Forum:Removal of Featured Articles

Alright, on One Piece Encyclopedia Talk:Featured Article Polls/Archive 1, a poll has decided that we will begin a process of removing certain Featured Articles. I've created this forum, because I believe discussing how we go on from here would be best organized in a forum.

The poll option that won said "Poorly written, unreferenced, and/or articles with little relevance should all be removed." Now, we could get into a discussion about what constitutes "poorly written" or "articles with little relevance" or go on and on about if characters from OVAs are notable, etc. However, I think a discussion like that will not be helpful here, since ultimately every one of those distinctions comes down to opinion, and will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So what I propose is that we skip directly to dealing with each article on a case-by case basis, and skipping all the useless argument.

Here is my plan as of now:


 * 1) On a subpage of this forum, we open up nominations for articles. Anyone (anyone who has met standard voting requirements) may nominate any featured article to be up for removal. If two other users agree, then we will subsequently poll whether or not it remains as a featured article (To clarify, 3 total users must agree the article is not fit to be featured). This nomination period will last for 1 week. At no point in this phase will discussion occur, and the opinions of those who think the article should continue to be featured must not be posted at this time.


 * 2) On a second subpage, we will open an individual discussion of each article's merits. At this point, users are also more than welcome to edit those articles and address their shortcomings. For simplicity's sake, even if a "clear majority" in a discussion believe the article should remain featured, it will still be polled (Also, with the requirement of 3 users nominating the article, it shows a reasonable number of people would like the article removed, and makes the majority less "clear"). This period will also last one week, but may continue after the poll begins.


 * 3) Lastly, on a 3rd subpage, we will individually poll each article. This period will last for two weeks. For simplicity's sake, we will also not use the poll template. Because we will be separating the polls from their discussions, we can hopefully make quick summaries of the points made for both sides in the discussion, and of course include links to each full discussion. Due to the difficulties in making the poll, we will probably make this page a few days earlier than the poll opens.

I think this system makes the most sense because of the sheer volume of information that must be processed in order to complete the process. We are most likely going to have to deal with dozens of articles of varying lengths, and it will be a lot to ask all users who participate to carefully examine each article. That's why I want to make the process take a long time. And we have no way of knowing how long each section will be, which is why I'd like to use so many subpages.

I also want to note that any articles that are un-featured as a result of this may become featured again through our normal process of approving.

I've made 2 sections below, one for discussion of this plan, and another (hopefully) short one for the discussion of how we'll deal with the numbering system we decided to keep will be affected by the removal of articles. 20:43, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Removal Process Discussion
I'm open to tweaking this a bit, but I think it's a good way to start. This section will be for discussing how we'll start this process. We will not discuss anything about which specific articles will be removed, it is only for discussion of the process. 20:43, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

People please do not discuss the way we'll do it cause if you do the forum's gonna be like the colored manga images one. Just do it the way JSD said and get this over with. 12:56, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

As I said on chat, since this a community-based wiki, everyone should be allowed to share their opinion. Even if things don't turn out well. 13:02, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

If you have to say something about the topic, say it. Else don't comment just for the sake of commenting. 13:07, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

What?! I was responding to what you said earlier. As for poorly referenced articles, I think that articles that contain below ten references should be removed. 13:51, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

If you think the way I've proposed isn't ideal, say so. I'm asking for everyone's opinion. If you think my way is perfect, I'd like to know that you do. If you think my way is pretty good, but needs minor tweaking, suggest the small changes. I don't want to suppress or ignore anyone's opinion. I'm totally fine with arguing now, as long as whatever we settle on means we get the least amount of arguing later. 23:14, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

I think articles that are simply unpopular should be removed. Stuff like irrelevant filler characters or forgotten merchandise, where the page is obviously not well-known to our editors, readers, and overall fanbase. As for the process, wouldn't just removing the "Featured article" template be easy? 21:58, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I stopped skimming it. I like the second option, where we discuss the merits of each article. It might take a while, but it'd be easier. We should begin the process through a subpage of this forum, and see what happens from there. 22:15, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading everything wrong. Just do what you guys feel like. I'm out of this. 22:40, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Numbering System Discussion
Is everyone ok with what DP said on the poll where numbers are simply removed, and not replaced if the corresponding article is not featured? I sure am. 20:43, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sure. 13:08, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sure. 13:34, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

If they get refeatured they'll just get their old number back. SeaTerror (talk) 19:31, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yes (to me). 21:45, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Of course. 21:53, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

im good-- 15:31, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

The numbering system is a bit inconsistent, anyways. So go ahead and take it out. 21:55, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds alright with me. The Will of Deez (talk) 22:10, September 26, 2013 (UTC)