Final Fantasy Wiki talk:Votes for Featured Articles

From Final Fantasy Wiki

Contents 1 FA symbol 2 Redoing of Featured Articles 3 Display of the Sephiroth page 4 Revamping the Voting Page! 5 New rules and such.. 6 Stats

[edit] FA symbol

I was thinking, Wikipedia uses a star as indication of articles being, or have been, featured articles. How about doing the same, so other people can see if the article they are reading has been good enough to be featured? The symbol doesn't necessarily have to be a star, but more like an artistic "FF" or something that symbolizes Final Fantasy. I have a pretty good idea of the code for the template, I just need to know if it's a good idea, and if yes, what picture to use. --Hecko X 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia created a logo for use in the place where the logo is. I was thinking maybe we could have a montage of some important Final Fantasy items there, such as a Magicite shard, a Materia shard, a Pyrefly, a Crystal from FFIV, et cetera with the word "featured" in the middle. Crazyswordsman 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a montage is a little over the top, taking the size into account. I mean, the "wikipedia-star" is on this big () because it's placed where it is (check the top-right corner[1]). But I must agree, I think having the word "Featured" with pireflies spiraling around it, leaving traces, could be awesome. --Hecko X 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redoing of Featured Articles

I'm currently working on redoing the featured articles so that it becomes automated and easier to add to and change. The current Featured article can be found at: {{:Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week {{CURRENTWEEK}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}, or as a link, "Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 49, 2008".

The process for adding a new FA is easy, you can take it off of the sephiroth FA here. Then go the week you want to work with, for week 41 (next week), the code would be

{{:Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 41, 2006}}

and it would link "Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 49, 2008".

Then stuff can be added. I hope everyone likes these changes and I'll be working on some other cool stuff ASAP. Mason11987 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's too complicated. The system we use now is simple and functional. Crazyswordsman 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that complicated, and the main page looked quite a bit cleaner after my changes. For example, here are the pages for the next 10 weeks.

• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 40, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 41, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 42, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 43, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 44, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 45, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 46, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 47, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 48, 2006
• Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Week 49, 2006

You can just go to these pages, fill out the Template, and each week the front page will automatically change and it will be very clean and will require no other effort. The system currently in use left large white space on the main page, so it didn't seem as useful. Mason11987 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Then change the templates themselves. Don't make me make ones for different weeks. We're using the article names. Crazyswordsman 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you already make one for every article? The fact that the page name (including week and year) will never be displayed to anyone means it doesn't really matter. But the fact that it uses those numbers allows you to update them in advance. Something like this may be able to be set up (although the scale may be unnecessary) to allow you to easily add pages and information easily. The copy-pasting is easy and it "works" but the copy pasting from the previous FA left white space that worked before, but not now. I can name it Featured Article/Sephiroth, and use the template to display it, but it will need to be swapped out every week anyway, it isn't really a big deal obviously to change the main page code to point to a different FA, but I really don't think using the links above is any difficultly at all. I'd like you to just give it a try and see what you think about actually using it. And you don't have to "make" anything, the Featured article/Week X pages can be empty templates until you fill in the 4 parameters, then that's it, week over. :) (edit conflict) :)Mason11987 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit half and half on this, because I'm still trying to figure out the details of the new FA template, but it does seem somewhat complicated... Though, in Mason's defence, I think it's only complicated because I still haven't figured it out completely. But as far is I've been able to comprehend, the system of things are pretty much the same, the only actual difference is, before you'd have to do everything manually, one week at the time and for each new week, youd have to do it again. Now, you can set it up weeks in advance (so basically, same amount of work as before, only now, the work of e.g. 5 weeks can be done in one day, while before it was spread out on 1 day each week of 5 consecutive weeks) and have it change automatically. So if you look at the long run, the amount of work doesn't differ all that much, you just don't have to worry about changing the FA on that exact day, because the system does it for you (but of course, only if you've added something for that sepcific week). At least... I think it's something like that... Or am I way off? --Hecko X 19:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Details are very very little, here is the "documentation":

{{FA
|title = Title of featured article
|image = Image to display
|summary = Summary to display
}}

That's about it. Mason11987 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I'm the one who changes the FAs, I don't mind doing it manually. Crazyswordsman 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just offering a suggestion of a way of doing it that takes the same amount of work, but ensures that the front page will always be up to date and clean, as of now it is up to date, but there is still the problem of white space (just take a look at it). Mason11987 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Display of the Sephiroth page

