Alright, on One Piece Wiki Talk:Featured Article Polls/Archive 1#Un-Featuring, 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. Talk | 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. Talk | 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)
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)
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. Talk | 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)
No posts means no disagreements. Can we please move on the next part of the forum?19:28, September 28, 2013 (UTC)
This needs to be resolved. People are still trying to feature articles such as Camel, which hold zero relevance. 15:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
This is not the right place to set up rules for nominated articles. Try the talk page.15:11, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
This forum is a branch off of the poll that was on the talk page of the featured article polls. Of course this is the right place.15:15, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
The forum's name is Removal of Featured Articles.15:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Yep, meaning the articles that are deemed irrelevant shouldn't be allowed to be nominated.15:19, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
This forum is only about articles that are already featured.15:21, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
It obviously was intended to apply to future nominations as well...15:22, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
No it wasn't.15:23, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Let's wait for more input, since you seem to disagree with me. It's only going to be a deadlock if we continue this "nuh uh, uh huh" argument.15:25, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
About the Camel incident, there is no harm in nominating it, the wierd is that there are people who actually vote for it. Maybe we should be taking it more seriously that's all. About the removal, I propose that all featured articles should have a certain period being featured. After that period ends, they get into circulation again and people are free to nominate them once more, so that they can be re-featured, if they are still important or relevant. That way, we won't have to waste time discussing about which articles will be removed from featured, now or in the future, individually.
Ok. Then we could do this: Exactly like we do when articles get featured, we nominate some twice a month and then they get polled. We can do the same procedure to un-feature them. How about that?
I'm not talking about the place, but about the way to do it. And keep in mind that this won't be a one time deal, it will be continuing. For example, Ace won't be so relevant 2-3 years from now.
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. Talk | 20:43, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sure.13:08, 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)
Yup.00:05, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
Well there doesn't seem to be anything else to discuss, should the Active Discussion template be removed then?16:50, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
Just wait for JSD to make the other part of the forum.17:12, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
Bump then.17:37, October 9, 2013 (UTC)