One Piece Wiki talk:Featured Article Polls

February 2013 - Part 1
Discuss February 2013 matters here. 00:55, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Not being allowed to vote for your own nomination is retarded. SeaTerror (talk) 00:59, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

1 vote per person.. therefore everybody would just vote for their own nomination. 01:00, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

We have our opinion. Why would we want to change our opinion by voting on someone else? Then we'd rather just not vote at all, which would be worse. Better to just let us vote for ourselves.

Not really up for discussion honestly. When you nominate something, you have to vote for other things. 01:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is up for discussion. You can't just arbitrary make up rules. SeaTerror (talk) 04:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Start a forum. 04:50, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

March 2013 - Part 1
Should we have a part 2 in march?

If we start the nominations now, we'll have to make sure we tell the person who nominates whoever wins the February poll that they change their vote, since the two will be occurring at the same time. (If that's even a problem) 16:18, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. The february part 2 poll was supposed to be started much sooner but it seems everyone forgot it was there, so it's running a little late.

Can someone update me on how we choose the featured articles? Do we have to vote every week or what? Isn't it better to display them randomly each day? We will still add new ones though, but they will appear randomly, it's far easier that way.

A featured article is featured permanently, therefore we vote on it.

We should have held off until the vote was over. Not that it matters in this case though. SeaTerror (talk) 17:54, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Tiebreaker discussion
If we allow people to vote for their own nomination in a tiebreaker we may break more ties. And I'm not even sure why we have the rule about not voting for your own nomination in the first place. It's not like these featured article polls are that important. Not many people are even gonna vote on them. 19:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I agree,people should have the right to vote their own nomination in case of a tiebreaker. 20:06, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I only voted Caribou to force a tie in the first place because the rule was if there was a tie both would get featured. Then Galaxy changed it for no reason at all. So technically we shouldn't even be having this vote and both should have been featured. SeaTerror (talk) 21:07, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

How can both get featured? 17:50, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like we should just do that. These featured articles aren't very important, so why do we even need to waste time on a tiebreaker? If two things get enough votes to tie, just make them both featured, because we all know the loser of the tiebreaker will just be made featured next month.

And we should move most of these discussions over to the talk page and date each one's section heading. It's getting hard to keep track of these conversations. 18:06, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

Ok,let's do that,it would be easier.And I agree with JSD.It's hard indeed. 18:12, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

One featured article. We need tiebreakers. I guess you could start a forum to change the rules. Also, no voting for nominations because that's just dumb. 00:29, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

We can vote for our nominations in Admin and Chat mod forums, why not here? 00:40, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Because it usually results in every option having one vote. Mod and Admin elections are different, since we have a vast pool of people voting and being nominated. 00:44, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Calu was the one who made this and she agreed with being able to vote on your own nominations and that a tiebreaker = both get featured. You're the one who made up the new "rules". SeaTerror (talk) 01:01, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

There, it's all now in the talk page.

And I agree in that we should vote for whatever we want. It's not like everyone who votes have also nominated an article.

Yep,there are people  that haven't nominated an article so it won't result to a tie. 14:24, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

A tie should also mean both are featured like how it was going to be done originally. SeaTerror (talk) 17:23, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Ok,that wouls be even better. 18:09, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

March 2013 - Part 2
Just feature Caribou and end the stupid tiebreaker votes. SeaTerror (talk) 19:16, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Ceasar Clown is featured. 19:25, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

I know. Caribou should also be featured because the original rule was to have no tiebreaker vote but feature each one that tied. SeaTerror (talk) 20:12, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Well,that seems even better.Why were the rules changed? 20:17, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

For no reason. SeaTerror (talk) 21:27, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Change them back. 21:43, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

We can't start doing that in the middle of a poll. We'll start with that from this poll. If there's a tie on this one, we feature both.