Without delving into the way FA goes, lets discuss the display of the Sephiroth FA page. Does anyone besides myself see a chunk of whitespace? I know for certain I'm not the only person, so the best thing to do in my opinion would be to figure out why it's this way because the best way to drive away new people is to have an unclean looking main page. When we figure out what the problem is with the display, then we can fix it so that it works for everyone. So what browsers are everyone using? I'm using FF2.0. Mason11987 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although the white space also exists in my IE, and my Maxthon, so it's clearly not an issue with Firefox. Mason11987 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's your way, the picture goes over the boundary. Crazyswordsman 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Current version (by CSM) in IE[2] and Firefox [3] (both are "messed up"). Version by Mason in IE[4] and Firefox[5] (both are a-okay). And if your wondering why I have both browsers, it's to check if code I write in IE (which are normally use) also work in Firefox or if I have to change it because it messes up. CSM, what browser do you use, since it messes up for you? --Hecko X 19:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the issue is that CSM has his text size too small (or his resolution to high). The extra spacing only looks nice is you have those exact settings (which very few do), hence my reasoning by changing it. Of course some will have problems with my settings, but I think the best issue is to just introduce a line break after all the text, then there will be no problem. Mason11987 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My proposed solution [6] which I also included in Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article. Mason11987 20:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revamping the Voting Page!

Ser Blue says at 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, we're a little chaotic in voting for featured stuff, so I recommend a new method. Basically, people will write their nominations in a Nominations section, and then supporters will write their Support for it. No need to oppose. It's a like the DNS, most vote wins. The loser gets to compete in the next month, or maybe two months after that or something. The layout: Intro Nominees (Nominee name) - Nominator signature Support votes - Supporter's Signature Comments Looks good to me. No opposition, I'll make the changes immediately.

Mymindislost - You made me forget my dreams when I woke up to you sleeping...: TALK - 17:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Definitely, definitely, DEFINITELY. We haven't actually voted as a wiki on this stuff in a while (or maybe I just missed it :P), so it would be nice to go back to some kind of organization. I like it, Blue! ^_^

[edit] New rules and such..

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - Every Soul Shall Have the Taste of Death, All That is on Earth Shall Perish: How come we went with Vandaland over the Gunblade even though the latter had about three times as many votes as the former? I enjoy this crushing show of prejudice against FFVIII, but if FFVIII was not to be featured you probably should have said something, Diablo. I can see using your judgement when a terrible article is winning by like one or two, but when a perfectly fine article is winning by TEN votes, that's going pretty far. And yes, the Gunblade article is perfectly fine in my opinion. Now, not then.

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks: TALK - 12:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC) I find your lack of ability to read my giant block of text about new rules that everyone should read disturbing.

Ser Blue says at 12:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Failure to read....ouch...

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - Every Soul Shall Have the Taste of Death, All That is on Earth Shall Perish: Since when did we have a rule saying that two articles from the same game cannot be featured in the same years? Did that just come around at 11:59 last night?

Otherarrow - You should consider what I am about to do a great honor... I shall kill you personally!: TALK - Midnight....somewhere That one was recently added. It is a fair rule though.

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks: TALK - 12:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC) *Facepalm* Keep reading!!! To the fucking Q&A about this matter!!! Since when did we have a rule saying that two articles from the same game cannot be featured in the same years? I SAID IN THE POST THESE ARE NEW RULES!!! THEY ARE BEING APPLIED FROM THIS MONTH ONWORDS!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!

Hexedmagica - nin nin nin!: TALK - Nice to meet you. I'm an assassin. BH, just accept that you got screwed over.

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - Every Soul Shall Have the Taste of Death, All That is on Earth Shall Perish: Then its an Ex Post Facto rule. There was no way that the voters could have possibly known that their chose was no eligable. The election was a fraud. Just admit it. I'm cool with it. =)

Yuanchosaan - Looking for metaphysics in a can of tomatoes: TALK - 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC) That rule has been up there since I've joined. It's at the top of the page (which apparently no one but me reads...).

Ser Blue says at 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC) That rule? I believe it's been there ever since we revamped and restructure the voting process last March.

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks: TALK - 12:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC) There was no way that the voters could have possibly known that their chose was no eligable. They could have, you know, read the rules. No one did though, and no one brought it up, so they wasted their votes.

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - Every Soul Shall Have the Taste of Death, All That is on Earth Shall Perish: Its not up there. These are the rules: To nominate, simply write your nomination under the Nominees section and sign your posts. A nomination is equal to a vote, and it's one nomination per person. To vote, simply sign with # ~~~~ under the nominees to symbolize your support. You can vote for as much as two nominees at a time. You can always change it at anytime, until the selection date. Once a nominee is selected, we'll clear the nominees section to start a clear slate. You can nominate the same article again one month later. We call it a transition period. You can give your Comments in the section below, but any claims of supporting a nominee does not count until you sign under the Nominees section. Take care! Diablocon has the final say in things: he's in charge of the featured articles. Uweeheehee. I don't see your "game cannot have two featured articles in the same year " rule.

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks: TALK - 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC) FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT THAT RULE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS RULE: You can nominate the same article again one month later. We call it a transition period. THE RULE YOU'RE THINKING OF HAS JUST BEEN INTRODUCED, LIKE I SAID IN MY NEW POST. READ YOU MORON!!!