FANDOM

9,374 Pages

February Article Edit

I think 3 months is too long for Henderson. Do we have a new one? SignorSimon 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Support/Oppose Voting System Edit

I propose that we find another way of counting the votes or something. Because I said that there were errors in Day 5 7:00pm-8:00pm, but it still only counts as -1 vote. So does anybody have an idea as to how to fix this?? I realize that this goes into semantics and unbiased persons editing, but I think our system could use an update. Suggestions?? --BauerJ24 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, I think we should keep the intel up-to-date on this page and delete all those over three/six/twelve months, whichever we choose. Deal? --BauerJ24 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you. What exactly do you think is wrong with the system? And what would you propose as a better one? --Proudhug 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

June votes Edit

The winner of the FA for June is Victor Drazen, not Karen Hayes. Users Shokoking and Twentyfour mad do not meet the requirements of having at least twenty significant contributions. Therefore the results are:

--Proudhug 04:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

May AprilEdit

  • Karen Hayes
    • 3 Support votes: Vichy101, MoChan, Twentyfour mad
    • 0 Oppose votes
    • Final score: +3
  • Sentox nerve gas conspiracy
    • 8 Support votes: Vinny2, CWY2190, J Ripley, 24 Administration, Unbreakable1000, JoeyBags79, Julie777, Ghost Inside the Machine
    • 0 Oppose votes
    • Final score: +8

Which means that May's featured article is the Sentox nerve gas conspiracy!


April article Edit

  • Bill Buchanan
    • 8 Support votes: CWY2190, MoChan, Cantanarazoo, RelentlessRecusant, 24 Administration, Vichy101, Jbond1, Deege515
    • 0 Oppose votes
  • George Mason
    • 3 Support votes: Unbreakable1000, TiredAlex, Vinny2
    • 0 Oppose votes
  • Kiefer Sutherland
    • 1 Support vote: Hypnometal
    • 2 Oppose votes: 24 Administration, Deege515

March articleEdit

  • Curtis Manning
    • 4 Support votes: CWY2190, Unbreakable1000, Vichy101, Cantanarazzo
    • 0 Oppose votes
  • Graem Bauer
    • 4 Support votes: Hypnometal, Tony Almeida 24, Vinny2, RelentlessRecussant
    • 2 Oppose votes: Vichy101, Cantanarazzo
  • Director of Field Operations
    • 0 Support votes
    • 4 Oppose votes: Hynometal, CWY2190, Deege515, RelentlessRecusant

This is not a character contest! Edit

So much of the support and opposition is talking about whether or not the characters are well-liked or if they had a major impact upon the series. Please reconsider your votes and judge whether their actual articles are written using Wiki24's standards. --Deege515 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization Edit

While I appreciate RelentlessRecusant's efforts to organize the nominations, I don't see that it's entirely practical. It adds a level of complexity and confusion when trying to reply to other people's comments, and adding new nominees. People aren't going to remember to add all of the headings and change the number of votes each time. We should make it as simple as possible for people to vote. --Proudhug 09:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Proudhug,
Thanks for your kind and encouraging comment regarding my reorganization of the FA voting page!
I think that my setup allows for maximum effiency, as users can just comment under appropriate votes with the ":" tag, but, of course, it's the bureaucrat's call. =D
Cheers,
Ghost Inside the Machine (Whisper through the Storm) (My Journeys) (Omens) 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wiki 24 tries to adapt a "majority rules" concept of organization, but I don't think your reorganization does provide maximum efficiency. It seems to me that it's a lot more work for someone merely wanting to place a vote. Rather than just putting Support/Oppose followed by comments, they now also have to create three whole new headings, make sure they're posting under the right heading, and change the vote tally in the heading line. Not to mention, there are now a ton of headings, a lot of which won't even end up being used, and it's now a lot harder to navigate (maybe it's just me). I'll admit it looks neater, but I don't see how it's more efficient. As a matter of fact, it already seems to not be working, as people are forgetting to change the tally. --Proudhug 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible problems Edit

