The page explains the procedure for choosing an article of the week, but could you explain the purpose of doing so? —Cel ithemis 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, I am not sure what this page is for either - featured articles are rarely produced in one week. New articles are often highlighted at Did you know? - perhaps that would be a better place to direct your efforts? ALoan 10:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] Regarding the question about how this will hurt Wikipedia. It essentially involves a decent amount of community time and effort for maintenance with probably little effect in actually improving articles. As much as I'd love to see the article I recently got to FA receive WAW, I'm concerned that WAW is simply misallocating time and resources. ShadowHalo 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. The idea is to have a vote to pick the "best" article out of the Featured article candidates that are promoted to Featured article each week? I still don't really understand what the point of this is (and if this is meant to be a Wikipedia version of American Idol...)
But anyway...
I don't understand how this will improve the encyclopedia. I personally think any project or feature should improve the encyclopedia. I think this distracts from the encyclopedia because it draws resources (editorial eyes) away from editing for a purpose that does not improve the encyclopedia. Furthermore, it is closely related to my WP:TFA/R overhaul proposal, especially the [Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/amendment_proposal#Nominees_and_Votes|monthly vote]]. However, does not have the following benefits:
This idea is a burden on resources without improving the encyclopedia. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
ALoan
As for everyone else, this is very different from a TFA. First and foremost, an article only gets one shot at the award here. In the TFA, a Featured Article can be nominated at any time, and multiple times (if failed). Calling this American Idol is a stretch, but it would be more like a people's choice award. Second, the TFA, as I'm seeing it, has a humongous backlog. The articles are already has a queue running until November of this year, and about 90 more articles left undated, with a total of 141 articles. True, I agree with many of the benefits of the TFA, and I say good for it. However, comparing it with this is really not appropriate. 1 week (or actually about 1 week and 3 days) is sufficient time to look over about 15-18 articles, and this is just the period before voting is opened up. I do not agree that this would put a stretch on resources because people do not have to spend all their time looking at the articles. Furthermore, people do not have to look at all the articles in 1 sitting. (Nobody looks at all the articles nominated for the TFA in 1 sitting either). They might look at 1-2 articles and then go back to editing for a time.
As for publicity, any suggestions would be nice. Simply objecting without an alternative is really not constructive and largely a waste of my time to read, when I could be editing.
As for wasting time by distracting editors, since when has anything other than anti-vandalism on Wikipedia happened quickly? This discussion, for instance, takes up a page and a half on my screen, but has taken 4 days to fill.
As for the constructiveness of it all, the authors and other editors of the articles will most likely take a look at the other nominees and then see how their article can be better than those nominees, and thus attract more support votes. It's as simple as that.
Diez2
15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, as for the importance and quality debate, I have added a clause on the main project page that strongly urges people to use the FA criteria as a guide, and to not use the subject matter or importance of an article as a method for voting. Diez2 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say I really had fun reading each of these articles (OK, I skimmed a few ;-) trying to decide if I was going to vote to support them. I like the format: vote "support" for those you like, and maybe leave a brief comment saying why. If an article doesn't catch your fancy, then just pass on to the next one. It took about 5 minutes per article, on average. I learned a bit about each topic, and gained a bit of insight into how editors of other parts of Wikipedia craft their articles. Thanks for setting this up! ( Sdsds - Talk) 07:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is the point of this, other than more bureaucracy and red tape? There exists no objective way of stating that any featured article is better than any other. >Radiant< 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Without prejudice, at the very least the name of the project should be changed to "Wikipedia People's Choice Awards" or "Wikipedia Article Popularity Contest" or something similar to clarify its true nature. nadav 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a simple question. This idea was pitched several times by me in the Villiage Pump, and no one objected to it. They all said something like, "Great Idea." You can find that pitch here. Why weren't any of these objections raised there, when the proposal was there almost 3-4 days before this page was built? Someone tell me that. Diez2 15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Finding Wikipedia's best article would be interesting. If Commons can do it with images, we can do it with FAs. Λυδαcιτγ 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
All other aspects judged as being equal, would it be better for an article to be popular or unpopular? Asked differently: is this a populist encyclopedia or an elitist one? ( Sdsds - Talk) 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Something that might be worthwhile is article of the year. This would be similar to various writing contests that have taken place in the past. Wikipedia:Danny's contest was one, I believe. The "...of the Month" and "...of the Week" proposals are too bureaucratic and detract from genuine efforts to improve the encyclopedia, in my opinion. In contrast, a "...of the Year" contest would reduce the effort to a one-off event every year, and might generate genuine, positive, publicity. I suggest both these proposals are merged and redirected to Wikipedia:Article of the year. Carcharoth 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the good work done in rejecting this "proposal". The actions were fully consistent with Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:STEAM. ( Sdsds - Talk) 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a way to combine some process that would select a "most popular newly featured article" with the existing Wikipedia:Did you know process. According to Template Talk:Did you know, "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded in the last 5 days." So it's practically impossible for a newly featured article to have a DYK entry. Does anyone think the DYK folks might consider changing their policy? ( Sdsds - Talk) 19:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to see prior discussions on this page archived, now that the deletion review has been closed. Noting WP:CCC, it would be good if this page could focus on how concensus on the subject of "Article of the week" might change, rather than on the concensus decision-making that led to this proposal being rejected. If even one other person agrees, I encourage them to be WP:BOLD and create the archive. ( Sdsds - Talk) 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The page explains the procedure for choosing an article of the week, but could you explain the purpose of doing so? —Cel ithemis 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, I am not sure what this page is for either - featured articles are rarely produced in one week. New articles are often highlighted at Did you know? - perhaps that would be a better place to direct your efforts? ALoan 10:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] Regarding the question about how this will hurt Wikipedia. It essentially involves a decent amount of community time and effort for maintenance with probably little effect in actually improving articles. As much as I'd love to see the article I recently got to FA receive WAW, I'm concerned that WAW is simply misallocating time and resources. ShadowHalo 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. The idea is to have a vote to pick the "best" article out of the Featured article candidates that are promoted to Featured article each week? I still don't really understand what the point of this is (and if this is meant to be a Wikipedia version of American Idol...)