We were supposed to do it last time. The rule itself was changed mid poll by Galaxy when there was evidence of a tie about to happen. SeaTerror (talk) 23:02, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Never was a rule that ties can happen. If you have a problem, then please start a 2 week poll about the rules. 23:07, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Stop acting like that, Galaxy. If everyone else wants ties to be allow, then allow it. Lets admit it, some of those rules were silly to begin with. Also, you weren't the one to come up with the idea. You changed this poll way too much, favoring to what you want it to be and not what others want. This isn't a monarchy you know. The tie that happened when ST voted should have been allowed, but both of you butt munchers, Galaxy and Sewil, kept reverting it back when it should have been allowed, which also caused a silly edit war. 69.138.80.97 23:19, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who said it was a rule. SeaTerror (talk) 00:17, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

It still doesn't matter since it's too late. Give it a rest, ST.

Also, we've already discussed it in here gal, and people are fine with featuring both articles on a tie.

It is not too late since it was already supposed to happen. SeaTerror (talk) 17:37, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

No, it was decided during the tie-poll, so obviously it was too late.

That AWC was me, I was in a rush (explains my poor grammar) and too lazy to sign in. ANYWAYS, it's never too late. 06:23, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Please input that rule then under the "Rules" headline. It needs to be written down there.

Archiving
This page is gonna get pretty long and we will have to archive someday.So I suggest archiving every six months in order to keep the page well organized. 11:46, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. 22:24, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna archive when this month's voting period ends. Objections? 07:10, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

none

Great. 12:58, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

You said every 6 months. SeaTerror (talk) 16:56, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

It's getting pretty big. Let's archive now. 18:35, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Do it at the end of next month so that July-Dec can be an even 6 months. SeaTerror (talk) 19:13, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Sure. 19:25, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Done. 19:26, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated Articles
We should make a rule that unrelated articles are prohibited. We must nominate relevant articles, not Gaimon or Nezumi. 18:30, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

No such thing as being unrelated. If it is part of One Piece then it can be nominated. SeaTerror (talk) 18:33, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

If the story arc about them was 10 years ago, they are unrelated. 18:35, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

I loled. SeaTerror (talk) 18:36, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody give me a serious reply? 18:39, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

You already got your serious reply. You're hilarious if you think old characters from the SAME STORY aren't related. SeaTerror (talk) 18:42, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm right and you're wrong. Accept it and move on :D 18:47, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

I knew you were bad at debating but not that bad. SeaTerror (talk) 18:48, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Look who's talking... 18:50, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Staw-Hat about the unrelated articles. 03:01, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Too bad they aren't. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unrelated SeaTerror (talk) 03:08, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Gaimon appeared in Chapter 620. 03:10, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

The latest chapter released was Chapter 708. 06:52, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated as in not related to the current plot in the story. 08:26, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Don't pay attention to ST, he's trolling. So if somebody can't properly argue with me I will add it as a rule. 08:33, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I think you should add it. 08:43, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Added. 08:56, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Good. 10:34, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

You're an idiot. You cannot make up any rules like that. You also obviously don't know what "unrelated" means even after I linked the definition. That's pretty pathetic. SeaTerror (talk) 17:43, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

You're pathetic if you believe that Gaimon is related to the current storyline. 17:53, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

There was never a rule that stayed a nomination had to be about the current arc/story. That is just plain moronic. Anything on the wikia that is about One Piece itself can be featured. There are very few things on this wikia that cannot be featured such as the one shot characters (except Monsters). SeaTerror (talk) 18:04, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Let's feature Silk then. 18:06, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Actually fuck that rule, it's no fun. 10:36, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

the whole point to this is that you can nominate whatever you want, as long as its not featured, unrelated is a definitive term and is impossible to make a rule of

You're being an idiot Staw. As ST said nominations do not have to relate to current events. -- 20:19, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I said I removed the rule and you're still discussing that? Then I'm the idiot... 20:23, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Un-Featuring
Ok, I've been looking at the articles in the category, and there are a lot of articles in there that suck, or are about characters that suck. Take Peterman for example. It's a bad article about an unimportant, uninteresting, and underdeveloped character. I don't think that should be featured. The character isn't some of Oda's best work, and the article isn't our best work either. And there are articles like Bayan, which are featured, yet have been tagged with the No References template. We should never have an article with no references be featured. Featured articles should be about important and interesting topics that people will actually want to read about. They should also be well-written articles that are up to our standards.

