Zelda Wiki talk:Featured Content Disqualification

Limits, Goals, Support, etc.
Should we have a limit on how many articles/pictures can be up for disqualification? What do we do if we are against disqualifying something? Should we change the oppose to  support headers, then add normal oppose headers? The goal here is to weed out the content that is sub-standard, not to take away the ones we simply dislike. This process should be more objective, and not based simply on opinion.--Matt 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I figure a limit of four for each type of medium should be good, but something shouldn't be nominated just because there's an open slot; only if it really shouldn't be featured anymore. If against disqualifying something... perhaps it would be a good idea to do what you've suggested above. This page was really something thrown together pretty quickly in a rush to get a page like this up, so it's still a work-in-progress. --Ando 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't think about a limit on nominations, but max four should be fine. After all, there are only 15 of each to choose from, many of which had the option of opposition votes when they were first nominated, so there shouldn't be that many "bad apples"!
 * I did consider giving the option of "for" and "against" disqualification, but this would complicate things a great deal. The way I'd envisaged it working was, if there was something you didn't want to see disqualified you could just vote for something else so it'd get a higher score and get disqualified first. But if you want, I can add "Keep" and "Disqualify" headers for each, so that a "score" can be taken for each (e.g two votes to disqualify and one vote to keep = a score of -1, one vote to disqualify and three votes to keep = a score of +2). The problem would be in deciding how many votes to allow; since we couldn't allow unlimited free "keep" votes to mirror the unlimited oppositions on normal voting (surely nothing would ever get disqualified then!), I guess it would have to be a limit of one keep and one disqualify per category (so 4 votes per person per month overall). Phew! Thoughts? --Adamcox82 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I just read the page and saw that you already beat me to it! I'll just make a few little changes. It does worry me slightly that the "keep" votes are unlimited though... --Adamcox82 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I changed the "keep" vote amount to the same as the "disqualify": one a month. That should keep any eager-keepers out, yeah? :P Sorry, I was just kind of thinking along the lines of the other voting pages when I wrote that. --Ando 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How are we going to decide if a disqualification fails or succeeds? Is it a certain amount of time at plus or minus score? Or is it at a certain score? Maybe we could have it succeed if it has been at -2 for two weeks. We could have it fail if it is at +4 for one week. We need to come up with a valid system now that we don't have to disqualify to make room for new content. 14:38, July 6, 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this recently, and I agree. The reason I haven't already taken measures to implement some kind of system is that, well, a new Featured Article is pretty close here, and so I figured that once that's ready I'll just wipe the existing FA with the lowest score and replace it with the new one.
 * I'm hesitant to just remove Featured Content (FC) based on score alone -- because what would go in its place? I'd rather not have to re-number every FC template when one gets disqualified. Perhaps the new system should be as such: When a new item reaches 10 votes for nomination, we should check here. If something here has, say, a score of -2 or -3 or what-have-you, we'd replace its template with the new FC. If nothing has a low enough score (everything is at -1 or higher), the new FC would be added as a completely new template. Does this make sense or am I not being clear enough? :P I'm not very good at explaining things. 15:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right. But remember that at the moment we have a spare set of templates for a FA. I Think it is FA/31 and FA/32. We don't need four templates to the Pedestal of Time. But we are close to getting two new featured articles. The first one will go in template FA/31. Does that sound agreeable? If there isn't one suitable for disqualification when our second new FA is ready, then we have to make templates FA/35 and FA/36. I'll prepare the code changes in a text file on my PC. Does all this sound good to you? 16:03, July 6, 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, I had forgotten about the rogue two Pedestal of Time entries. I honestly have no idea what I was thinking when I did that. :/ 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At least it makes the next featured article easy to add! Something good came out of it. 16:13, July 6, 2008 (UTC)


 * I just had the greatest idea on how to easily change the Featured Content rotation templates! Without having to do the long, manual edits! No time for exact details now. I'm going to work on this right now. It might take me an hour or two. To work I go! 16:20, July 6, 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I know exactly what to do now. The catch is that it will still be on my PC. I'm writing a MS Excel file that will automatically generate the script for me so I can copy it over. I know how to do it. It will take a while to write. I'll be done with it sometime later today. 17:08, July 6, 2008 (UTC)


 * It is done! I can now easily generate any version of the Featured Content rotation templates that we need in only a few seconds! I've saved the file. The resulting script it generates can be copied directly into the templates here. It is awesome. That is one big problem solved! 17:54, July 6, 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what about keeping content? How is that going to be decided? 18:27, July 7, 2008 (UTC)


 * Also a very excellent point, and one that was never discussed given that the main idea of this system was to remove content, not to possibly keep it. I kind of dig your "if at +4 for a week it fails" idea you mentioned before. Shall we go with that? 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems good. The Link article isn't going to be disqualified, that is for sure. I would also like to point out that even if content is decided to be kept, is nomination for disqualifying can be great incentive for improving it. Which is, of course what this whole process is about in the first place. We need to make a page to put the content that was kept. It will be this page's analog of the "Fail nominations" page. I don't know what to call this new page though. I'll leave that up to you. 18:46, July 7, 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down there. Uh, I'm not entirely convinced that the whole "This is why the current featured articles are poor, so fix them" function is necessary -- if we have that, it basically makes the entire process of disqualifying unnecessary. The way I (and I guess others) envisioned it was to do what you did with the Link nomination: someone says "Look, it has this problem, disqualify it", someone else goes and fixes the problem, "Oh, doesn't have the problem anymore", everyone votes "keep" because of it. My thoughts, anyway. But the pictures... perhaps there could just be a request to replace existing images with the improved versions? And as for your description of why "Link's piggy pals" should be disqualified (simple, uninteresting, etc.), those aren't valid reasons. The Featured Picture criteria states, and I quote:
 * "They may be deemed worthy of being featured by merit of an important or rare subject, or simply for being visually interesting."

Clearly at least ten people within the span of half a month) thought it was visually interesting (you gotta admit it's cute, man). 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I expected complaints. But the lists should stay. Our goal is to improve our featured articles THe list will let people know that they need to do just that. By meeting criteria, that means that the failed to live up to the criteria for them to be featured in the first place. they are in those two links at the top that quite clearly say criteria. I tried to keep things as opinion-free as possible. If I had it my way there would be three times as many images up. If we have to reword then do it. But seriously, think Ando. Do we really want a disqualification vote like this: "This page doesn't have enough sources. We should disqualify it.--UserA Agreed. Not enough sources --UserB Whoa! This article is good!--UserC Sources added--UserD"? That is just ridiculous and a complete waste of votes that could go to something that matters. My list idea will solve that problem. It is a new idea, so yeah we will have to work out a few kinks in it. 12:38, July 8, 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured you'd bring that point up. But then again, what do we do with the disqualification system? It's essentially rendered useless by this listing. By this point there are no Featured Articles that are just so horrendous and poorly-made that they can't be easily fixed by adding a source or what-have-you, so I can't see needing this system for "those really bad articles" that aren't likely to exist anyway. 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we are generally more careful about what we let get featured nowadays. I have been thinking that this disqualification voting would be short-lived. It's not like we have a ton of things to choose from. We could still keep this active though. We could encourage improving articles. But we should keep this operation for the content that slips through that should not be there. (Dodongo? Boomerang? Come on! That is just stupid) I'm not sure we should just "replace" a featured image with a better version. That is not exactly fair. 13:08, July 8, 2008 (UTC)