  1. Is there a maximum number of oppose votes you can have?
  2. What are the tie-breakers?

---CWY2190talkcontribs 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked out what other major Wikis like Wikipedia, Memory Alpha, Lost, etc. do, so maybe we could adapt whatever rules they have. If I had to suggest ideas, I'd say that you can SUPPORT once and OPPOSE once per month. Not sure about tie-breakers, though. Perhaps whichever one was first nominated? Although that's not really necessarily fair. Another idea is that, since I personally rarely ever vote for the FA, I could add a tie-breaker vote whenever it's needed. Or someone else could do that, but the criteria would have to be 1) they can only ever vote during a tie, and 2) they have to be a constant presence on Wiki 24. --Proudhug 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this. Starting next month, you can have no more than one Support vote and one Oppose vote. As for tie-breakers, heres what I say.
Since there are not a whole lot of tiebreakers out there, the two tiebreakers should be...
  1. Most Support votes
  2. Proudhug is the tiebreaker
---CWY2190talkcontribs 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, barring any objections. --Proudhug 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

February article Edit

  • Chloe O'Brian
    • 7 Support votes by CWY2190, Shokoking, Hypnometal, Cantanarazzo, Red Head Rider, mvc_pacheco, and Conspiracy Unit
    • 0 Reject votes

No other articles received a qualifying vote.

New criteria Edit

I've done some minor tweaking to the page, including adopting Memory Alpha's criteria that voters must be registered users for at least two weeks and have at least twenty significant contributions before being eligible. --Proudhug 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

January ArticleEdit

  • Day 5 6:00am-7:00am
    • 4 Support votes by CWY2190, Conspiracy Unit, StBacchus, and Hypnometal
    • 1 Reject vote by Shokoking

No other articles received a qualifying vote.

December ArticleEdit

Hypnometal has two votes appearing. One is Day 5 6:00am-7:00am, dated 11/15. The other is Wayne Palmer dated 10/12.--CWY2190 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize I was only supposed to vote for one article in a month. With several nominations, there are several articles I could support, but just some I can support more than others.  :-) Hypnometal 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

November ArticleEdit

  • Aaron Pierce
    • 3 Support votes by 24 Administration, J Ripley and Hypnometal
    • 1 Neutral vote by StBacchus
    • 0 Reject votes
    • Total score of 3
  • 24: The Game
    • 1 Support vote by BauerJ24
    • No reject votes
    • Total score of 1
  • Jon Cassar
    • 1 Support vote by StBacchus
    • 1 Reject vote by 24 Administration
    • Total score of 0

And it's Agent Orange in a landslide! I included 24: The Game again because I'm voting for it this month, but I moved the other older nominations to the Featured article candidates archive. There's nothing saying they can't be nominated again, though! --StBacchus 14:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

October ArticleEdit

  • 24: The Game
    • 1 Support vote by BauerJ24
    • No reject votes
    • Total score of 1
  • University of California, Santa Barbara
    • 1 Support vote by StBacchus
    • No reject votes
    • Total score of 1
  • Attacks on CTU Los Angeles
    • 3 Support votes by 24 Administration, CWY2190 and Xtreme680
    • 2 Reject votes by Kapoli and Proudhug
    • Total score of 1
    • Reason it was rejected: Some users thought that the content was more suitable for a subsection of the CTU Los Angeles article and should not be an article in it's own right.
  • Moira O'Neal
    • 1 Support vote by Proudhug
    • 1 Reject vote by Xtreme680
    • Reason it was rejected: Some users believed it was not a significant article.

Although 24: The Game, UC Santa Barbara, and Attacks on CTU Los Angeles had an equal total number of votes, Attacks had more actual support going for it. We needed a new article, so I went ahead and put it in there. --StBacchus 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

September ArticleEdit

  • 24: The Game
    • 1 Support vote by BauerJ24
    • No reject votes
    • Total score of 1
  • Attacks on CTU Los Angeles
    • 3 Support votes by 24 Administration, CWY2190 and Xtreme680
    • 2 Reject votes by Kapoli and Proudhug
    • Total score of 1
    • Reason it was rejected: Some users thought that the content was more suitable for a subsection of the CTU Los Angeles article and should not be an article in it's own right.
  • Moira O'Neal
    • 1 Support vote by Proudhug
    • 1 Reject vote by Xtreme680
    • Reason it was rejected: Some users believed it was not a significant article.
  • Day 2 10:00pm-11:00pm
    • 1 Support vote by Anonymous (207.203.89.1)
    • 1 Support vote by StBacchus
    • Total score of 2

There are lots of promising articles floating around. I predict that by this time October, 24: The Game will be much improved and On-screen Kills by Jack Bauer will be back in the running. Maybe we can polish up Attacks on CTU Los Angeles, too, and have a serious brawl by the end of the year! --StBacchus 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

August ArticleEdit

Using Xtreme's system, this is how this month's choice was made.

