This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums - Ridiculousness in FA Voting
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page.

Comment: Clear consensus reached to use Berrybrick's idea.

Featured Articles are some of the largest articles on the wiki, and some of the best. However, as I returned, I have seen how bad our process is for this.

First is the voting. People are voting based on their gut instinct, that these things aren't long enough. The requirements say one paragraph, which obviously doesn't cut it, but they're turning down articles with as much information as possible about a large and popular set simply because it doesn't have "enough information". Not every article is about Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or other large licensed franchises, whose characters, vehicles, and scenes all can have a large "Background" section. This means that not every article can be as long as a featured Wikipedia article or other such article - other than Theme Articles and articles about Star Wars figures, there really isn't that much that reaches those lengths.

Also, I have the feeling that people are turning down Featured Articles because they don't like the sets. I realize that there's no basis for this statement but it seems as if people are giving "I just don't feel like this is good enough to be featured" statements all the time and there really is no way to fix that. I've heard people say "this article just doesn't do it for me" and things along those lines - that's more of a theme preference than actually caring about the quality of the article.

In addition to that, the requirements for passing an FA are ridiculous. All opposes must be met - however, this is impossible when people oppose because of their "gut instinct" or per someone else who did that. They aren't reasonable opposes. Opposition per length makes sense when you have a small paragraph, or a few small paragraphs, but an article chock-full of data does not need more length. It also needs 5 supports, which makes sense but only when you have a large voter base.

All in all:

  • Ridiculous opposes that cannot be resolved because it's an opinion and not based off any factual reason.
  • Ridiculous requirements that require you to resolve opposes, which, as stated above, cannot be resolved.
  • Lack of stricter guidelines.

BF2 Talk 13:57, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, not much time, but here's a quick response:
    • "All opposes must be met"- wherever that's stated, it's now outdated. A score of +5 is all that's required, plus nothing being listed in the Technical MoS Check section.
    • Length- Personally I think the standards people want to see in FA's has risen, which I think is a good thing. I think what we need to do is redefine the FA standard. One paragraph for an FA is just wrong.
Again, sorry if I misread/missed anything, I've really got to go inactive for a while NightblazeSaber 14:47, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Both of those were things that I was pointing out. One paragraph is wrong. Five paragraphs of information is not. And yet it's not "long enough". And I've seen the same arguments for longer things... BF2 Talk 15:04, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

The issue BF2 is getting at is the incredible number of people who oppose FA noms because they aren't long enough, even when they are given the subject matter. If people think it is too short or missing info, they should be at least curtious to say what it needs more improvement on :s ajr 16:42, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

The main statement of your argument, BF2, would appear to be that people are opposing for invalid reasons. While I do, very occasionally, see this, I don't think it is a terribly large problem. "Gut instinct" is not a reason I have ever opposed for, and I have yet to see anybody else do so, either. The reason for my opposition on your FANom (which is, I'm assuming, the source for all this) is that I honestly don't think it is long enough and, at the risk of sound cliched, doesn't "have the potential". You've been gone quite a while, and, at least unofficially, the standards for FAs have changed a bit. Articles such as this and this are more the norm now, and most of those that you recognize as Featured would probably just pass C1 if they were nominated currently. While I have seen a lot of ridiculous nominations (Marvel was probably the worst), I've never seen a truly incorrect vote. -Cligra Join the redlink war!

As I've said about other things, that article (Olivia's House) is ridiculous. Every paragraph is so much longer than it has to be. I don't want to read that. Nobody would. The important info is hidden in a mess of crap - literally describing every single piece within the set, or going nearly that far. Condensed paragraphs only containing important info are important.

As for the Town Hall, the set is very detailed. The article has pointless information again but not so much as the other set. BF2 Talk 16:57, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

So, being long is bad? :S -Cligra Join the redlink war!

And I totally disagree with the "length" issue. That is what I mean when I say it's a "gut" thing. People assume that because it's not "long enough", it's not good enough. Length is not everything. The article shouldn't be so long and filled with excessive description because nobody will want to read it. Length matters to some extent but conciseness and completeness are much more important.

