Maybe we could start by finding the best (or just really good) main character article, episode guide page, technical article, etc... --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:55, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
			:::There are a handful of articles in [[:Category:Quality article candidate]] that could probably use some review. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 14:40, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

	== Quality Episode Guide ==		== Quality Episode Guide ==

Steelviper: /* Quality Episode Guide */ official...

2007-05-17T18:27:50Z

Quality Episode Guide: official...

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 17 May 2007
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
	::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
			:::I'll try to pull something appropriate out of the podcast for an official statement or two. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:27, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Serenity: /* Quality Episode Guide */

2007-05-17T17:41:24Z

Quality Episode Guide

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 17 May 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:
	The episode guide pages are a big part of what drew me to the battlestar wiki, and we have a lot of good content, analysis, quotes on those pages. Maybe somebody could search through the RDM episodes and find an episode guide page that could be cleaned up to QA standards for potential use as an FA? --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 10:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)		The episode guide pages are a big part of what drew me to the battlestar wiki, and we have a lot of good content, analysis, quotes on those pages. Maybe somebody could search through the RDM episodes and find an episode guide page that could be cleaned up to QA standards for potential use as an FA? --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 10:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
	:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
			::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Shane: /* Quality Episode Guide */

2007-05-17T17:38:34Z

Quality Episode Guide

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 17 May 2007
Line 27:		Line 27:
	== Quality Episode Guide ==		== Quality Episode Guide ==
	The episode guide pages are a big part of what drew me to the battlestar wiki, and we have a lot of good content, analysis, quotes on those pages. Maybe somebody could search through the RDM episodes and find an episode guide page that could be cleaned up to QA standards for potential use as an FA? --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 10:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)		The episode guide pages are a big part of what drew me to the battlestar wiki, and we have a lot of good content, analysis, quotes on those pages. Maybe somebody could search through the RDM episodes and find an episode guide page that could be cleaned up to QA standards for potential use as an FA? --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 10:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
			:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:58, 13 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

	:I concur with ~~Peter~~ here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		:I concur with April here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

	::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)		::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)

	::: I concur, ~~Peter~~. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day\|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)		::: I concur, April. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day\|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)

	::: I concur, ~~Peter~~. If we could change it before it appears too many more places, that'd be great. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:09, 25 April 2006 (CDT)		::: I concur, April. If we could change it before it appears too many more places, that'd be great. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:09, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

	==Quality vs. Featured==		==Quality vs. Featured==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 17 May 2007
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
	::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
			:::I'll try to pull something appropriate out of the podcast for an official statement or two. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:27, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 17 May 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:
	The episode guide pages are a big part of what drew me to the battlestar wiki, and we have a lot of good content, analysis, quotes on those pages. Maybe somebody could search through the RDM episodes and find an episode guide page that could be cleaned up to QA standards for potential use as an FA? --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 10:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)		The episode guide pages are a big part of what drew me to the battlestar wiki, and we have a lot of good content, analysis, quotes on those pages. Maybe somebody could search through the RDM episodes and find an episode guide page that could be cleaned up to QA standards for potential use as an FA? --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 10:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
	:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		:[[Rapture]] guide is pretty good. If it was fixed up a little bit more... i think we be golden for an FA status. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:38, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
			::Mhh, yes. That one looks good. Maybe if we find some official statements and a bit more noteworthy dialogue (just a few items. Some pages tend to go overboard with it). --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		Woah woah woah. Locking an article down from edits totally defeats the wiki spirit. I don't object to having specific revisions marked as "1.0", "1.1", "2.0", etc. which we can link to with oldid links, but blocking edits entirely is a very poor idea. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:01, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

	:I concur with Peter here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		:I concur with Peter here. This is a slippery slope that defeats the collective purpose of the Wiki. I like the idea of tagging popular or quality pages, but the idea of numbering versions will be a nightmare of micromanagement. I didn't get how we define what is quality, but I will read it again. I would think such a thing would be by things like (1) hits on the article, (2) number of edits, and (3) number of hard sources. If that is the case, then, many current articles fit this, defeating the reason for the tag. I'll have to think a bit more on how this could work. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 12:49, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

	::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)		::I agree. To clarify my idea on numbered versions, although it could be useful to know what the most recent version is which has passed a certain battery of quality tests, the fact is that newer material will almost invariably be better than older as long as projects such as the Citation Jihad et al. maintain their vigilance; and that vandalism will be reverted practically instantly. Anything beyond a wikipedia-style Featured Articles process strikes me as obtuse and impractical. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:06, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

