Forum:GAs On Main Page Brawl

Personally, I am sick and tired of this pointless fight over GAs being on the main page. I am also very sure that I will vote for neither side, because I don't care now.

Under this line, there will be a section for both Vic and Rhea to discuss why GAs should/shouldn't be on the Main Page. Please keep it civil, because after both have posted their opinions, there will be a consensus vote. Jesus Freak NK says NK's 'mazin' articles 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Rhea on Keeping Them
Alright, the first thing I would like to point out is that without Good Article son the main page, the High Priests are essentially pointless. Though the HPs could not deny GA status, users listened to them more than the comments in the general voting and made the changes that were recommended by the HPs. That way, the GAs on the main page would look good. However, with no GAs on the main page, who the hell cares what they look like? They’re simply just another article on a list. If they don’t look good, the Decreton Lords will just rip the article to shreds and make them make the changes. Without GAs being on the main page, the entire GA voting process can’t and shouldn’t be taken seriously because if they’re still going to automatically go up for the Featured Article nomination, then let the Decreton Lords deal with telling them what should be changed. The other HPs and I could just post our opinions in the GA general voting, because we’d no longer have to worry about making GAs look good for the main page.

The second thing that I would like to point out is the “Rafe Richter” argument, ie. the article that becomes a Good Article and then the author does not address the concerns of the DLs for FA voting. The Rafe Richters of this site have absolutely nothing to do with this. The community believed and voted that Rafe Richter was good enough to be a GA. Because of this, it was placed on the main page to say “this is what the community believes to be an article that is worthy of Good Article status”. If the guy doesn’t want to do any editing after that, that’s his prerogative, but policies cannot be made by four people based upon what a few people might do, in my opinion.

Here is what I believe a lot of people do not understand about GAs being on the main page. It is not about showing off like FA showcasing has always been. GA showcasing was to tell the community and anyone who visits Star Wars Fanon that those articles are the articles that the community believes to be worthy of the status. A list of Good Articles can only say so much. Showing them, with the picture and the name and the introduction, is a way for the community to be proud of those articles.

Look at this from the POV of the average member who may not be as good at creating articles as some of us are. GAs being showcased is about letting members strive to achieve something that people myself and many others could do easily. I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but every single one of my articles that is 100% complete is either a Featured Article, a Good Article or nominated for Good Article. Showcasing articles such as Order of the Whills or Prophecies of The Skywalker on the main page twice would make newer members and average users say “wow, if I work REALLY hard to get my articles like that, I could get my article on the main page twice too!”

That is what I do not understand about taking Good Articles off of the main page. What I just mentioned in the above paragraph would improve the quality of articles, thereby improving the quality of Star Wars Fanon, so removing them from the main page is striking a blow to the reform that everyone keeps talking about. Who cares if it takes away from Featured Articles? I certainly don’t, and I personally don’t think it does.

Come Sunday evening, Ussej Padric Bac II and Order of the Whills were supposed to be on the main page together. I thought that was pretty cool that it turned out that way, though it’s not like I cared about them even being there in the first place. It’s just something that’s cool to see. I do not believe that OOTW being there would take away from Ussej II. Even if it had been a Rafe Richter up there next to Ussej II I would not care because I would know that it was decided that my article was one of the VERY best Star Wars Fanon had to offer. I know this and I don’t need it to be up there by itself to remind me, and I certainly hope others would feel the same way.

This entire thing almost seems like some people being somewhat insecure to me, or glory seekers. Users should know that if they have a Featured Article, it’s been voted to a higher prestige than Good Articles regardless of the fact that they would both be on the main page. Who cares if other people see it next to something else? YOU know that your article is special and YOU know that it’s amazing. Why does it have to be by itself to remind you of that? If you really are upset that your article is next to a Good Article, I think that you would need to take a good look at yourself and a find somewhere other than a Star Wars site to get your ego-trips. I know all the “Save the World” campaigns could always use a few good men.

