| abstract | - What do you guys think about the waiting period for nominations? On one hand, I think it should be a bit longer than the VfD period that we're used to (just the five days), since we want to spend some time really considering whether an article should be featured or not. But OTOH, all (or most) of the regular participants have been responding within five days or so, so we don't necessarily need more time than that... Thoughts? -- Dan Carlson 20:02, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) If there´s no arguments against an article becomming featured within 5 days... maybe, but I´d go with 10 just to be sure. If there´s a discussion about an article, I´d suggest keeping the discussion untill it´s obvious whether it should be featured or not. But I don´t think such a discussion should take more than 30 days. -- Redge 20:18, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) I would suggest a week (7 days) for a featured article to be accepted. Ottens 20:22, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) Redge: That's why I put in that line about a featured article requiring that someone second it before it can be accepted. It prevents people from just sliding articles on through when people neglect the page. -- Dan Carlson 20:31, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) In that case I agree: 7 days to nominate, 10 days before archiving. If an entry's archived, it can still be renominated. -- Redge 19:35, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) Woah, hold on there Redge! You shouldn't have moved the nominations without some sort of consensus about changing them first! Even if I agree with you, I think you should have waited. (Maybe that's just my ego talking, but I mention this in fairness to other people as well...) However, I do agree that the 7/10-day schedule is probably good. There's one thing we need to do, is clear up the policy on renominations. That's because I'm already sorely annoyed that my article on the planet killer got rejected based on one vote, and that one vote wasn't questioning the quality of the article, but the appropriate placement! Do we want to require unanimous votes for achieving featured article status? Or should we allow some leeway... say, require 75% or a two-thirds majority and still allow the article to be featured? Considering that some people might post comments about features and then disappear (thus making an argument or a consensus impossible) -- this happened with K's comment about the doomsday machine article -- I think it would be a good idea. -- Dan Carlson 20:19, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) Sorry, I get a little carried away at times, and if there's one thing I can't stand than it's cluttered up and disorganised pages. I do suggest we leave the moved discussions in the archive for now. How about this for policy: If an objection is raised, and any member posts arguments against those objections, the person who posted the objections has 10 days to reply, otherwise, if there are no further objections, the article is featured. -- Redge 20:53, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) And in the event that there are two groups, of which the minority votes not to nominate, and the majority votes to nominate, I would still not nominate it. Not unless the unlikely situation in which one user sticks to his objections and all other members disagree. -- Redge 20:59, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) Hmm, that sounds overly complicated. How about simply not allowing an article to be nominated more than twice without a major rewrite? To use my doomsday machine article as an example, under this policy the article could be immediately renominated after it was rejected, but if it got rejected a second time, then someone would have to go back and make major changes to it (or move it, or whatever) before it could be nominated for a third time. Does that sound reasonable? (I'm trying to avoid my conflict of interest here... my rationalization is that this kind of policy would be fair to avoid the kind of hit-and-run rejections that are bound to crop up from time to time.) -- Dan Carlson 21:07, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) Well, at the very least I would suggest a minor rewrite to correct the problem people had with it (unless of course those objections were wrong, as is the case with Doomsday machine, and the poster doesn't clarify them further). This would mean that when an article is nominated and objections arize: 1.
* Discussion is opened if other people don't agree with the objections. 2.
* If no consensus is reached in 10 days, the discussion is archived (should improve readability), unless the poster of the first objection doesn't clarify his objections further. 3.
* A minor rewrite is done to accomodate for the objections, and the article is renominated (but we keep the original discussion archived). 4.
* Same procedure is followed, but after this second failed nomination, a major rewrite is requiered. I don't think we should be to light on the nomination policy. After all, once an article is nominated, it is probably never un-nominated. The nomination is permanent, and if the article is to be featured, there can't be room for discussion (IMO). -- Redge 21:31, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) PS. I agree that Doomsday machine should have been nominated, but I also feel we can't really nominate it untill some sonsensus is reached. And after all this time, if K wasn't going to respond, it would be just easier to renominate. I'm going to put together a full policy on a separate page, and combine all these ideas together. Also, concerning de-listing, Wikipedia has some rules for de-listing featured articles if they're contested after the fact. I figure that we'll adopt them if and when they're necessary. -- Dan Carlson 21:56, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) I feel that I should apologize. I didn't feel that a response was necessary. Regarding the Doomsday article, my suggestion is really more sematic and editorial, and not a critique of the content. I still stand by my original comment. However, as I have said before, this article is well-written, and I enjoyed reading it. In this regard, it would make a fine Featured article. --K 09:07, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) Untill that time, where should we contenst? I figure the Talk page of the featured article is good enough (no need to hassel). By the way, do we have a messages stating that an article isfeatured? If we don't, we should make one and put it either at the bottom of the featured articles, or on their talk pages. Anyway, I look forward to reading the pollicy tomorrow! -- Redge 22:21, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) My comliments on creating a very clear policy, and so quick! I have nothing further to add. -- Redge 14:38, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) Thanks, Redge! :-) Regarding the notice, we do have the template that can be used. K, thanks for speaking up now. I understand what you were thinking, but just to clarify what I said before, I think that it would be useful to join a conversation more after posting, even if it's to continue a disagreement. That way, it's more likely that we can hammer out a consensus that everyone's happy with. -- Dan Carlson 16:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
|