	I like what Memory Alpha does for Star Trek: there is a list of "features articles" but you're allowed to edit them. All it is is a "showcase" list of the best articles that new readers might want to look at; they are also more heavily moderated, but editing is not locked. Further, character biography pages are mostly being added chronologically now, and the Cylon page is notoriously in need of devlopment; of course, that's because we the audience are in the same situation as the Colonials, who know little of the Cylons as well. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]], October 14, 2005		I like what Memory Alpha does for Star Trek: there is a list of "features articles" but you're allowed to edit them. All it is is a "showcase" list of the best articles that new readers might want to look at; they are also more heavily moderated, but editing is not locked. Further, character biography pages are mostly being added chronologically now, and the Cylon page is notoriously in need of devlopment; of course, that's because we the audience are in the same situation as the Colonials, who know little of the Cylons as well. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]], October 14, 2005
Line 9:		Line 9:
	: Very cool. Glad that everyone agrees that protecting articles is a bad idea. :-) (That portion was BS anyway, though oddly enough inspired by this [http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+to+tighten+editorial+rules/2100-1025_3-5820655.html news article] regarding Jimbo's locking down of articles whose quality was "undisputed".) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:59, 14 October 2005 (EDT)		: Very cool. Glad that everyone agrees that protecting articles is a bad idea. :-) (That portion was BS anyway, though oddly enough inspired by this [http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+to+tighten+editorial+rules/2100-1025_3-5820655.html news article] regarding Jimbo's locking down of articles whose quality was "undisputed".) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:59, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

	'''Comment:''' I think "Featured Articles" has a better ring to it than "Quality Articles" - noun-noun compounds always strike me as ugly. And exactly what "quality" is it, exactly? Good or bad? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 19:03, 17 March 2006 (CST)		'''Comment:''' I think "Featured Articles" has a better ring to it than "Quality Articles" - noun-noun compounds always strike me as ugly. And exactly what "quality" is it, exactly? Good or bad? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:03, 17 March 2006 (CST)
	:Maybe. But even if there is a difference, if you had 5 Quality articles, you can't show five of them on the front page at once. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] 19:16, 17 March 2006 (CST)		:Maybe. But even if there is a difference, if you had 5 Quality articles, you can't show five of them on the front page at once. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] 19:16, 17 March 2006 (CST)
	::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)		::I'm not sure you've replied to my actual comment. All I'm saying is that "Quality article" is a worse name for this sort of thing than "Featured article". --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)

	::: I concur, Peter. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day\|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)		::: I concur, Peter. Though, because of common usage, I'd not be so hasty to say that "quality" cannot be an adjective. In any case, I like the fact that "Featured Articles" is more exact and equally concise. It also does not, really, imply any level of high quality. If a Quality Article is vandalized it will not be of high quality (for all of, maybe, five seconds), thus ruining the name. If a Featured Article is vandalized, it will still be featured (and fixed quickly as well, I hope). --[[User:Day\|Day]] 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)
Line 18:		Line 18:

	==Quality vs. Featured==		==Quality vs. Featured==
	Are we still using this? What is meant to be the difference between a Quality article and a Featured article? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:55, 12 June 2006 (CDT)		Are we still using this? What is meant to be the difference between a Quality article and a Featured article? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 18:55, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
	:QA's could being used as what [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Peer Review\|Wikipedia:Peer Review]] does before most articles are even considered to be FA. This could end the "debate" on most FA's and have people nominate pages to QA status first before the short FA period beings. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 20:16, 12 June 2006 (CDT)		:QA's could being used as what [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Peer Review\|Wikipedia:Peer Review]] does before most articles are even considered to be FA. This could end the "debate" on most FA's and have people nominate pages to QA status first before the short FA period beings. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 20:16, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
	::Not a bad idea. I think wikipedia calls them "Good articles". --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:05, 12 June 2006 (CDT)		::Not a bad idea. I think wikipedia calls them "Good articles". --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:05, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
	::Link was bad. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 23:21, 12 June 2006 (CDT)		::Link was bad. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 23:21, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
	:::I created the current site notice to try to draw some attention to this process, as I find it a worthy one. In a perfect world, featured articles would go through the quality article process first (not that it is truly necessary). I do think, however, we should be identifying quality articles any which way. I've added a few potentials but have yet to see much commentary on them. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 11:49, 17 May 2007 (CDT)		:::I created the current site notice to try to draw some attention to this process, as I find it a worthy one. In a perfect world, featured articles would go through the quality article process first (not that it is truly necessary). I do think, however, we should be identifying quality articles any which way. I've added a few potentials but have yet to see much commentary on them. [[User:JubalHarshaw\|JubalHarshaw]] 11:49, 17 May 2007 (CDT)