  • University of California, Santa Barbara
    • 1 Support vote by StBacchus
    • No reject votes
    • Total score of 1
  • CTU Los Angeles Building
    • 2 Support votes by 24 Administration and Rohrk21
    • No reject votes
    • Total score of 2
  • Attacks on CTU Los Angeles
    • 3 Support votes by 24 Administration, CWY2190 and Xtreme680
    • 2 Reject votes by Kapoli and Proudhug
    • Total score of 1
    • Reason it was rejected: Some users thought that the content was more suitable for a subsextion of the CTU Los Angeles article and should not be an article in it's own right.
  • Moira O'Neal
    • 1 Support vote by Proudhug
    • 1 Reject vote by Xtreme680
    • Reason it was rejected: Some users believed it was not a significant article.

And thus, CTU Los Angeles building is August's featured with 2 votes! --24 Administration 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


July ArticleEdit

Since we don't have any rules on how to make something a featured article if we have a lot of votes on multiple things, this was how I decided to rule it, and hopefully it urks no one. It gets trickier since not everyone votes for every nomination. Firstly, tally up all the support votes, as well as all the reject votes. Then, subtract the reject votes from the support votes, and there you have your score. Ony votes by a logged in user who signs their post are counted. The choices then went like this.

  • Bauer Kill Count
    • 3 support votes by Wydok, Kapoli, and Xtreme680 (1 other support voter was unsigned and thus uncounted)
    • 5 by King Kovifor, StBacchus, CWY2190, 24 Administration, and Rohrk21
    • Total score of -2
    • Reason it was rejected: Some users didn't like that it was a list, and some users thought it was incomplete
  • Day 5 Finale
    • 1 support vote by Rohrk21
    • 1 reject votes by CWY2190 (1 other reject voter was unsigned and thus uncounted)
    • Reason it was rejected: To be respectful of UK viewers who did not want spoilers.
    • Total score of 0
  • Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb
    • 1 support vote by StBacchus
    • No reject votes
    • Total score of 1

And thus electromagnetic pulse bomb is the featured article for July! - Xtreme680 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about how to do this just now and I was thinking that subtracting the rejects from support was the way forward. I was about to suggest it and saw someone had beaten me to it. :D There is one thing that got me however, the Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb article won by one vote, I don't think articles winning by just a single vote should be accepted really. --24 Administration 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Options! Edit

I went ahead and threw out four suggestions for featured articles. That might not be precisely kosher, but we have a perpetual drought of nominees. Maybe this will keep us going for a while. I'm looking forward to Cubby, Key card, and On-screen kills by Jack Bauer being done, so I can nominate and vote for them. But in the meantime, these are some pretty good options. Others to consider might be Ontario Airport and 24: The Game. --StBacchus 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I will throw my support behind any of those suggestions. It's June 30, so it's time to make a decision. I really really wanted OSKbJB, but it doesn't look like it's in the cards. I added the remainder of the kills, with the times of the kills, but we still need several photos, so maybe it would be better to wait on that one. I probably won't be around for any voting later, so I'll say this now - I'll back whatever StBacchus votes for. I trust her judgement. -Kapoli 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Two votes? Oh, the power! I promise not to use it for evil. ...Hey, you are coming back, right? O_o --StBacchus 06:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article for June Edit

