Battlestar Wiki talk:Featured articles

Added image to talk page so that it doesnt show in the Unused images page. --Mercifull 05:59, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

What?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:38, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Mercifull is acutely aware that images that are on the unused images report quickly end up on "the island" (or even disappear). That image was uploaded for potential use as the "logo" in a "Featured Article" template. However, it seems a bit small for that purpose. It probably belongs on the island, or maybe even deleted/reuploaded/reworked. --Steelviper 15:43, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Okay. One day I really want our front page to look like Memory Alpha's front page. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:56, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

I think v1.6 of mediawiki will allow some of the Portal-like features they have on their main page with out all the ugly html. Although, honestly, if we could get it to look like memory-alpha WITH ugly hacks and html (even without v1.6) I'd be up for it. --Steelviper 16:07, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

I don't understand computers at all. Just scifi shows. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 16:09, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

What should be the Standards?

Me and Silverviper talked about it for a short while (See below) and came up with those ideas. Now I know we been discussion Battlestar_Wiki:Quality_Articles, but there is a difference. QA are articles that are good enough to be a QA, but not enough to be Featured on the Main Page of the site. Some of the same Criteria for QA can also be established for FA, but FA most go through a more different process for it to be posted on the Main Page. That's all I can think of now. --Shane ^{(C - E)} 20:46, 19 March 2006 (CST)

I don't know, they seem like exactly the same thing to me. I prefer the "featured article" name in any case. --Peter Farago 18:29, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

I really think "Quality Articles" is redundant. "Featured Article" makes sense. Memory Alpha just uses "Featured Articles". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:52, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Google Chat Discussions

Mar 17: Me (Shane) and Matt (Steelviper)

Matt: I'd lean towards deletion
  in its stated form, it's pretty redundant with featured article
1:37 PM in order to be a featured article, an article must possess a certain standard of quality
  (wow... you can quote me on that)
1:38 PM me: (saved! looved google talk)
 Matt: maybe list out some criteria...
  no broken links
  no spelling/grammar issues
 me: Some images
 Matt: citations for all info
  yeah
  images are a must
 me: More than one
1:39 PM Size
 Matt: at least one
 me: To large
  hard to read
  to small.. not enough content
 Matt: I wouldn't hold size against a page
  that would have dq'd the miniseries article
1:40 PM stubs are definitely out
 me: aye
 Matt: it'd be good to quantify a minimum size

Just a note: Matt==Steelviper. Sylverviper is a far more artistic soul on the skiffy boards. --Steelviper 20:58, 19 March 2006 (CST)

Featured Candidate Requirements

I swiped most of the text from the "quality articles" project, and added a few other requirements as a potential springboard for what a featured article might need. Feel free to hack and slash at it, or discuss it on this talk page. There wasn't much activity on this, so I hoped this would help get the ball rolling. --Steelviper 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

This isn't really important, but why are featured articles and pictures supposed to be picked by the 7th of each month? Wouldn't it be simpler just to make them due on the 1st of every month? Confusion. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 09:00, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Already passed. 7th is one week. Gives us time to decide 6-days to pick and debate. Plus, the 1st comes at werid times. Usually the 7th will allow the same ammount of time for each article on the front page. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:05, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Oh okay. Weird times?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 09:13, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

So do people want to debate this or do we all like it as is? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 19:03, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Silly Pages

They are funny, but should they really be considered for FA status? The best of the best? This next time is a pass, but for afterwards. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:06, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Well, the way I see it, the silly pages, while not serious and excellent in the way the other articles are, are still great in their way. In my mind, the point of nominating an article for FA status is because you think it's a great article and you think it should get attention because of how good it is. Also, I think the silly pages in general need more attention, because they are sorely underappreciated. --BklynBruzer 21:13, 8 January 2007 (CST)

I don't see the harm in having one as an FA every once in awhile (a great while), if the article itself is worthy. JubalHarshaw 07:21, 9 January 2007 (CST)

I don't think that anybody is questioning their quality. If anything, silly pages are held to a higher standard of quality than normal articles, as only the really good ones are kept. There are no Greenback's of silly pages. They're well conceived, well executed, or they're toast. However, that being said, I think one of the reasons some of the contributors are leery of having them featured is because they don't really represent the main mission of the wiki. If some Ferrari engineers put together some awesome go-karts or bumper cars just to have some fun and blow off some steam, they might go the whole nine yards. Put the prancing horse logo on it, all kinds of detail work, etc. And it'd be a blast. However, you wouldn't see those on a showroom floor. Because the company would want to be sure that when you see Ferrari, you think of incredibly powerful, performance racing machines. Not go-karts or bumper cars. Likewise there are contributors that want people to see the wiki as a source for incredibly detailed, well cited information regarding the Battlestar Galactica sagas. Which is not to say that the silly pages in any way take away from that, or that some of them aren't incredibly detailed and well cited. Just that they represent the (less than) 1% of the articles, rather than the 99% that everyone is contributing to. I'd support a silly page that was 100% grounded in canon citations, but I think at that point it'd be hard to make it silly. --Steelviper 08:24, 9 January 2007 (CST)