Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Featured articles"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(115 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Proposed for Featuring ==
+
{|class="messagebox" size="200" align="center"
 +
|<center>Archives:  [[Conservapedia_talk:Featured articles/Archive1|1]] </center>
 +
|}
  
−
'''The following articles will probably be moved to the list above in the order listed if nobody has any objection or alternative suggestion.'''
+
==Need some help==
−
''
+
We need some help cleaing up the mainspace here. Then we can get to organizing a committee. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
−
New suggestions can be added at the ''end'' of this list.''
 
  
 +
: Good idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::I think it would be great if this could be implemented again, so that Conservapedia can feature decent, educational, informative articles created by members of the project, instead of the semi-coherent ramblings of somebody who for all intents and purposes appears to be trying to harm Conservapedia's image. I mean, to go from some of the great articles listed here, to dribble about walruses and dancing girls... the mind boggles. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:20, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Somebody want to begin archiving the past nominations in mainspace. Meanwhile I'm sure we'll get more signing up.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::Does one need to be an administrator to apply?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::@JW: my understanding is that this is open to "civilians".  @Tracy: Unfortunately, these are two different issues.  Recommending the "official" featured articles, and stopping people from using their administrative authority to circumvent the decisions, are very different things.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:48, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::No, there's been no objection. We need to get the ball moving on this.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:57, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Excellent, Rob. Now, is there a rubric of some sort for featured articles?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:59, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Let's clean up the mainspace and take some nominations. I'm only helping out in these organizational phases. You guys vet the articles and make sure they're presentable. They probably should relate to some current, timely theme of interest to MainPage readers. It will take a sysop to place it at [[Template:Mainpageleft]], and we have one on the committee. So an appropriate review process is in place for the Committee's recomendations.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
: Previous work could give an idea of what is desirable; see history here. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
  
 +
==Sign up for Featured article committee==
 +
Volunteers please mark with an asterisk and sign below.
 +
* [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:17, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
* [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 12:23, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
* [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:48, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
*[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
*[[User:JanW|JanW]] 21:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
*[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:25, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
== Question ==
+
==[[Libyan War 2011]]==
 +
There appears to be a consensus majority to accept the first nomination, although other committee members should be heard pro/con/neutral or whatever before the article is posted on the MPL. Meanwhile, we can begin proofreading and bringing the article up to quality standards for placement on the Main Page (formating footnotes, templates if necessary, etc.) Good luck, Committee!  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:43, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Is the article ready? Sunday nights are probably beswt for posting new Features of the Week. Since Jaquin isn't avalable, I'll see if I can clear it for posting.
 +
:Also, Aug 2 is the debt ceiling deadline, and I'm presuming the Committee wants that article ready for next week, if it's been selected. How's it coming?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:55, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::I've made a few changes and put stuff back as per the talk page. I think it's ready to roll. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:40, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::There just seems to still be some name confusion in the article: The majority of cases refers to him as Muammar Gaddafi, but there's also Qaddafi and even Moammar Gaddafi. We should agree on a standard naming convention for the man. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:45, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::It shouldn't be a problem to get a uniform convention for "Gaddafi", even where other spellings exist in a direct quote (like the one from Cordesman); article titles in cited references, however, should be left intact.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
My friend are these articles that we wish to see improved or articles that we wish to have displayed as examples of articles that capture the spirit of Conservapedia?  Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)
+
This page is featured. May I remove it from the queue?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Sure. We need somebdy to regularly maintain this page, you know, help answer questions from  editors, do the maintence chores in the mainspace and archiving. Want to take chage?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Yes. I would be glad to!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Good! Another thing, Although Sunday nights are usually the best time to change artiloes, and this one has been in since Saturday, what about moving up the next one to perhaps Thursdy or Friday, seeing that interest in the subject is just about at its peak right now? This should no always been done that way, but we're trying to get maintenance of this task up off the ground. We can try to get a little more information in  now, but we also probably should try to get another committee member to rubber stamp the selection as a formality (maybe TracyS?) Want to ask her?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::We could change it, given the circumstances. Yes, we could get more information. I will contact TracyS or SamHB when they are online. But I will need you or Mr. Martinez (also a committee member) to change it.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
: This is the list of articles that are proposed for the Main page's section "Featured articles". Please add as many as you wish. You can also object one or more of them or improve any as I did with [[I Have a Dream]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:28, 14 December 2007 (EST)
+
==[[Federal Debt Limit]]==
 +
Let's get it ready. Lot's of interest in this one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
* Agree! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:11, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:I've done a bit of copy-editing and tweaked the table a bit. I'm happy for it to go live, so to speak. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks, Tracy! And could votes froom the committee go on the actual page from now on, please. It's just a technicality. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:26, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Never mind. I saw the vote. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
::Articles should show the spirit of Conservapedia but also represent the best we have and be attractive for users of CP. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:40, 15 December 2007 (EST)
+
== Deleted featured articles ==
  