Since there are so many articles in the category, I propose we have a big two-week poll where we vote on whether or not the page should remain featured, and get them all un-featured in a simple and quick fashion. As for which pages are nominated for this, maybe a week-long nomination period where two people must agree that an aricle should be un-featured? Does this sound ok to everyone? 17:33, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Just feature Gaimon every month and we're good to go. 17:36, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

No. Once featured always featured. This was already suggested anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 18:41, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that has been bugging me too. I think that first we should defeature all the unrelated/not interesting articles and then check the featured articles for grammatical errors, lack of references, incorrect categorization etc. 18:44, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Or we just leave it alone. This was never created to have something defeatured later. It would mess up the number count too. SeaTerror (talk) 22:46, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Or, we start everything afresh.

Bump 21:08, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

I checked all the featured articles and here's the list of the ones I believe are less important/irrelevant to the current storyline.


 * Pin Joker
 * Gin
 * Shura
 * Jerry
 * Jigoro
 * Thalassa Lucas
 * Skunk One
 * Doberman
 * Pudding Pudding
 * Comil
 * Very Good
 * T-Bone
 * Bear King
 * Nelson Royale
 * Tsuru
 * Moore
 * Yamakaji
 * Strawberry
 * Boo Kong
 * Shu
 * Makko
 * Shepherd
 * Campacino
 * Barbarossa
 * John
 * Wanze
 * Baskerville
 * Corgi
 * Roswald
 * Shoujou
 * Whetton
 * Needless
 * Joke
 * Eric
 * Pearl
 * El Drago
 * Hotdog
 * Boo Jack
 * Bayan
 * Clover
 * Chess
 * Honey Queen
 * Mr. 7
 * Yama
 * Kuromarimo
 * Butler
 * Willy
 * Brindo
 * Peterman
 * Mr. 5
 * Curse of the Sacred Sword
 * Just Eleven Jurymen
 * Ohm
 * Makugai
 * Hyokaido
 * Mohji
 * Minokoala
 * Boin Archipelago
 * Baron Omatsuri and the Secret Island
 * Gaimon

That was tiring. 08:47, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

You did that all for nothing since nothing will happen. SeaTerror (talk) 07:19, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one who says/believes that. 19:59, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not. Read what Sff9 said in response to me and plus a lot of people haven't even commented here. SeaTerror (talk) 20:02, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

"a lot of people haven't even commented here". Nice argument. 20:07, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Wat. SeaTerror (talk) 20:09, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm for it. Featured articles should be well written and referenced. Anything that isn't up to par should not be featured. MasterDeva (talk) 20:30, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

i agree too-- 20:34, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Featured articles WERE NEVER supposed to be removed. As Sff9 already said we either leave it or start completely over. It is also flat out moronic to state a featured article should ONLY be about "important" articles. SeaTerror (talk) 18:48, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Who is for: Me, JSD, Deva and Canuck.

Who is against: Sff and ST. We're gonna do it :P. 18:50, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM SeaTerror (talk) 18:52, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'm for it. Having uninteresting articles featured and having no reference is a bad idea. Plus why have the featured articles olny featuring people? Why not events, locations and many others?

Joekido (talk) 20:46, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I support starting over, with the first of our featured articles being the first one who won on this voting page.