I urge the community to consider this. If they disagree and THE MAJORITY OF USERS IN THIS DEBATE wants the GAs off of the main page, then I will fully support that decision. - Brandon Rhea 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Squishy Vic on Taking Them Off
By Brandon's argument, we might as well put one of Wikimaniac's articles on the main page next to an FA and say "This FA is what you want to be like; this bad article is not." Having GAs on the main page was not a good idea because it took away the glory of the FAs. For example, let's say Author A and Author B were each to write articles, both good, and then voted in on good status. So neither article gets showcased yet, since they aren't featured, and so Author A tries to improve his article for the Decreton Lords to vote in the article as FA, while Author B just relaxes and isn't interested in making an FA just yet. Author A's article gains FA status while Author B's still doesn't, so Author A's article gets to be showcased. Suddenly, however, GAs are on the main page. So Author B gets his article showcased at the same time. How fair would that be to Author A? Not so much. He worked his butt off, improving this and expanding that, making the article go from GA to FA status. However, as Author B just relaxed after gaining GA, his article gets showcased as if it were an FA too.

That's not fair at all. All an author has to do is write a GA quality article and then you know you'll have it showcased. WOW! Didn't even have to make FA status. Basically, FA and GA become the same thing. It should be an honor and privilege to be showcased. The work "featured" means that your article has met the standards of an article that deserves to be featured on the main page. Featured and recognized by everyone who goes to the websites main page. Good articles are good articles. As Jack Phoenix stated below, good articles are better than the average articles, but they are not featured. If GAs are showcased on the main page, its not so special and "wow!" to get an FA anymore, since your article will be showcased as long as it gets GA. That's why it'd be unfair to someone who writes FA material to the max, while someone writes GA material, but both get the articles featured anyway. Besides, whats the big deal of getting an article showcased twice? Darth Abeonis, NKSCF, Zack Fayne, Jack Phoenix, and Darth Faust were only featured once, and that, to me, was good enough to say "Wow, that must be a damn good article". When I first came to this site in October 2006, the first FA I saw was either Zack Fayne or Jack Phoenix, or one after the other, but either way, I strived to write a great article just like theirs. And my goal was, I'll admit, to make my own article even longer than the massive Zack Fayne artilce, and I did. New Users can do exactly what I did. I am proof that simply seeing an FA will push me to make my own great article. I don't need a Good Article by its side to "compare", thats unnecessary and just an excuse to have GAs on the main page.

Featured articles should be looked up to, just like I had looked up to both Jack Phoenix and Zack Fayne. Getting a good article should get a pat on the shoulder, and say "Nice job kid, you're on your way to writing a featured article". And if the author has enough strive and passion for it, he will make his article AMAZING, the BEST of the BEST, and make it FA. Then he will know he worked hard on his article to reach the FA status and have it showcased, and he will have that sense of "nice job" and "well done". GAs do not and should not be on the main page for that; FA is an honor, as I've already said before.

Now onto my next point- If you shouldn't care whats next to your FA on the main page (in this case, a GA), then why should you care if a GA is on the main page at all right? I mean, as Brandon said, YOU KNOW you wrote a good article, right? You dont need anyone to remind you by putting it on the main page, becuase you know its there and you wrote it, even if its not on the main page. And yes, I do believe that getting a FA is glory and for glory seekers. We can be proud of what we write, and we can show for it by having our articles reach FA status.