−
Is Bible good? I new at this so I'll have to learn a little! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 17:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)
+
I was looking through the archives and I see there's been a few featured articles that have been deleted. That seems strange to me - is it possible this was a mistake or something? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:48, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
−
== Order ==
+
:What exactly do you mean?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 09:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
−
Could we have some indication of what order the articles will be made feature articles?
+
::When I was browsing the [[Featured_articles._Past_articles_2009|past articles archives]], I saw a few that had been voted on and approved, but were now red-links, meaning they'd been deleted later. There were some in 2008 and 2009. Seems strange for something that would have gone through committee to have been deleted afterwards? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::The one you must be referring to... was deleted on account of plagiarism according to the deletion log.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 09:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::Ah, that would explain it. Thanks! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
I assumed that Genesis would be the next one, as it was next on the list, so made some improvements to it (well, ''I'' thought they were improvements!).  I didn't go beyond that.  Of course, being an Aussie with little knowledge or nor interest in American politics, I wouldn't have done anything to the Republican Party article, so I don't feel cheated in that sense, but some advance notice on what will be next would be a good idea.
+
== Mainpage layout ==
  
−
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)
+
Um, Rob, or Joaquin, could one of you please have a look at the main page - something seems to have gone wrong with the layout - the graph is interfering with the other headers below it. Or those headers are messing up the graph.
  
−
: There's been no response to this query at all.  And now an article that wasn't even on the list has been added to the main page. This prevented any of us from reviewing that article to see if it could do with any improvements before being posted.
+
Also, just a suggestion, maybe the heading should be "Featured article:" and the a link to the article in the same heading, not a separate line as it is now? Also I think "Featured article" would be better than "Article of the week"? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:42, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
−
: Could we please stick to posting the articles in the order listed.  If someone thinks that the order should be changed ''prior'' to an article being posted on the main page, then fine, but the list should be reordered so that we still all know what will be next.
+
:I will have Rob take a look at it. As for Featured Article v. Article of the Week, I don't think it really matters.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:56, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
−
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:23, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
+
::Good suggestions, I'm on it. Let me now if the formatting still messed up. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
:: Dear Philip. In this article as in many of CP any one can edit, but there is an special team for this one. From my point of view, there is not a rule for order in the list. Dates in the year or events could have some significance to select one article. You may join the team if you like and have the duty to update it. Thank you for your interest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
 
  
−
:::I didn't know there was a team. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
+
== Question Evolution article ==
  
−
:::I'd like to be part of the team. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
+
I note that the current Article of the Month is an article about an obscure YouTuber's personal 'campaign', and that every single edit to the article itself  was written by one user, User:Conservative.  Yet again we have another silly article, written entirely by him, and it is something we are supposedly "featuring".  It seems our attempts to maintain a higher standard of article to feature is not proceeding so well in the face of that user's dominance of the Main Page.   Is there a way to recommend removal of articles as well as suggest better articles to feature?  [[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:44, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:What Administrators feature outside of the Article of the Week is beyond the scope of this committee. I think that was made clear in the posts above on this page. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::OK. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:47, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
  
−
:::: Great! Welcome aboard. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
+
==What's next?==
−
 
+
Anything ready to go? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
−
== As I have been "encouraged"... ==
+
:[[Bully|One possibility]]. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:12, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
−
 
