Forum:Featured Content Reform

{{Copied|1=Battlefield Wiki Talk:Request Featured Content|2= {{Archive|1=

Featured Media "process"
I feel that this has too much unneeded bureaucracy, and it can be clearly seen as the featured media is a picture dating back to the GameInformer issue on Battlefield 3. Since then, we've had three major "YouTube episodes" on Battlefield's official channel and a few new screenshots. If we want to appear to be the most comprehensive database on the Battlefield series, then it would help our cause to at least keep this updated.

I understand that the purpose of Featured Media is to also showcase files that are not necessarily new, but are particularly exemplary. However, it doesn't speak well of the process if there are barely over a dozen unique revisions since the beginning of the year. From what I can gather from that, the nominations page doesn't receive much attention, and images/videos may have been thrown up for the sake of having a new Featured Media. - Bovell (talk) 02:07, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

It's always been like this Bovell. Check the dates on many of our past featured article/image/user nominations. - 17:46, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

It is well established as a process - 21:09, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because something is well-established doesn't mean it is not flawed. Where is the March nomination for Featured Media? Or did no one bother? For a month with a lot of new game media being thrown at us, it is ironic that a proactively changing site such as a wiki cannot keep a part of the main page updated.


 * In fact, I wouldn't even limit it to the Featured Media. Where is a nomination for this month's Featured Article? As I look through the archives, there are only two instances since September where there was more than one nomination. I'd also like to pull a quote:

"So?... If no one replies, I'll pass this tomorrow (or whenever I have time)." "Go for it. We need something and it's way late at this point."

- December 2010 Featured Article nomination


 * So here's the problem: we have nominations (or even lack thereof) that sit for weeks without attention, either because our userbase is still too small at the moment, people don't care, or perhaps even both.


 * So I return to what I said before: the process is overly-bureaucratic. If we were getting five different nominations a month and constant feedback on every one, then I wouldn't have much complaint. That's not happening, however, so we instead have a process that over-complicates things to the point where we aren't updating content.


 * My first suggestion would be to remove nominations completely from Featured Media. Only particularly large wikis seem do this, and opening it up to be freely changed by editors shouldn't become a problem until we get more users. If there is limited comfortability with all users having the ability to edit the Featured Media template, then it could be sysop-protected, provided it gets updated.


 * As for Featured Article nominations, I don't have much else to say other than more emphasis needs to be put on it if we want to keep the same "process." Putting the Featured Article on the main page slider is a step in the right direction in that respect. - Bovell (talk) 22:03, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * From the points put forward in your argument, it's not overly beureaucratic, it's just people forget or are unable (in real life terms) to put forward nominations for the Featured Content, as has been the case for much of the time that we have been running this system - a few ideas put forward at the end of the month that are debated over. Despite the lack of other nominations, people DO take their time over these nominations, proof-reading the article or checking the copyright, and making sure the nomination is correct. Overly beureaucratic is when featured content has to go through several stages of a nomination to even be considered as FC, by which time the FC will have been decided. THAT's overly beureacratic. - 06:28, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, we set up the nominations system to allow everyone to have a chance at putting forward what they saw as the best stuff on the wiki. By "removing nominations completely from Featured Media", the original idea behind the FC nominations would be voided, making it a sysop-only thing that wouldn't be what this wiki is about: The wiki about the Battlefield Series that anyone can edit. By removing the nominations, it would effectively be the same as saying "You can't edit stuff on Battlefield 3 because you have blue eyes. It's wrong and not part of what the wiki is about. Also, you seem to believe that constant editing is a good thing for the wiki. Many of us like the fact that we have a slow editing pace, in that the community is more compact and knows each other and has a good releationship. In a wiki like the CoD wiki, where edits get made every second or so, there are many things that slip through the gap and users don't get absorbed into the community in a friendly way. I'd know, because that (and the fact that CoD now means zilch to me) is the reason why I left the CoD wiki after a few years of simply watching as the WikiActivity page gets clogged up by bloggers and other contributions. To quote Fedrus, "An alliance with the powerful is never to be trusted." If constant editing is powerful, then there will always be flaws with it. - 06:40, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is clearly an unneeded bureaucratic system present if there have been occasions where nominations were passed just to have one. We are trying to do something very simple for a process that is meant to deal with more complex things. In other words, the process is bureaucratic for nominations that are not.


