Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > The Featured Articles problem

So, as some have noted before, we have a problem with our featured articles. Namely, nothing can get promoted anymore because our system is clunky and outdated. Currently, in order to be promoted to featured status, an article must have five votes in favour of being promoted, with at least two votes coming from a group known as "Unspeakables." Of this group, The Department of Mysteries, two are inactive admins, one of which has made no edits in nearly three months, and another in over six months. Of the rest, another no longer edits all that regularly, one is a Wikia staff member and is no longer directly involved with much work here, and of course, well know Seth Cooper, but he can't do it on his own.

I think it's really time that we completely scrap the existing system and come to some sort of new way of promoting Featured articles, even if it's simply an admin choosing a new one once a month or so based on what looks like a good choice to them and is within the general guidelines of good style based on our policies. My vote, as I cast it, is Support. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:37, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

That's entirely true. The "Department of Mysteries" board seemed a neat idea at first (and it used to work alright), but I concur, the board has been left without activity for way too long, and that has left us without a regularly changing FA for... how long, now?
What I think could be done is a) to replace the inactive "Unspeakables" with active admins (which, I think, could be a good start, but not a very proactive solution: by itself, it has the potential to generate the same sticky mess we are currently in, in the long run), and/or b) to remove that "all FA noms have to be approved by a quorum of at least 2 Unspeakables, with no objections from a panel member" codicil from Harry Potter Wiki:Department of Mysteries. That way, the "Department of Mysteries" board could still work to oversee the quality of the nominations but without the, frankly, somewhat abusive power that was making the system cumbersome.
I also happen to like your idea (perhaps even more so; much less awkward and much more efficient), although I thought it for the best to have other ideas out in the open. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:53, December 10, 2012 (UTC)
I think both are worth consideration. I like the idea of still keeping the community involved; it's just a matter of making sure people stay active in participating in the process. If that doesn't happen, we could resort to option two and just have admins make the pick. And yes, all of the other stuff too that you mentioned on my talk page - the DYK, featured images, everything. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:07, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
Seth's option B is I think the most optimal of what's been suggested so far. I really don't have any better suggestions than what's already been put up, myself. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 05:20, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support for option B of Seth. This community is so great - how many per cent shall vote? When they vote!  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 18:11, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's all of us in favour of Seth's option B, then. When I have a moment later on today, I'll go ahead and start getting things in order. As for the previous question, I think it's really just a matter, now that we're moving forward again, of promoting the process once again. So I'll be taking a close look at where things stand now and clearing out all of the old cobwebs. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:44, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
One other thing - I'd like to lower the threshold from five people having to support it to three. I think that's already the standard for normal voting anyway. If that seems like too little, then maybe four. Oh, and to the degree that Unspeakables are still a presence under this system, could I be an Unspeakable? ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:05, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't get any opposition from me, on either case. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:24, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Seth Cooper.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 19:45, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks! I'll go ahead and get things moving, then! ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:03, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm far too late coming on with this, and I hate to interrupt, but I think it'd be a good idea to have an admin, a regular contributor, and someone selected as an "unspeakable", whatever that is... That way there'd be enough authority, but there would also be someone everyday and normal (not that admins aren't, just that everybody considers them a bit special). --Happy Christmas! (Season's Greetings) 23:12, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Well, that would be ideal, so I encourage everyone that's been reading to keep an eye on the Featured articles nominations and cast their votes, now that things are moving again. I'll be sorting out the page soon. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:21, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Stage two

At this time, I have gone ahead and promoted a number of articles based on the votes that were there. I also removed those that clearly hadn't gained support. However, because of the unique nature of the removal at this time, I have decided not to mark the talk pages of those articles with the {{failedfeaured}} tag that would normally accompany this decision. At this point, I have left three nominations on the page that at this point look like they might be good choices, but I think could use more input first. In the case of two of them, the nominator was Seth Cooper but, technically, as the nominator, he doesn't get a vote. However, Seth', if you could look over the pages again, I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether they qualify for featured status at this time. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:12, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.