+
::What about public figure like [[Mitt Romney]]? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
−
... to get involved constructively in the site (I will save a 90/10 debate for the debate pages) I thought I might offer to help here in whatever capacity is needed (copy-editing future articles of note, etc...). However, I'm curious who's running this show? I liked the methodology described on the main page (a list of upcoming featured articles with plenty of advance notice, etc...), but [[user:Conservative|Conservative]] has brought his google crusade to this project and pushed his atheism article to the front of the line.
+
:::lol, the first needs to expanded as a user guideline, and the second is about six months premature. What about [[Political cards]], there's only about two or three needed to make it a complete deck.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:32, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
−
 
+
::::Political cards it is.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:34, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
−
Without making personal remarks, it's safe to say that I don't agree, philosophically, with how he goes about his business. Please let me know if a)you'd like any help here at all, and b)if so, what role he plays, if any? Thanks, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
+
::::: Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:50, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
−
:What happened to the funny little lines you would always write after your comments? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Having arrows that point at my non-standard user name seems to be "asking for it" in the current climate. ;) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:25, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: The Featured Article is "run" by a committee comprising [[user:Joaquín Martínez‎|Joaquín Martínez‎]], [[user:Learn together|Learn together]], [[user:DeanS|DeanS]], and me (the late-comer.  There was another person, but he has since been banned).  Anybody can add featured articles to the list as suggestions, anybody can review and try and improve those articles, and anybody can suggest that any given article should not be used or can propose a change of order.  But it is that committee that makes the final decisions on what is used and when (barring being overridden by someone higher up, such as Andy, of course).
 
−
: Some senior sysops have also had some discussion about setting specific criteria that featured articles should meet, but nothing much has come of that yet.
 
−
: You are welcome to help in any of those ways I've mentioned.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::Unfortunate timing or fate? I'm going to have to look elsewhere on the site, Philip, sorry. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::May I join the committee? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Atheism ==
 
−
 
 
−
I think it would be important to consider this for next update:
 
−
 
 
−
[[Atheism]]
 
−
 
 
−
15:00, 1 May 2008 Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (I believe a major online conservative christian newspaper is going to do a story on conservapedia's atheism article)
 
−
 
 
−
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Perhaps there should be a concerted effort to create the red-linked pages in the article? As a shop-window, so to speak. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 19:44, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::Fox, thank you for your very practical suggestion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::Secondly, google has a measure how popular a webpage is through something called PageRank.  The higher your pagerank the more popular your webpage.  Conservapedia's main page has a pagerank of 5.  Eagle Forum's main page has a pagerank of 5.  The www.worldnetdaily.com  mainpage has Page rank of 7.    The NY Times website main page has a pagerank of 9.  The conservative Christian news organization who has a reporter that is interested in the Conservapedia atheism story has a very respectable page rank and it is better than conservapedia's main page.  Also, some Christian apologists with PHDs and websites are going to support conservapedia's atheism article.  An award winning Christian author who has multiple web sites is going to endorse conservapedia's atheism article vis a vis his websites.  A conservative organization with a website having a page rank of 4 has promised to feature conservapedia's atheism article.  There is also other things going on as well.  For example, a christian organization who's leader spoke before the National Religious broadcasters convention and whose websites had 100,000 plus people become Christians after going to the organization's websites recently linked to conservapedia's atheism article.  I do think a good case can be made for keeping the Conservapedia atheism article the article of the month. It seems to be getting good endorsements and a case can be made that it could attract good editors of conservapedia. My gut tells me that it could become the next homosexuality/theory of evolution article in terms of web traffic that it brings to conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
How long is the atheism article going to be featured? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::I hope for the month of May.  I can do some of the promotional work and I would appreciate it if some people helped out in terms of the red links in the [[atheism]] article as user Fox mentioned.  It does help in regards to people linking to you if you have an article with no red links.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Coexisting ==
 
−
 
 
−
Do we have an agreement? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:39, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: I agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>formerly Crocoite</sup>]] 00:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: Till now, we have 3 of 4 votes; 3 for "yes". --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: You have my support as well. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: We have 4, lets restart. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:00, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Even further downgrade? ==
 
−
 
 
−
I'm quite sad to see Conservative disrupting this project so badly. I didn't even realize we had a new Featured Article! Why? Because it's now on the middle of the second page, under the "Masterpiece of the Week", under the "Article of the Year", under the "Popular Articles" list, without its own headline and filed under "Suggested article". Really, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to notice. Stop pretending that people will scroll past non-CP content (painting), that article section that will not change for the next half year and the mostly static list of "popular articles"... only to check out the tiny paragraph where the actual Featured Article is.
 