We'll have to refeature all the SHs that didn't get wins through the new process though. 20:56, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

We should automatically feature all the Strawhats. Also, even though Gaimon was elected, he has the no references template. We can't feature that. 21:00, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The first ones to be featured should be the Straw Hats IF we start over. Luffy should be #1 regardless and we would need to feature multiple characters at one time because there are already a lot of good featured articles. SeaTerror (talk) 21:05, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ST. Luffy first, Zoro second, Nami third etc. And we should feature two or even three articles per week, if we do start over. 21:15, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

If we start over, there are several articles we should automatically feature besides the Straw Hats: All Shichibukai including former members, every major arc/saga antagonist, Straw Hat Pirates, every Admiral including former admirals, Every character with a cover story in their namesake (Caribou, Hatchan, Miss Goldenweek, etc), Garp, Roger, Shanks, Rayleigh, Whitebeard, etc. These articles I've just listed are all mostly articles we've already had featured that are well-written and referenced, and if we don't automatically feature them, we'll kind of "waste" the next year or so of voting on the easy choice of featuring them all. I also think we should feature several articles a month, maybe 3 with only 1 of the articles being a character, so we don't end up with a huge list of only characters.

And we should still feature the articles we've already voted on, since those all do deserve to be featured. Regarding Gaimon, if nobody references his article before the next round of voting ends, we should un-feature him. He only appears in like 4 chapters, 3 of those being cover stories. His article should not be hard to reference. 11:37, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Gal referenced Gaimon yesterday. 12:11, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

It's called a Featured Article, meaning any article can be featured. Unless someone said it's restricted to only characters, which it isn't. It's just that people would prefare to see a character be featured, hence why their always nominated and voted for. Also this is a stupid idea by unfeaturing articles as it will only makes things more confusing number wise. People choose certain articles for a reason, that's because they took a interest in them. This also creates more unnecessary work. If people are intent on going along with this a page standards must be set up before someone can vote for that page. 15:58, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

The best thing is to start over and use the ones we've nominated and let in so far, and build from there. It wouldn't be hard for a bot to do that. 16:13, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Still we should automatically feature the straw hats. 14:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 19:21, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

BUMP. This discussion is nowhere near settled. WU out -  08:28, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think sff9 is really against this. His comment "Yup. Or, we start everything afresh." implies that we should either leave the featured articles as they are OR do it properly starting form scratch. MasterDeva (talk) 01:38, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Bump 14:56, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Bump... 11:07, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

We really need to at the very least remove the articles with no refs. And as far as the numbering of the FAs goes, we can always just re-number them. Or better yet, remove the numbering system, since we really don't need it anyways. 03:47, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. I'm going to work very hard to keep this at the top of the active discussions list until this is resolved. 16:28, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

bump-- 16:37, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

We should remove the featured articles without refs and we should get rid of the numbering system, the readers surely don't care about it. 16:53, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Espada about removing the number system. We should compile a list of the pages without refs and, instead of unfeaturing them, we could just add the references needed. Montblanc Noland (talk) 18:16, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

With a few more users, we might just have a clear majority. Does everyone that support removing some articles also support removing ones with little relevance, such as Peterman? 12:07, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

im in favour of this-- 16:18, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else? 12:40, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Just have a poll and get this over with. 13:00, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, let's have a poll. 13:01, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've made up a very rough version of the poll. It's my first use of the poll template, so if something's wrong, feel free to fix it.

I was also unsure of how to format the questions/how many options there should be. I don't know if there's anyone who would want to remove poorly written/unreferenced articles, but keep the ones with little relevance. I also don't know if the removal of the numbering system should be polled, as people have only advocated against the numbering system. 16:35, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

If we do this then it means everything has to be restarted from scratch. Also there is no reason or point to removing the numbering system. SeaTerror (talk) 18:35, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Featuring different things
I decided to start a new section to discuss about making changes to the featured articles. Rather then featuring olny people, how about we featured different things like locations, ships, weapons, history, etc, etc but it has to be referenced, and well-written. What do you think

Joekido (talk) 21:09, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

We do have the possibility to nominate and vote for non-character articles. And we've already featured some. 21:14, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the section above, I think we should feature 3 articles per month, and we should allow only one of those articles to be about a character. At least for awhile (as in a couple years) anyways, since later we might not need to force people to vote for non-character articles (or we might run out of decent articles for them). 11:40, June 30, 2013 (UTC)