MarioWiki talk:Featured articles/Unfeature

Is there any way we could integrate this page into the main FA page? Or at least do some little DPL or whatever (or even a manual edit) to show that there is or there is not an article nominated? It's a little tedious to click the link just to see that there are no nominations. BLOC PARTIER.

OK, seriously. I never remember to check this page. Could there please be some reminder on MarioWiki:Featured Articles? The two articles I will actively attempt to change could have been unfeatured while I didn't check this page. BLOC PARTIER.

Do we have a former FA template? Phoenix Rider

I don't believe we do. I think I can create one. How about we use a dark star image to replace the star in our featured article template? YosharioFile:Yoshi wearing mario's hat.jpg

I was thinking we'd have the Star image we have now, only grayscale and split. I can make the image, and you can make the template. But give me a couple hours as I need to work out some issues with my computer. Phoenix Rider 19:14, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Before you start making the template, please give your reasons why we need it. I don't think we do, actually. Why should we tell our readers that an article was once featured? There's nothing that makes this article special then. It even makes it look worse, because it lost its status as a FA. Time Questions 19:30, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

I think it's good because it shows the page was once a good article and has the potential to become one again. A FFA template would draw attention to that. I don't think it would make the article look any worse. Phoenix Rider 20:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure about that. Some articles became FAs "in a rush", they weren't that good, there just weren't any opposers in time. See Luigi's Mansion for example. I don't really see why we should mark articles like that one as "former FA". Time Questions 01:44, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

New Rule?

I feel we need a new rule that prevents oppose votes such as, "The article may not be good enough right now, but we should wait until someone (or I) fixes it, rather than unfeaturing it." This would include some of the votes on the Yoshi nomination as well: "I think this article should be given time to adjust to the fa reqs before we have this vote again", and "Shouldn't we just wait a bit, i think somebodys redoing it, plus there are lots more images now, it could just be good enough in a few weeks." Such votes don't help at all. What matters is how good an article is at the moment, not how good it could be when it's fixed. After all, we do not feature articles that just have the potential to be FA-quality, either. So, does anyone object to adding this rule to the page? Time Questions 06:40, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

If there are no objections, I'll add this rule to the page tomorrow. Time Questions 14:46, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

No, what we need is a rule that allows the administrators (if a majority of them agree) to unfeature an article at any time, that is, if the unfeaturing nomination doesn't work (i.e. the Yoshi article looks terrible, and a bunch of fans are keeping it featured). Having a featured article that looks horrible is detrimental to the wiki, it makes us look like our best articles are a load of junk. That is only my opinion, though. · SMB (Talk) · 15:32, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Another sysop privilege that just makes us seem undemocratic? Not sure about that. You don't have any objections to the particular rule I'm proposing, do you? Other opinions? Time Questions 15:47, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

It may seem undemocratic at first, but the new rule regarding the sysops being able to remove any proposal deemed detrimental at any time may seem undemocratic as well, right? The same as that rule, it would only be a last resort, as in the case with the Yoshi article, which it remaining an F.A. would not be good for the wiki. I don't really have any objections, and what I stated in my comments are my opinion. · SMB (Talk) · 15:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Sorry if my previous comment sounded harsh, it wasn't meant to be. Anyway: I don't think the Unfeature system is bad, there are just not enough people who care about it. If we had more users participating in the nominations, this here would be no problem. The Unfeature process has at least one crucial advantage over "sysops can unfeature any article": users get informed that there's something to fix about an article. It's "either you fix it, or the article loses FA status". So it's a somewhat constructive system, compared to your suggestion, which would just remove FA status, but the article stays as bad as it is. There are quite a few examples for articles that were improved due to an Unfeature nomination (and the nomination page could be deleted afterwards). Time Questions 16:27, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Don't worry, I don't think your comment was harsh. But what I mean is a last resort. The Yoshi article is currently going nowhere, nobody really cares, and the fact that the only thing really keeping the article featured are fan votes or users saying that it is exceptional (which is incorrect). In these cases, I think the Sysop revoking Featured Article status is okay. The Sysops wouldn't abuse the power, they should have common-sense (which I'm sure every one of our Sysops do), and the problems will probably get fixed when another user comes along and tries to feature it again and notices a bunch of opposes. The rule could work if implemented like the newer proposals one. · SMB (Talk) · 16:34, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd support Time Q's idea above. SMB, it's not that your idea is bad or wouldn't work. It's that it would cause a backlash. If the Sysops can override the community's decision at any time, it's going to turn people off of the whole idea. After all, why bother voting when your vote can easily be nullified for reasons you needn't be informed of? With Time Q's idea, there's still a distinct set of rules users can follow to ensure their votes don't get deleted. With yours, any seemingly arbitrary thing the sysops don't like can be deleted. The rules need to keep the people in power firmly in the power of the community. - 2257^(Talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Ok, I understand Time Q's point, and I think that that rule is ok. · SMB (Talk) · 16:42, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

In Addition to the new rule...

I think we should provide 1 week blocks for those who add invalid votes twice after being warned on their talk page. So, what do you think? · SMB (Talk) · 20:38, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't think we need a new rule for that (if you were suggesting this). If users keep making the same mistakes after being warned, they should be blocked. Do you have any particular cases in mind? Time Questions 05:00, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Something I noticed

I just noticed that this page was taken from my prototype page. That makes me happy somehow. =) --Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Huh. I could have sworn I wrote this all myself o.O Time Questions 11:07, 2 March 2010 (EST)

I'm Confused?

I was trying to unfeature the Princess Daisy article, but instead it came up with the page for the last time it was nominated to be unfeatured. Can someone please explain Commander Code-8 (talk) 09:24 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about this, it's because if you nominate an article to be unfeatured, a nomination page will be created that is called exactly like the last nomination of the same article, so you get to see the old nomination. I'll see what can be done about it. Time Questions 06:13, 1 April 2010 (EDT)