−
 
 
−
My suggestion: Be bold, restore the Featured Article in its old glory - '''above''' the "Article of the Year". I don't care that Conservative wants ''his'' article to be in the page-1 spotlight all year long, but this site isn't just about him and his Search Engine Optimization "Operations". It's about people who come to Conservapedia and who will be bored once they see the same "featured article" all the time. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
I agree...though not with such vehemence. :P I always used to look forward to the article of the '''month''' - not year!! A year is a really long time for one article that most people have probably already read since it is number four on search engines. I think we should change it back to article of the month. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 09:16, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Hey, I'm a very excitable guy with ideals, so sue me! :P And I fear the "Article of the Year" will remain on the Main Page for the rest of the year simply because Conservative wants to boost the Google ranks. It's all about gaming the system, and I have moral issues with exploiting Google's algorithms by means of linkspam, but that's an issue for [[Conservapedia:Public Awareness of the Atheism Article|another article]]... For now, the realistic goal is to work around Conservative's promotional campaigns, and that's why I'd suggest restoring the more current "Month" feature above the "Year" one. It would work much better at raising interest and awareness about the site as a whole instead of just a single article. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Featured Article: Wikipedia? ==
 
−
 
 
−
Why do we feature "Wikipedia"? That article screams "activism", "bias" and maybe "grudge/jealousy" and doesn't reflect well on this "encyclopedia". Anything that can be phrased negatively ''will'' be phrased negatively, anything bad that is remotely connected to Wikipedia made its way into it, and after the "Quality" section (one of the few sections that actually point out a few good properties between all the criticism), the article can be summed up as "scandal scandal scandal hoax scandal bias scandal". Which is a bit weird, considering how most of those things are fairly obscure to the everyday guy and have little impact to the site as a whole. And don't even get me started on the "Two wikifascists find someone without a biography" or "The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!" images.
 
−
 
 
−
I do acknowledge that the article is unlikely to change because it appears to be written mostly by sysops, so I won't even bother posting this on the appropriate talk page, but I think it's a bad choice for the Featured Article project... even if it has been disrupted to the point of being completely non-notable (see section above). --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== Truman ==
 
−
 
 
−
Is fine for me. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:12, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Obama and McCain ==
 
−
 
 
−
I think we should probably run these articles shortly after the Democratic and Republican conventions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: I agree. Also they should be protected. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:: When are the respective Conventions?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: GOP, 9/1-9/4, Dems, 8/25-8/28 --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::: Thanks for that, Jareddr.  I'll just point out, if you don't mind, that the reason that I didn't know that is because I'm not an American, and for the same reason, "9/1-9/4" means ''9th January to 9th April'' to me.  Anyway, I agree with featuring these articles then.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::: If you were American, I wouldn't have expected you to know it.  In fact, I would've suspected you weren't American if you had known.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::: So true ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
No way are these articles fit to be "featured". [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
: I agree. I will take special effort personally to ensure better verifiability on both. It is very important that these articles be competent, well-written pieces that present information about the two.
 
−
[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:26, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Voting ==
 
−
 
 
−
I noticed an editor gave his input into agreeing or disagreeing on articles and it was removed.  How should we handle this?  Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having people give input.  As the committee, we vote upon it, but getting input from others may help us to form our opinions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:56, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
: Users that want to give an opinion are welcome. They may use the talk page. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:: I didn't make it clear when I put those comments on the project page, but my intention was that any user could add their input exactly where TonyT did, and I still favour that, as I think it is more practicable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: This list has an special importance. It gives material for the Main Page, which is our face. We have four members that have a responsibility; this should not be shared. Users, as I have said may give their opinion but in the talk page. There is not real progress in anarchy and I feel authority has to be exercised or have the risk to see it lost. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::: But we're not talking about sharing the responsibility. As Learn together said and as I put on the project page, the committee retains the right to the final decision.  Other editors putting their comments on the project page keeps everything in one place rather than us having to potentially look in several places on the talk page as well as on the project page itself.  (By the way, it doesn't matter, but I considered that the two articles listed under "Future Articles" to already be "accepted" and we therefore did not need to add our comments to them.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Fine, ''D'accord''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:: Thanks, I take that as agreement.  I'll reinstate TonyT's comments.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==KAL 007 Feature article (proposed)==
 