That is all the arguments I have at the moment, but I believe they are enough; read them carefully, and everything Brandon said has been countered. Basically, GAs do not deserve main page showcasing, but FAs do (thats why theyre called FA status); and even if you write a GA article and its never going to go on the main page, "who cares", because "YOU KNOW" you wrote it. -- Victor  ( talk ) 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I don't think it's neccessary to have the good articles on the main page, because good articles are indeed good articles - better than the average article you get by clicking Special:Random, but not featured articles. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given my opinion. I think that while Good articles are worthy to be called better than most, they don't deserve to be on the Main Page, though it has nothing to do with the fact that GAs and FAs shouldn't be on together. Instead, I figure that FAs should be earned, and all GAs should strive to become FAs, and therefore Featured. --  JM  76  Ask   Archives  [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a necessary comment, but, and I've stated this before, it seems many people are agreeing with GA removal now that Vic supports it, though they didn't when I originally proposed the idea. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just mentioning it.  Pinky 49 Talk 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I may not have done a whole lot on this site yet, but I have enjoyed reading the various articles that are posted on this site, whether they be featured or good. I know that having those two kinds of articles available on the main page is very helpful because it gives you two high callibre articles that are at your disposal to read. Even if the whole thing gets taken away, there should still be a link to the GA of the week as well as a quick link to see the nominations so that you can easily see some good articles aside from the featured articles. Dexington 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just put "This weeks featured article is [insert article here]." No more than that, give people a reason to click the name.--Nightmare975 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think that is a really good idea. Same could be done for the GA, make people read it to find out more about it if they want to see why it is featured or good. I'd also like to point out that Vic, you used Brandon's quotes way out of context at the end there. Dexington 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to say "Good", but what ever.--Nightmare975 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dex is correct. I could care less if my stuff is on the main page for GA or FA or for any reason.. - Brandon Rhea 00:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of getting rid of FAs from the main page completely save a link. How can you call it a featured article, when its not featured? I say we put a link to the list of GAs next to where it says "upcoming FAs", that would still be more than most wikis, who don't even have a link to GAs from the main page.  Pinky 49 Talk 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you need the GA's out of there to make the FA's more featured, just get rid of the new article stuff too. Putting them there makes them just as featured as an FA or a GA, does it not? Dexington 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I never thought of that. - Brandon Rhea 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Did You Know's are simply links to an article. Its, IMO, a good way to advertise your article, w/o having to meet certain requirements. Featured articles get a picture, as well as text, which makes them something to aspire too. The reason why GAs shouldn't be put on the main page is, its just like having 2 FAs. Because when they have a pic and text and what not, they are the exact same thing as a FA, save the name.  Pinky 49 Talk 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But are they not normally better than the new articles? Since they are, I think that they should get more attention than those, but maybe less attention than the FA's. Maybe try to reach a middle ground to make everyone happy?Dexington 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually have an idea for a compromise proposal. I'll post it tonight. - Brandon Rhea 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, GAs are normally better than DYKs. However, the main page is not meant to be a hierarchy of articles: i.e. The FA first, then the GA, then the DYKs. To me, DYKs are meant to showcase the wiki's newest articles, and the FAs are meant to show the wiki's best articles. Both are nice to have on the main page, however I don't see why a middle ground: i.e. GAs are needed as well. Especially when GAs get the same treatment as FAs, and every GA has become a FA so far, save one article. Also, and I know many of you don't think what other wikis do matters, but IMO it does. There is no other wiki that I know of which features GAs on the main page in any way. They have valid reasons for that, and I think we should do the same.  Pinky 49 Talk 01:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I support Good Articles on the Main Page, but they should be given an equivalent or smaller share than the FAs. ;-) Cheers, Relen tless Recu sant 'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/halofanon/images/a/ac/Fleet_Admiral.jpg TALK • SPEAK 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean keep the middle ground (GA's) persay, I meant find a middle ground involving them so as to make everyone happy. People want it off, people want it on, so my hat is off to whoever can work out a way to make everyone agree on one thing. If not, a vote is needed. Dexington 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * New idea, what if Good Articles were by week, and Featured articles were by month?--Nightmare975 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. You could gather up 4 GA's that way to compete for the monthly FA. I am in full support of this. Dexington 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd be difficult, though. You would have a queue going for an entire year at some points, if not more. - Brandon Rhea 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how about a one and done rule to go with that? Your one article could only be nominated for one month and then you can't use it again. It would really get people to improve the quality of their articles to make sure it gets featured IMO Dexington 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand a word of what you just said. "and then you can't use it again"? What do you mean? 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like it has one chance to be an FA and after that it can't be nominated anymore. Good? No? Dexington 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like that idea, simply because I think an article should always have a chance to become a FA. Also, what if an article was nominated the same month as some other excellent article? It would never become a FA, whether or not it deserved it.  Pinky 49 Talk 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Dex. You should be able to nominate an article for FA as many times as you need to or feel you want to. Also, per Pinky. - Brandon Rhea 04:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Also, and I know many of you don't think what other wikis do matters, but IMO it does"

