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. --Peter Farago 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. 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. --Peter Farago 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. --Ricimer, October 14, 2005
- Very cool. Glad that everyone agrees that protecting articles is a bad idea. :-) (That portion was BS anyway, though oddly enough inspired by this news article regarding Jimbo's locking down of articles whose quality was "undisputed".) -- 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? --Peter Farago 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. --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". --Peter Farago 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). --Day 21:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)