−
Dear Philip and other members of the Feature article Committee (Can you pass it on to them, Philip?), I have an unusual request. I have proposed Korean Airlines Flight 007 as a feature article and there is 1 agreement to it so far. My request is this; If accepted, could it be put up for an extended time, and that beginning soon? the reason for this request- Sept. 1, will be the 25th year of the shootdown. It is a particularly important year as the U.S. government will be releasing classified material - if it deems it not to endanger National Security. Very soon there will be increased research and media interest in locating sources. I think that many will turn to Conservapedia, or shall I say, many of the right type of people to pursue it. I think that the word of mouth factor will be operating well from Conservapedia users to the non Conservapedia users and there will be an infux of readers at this time. Thank you for considering thisBert Schlossberg 09:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
You should post this on the Featured articles talk page. However, although I would support timing it to coincide with an anniversary, I'm not clear if you are suggesting posting it before the anniversary, and if so, why. And personally I'd also be hesitant to post it for an extended period, so I suggest that you try and make a clearer case for why that should be so, and for how long. Keep up the good work, though! Philip J. Rayment 10:04, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment"
 
−
 
 
−
O.K. First of all, thanks for the consideration. Here is the further info and explanation. Its very hard to know with exactitude, but I think that media will be involved with research and production from July on till the 25th anniversary of the shootdown on Sept 1st. For this reason, I request that the KAL 007 article be featured the latest in July. Media will also have something of an effect on Government release of classified info and all this will help the cause. I expect from my contacts with the more conservatively oriented groups and organizations that they will be featuring KAL 007 in some way, and so I believe there will be an increased viewership for the article. I know that my request for an extended showing of the article as a featured article is a little off the wall - to say the least, but I make it anyway, in the hopes that it is acceptable. Thanks, all![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 05:47, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== JULY 4 ==
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
To be considered (urgent):
 
−
 
 
−
[[Declaration of Independence]]
 
−
 
 
−
or
 
−
 
 
−
[[American Revolutionary War]]
 
−
 
 
−
Because of JULY 4.
 
−
 
 
−
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:51, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:I'd go with Declaration of Independence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Need another?==
 
−
Need another Committee member? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 19:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Selection for 4th July ==
 
−
 
 
−
Some history of the process:
 
−
 
 
−
:I'd go with Declaration of Independence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
To be considered (urgent) Because of JULY 4:
 
−
* [[Declaration of Independence]] or [[American Revolutionary War]] (Improved Jun 25)
 
−
** <s>Disagree on the Declaration, as the article is rather brief if you exclude the text of the Declaration and the list of signatories.  Agree, however, on the War one, although it is currently very short of internal links.</s> Disagree on both; Declaration for previous reason, War for the amount of copying.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]
 
−
** Disagree on both, Declaration per Philip, Revolution because of copying and lack of information. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 16:50, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
** I prefer the ''American Revolutionary War'' article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
**Approve decision. Lesser of two evils. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 21:57, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Monthly Featured Articles ==
 
−
 
 
−
Dear People, We have weekly featured articles and an Annual feature article, How about Monthly Feature Articles? If so, I would like to propose [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the month of August (in time for the 25th anniversary of the shootdown)[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 09:52, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
* I am sure it will have his proper time in August. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 15:10, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Size ==
 
−
 
 
−
Articles does not have to be large to be good enough. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:28, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 
−
: I agree.  However, it depends on the article.  A one-paragraph article on Palin's home town might be appropriate (that's why I wasn't concerned with the length of [[Sausage]]).  A one-paragraph article on the United States would not be.  It's not the size itself that matters, but whether it does the subject justice.  "Too short" is a euphemism for "not covering the topic adequately".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:57, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: OK, I AGREE. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:01, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Featured articles should be our own==
 
−
Several articles have been mentioned here as being nominated for featured status, but these articles have all or nearly all of their material from the public domain, i.e the U.S. government, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, etc.  As it stands they cannot be considered "our own" unless someone does a re-write, includes new material, makes corrections where needed...in short making it original and unique to this site.
 
