 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 19 April 2014 by Liquidhelium. |
- See previous thread
This is a thread to discuss broadly featured articles and their future on the wiki. We should consider whether it is feasible or worthwhile to maintain a small set of high quality articles. Please try to keep in mind the realities of our maintenance framework during this discussion. --LiquidTalk 08:02, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Remove kebab FA - It's too much work for too little gain. Look at the sheer number of featured articles that are now not up to standard anymore. Why do we want to spend resources on maintaining a select few articles on a "featured" level, instead of using those resources elsewhere (eg unstubbification). It's simply not worth the effort anymore. 
Oil4 Talk 08:45, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Most current FAs suck, because the system is flawed, as I highlighted in the previous thread. We can't just delete something before we have tried to improve it, that's ridiculous. And spending time on improving our best articles to be superb is by no means inferior to destubbifying or correcting typos or whatever. Getting our worst stuff up to scratch is just as important as making our best stuff perfect.
Fswe1 
10:49, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah we said that about the wiki post as well... Oil4 Talk 16:25, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- We tried to improve RSWP. That's the difference. Fswe1 16:41, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- The point is the improvement was a wasted effort. There's nothing necessarily wrong with featured articles, it's just unliked. The people it's meant to entice don't care; so, whom would we be improving it for? MolMan 19:19, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- We tried to improve RSWP. That's the difference.
- Yeah we said that about the wiki post as well...
Question - Why is it expected that we will be nitpicking Featured Articles beyond their status? Featured means, ya know, that damn good. The two instances where we need to check an article are the same two for literally every article: the subject is affected by an update; or someone makes an edit to it. The misappropriation of editors is a stupid and blatantly false argument. At least, that is until we decide to change them. That hasn't happened. And if we are to decide on keeping FA, we'd do best to start from scratch and finalize the criteria then (eliminating the problem purported by this argument). Most every featured article is actually kind of bad, only reflecting what was considered good in 2009.
There's one less thing we need to worry about. The real issue is whether or not the system actually works. We need to consider how likely a reader is to consider reading a featured article for the sole reason that it was featured. Frankly, I think we can stop there, because Cook has numbers that give this premise very little to stand on. MolMan 00:10, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be quite interested in these numbers. Can I haz? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 09:13, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
Remove - I think we have two choices here: either keep the FA template on the article to let people know it was featured in September 2010 because it was good back then, or remove the template and abolish the system altogether. In my opinion, the former is kinda, well, stupid. From that, it follows that prioritising an article for maintenance because it was featured ages ago is also stupid and pointless. Therefore, I think only the latter stands: abolish FA. Noobcaek ROBBENhulkOil4 I made this 08:38, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Those certainly are not the only two options. Another option is to revamp the system, since clearly not much has been done to fix this failing system since 2010. There are editors interested in revamping it, so I see no reason why we shouldn't try to do that. This option wouldn't be a bad one to try considering the FA system does work elsewhere; hence, it certainly could work here as well.
- Second, there's nothing wrong with prioritizing an article because it is featured. What happens when we prioritize an article is it will improve. If people are encouraged to improve an article because it's featured or it risks losing its featured status, that's great. There's no reason to believe that once we remove the FA system, these editors will magically start spending their time improving stub articles or whatever. For all we know, they might just become less active or contribute less to the wiki. Smithing (talk | contribs) 16:22, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Remove - Per my comments on the previous thread. It is not feasible for two people to keep alive a useless project that no one cares about. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 01:02, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
Closed - The Featured Articles system will be discontinued. --LiquidTalk 01:15, April 19, 2014 (UTC)