No, being long is not bad. But Olivia's house is long in the same way that those articles describing each portion of the printing on a minifigure - pointless junk that nobody needs to read because it could be condensed into one concise sentence. BF2 Talk 17:00, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

So, we should feature an article because it is concise and to the point? I (personally) quite enjoy reading through an FA (provided I didn't write it myself), and enjoy the description. There is, surely, nothing wrong with having lengthy and detailed descriptive text... It would seem that would be a more sensible reason for featuring an article, not the other way round. -Cligra Join the redlink war!

Lengthy and detailed isn't a problem, it just has to be concise/complete. However, describing every little piece goes beyond lengthy and detailed. BF2 Talk 17:04, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with BF here. That example has so much good, useful content, and IMO is something which we should definitely consider featured. Cligra's argument of it not being long enough is rather silly unless he can provide specifics of what areas can be expanded. Also, I agree that long isn't always good. People don't want to read through paragraphs of description like some of our FAs have, especially when those paragraphs are often poorly written and go into far more detail than anyone would ever care about. When I do my famous (rare) FA and GA checks, I usually end up halving the description section from endless redundancies and simply pointless details. ajr 17:27, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
Can't argue with that. This forum also reminds me of when me and BF2 were discussing the Loki page and how the description goes into ridiculous detail about the individual parts. I've since replaced it with a better one and agree that that should be the norm for minifigure pages at least. -Konicle2 23:14, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yep, same basis as for that article. As for the condensing, Ajr, I suggest you condense that Olivia's House. Town Hall looks fine as is. BF2 Talk 23:16, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
Wow, yeah, much better- replacing a full description of the minifg with some vague and subjective references, and not describing the minifigure at all, just its accessories. Well done :/ (My finger is itching to hit tha rollback button) NightblazeSaber 23:31, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
'Tis not a parts article though... -Konicle2 23:33, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought the "Description" section of the minifigure was meant to describe the minifigure, not give subjective references to other minifigure's faces. How you can think less detail makes page better is way beyond me. NightblazeSaber 23:34, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example.

NightblazeSaber is a Brickipedia admin. He has had multiple logos and was previously named Nighthawk Leader. The N in his name is the 13th letter of the alphabet, after the letter M and before O. I is the ...

Referencing other Minifigures was NOT something I intended anyone to do. However, describing every line of printing is totally pointless. BF2 Talk 23:36, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

(Edited before I did) - @NBS: This whole forum is about how too much detail in the wrong place is bad. BF2 removed the whole description section of that page first, I figured a smaller one is better than both A) No description and B) Unnecessarily long description. Sorry if that angered you but forums are about coming to compromises and setting new norms for the wiki, right? :/ -Konicle2 23:39, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

NBS, seriously, who wants to read that much description when they can just take a look at the picture? BF2 Talk 23:45, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

  • Round 2 ;) Before I go any further- no personal attacks or anything are intended by me, I apologise for anything above and anything in advance which seems like that. That said, I'm about to sound like a hyprocrite by saying that I think that less detail being a good thing is completely insane. I get that the picture is right there, really I do, but I can't comprehend how having a less detailed description over a more detailed one is a good idea or how it does any harm (note- this is not about Loki, it is referring to all pages, but more applicable to minifigures I guess). I think for minifigures, the way to go would be to either go for all or nothing- have a decent description, or don't have one at all. Personally, ideally what I'd really like to do for minifigure articles is scrap the description section entirely, and replace it with some detailed photos- show a front view, side view, and back view, along with additional shots for certain accessories (eg for a cape, back view without a cape, for a helmet, front view with helmet off). But, I'm no photographer and can't make that happen, not to mention that it would be practically impossible to get that to happen for every minifigure ever created. But as I said, going for some vague description just seems completely out of order to me. NightblazeSaber 07:19, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
Actually over the past few days I've been pondering whether to produce my own 360 degree spins of sets, like the ones on, as I obviously have a lot more sets than he does (almost all of his renders are of UCS sets and exclusives). I was going to make a forum about whether it would be appropriate for me to create regularly them for Brickipedia. I guess since you mentioned possibly implementing extra views instead of a description, I could create something like that for minifigure articles too. Depends on what we decide on really. (I <3 my camera and backdrop :P) -Konicle2 09:46, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid this topic to keep from being offended, but it's a little late for that, so I guess I'll reply to this at least. Though I agree that images would be better, even in cases where we can get the images, I don't think that we should replace the description sections, just for consistency's sake. Not that I would see what's wrong with having both, even if it is superfluous. --Berrybrick (Talk) 11:19, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
I thought of this. It's lovely telling me the colour of each of the items of clothing, but could a good picture not tell you this? - nxt
Arg. It is physically impossible to provide photos like that for every minifigure ever. That would seem to be a slight problem with regard to actually doing it. -Cligra Join the redlink war!
All you need is a single clear photo of the front and a photo of the back if it's printed. That's all. BF2 Talk 17:36, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
What about minifigures from 30+ years ago? -Cligra Join the redlink war!
Still easy to find. You can find pics of any figure even the Red Sox minifigures. Minifigures aren't old enough that there are any still unknown other than special super-exclusive ones that aren't official, and the internet prevents any old ones from becoming unknown.