−
 
 
−
I propose we include, for now, only those articles that we have written completely for this site as featured articles.  As to PD articles, we should have standards in place as to how they are to be treated first prior to acceptance as featured aticles.  Any thoughts?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:19, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 
−
: I agree that we should only feature articles that have been written here, and in fact we've followed that principle before.  I will write something along that line on the project page if there is no objection.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Mexico ==
 
−
 
 
−
Can someone change the main page text to reflect the changes I made to the article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Category:Featured Article? ==
 
−
 
 
−
Joaquin, I suggest adding a new Category:Featured Article, to the Featured articles. Even though this would involve adding this category to the many previous articles (I volunteer to help), I think it would be easy to maintain and would list all the featured articles in one place. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 11:55, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:I think this is a good idea. There could even be a template to say that it was a featured article, when it was featured, and linking to the Featured articles page. I also volunteer to help if this is agreed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:59, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
::CPalmer, I like your idea of a template. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Most excellent idea! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 16:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: Great! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:27, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
::::: I've put a basic-looking version of the kind of thing I'd envisaged at [[User:CPalmer/Sandbox]]. My template-creating skills aren't great - it could use a lot of smartening up, and a suitable image (a star, or tick, or the Conservapedia logo?).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:23, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::: Looks nice. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:05, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
:::::: I made a small improvement, but otherwise it looks good. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:31, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::: Thanks for the encouragement! I've added a pagename bit that would display the title of the article in question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:49, 14 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
OK, I've provisionally created the template at {{tl|Featured}}. Could one of you please protect it?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:23, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
:Done. It looks good - well done! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]</sup> 13:44, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
By the way, I believe such a category already exists, as there is a "Featured article" cat on the Civil War article. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:32, 3 March 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Committee members ==
 
−
 
 
−
Please confirm your interest in this project. Your participation is welcome indeed, but also necessary. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:53, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 
−
:I'm still interested. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 02:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 
−
::Aye! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 02:59, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 
−
:::Confirmed. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 05:03, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 

Latest revision as of 23:50, August 11, 2011

Archives: 1

Need some help

We need some help cleaing up the mainspace here. Then we can get to organizing a committee. Rob Smith 23:34, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Good idea. --Joaquín Martínez 09:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
I think it would be great if this could be implemented again, so that Conservapedia can feature decent, educational, informative articles created by members of the project, instead of the semi-coherent ramblings of somebody who for all intents and purposes appears to be trying to harm Conservapedia's image. I mean, to go from some of the great articles listed here, to dribble about walruses and dancing girls... the mind boggles. TracyS 11:20, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Somebody want to begin archiving the past nominations in mainspace. Meanwhile I'm sure we'll get more signing up. Rob Smith 12:35, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Does one need to be an administrator to apply?--JamesWilson 12:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
@JW: my understanding is that this is open to "civilians". @Tracy: Unfortunately, these are two different issues. Recommending the "official" featured articles, and stopping people from using their administrative authority to circumvent the decisions, are very different things. SamHB 13:48, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
No, there's been no objection. We need to get the ball moving on this. Rob Smith 13:57, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Excellent, Rob. Now, is there a rubric of some sort for featured articles?--JamesWilson 13:59, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Let's clean up the mainspace and take some nominations. I'm only helping out in these organizational phases. You guys vet the articles and make sure they're presentable. They probably should relate to some current, timely theme of interest to MainPage readers. It will take a sysop to place it at Template:Mainpageleft, and we have one on the committee. So an appropriate review process is in place for the Committee's recomendations. Rob Smith 14:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Previous work could give an idea of what is desirable; see history here. --Joaquín Martínez 17:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Sign up for Featured article committee

Volunteers please mark with an asterisk and sign below.

Libyan War 2011

There appears to be a consensus majority to accept the first nomination, although other committee members should be heard pro/con/neutral or whatever before the article is posted on the MPL. Meanwhile, we can begin proofreading and bringing the article up to quality standards for placement on the Main Page (formating footnotes, templates if necessary, etc.) Good luck, Committee! Rob Smith 15:43, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Is the article ready? Sunday nights are probably beswt for posting new Features of the Week. Since Jaquin isn't avalable, I'll see if I can clear it for posting.
Also, Aug 2 is the debt ceiling deadline, and I'm presuming the Committee wants that article ready for next week, if it's been selected. How's it coming? Rob Smith 21:55, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I've made a few changes and put stuff back as per the talk page. I think it's ready to roll. TracyS 07:40, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
There just seems to still be some name confusion in the article: The majority of cases refers to him as Muammar Gaddafi, but there's also Qaddafi and even Moammar Gaddafi. We should agree on a standard naming convention for the man. TracyS 07:45, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
It shouldn't be a problem to get a uniform convention for "Gaddafi", even where other spellings exist in a direct quote (like the one from Cordesman); article titles in cited references, however, should be left intact. Rob Smith 13:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