- Pinky This is the problem. Why do people care what others do, or what others think of them. I prefer to do my job my own way, and be recognized for packing out 300 pieces, rather than worrying about what the other guys are doing, and not focusing on making myself the best that I can be. If I just said, oh, everyone else does 250 pieces, so I will only do 250, I wouldn't be making much progress in setting myself apart now would I? What I am trying to say is this, I don't think we should be looking to other wiki's for information on how we should run our site. Brandon Rhea once said, "We can do things the way we want." That does not mean "ZOMG wookieepedia does this, or Wikipedia does that, so we have to/or must not do that." In closing, I'd like to say that I support giving GA's a link or perhaps a small picture(nothing else). This should be acceptable to both parties, and if it is not, it only proves that both are stubborn and have to have things "my way, or the highway." That is what consensus is, compromising. If you don't like it, bite me. CurrentBigThing, so you know who said it.--  CurrentBigThing  ( Say It To My Face ) 11:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But if every other wiki does it one way, it means that they have good reason too. Should we now rename FAs "Great articles" and make UOTM into UOTY and make DYK's for only SWF's oldest articles? Just so we can be "different"????  Pinky 49 Talk 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Brandon Rhea once said, "We can do things the way we want.""
 * You make good points. However, Wookieepedia is different from other wiki, even though it follows the same format as Wikipedia.  But what sets them apart is the variations in which they do things.  Tighter policies, different layout.  Wookiee does Quote Of The Day, why can't we have Good Articles, as we would possibly be the first to do it, it would set us apart.  Details my friend.--  CurrentBigThing  ( Say It To My Face ) 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

- CurrentBigThing

Lol, that makes me feel so important. Anyway, I agree with your compromise. My basic idea for the compromise, which I think is what you meant, is that we still have a "GA of the Week". What we would do is have a link to the list of GAs, etc. and then include a line that says "Check out this week's Good Article of the Week". They would simply click on that and it would bring them to the article. We could still have the queue and everything, but we wouldn't show the picture, introduction, etc. As CBT said, if we can't compromise on something like this, it just shows the stubbornness. - Brandon Rhea 14:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed to CBT Dexington 14:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A link to it on the main page would be fine.-- N e o m e s s i a h  15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need to have a "weekly" GA. Why can't there just be a list? And then the main page would link to the list. IMO, thats a good enough comprimise.  Pinky 49 Talk 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What the hell did I just say Pinky? Hm?  What is that giant paragraph there for?  Asthetics?--  CurrentBigThing  ( Say It To My Face ) 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ???  Pinky 49 Talk 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind...--  CurrentBigThing  ( Say It To My Face ) 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit, I did not see the "must not do" until just now, though it seems we follow the "must not do" sometimes. Anyways, you gave a poor example in comparing it to your work. That'd be like us saying: "Well, has number of articles, so we should only try to have that many articles." That is totally irrelevant to whether or not GAs are on the main page IMO.  Pinky 49 Talk 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for your opinion. Though, you make good points.  However, Wookieepedia is different from other wiki, even though it follows the same format as Wikipedia.  But what sets them apart is the variations in which they do things.  Tighter policies, different layout.  Wookiee does Quote Of The Day, why can't we have Good Articles, as we would possibly be the first to do it, it would set us apart.  Details my friend.-- --  CurrentBigThing  ( Say It To My Face ) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would set us apart indeed. My biggest problem with having them on the main page is: just about every GA so far has become a FA as well(save 1 article). Right now it seems like GAs are about the same thing as FAs, and its just a get on the main page twice kind of thing. If GAs were limited to a picture or something as said above, and things were changed to make it so that GAs didn't automatically become FAs(whether that be through a stricter FA process, or a more lenient GA process), I wouldn't be as opposed to it. BTW, you don't need to post(virtually) the same thing in 2 places to make sure I see it .  Pinky 49 Talk 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. And about posting twice.  Just wanted to be sure.--  CurrentBigThing  ( Say It To My Face ) 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the community agrees to what CBT says, I will put my full support to it. I believe that a link on the Main Page is a fair compromise. [[Image:NKsig.png|70px]] Jesus Freak NK says NK's 'mazin' articles [[Image:sabersmilygreend.jpg]] 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)