 * If it has been the case that nominations have been put in at the last minute, did it ever ring a bell that the system might not be working. It only strengthens my point that Featured Articles need to have more recognized importance if it's the last thing people remember before the first of the month. Yes, people do have real-lives, so it is understandable if they are unable to put forth nominations, but the problem still exists (there is no nominations). In the case of Featured Media, I again say that only very large wikis do that, and is unnecessary for a wiki of this size.


 * You bring up the fact that all editors are equal, but the current nomination system is actually not that - "20 edits over 1 month." Not everyone can edit that, so it's not really a valid point to say that ridding of nominations would take away any editing privileges in that regard. Additionally, "removing nominations from Featured Media" would, if, anything, make this more of a place that anyone can edit. Mention was made of sysop-protection only in the event that was ever necessary, which it shouldn't be even if the wiki's userbase number explodes.


 * Not once did I mention anything about constant editing, rather keeping the wiki updated . There is a fine line between the two, and the Featured Media (and now the Featured Article - it's April) have failed to be updated. People look to wikis because they know they are a resource for a collaboration of up-to-date information on the subject they are looking for. When I said proactively changing content, I mean that in the sense that stuff actually changes, and doesn't sit there for months. That's the part that even the main page should show - that we are dynamically changing. - Bovell (talk) 22:31, April 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * The "20 votes in one month" is the long-standing voting regulation that applies throughout the entire wiki on EVERYTHING that requires votes to be made. It's simply for uniformity and to stop sockpuppets (i believe that's the technical term) and anons from swaying votes over towards one particular side. The idea for the voting for all Featured Content was to stop people from changing the content from one thing to another in quick succession, and to end up with content that everyone agrees with. By removing the nominations for Featured Media would NOT make the wiki more of a place that could be edited, because (and it shames me to use this) we get more of a thing like the PGB affairs. Users fighting and insulting amongst each other because people have changed the Featured Media to something different. And also, with the small userbase that you constantly go on about, we aren't really that suited to a constant overwatch of pages, thus meaning that some deluded anon could upload indecent images/videos and then post it as the featured media. It goes against the standing point of the Featured Content - stuff that us editors on the wiki believe that epitomises the work that we do here.


 * The process that we are using is (and i again reiterate this) NOT an unneeded beureaucratic system, as, I quote, "We are trying to do something very simple for a process that is meant to deal with more complex things." A beureaucratic system involves making simple things complex, which is not what we are doing. It is a simple task of choosing an article/media item, making sure it meets the requirements for the Featured Content section and then voting over it. It's the same system as used in RfAs, Page Classification Nominations and many other votes across the wikia network, including at the Call of Duty wiki, which quite a few of our ideas have come from, due to the BATF. If you're saying our system is wrong, then why not stick to your guns and complain over on the CoD wiki about their problems? - 10:11, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the exact point I am trying to make: this wiki is                                                                                                                       using a system that is used on a much larger wiki, and to further complicate matters, it doesn't get the attention it needs in order to function. Give people reminders to nominate and tell them to vote, for nominations with a single vote don't do any good. In fact, both Featured Media and Featured Article nominations began to appear only after I had raised concern about the efficiency of the process.


 * Yes, "20 votes in one month" prevents sockpuppets, but how many honest cases of those have been prevented by the rule? You also bring up revert wars, which are just as relevant as people fighting over nominations or users opposing because their nomination won't win. If neither of those have happened before (perhaps because the nominations are not receiving attention), then I fail to see why there would be a substantial problem with Featured Media being open for editing.


 * I also want to point out once more that the main page should not be excused from dynamically changing. In fact, it's the one chance we have to prove to readers that we update our content, and currently, only news blogs (which were only added recently) seem to attest to that.


 * "...we aren't really that suited to a constant overwatch of pages," when did I ever suggest that we needed security guards to watch every article of the wiki around the clock? "...some deluded anon" could just as easily do the same to any other page of the wiki, and if there is an issue with undoing an edit and blocking said user, then we have a much larger problem at hand.


 * And if Featured Content "epitomises the work" that editors do, then I again raise the question as to why an April Fools' Day blog received more edits than the nomination pages have received in one month. - Bovell (talk) 14:09, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point Bovell, I'm just not sure I necessarilly agree... - 18:32, April 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * While I've people's attention, I intend to change over the featured content tomorrow unless anyone has any objections, so (for now at least) get voting - 18:44, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Bovell has a point, the Featured content aren't getting the attention that they are meant to. While I don't fully agree with his way of updating the Featured Media, but I think we really do need to change or improve on the system. }} }}