This page is featured. May I remove it from the queue?--JamesWilson 18:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Sure. We need somebdy to regularly maintain this page, you know, help answer questions from editors, do the maintence chores in the mainspace and archiving. Want to take chage? Rob Smith 21:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Yes. I would be glad to!--JamesWilson 21:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Good! Another thing, Although Sunday nights are usually the best time to change artiloes, and this one has been in since Saturday, what about moving up the next one to perhaps Thursdy or Friday, seeing that interest in the subject is just about at its peak right now? This should no always been done that way, but we're trying to get maintenance of this task up off the ground. We can try to get a little more information in now, but we also probably should try to get another committee member to rubber stamp the selection as a formality (maybe TracyS?) Want to ask her? Rob Smith 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
We could change it, given the circumstances. Yes, we could get more information. I will contact TracyS or SamHB when they are online. But I will need you or Mr. Martinez (also a committee member) to change it.--JamesWilson 22:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Federal Debt Limit

Let's get it ready. Lot's of interest in this one. Rob Smith 14:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

I've done a bit of copy-editing and tweaked the table a bit. I'm happy for it to go live, so to speak. TracyS 07:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Thanks, Tracy! And could votes froom the committee go on the actual page from now on, please. It's just a technicality. Thanks!--JamesWilson 11:26, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Never mind. I saw the vote. Thanks!--JamesWilson 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Deleted featured articles

I was looking through the archives and I see there's been a few featured articles that have been deleted. That seems strange to me - is it possible this was a mistake or something? TracyS 08:48, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

What exactly do you mean?--JamesWilson 09:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
When I was browsing the past articles archives, I saw a few that had been voted on and approved, but were now red-links, meaning they'd been deleted later. There were some in 2008 and 2009. Seems strange for something that would have gone through committee to have been deleted afterwards? TracyS 09:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
The one you must be referring to... was deleted on account of plagiarism according to the deletion log.--JamesWilson 09:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Ah, that would explain it. Thanks! TracyS 10:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Mainpage layout

Um, Rob, or Joaquin, could one of you please have a look at the main page - something seems to have gone wrong with the layout - the graph is interfering with the other headers below it. Or those headers are messing up the graph.

Also, just a suggestion, maybe the heading should be "Featured article:" and the a link to the article in the same heading, not a separate line as it is now? Also I think "Featured article" would be better than "Article of the week"? TracyS 10:42, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I will have Rob take a look at it. As for Featured Article v. Article of the Week, I don't think it really matters.--JamesWilson 10:56, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Good suggestions, I'm on it. Let me now if the formatting still messed up. Rob Smith 11:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)


Question Evolution article

I note that the current Article of the Month is an article about an obscure YouTuber's personal 'campaign', and that every single edit to the article itself was written by one user, User:Conservative. Yet again we have another silly article, written entirely by him, and it is something we are supposedly "featuring". It seems our attempts to maintain a higher standard of article to feature is not proceeding so well in the face of that user's dominance of the Main Page. Is there a way to recommend removal of articles as well as suggest better articles to feature? JanW 11:44, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

What Administrators feature outside of the Article of the Week is beyond the scope of this committee. I think that was made clear in the posts above on this page. Thanks.--JamesWilson 11:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
OK. JanW 11:47, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

What's next?

Anything ready to go? Rob Smith 19:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

One possibility. JohnMcL 19:12, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
What about public figure like Mitt Romney? MaxFletcher 19:14, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
lol, the first needs to expanded as a user guideline, and the second is about six months premature. What about Political cards, there's only about two or three needed to make it a complete deck. Rob Smith 19:32, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Political cards it is.--JamesWilson 19:34, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Agree. --Joaquín Martínez 19:50, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Featured_articles&oldid=899848"