Category talk:Featured articles - Revision history

Apostrophe: /* Use it or lose it */ r

2010-03-24T18:25:48Z

Use it or lose it: r

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 24 March 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:Now that you mentioned it, the star thing doesn't really work as articles of the now needn't reflect high quality articles, only articles that reflect the now. If things are slow with Chris, I usually use the Article of the now to highlight quality articles or if a certain article is being talked about on PVCC, Krapple, etc. For instance, I recall when people on Krapple were like "I think there should be an article on Chris's anger" and everyone was like "lol i don't know how to wiki." So, I started [[Chris and anger]], people started to fill in and it became pretty damn good. Likewise, I was impressed with the quality of [[Death threats]] that it got featured as well. And as I've said before, [[Excel Saga]] is probably the best article on the wiki and has been featured a few times now.		:Now that you mentioned it, the star thing doesn't really work as articles of the now needn't reflect high quality articles, only articles that reflect the now. If things are slow with Chris, I usually use the Article of the now to highlight quality articles or if a certain article is being talked about on PVCC, Krapple, etc. For instance, I recall when people on Krapple were like "I think there should be an article on Chris's anger" and everyone was like "lol i don't know how to wiki." So, I started [[Chris and anger]], people started to fill in and it became pretty damn good. Likewise, I was impressed with the quality of [[Death threats]] that it got featured as well. And as I've said before, [[Excel Saga]] is probably the best article on the wiki and has been featured a few times now.
	:Guys, if there's an article you think that should be recommended, please, [[Template_talk:Article_of_the_now\|post it on the template talk page]]. There's a lot of fucking articles on CWCki nowadays and sometimes I don't feel like trying to find new articles to feature. Fuck, I think anyone can edit the Article of the now, you can make it whatever damn article you want. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)		:Guys, if there's an article you think that should be recommended, please, [[Template_talk:Article_of_the_now\|post it on the template talk page]]. There's a lot of fucking articles on CWCki nowadays and sometimes I don't feel like trying to find new articles to feature. Fuck, I think anyone can edit the Article of the now, you can make it whatever damn article you want. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
			::All right. Since you don't think the star thing works, should it still go? [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 18:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Champthom: /* Use it or lose it */

2010-03-24T18:05:27Z

Use it or lose it

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 24 March 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:*I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what ''qualifies'' as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)		:*I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what ''qualifies'' as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
	:*I agree. As far as making a system for choosing the article anyway. I'm in favour of keeping the Featured Articles section. For Criteria, it definitely must be relevant to whatever is happening with Chris at the time. I think that CWCipedia for example is a good choice, because there have been a lot of developments with CWCipedia recently.		:*I agree. As far as making a system for choosing the article anyway. I'm in favour of keeping the Featured Articles section. For Criteria, it definitely must be relevant to whatever is happening with Chris at the time. I think that CWCipedia for example is a good choice, because there have been a lot of developments with CWCipedia recently.

			*There's a reason we call it the "Article of the now" and not the "Featured article." The "Article of the now" reflects the Now, the current state of Chris. [[Sonichu (character)\|Sonichu]] was the article of the now a week ago because it was the 10th anniversary of Sonichu. [[Megan]] was the article of the now because she was one of the articles Chris wanted us to delete. [[2009]] was, as Edward said, an article of the now at the beginning of the year as a way to look back on the past year. [[Asperchu]] was an article of the now after Asperchu saga started.
			:Now that you mentioned it, the star thing doesn't really work as articles of the now needn't reflect high quality articles, only articles that reflect the now. If things are slow with Chris, I usually use the Article of the now to highlight quality articles or if a certain article is being talked about on PVCC, Krapple, etc. For instance, I recall when people on Krapple were like "I think there should be an article on Chris's anger" and everyone was like "lol i don't know how to wiki." So, I started [[Chris and anger]], people started to fill in and it became pretty damn good. Likewise, I was impressed with the quality of [[Death threats]] that it got featured as well. And as I've said before, [[Excel Saga]] is probably the best article on the wiki and has been featured a few times now.
			:Guys, if there's an article you think that should be recommended, please, [[Template_talk:Article_of_the_now\|post it on the template talk page]]. There's a lot of fucking articles on CWCki nowadays and sometimes I don't feel like trying to find new articles to feature. Fuck, I think anyone can edit the Article of the now, you can make it whatever damn article you want. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edward at 02:14, 24 March 2010

2010-03-24T02:14:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 23 March 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	*I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)		*I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
	:*I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what ''qualifies'' as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)		:*I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what ''qualifies'' as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
			:*I agree. As far as making a system for choosing the article anyway. I'm in favour of keeping the Featured Articles section. For Criteria, it definitely must be relevant to whatever is happening with Chris at the time. I think that CWCipedia for example is a good choice, because there have been a lot of developments with CWCipedia recently.

Apostrophe: /* Use it or lose it */

2010-03-24T00:46:21Z

Use it or lose it

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 23 March 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like [[Chris and anger]] and [[2009]] were randomly slapped with gold stars without any sort of process or qualifications. This is clearly not the way to do a featured-article procedure. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)		I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like [[Chris and anger]] and [[2009]] were randomly slapped with gold stars without any sort of process or qualifications. This is clearly not the way to do a featured-article procedure. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
	*I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)		*I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
			:*I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what ''qualifies'' as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edward at 19:03, 23 March 2010

2010-03-23T19:03:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 23 March 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Use it or lose it==		==Use it or lose it==
	I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like [[Chris and anger]] and [[2009]] were randomly slapped with gold stars without any sort of process or qualifications. This is clearly not the way to do a featured-article procedure. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)		I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like [[Chris and anger]] and [[2009]] were randomly slapped with gold stars without any sort of process or qualifications. This is clearly not the way to do a featured-article procedure. [[User:Apostrophe\|Apostrophe]] 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
			*I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe: Created page with '==Use it or lose it== I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like Chris and anger and 2009 were randomly slapped with gold stars…'

2010-03-23T03:05:52Z

Created page with '==Use it or lose it== I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like Chris and anger and 2009 were randomly slapped with gold stars…'

New page

==Use it or lose it==
I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like [[Chris and anger]] and [[2009]] were randomly slapped with gold stars without any sort of process or qualifications. This is clearly not the way to do a featured-article procedure. [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)