9,367 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Featured Article: new system *needed*

The time has passed to judge the Featured Article on an "Article of the Month" basis. This is doubtless due to a decreased volume in editors—very natural for a show that's off the air and nothing to get pessimistic about. We can't pretend to force ourselves to try to re-energize the old system.

I propose we structure a new ballot criteria based on "vote threshold" instead of month-by-month. The only thing that will change is how votes are counted. The grunt work for labeling FAs will be the same, and so will the eligible voter rules. People can still vote 1 Support and 1 Oppose, and they are free to cancel and change these as desired.

This will be a more fluid system, and articles will remain on the Main Page longer like they already, naturally are doing anyway. We pick a realistic but slightly high number, perhaps 6 votes, at which point the next nominated article becomes featured. It could technically supplant the prior article if this happens in less than 1 month (it's just not likely because of our limited eligible voter traffic). But if 6 votes are not reached by 1 month, the vote threshold drops to 5 votes. If any nomination has 5 votes at that time, it becomes FA. If any nomination gets 5 votes in the upcoming month, it becomes FA. If not, the current one stays up for its second month. Then, at the next new month mark, the threshold drops to 4 votes. Any article with 4 votes at that moment becomes FA. If any nomination gets 4 votes, it becomes FA. If the 4-vote mark isn't reached, the current FA gets its third month as Featured.

This process keeps happening until it reaches 2 votes, at which point it stalls for good until an article gets 2 votes. (I would stop it at 2 because I don't feel comfortable with anything having only 1 vote becoming FA.)

This system may appear complicated, but it comes from my head, so it can't be particularly difficult to grasp. In fact I would like some help phrasing it more efficiently, if you guys agree with it. Thoughts? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 11:52, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't really know how the FA system works at the minute, this seems to make sense. Just to clarify: is 'number of votes' the number of supports minus the number of opposes?--Acer4666 17:16, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Yep that's correct. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:20, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Would there be a minimum time limit for an article to stay featured? Like if someone in theory supported an article to be featured, but felt that the old one hadn't had enough time, would they have to oppose but then re-nominate it later?--Acer4666 17:30, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Hm... why not stick with a 1 month minimum? After that month, it can get ousted by a 5-vote nomination. This would be different from what I outlined earlier only in that an FA would have a 1-month grace period, and couldn't be ousted by 6 votes before its month was up.
I like the sound of it. Did you have a different minimum in mind? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:08, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Blue Rook's way.--Station7 20:25, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
1 month sounds good, was what I had in mind. I think we should implement this and see how it works in practice--Acer4666 20:41, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I couldn't follow that at all, but if you say it works, I trust you. :) --proudhug 02:02, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Heh! You do agree in spirit however that the Monthly system isn't appropriate anymore though right? We could skip my complicated idea and make it more static, say, tri-monthly, too. Others' ideas might be simpler and better than mine. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:55, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Scratch all that Edit

The system I proposed above is difficult to maintain, despite its benefits. Scratch that; sorry for all the confusion.

How about a simple, quarterly system? FAs stay up for 3 months, plain and simple

Unless there are any objections I'll start it soon because it happens to be the end of a month right now. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 08:04, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be ok, considering the situation. To be honest, I read your above suggestion awhile ago and lost myself in it. But like you just said, it shouldn't be that complicated. Just change it from monthly to quarterly. Thief12 23:24, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.