Who actually wants to read these blocks of text? There's a reason that people always say stuff such as "tl;dr". It's boring. Extremely Boring. We need a wiki that is readable, with our best articles providing concise, accurate, and non-obvious information. If they point out every single aspect of the set, then the important things, the things you can't tell at a glance, will be lost in the walls of text. If all of our best articles are describing how every part goes together, we will not have a wiki - we will have a collection of instruction manuals that are hard to understand and are totally pointless considering that they're already on the web. BF2 Talk 14:56, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with BF2. I always think that it's boring reading all of the blocks of text. For the people who want to read it all, that's fine. We could leave the long 'blocks of text,' and also create a Summary section that says only the 'main important facts' for those like me who don't care about every tiny little detail. Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 01:50, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
And Charge, that's an interesting idea. I think we should have the large block of text hidden instead and openable and the basic description the default view but that's just me. BF2 Talk 12:54, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
You're proposing a show/hide template for every page? -Konicle2 13:30, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
Not proposing it, saying that's what I'd prefer and it would just apply to the relevant pages. BF2 Talk 13:41, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to declare all nominations for FA on hold until this is over, if you guys don't mind. Not that they practically aren't already. BF2 Talk 12:53, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, we have enough on queue until August anyway, I think. --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:11, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
Why does the number matter...? BF2 Talk 19:13, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
Because so this way we won't get stuck without an FA? (oh, and it's up to October, I believe) -Cligra Join the redlink war!

A thought

I've been thinking (shocking, I know), and I've decided that the best idea in this case might be compromise. It's pretty darned obvious that neither side is going to back down from their argument, and, eventually, this forum will just get washed over, forgotten about, and no closure will be reached. So, before that happens: Why can't we allow both types of FA? They are both very good articles in their own way, and can both be featured for different sets of reasons. When voting for one that doesn't agree with your sensibilities for what an FA should be, simply judge it objectively, by the standard of the sort of article it represents. Sound reasonable? -Cligra Join the redlink war!

I meant to suggest something more along the lines of if you don't like it simply because it's too short/long, don't vote, or add a neutral section. If we could come up with a decent way to incorporate Charge's idea though, I'm all for that. --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:09, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
Berry, your idea is fine. Let's start up a vote. BF2 Talk 19:13, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

Charge's Idea


  • Support BF2 Talk 19:13, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, what I said was saying that it is too short/long is an invalid oppose, right? :P But I'm supporting myself for now (why wouldn't I :P). --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:21, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. What's Charge's idea, though? (I'm unwilling to trawl through the rest of the forum...) -Cligra Join the redlink war!
    I think it was have both a condensed description and a descriptive description. --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:54, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
    I already do something along those lines with the "General" section in my descriptions.. I don't think it should really be a rule, though. -Cligra Join the redlink war!
    Then we'd have two descriptions of the same subject... that's like saying we should add a different language section in case someone foreign doesn't understand (after all those are like two different languages because they are different styles of writing?) My head hurts, will vote later. -Konicle2 19:59, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good plan. Not sure why we needed to make a new section for saying this though. ajr 20:41, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Better than Charge's idea (no offense) so w/e. -Konicle2 23:21, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • klagoerRollinglaughingsmileyname that user 23:48, May 24, 2012 (UTC)