But anyway...
I don't understand how this will improve the encyclopedia. I personally think any project or feature should improve the encyclopedia. I think this distracts from the encyclopedia because it draws resources (editorial eyes) away from editing for a purpose that does not improve the encyclopedia. Furthermore, it is closely related to my WP:TFA/R overhaul proposal, especially the [Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/amendment_proposal#Nominees_and_Votes|monthly vote]]. However, does not have the following benefits:
This idea is a burden on resources without improving the encyclopedia. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
ALoan
As for everyone else, this is very different from a TFA. First and foremost, an article only gets one shot at the award here. In the TFA, a Featured Article can be nominated at any time, and multiple times (if failed). Calling this American Idol is a stretch, but it would be more like a people's choice award. Second, the TFA, as I'm seeing it, has a humongous backlog. The articles are already has a queue running until November of this year, and about 90 more articles left undated, with a total of 141 articles. True, I agree with many of the benefits of the TFA, and I say good for it. However, comparing it with this is really not appropriate. 1 week (or actually about 1 week and 3 days) is sufficient time to look over about 15-18 articles, and this is just the period before voting is opened up. I do not agree that this would put a stretch on resources because people do not have to spend all their time looking at the articles. Furthermore, people do not have to look at all the articles in 1 sitting. (Nobody looks at all the articles nominated for the TFA in 1 sitting either). They might look at 1-2 articles and then go back to editing for a time.
As for publicity, any suggestions would be nice. Simply objecting without an alternative is really not constructive and largely a waste of my time to read, when I could be editing.
As for wasting time by distracting editors, since when has anything other than anti-vandalism on Wikipedia happened quickly? This discussion, for instance, takes up a page and a half on my screen, but has taken 4 days to fill.
As for the constructiveness of it all, the authors and other editors of the articles will most likely take a look at the other nominees and then see how their article can be better than those nominees, and thus attract more support votes. It's as simple as that.
Diez2
15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, as for the importance and quality debate, I have added a clause on the main project page that strongly urges people to use the FA criteria as a guide, and to not use the subject matter or importance of an article as a method for voting. Diez2 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say I really had fun reading each of these articles (OK, I skimmed a few ;-) trying to decide if I was going to vote to support them. I like the format: vote "support" for those you like, and maybe leave a brief comment saying why. If an article doesn't catch your fancy, then just pass on to the next one. It took about 5 minutes per article, on average. I learned a bit about each topic, and gained a bit of insight into how editors of other parts of Wikipedia craft their articles. Thanks for setting this up! ( Sdsds - Talk) 07:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is the point of this, other than more bureaucracy and red tape? There exists no objective way of stating that any featured article is better than any other. >Radiant< 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Without prejudice, at the very least the name of the project should be changed to "Wikipedia People's Choice Awards" or "Wikipedia Article Popularity Contest" or something similar to clarify its true nature. nadav 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a simple question. This idea was pitched several times by me in the Villiage Pump, and no one objected to it. They all said something like, "Great Idea." You can find that pitch here. Why weren't any of these objections raised there, when the proposal was there almost 3-4 days before this page was built? Someone tell me that. Diez2 15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Finding Wikipedia's best article would be interesting. If Commons can do it with images, we can do it with FAs. Λυδαcιτγ 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
All other aspects judged as being equal, would it be better for an article to be popular or unpopular? Asked differently: is this a populist encyclopedia or an elitist one? ( Sdsds - Talk) 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Something that might be worthwhile is article of the year. This would be similar to various writing contests that have taken place in the past. Wikipedia:Danny's contest was one, I believe. The "...of the Month" and "...of the Week" proposals are too bureaucratic and detract from genuine efforts to improve the encyclopedia, in my opinion. In contrast, a "...of the Year" contest would reduce the effort to a one-off event every year, and might generate genuine, positive, publicity. I suggest both these proposals are merged and redirected to Wikipedia:Article of the year. Carcharoth 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the good work done in rejecting this "proposal". The actions were fully consistent with Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:STEAM. ( Sdsds - Talk) 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a way to combine some process that would select a "most popular newly featured article" with the existing Wikipedia:Did you know process. According to Template Talk:Did you know, "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded in the last 5 days." So it's practically impossible for a newly featured article to have a DYK entry. Does anyone think the DYK folks might consider changing their policy? ( Sdsds - Talk) 19:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to see prior discussions on this page archived, now that the deletion review has been closed. Noting WP:CCC, it would be good if this page could focus on how concensus on the subject of "Article of the week" might change, rather than on the concensus decision-making that led to this proposal being rejected. If even one other person agrees, I encourage them to be WP:BOLD and create the archive. ( Sdsds - Talk) 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)