One Piece Wiki talk:Featured Article Polls

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)

Archiving The Talk Page
This talk page is lagging and has more than 200 posts. So, since JSD deiced to take the discussion to a forum, I will archive the talk page tomorrow, unless somebody believes that the discussion is still active. 09:37, September 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * After Forum:Removal of Featured Articles is done, I maybe was gonna start up the section above (Featuring Different Things) again, depending on how many articles are unfeatured. So I'd appreciate it if you just that one section on the page when you archived it. 12:03, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry, I was planning to leave that anyway. 12:14, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Section Headings
We should make sure to make all of the section headings different from each other, otherwise "Featured Article Polls#Voting" or "Polls#Nominations" will not go to the only active section of the polls, but rather whichever use of the section heading is closest to the top. We should use something like "Voting, July Part 1". Though, I have no idea how to handle things like articles that are voted on twice. 13:21, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

That's why you should use the main header and not the number 3 and 4 headers. 13:47, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

It automatically redirects you to "#Voting" after you've voted, which brings me to the section I don't want to look at. It's not something I choose to link to. 13:56, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know :/ Well we could just number them eg

===Voting- September, Part 1===, ===Voting September, Part 2===

or even simpler,

===Voting- 1===, ===Voting- 2===

and so on. I don't particularly care, if you want to change them, go ahead. 14:02, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

How about we just do it like that after the next time the page is archived?

Also, as a sidenote, why don't we keep a running archive? Like only keep the current poll and the most recently completed poll on the page, and add the others to the archive as time goes on. And archive tabs should cover an entire year before a new archive tab is made. 13:48, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the way we're doing it right now. 14:28, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

So what are we gonna do? 17:00, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Featuring Pages About The Series
I firmly believe that we shouldn't nominate pages about chapters and episodes since we have the Happenings template. Do you agree or not? 10:37, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Chapter and Episode articles should be off-limits. 13:43, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

So can I add it as a rule? >_> 06:14, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.

Added. And I also added that we can't nominate articles in the Content template because we had an edit war about that some time ago and unofficially decided not to nominate these articles. 11:41, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

New Poll Format
Why is this the only page that doesn't use the new poll template? Let's start using it. 01:47, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sure. 03:39, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

No, no. It won't be convenient at all. 06:58, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? 07:56, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty much the only one that makes the new polls and I can tell that it wouldn't be convenient because we don't need text above every poll, just the opening and closing date. That said I also have to say that it would look terribly ugly. 14:55, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to have text above every poll. The new poll template looks way better than randomly formatted sections. 14:58, October 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * NO just NO ... the new poll looks really bad.--

Well, if this talk page decides to use the new template, I still say wait two months until we make the second archive in December because if the page is half normal polls and have template polls, that will definitely look bad. But I still say no. 15:03, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Things need to be consistent throughout the wiki, so yes. Explain how it looks bad Rora, and maybe we can apply your ideas to improving the template design. 15:04, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Opinions don't need back-up. 15:18, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Back-up leads to better discussion, which helps the wiki in the end. I would really appreciate actual discussion from you and Rora on the poll templates' issues. 15:20, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you gave your reasons instead. 15:22, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

See... 05:39, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

New poll format would make it a bitch because you can't just click edit on the section you want to vote for. 06:11, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Already gave my reasons above Staw. It's called consistency. As I said before, back-up your opinion, so the discussion can lead to actual analysis rather than "nuh uh, uh-huh" types of stuff.

@JSD: I'll ask Sewil if there's a way to fix that. 01:50, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

That's not consistency. 14:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, the poll format allows for headings, so I don't see a reason not to switch. . 22:10, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see a seperate edit button for each choise on your test poll.

^what Vaz said.--

The template is small. It really isn't that hard to edit it. 07:02, November 13, 2013 (UTC)

On featured polls there are like 5-7 options and about 20 signatures. Now, think about having to find the right spot to sign between all these in source mode...

I agree with Vaz, for exactly the reason he mentioned. 03:25, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

It would be a pain for source editing. 18:00, December 7, 2013 (UTC)