I swapped out the article on the Main Page. It appears that Government won with 4 votes. I almost changed the page from "Article of the Month" to "Featured Article" since that's what the title of this article is.... and the "Article of the Month" title didn't make much sense as far as the voting goes. I did indicate that "Government" is the Featured Article for the month of June, because it's the FA that we're displaying in June.... it's not the "best" article from the month of May. -Kapoli 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Just to clarify, the months are a bit messed up with the FA so the FA which goes up at the beginning of April is actually called March's article. So, this article we are voting on now is called April's FA but will actually go up at the start of May. --24 Administration 14:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So we ARE nominating for April's Article of the Month (as in, what was April's best article), not May (as in which article should be featured IN May). My company does this, too. In April, we learned who the MARCH Employee of the month was. In any case, I think it is too early for me to decide which article in April was the best, since April has just started. :) --Wydok 05:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, it makes sense when you explain it like that, Wydok. I know it's early, but I still SUPPORT Nina Myers for the April Article of the Month (to be featured in May). --Kapoli 05:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks this just sounds silly? "April's Featured Article" should be the article that is featured in April, not the article that that was best edited in April. This negates the possibility of an older article that was well written ever being nominated. Imagine this scenario: Two really amazing articles are written in April. Only one can be nominated for a feature article. In May there are no exceptional articles written, but one is chosen anyway. The other well written article from April can never be featured. People, the purpose of the Featured Article is to reflect some of the best work of the site, not the best work of the past month. Understand? --Proudhug 16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proudhug's version of events is what I meant earlier but I proberbly didn't explain it correctly. The only reason April's article of the month will be shown in May is because we vote for it during April. --24 Administration 16:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why not call it May's Article of the Month? Right now we're voting for May's Article of the Month. --Proudhug 16:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I agree with Proudhug. I thought that the nominated articles were meant to represent some of the best work on the site - not necessarily the site during a particular month - but I think that if an article is going to be featured during May, then we should be calling it the "May Article of the Month." The way it is now is like how McDonald's does their Employee of the Month after the month is over, and that suggests that the winning article would have to be the best article from that month, not the best article in general. -- Kapoli 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I nominate my own article, or would that be tacky? --StBacchus 09:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's well-written and awesome, which I'm sure it is, then no, I don't think it's tacky. What are the chances of an article getting nominated that we all haven't either written/edited/contributed to? You have a lot of good articles to choose from, so I'm just interested to see which one you nominate. -Kapoli 12:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was thinking about Government, which is all me all the time. Probably because nobody bothers to read it. ^_^ --StBacchus 12:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely support that if you nominated it. I agree with Xtreme that we need something different - I'm kinda tired of character pages and episode guides. There's so much more on Wiki24 than just those two things. -Kapoli 15:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the title of the section on the main page regarding this page. I would like to change the Main Page Template to say "Featured Article" instead of "Article of the Month". I just don't like the way this is set up right now.... "Page A" and "Page B" are both written during December and are both awesome. "Page C" consisted of just one sentence in October, but was overhauled and got new photos in December, so now it's awesome too. When it comes time to vote on the December article of the month (which we'd vote on in January according to the set-up we have now), "Page C" wins. "Page A" and "Page B" don't get any edits again, ever. Does that make them less awesome? No, but since they don't get any edits, does that make them ineligible for the "Article of the Month"? I feel like it would, because the title "Article of the Month" indicates that the article is from a specific month, rather than being a featured article for a particular month.

Hmm, I feel like I may not be explaining that right. Proudhug did a great job with an explanation on April 5:

Am I the only one who thinks this just sounds silly? "April's Featured Article" should be the article that is featured in April, not the article that that was best edited in April. This negates the possibility of an older article that was well written ever being nominated. Imagine this scenario: Two really amazing articles are written in April. Only one can be nominated for a feature article. In May there are no exceptional articles written, but one is chosen anyway. The other well written article from April can never be featured. People, the purpose of the Featured Article is to reflect some of the best work of the site, not the best work of the past month. Understand? --Proudhug 16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So can we change the name on the main page and change what the voting indicates? Instead of voting for "the next article of the month", we could vote for the next "Featured Article" and leave it at that... yeah, this next article will be featured during the month of June, but we won't call it June's article? Yes? No? Thoughts? -Kapoli 01:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. We don't have to say what the time period is at all, as long as the voting page notes the cutoff date for the current voting period. --StBacchus 08:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Article for OctoberEdit

We don't have an artcle yet.--Station7 17:54, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but we still don't have an article yet. There should be voted or at least an administrator choose an article is my meaning.--Station7 21:15, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Knock-outs article Edit

I'd like to vote on that being featured.--Gunman6 (talk) 16:20, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Please do so on the main page along with your reasoning for the vote--Acer4666 (talk) 16:24, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Bimonthly Edit

Anyone interested in changing the rotation to every two months instead of three? Seems like four featured articles per year is a tad too few, plus there should be more activity and more voters in the next few months --Pyramidhead (talk) 05:33, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if there's enough interest I don't think we should have a hard limit--Acer4666 (talk) 07:33, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
My main concern is the lack of participation, as it is now (me included! I usually forget about this). But other than that, I have no issues with doing it bi-monthly. Thief12 (talk) 00:28, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
Probably should decide when January gets close and we'll take it from there since we got another quarterly featured article to put up in October. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:11, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.