Zelda Wiki:Featured Content Disqualification

Given that Zelda Wiki.org now has a good number of Featured articles and pictures, it's been decided that a process for weeding out some of the less-than-exemplary content should begin. So this is it!

The goal is to ensure that our current selection of Featured Content remains the best possible showcase of quality content, by removing any articles or images which don't meet the stated criteria. This will be done by the voting process below.

The rules are simple. For "Disqualify" votes (votes that support the disqualification of something), one vote per calendar month per category is allowed. That is, one vote for pictures and one vote for articles. The voting system is entirely independent from any votes placed in other content voting pages. "Keep" votes (votes that oppose disqualification) are limited also to one a month. Votes are to be added below the relevant or  header. Please base your judgment primarily on the relevant criteria detailed here:

There can be a maximum of FOUR articles and FOUR pictures nominated at any given time. If there's an empty spot, feel free to nominate any other content which you feel is eligible for disqualification, clearly stating why. At the point where a new Featured slot is required (usually when a new article or image reaches the required number of votes to become Featured) we will remove one of the below Featured contents and replace it with the newly-Featured material. Oh, and as always:
 * Featured Article criteria
 * Featured Picture criteria

'''ALL votes and nominations MUST be signed using --~. If you do not sign your opinion or second, your vote WILL NOT be counted!'''

= Currently proposed articles for disqualification =

Current score: -2
As it has been pointed out elsewhere, this article's information has now become outdated with the release of newer games. It doesn't use any references, and although the topic is a very popular one, it's highly subjective when compared to the largely factual body of information normally promoted as Featured. --Adamcox82 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) As one of the original authors, I definitely feel that the page has bounced between 'less then perfect' and 'total crap' for quite some time... it was written under a completely different atmosphere then the (preferable) one that currently permeates the wiki and for a completely different period of zelda-related theory. The article could not possibly be 'brought up to date': the entire timeline-series needs to be almost totally redone. Disqulify and, if there's no change in a couple months (the chances of which are slim, likely dependent on myself and one other party ), delete. --Mmmmm PIE 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Meh. No sources, too much subjectivity (which, given the topic makes it... tolerable?), not to mention, as stated, it's outdated given the recent releases. Also, the writing style doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. --Ando (T) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: -1
When this article was featured, it was definitely the nest website article on the wiki, having been one of the first to use the infobox and be properly subdivided and include references. However, now that so many other website articles have been improved in the same way, it's simply average. Fairly short, and it seems a little unfair to promote only one of our member sites in this way. Also, nearly a year on it seems that the controversy of the launch must have died down enough to make it less than newsworthy. --Adamcox82 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The articles really not that well written.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: -2
Maybe controversial, but this article seems to me to be just one amongst many. It's no longer the latest game (as it was when it became Featured), and wasn't actually voted in but rather selected by the staff. Also, the single token reference doesn't really cut it, and the YouTube video included doesn't work. --Adamcox82 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I love Twilight Princess, but I have to agree with that. I've always seen this page as just one among many. If this is featured, then why not all the other games, like Ocarina of Time? --Yuvorias, 11:21, 11 May 2008 (EST)
 * 2) It's true, Twilight Princess has lost some of its glory :( --Seablue254 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: +3
It's gotten kind of messed up and low-quality. Where's the ciatation (excuse my spelling), and it's under the category "Articles lacking sources". I don't think it should be featured anymore.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Yeah, I don't really see what you mean? Looking at the edits made since it was featured, I can only see a few main changes. One was the rewriting (improvement?) of a few sections, and the other was the addition of various new sections, particularly Toon Link and the Relationships section. I can't see how new information can possibly be detrimental to the article quality (providing that it's well written and presented, which this is) --Adamcox82 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) WHOA! WHOA! Hold your horses, man! I was sure i'd never see this happen! Just look at the article, there is no way it is low quality! Is it me, or is the world going crazy? --Seablue254 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed. I can't see how the quality has gotten worse. Looking back in the history, the only things that actually diminished it are acts of vandalism.--Matt 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

= Currently proposed pictures for disqualification =

Current score: +1
This image is rather small. The quality is not up to par with the other featured pictures. The source is also unknown.--Matt 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) That is all correct, and then some. also, i just don't like the picture :P --Seablue254 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) You know what, I actually really like this one. Not only is it the only LA image to be featured (and likely the only one available which could ever qualify to be featured), but I think it's pretty cool in a retro/cheesy kinda way ;P It does worry me that there's no source, but surely a bit of searching could turn up another copy that we could replace and add source info? I'll get on it now. --Adamcox82 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, I agree, this is practically the only LA featurable image, and it shouldn't be too hard to find a bigger version!--Magnus orion 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: -2
I actually really like this image, just not this version; it's too busy, cropped and covered in logos and text. I've suggested here that it be replaced with what I consider to be a much better version. However, given that it's so different, perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to remove the current featured image and upload and re-nominate the new one separately? --Adamcox82 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't like the image at all. I think it's rather ugly.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) My vote goes here, as described here. --Ando 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: 0
Okay, I know I uploaded and nominated this one. And while it's good quality and I like the subject, that's about it. It's not an exceptional composition, the background is dull, and it's one of a great many Twilight Princess images. Also, since it took over 2 months to get enough votes to be featured, I suspect that if we'd been running the opposiion voting scheme at the time it may have never made it. --Adamcox82 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)