Memory Alpha talk:Featured articles

Showing off featured articles?
Shouldn't we post featured articles every day?- B-101 01:20, 2 Sep 2004 (CEST)
 * * gapes* Why?! It's hard enough getting one posted a week, let alone one a day. There's simply too little time, and too few articles (we would be recycling them roughly once a month - certainly too short a timespan). -- Michael Warren | Talk 02:56, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST)

Okay then. But, eventually, we should go to each day, when we get a whole lot more article.- B-101 15:46, 2 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Superweapon?
Didn't we already have the superweapon search? And what was the last featured article?- B-101 14:40, 29 Sep 2004 (CEST)
 * No. We had the actual superweapon but not the search for it. Two different articles. Ryan123450 18:25, Sep 29, 2004 (CEST)

Reorganization
Seems the Bajoran wormhole and Ezri Dax could both benefit from some reoganization, with Ezri Dax it may be as simple as some categorie headings. They are both great informitive articles and I don't think they should be removed from featured articles. It seems having them featured has stalled their progress, they are no longer being improved. Ezri Dax has been edited once since Oct and the Bajoran wormhole has been untouched since Sept. Tyrant 14:52, 16 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
 * Ezri Dax is "stalled" quite simply because it is complete! I made sure of it. And why would it need reorganisation? -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:53, Jan 16, 2005 (CET)

Perhaps it is simply a matter of opinion, I ment no disrespect. I just thought it would be more useful to be able to scan a table of headings in order to look for certain information about the character, reading all of the article to seek particular details makes using the arcitle as a reference guide a little tricky. Tyrant 15:57, 16 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

Replacing this page
Is there any need for this page anymore? Why not link directly to Category:Memory Alpha featured articles instead? --Dalen 11:29, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)

I agree. This page is just a waste of time while clicking through to get to the list of featured articles. I think there should be a link to the voting on candiates page from the big list, and that the main page should link directly to the list. Tobyk777 22:00, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Where was it decided to change this page to it's new and current format, just wondering? - AJHalliwell 00:58, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion below. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:53, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article Accessibility
Ive noticed that on the Main page, there is only 1 (Hard to find) link to featured articles. Even after clicking on that you have to click anohter link to get to the complete list. I am sure that there are many MA users who just browse (for info on Trek) and don't edit. For these users (but also for interactive users)I think that there should be a more obivous link to our featured articles. They're supposed to be "featured", as in "On Display" but really, they're not on display, and for newcomers hard to acess, (Especialy if the newcomer doesn't know they exist.) Mabe on the Main Page we could have 5 or 6 Featured articles listed, then a large link which says more featured articles, To fix this problem. Tobyk777 05:13, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could see to adding "Featured article nominees" to the Utilities links in the 'recent changes text' and, in turn, removing the "Old Pages" link? It would look something like this: 'updated recent changes text'. --Alan del Beccio 05:36, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; I know I personally don't go hunting (specifically) the "old pages" to often. I like the "recent changes" idea. Although to pick hairs, maybe put it between "New pages" and "Pages needing an attention". - AJHalliwell 05:45, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not just talking about the aceesiblity of voting on the nominations. I think we need a system where the acutal articles are "Featured" in the greatest sense of the word.  Tobyk777 17:54, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have that on the "article of the week" on the Main Page-- from which point they are very easily accessable. The whol point of the main page is that it is going to be the first place new members visit. --Alan del Beccio 21:14, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The main page only displays one featured article, and only part of it. I just think that the rest of them should be a little more "Featured".  I don't think that in our current setup the "featured articles are any more featured than the non-featured articles.
 * I see no problem with how things currently are. The whole point of the partial featured article on the front page is to get the reader to want to read the rest of it within -- a rather common writing/newsarticle/newsbroadcast tactic. A link to the list of featured articles is on the front page; you cant get much more featured than having an entire list of featured articles. If you want to read the whole article, go to the articles page, otherwise, why create duplicate pages with duplicate content... --Alan del Beccio 08:16, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't go to the list, there is pointless page in between. If you look on that pages' talk, it says that sevral people belive that that page shouldn't be there.  It simply delays people from getting to the list.  I think it should be deleted.  Also, i propose (if there is a way to do this) enlarging the font on the main page in the link which says Featured Articles and changing the text to More Featured Articles  Tobyk777 22:07, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * A long time ago before categories were introduced, the featured articles were simply added to a list on Memory Alpha:Featured articles and divided by type, i.e. person, place, ship, etc. Once the category was established, someone must have decided the list wasn't needed anymore and simply redirected to Category:Memory Alpha featured articles, but never requested a change to the link on the Main Page.  For now, I've changed it so it now goes directly to the category and cuts out the middle man.  Perhaps we should also bring back some sort of content to Memory Alpha:Featured articles as well?  Somewhat like what we had before and what Wikipedia has now?  As it stands the category page is just an unordered alphabetical list and isn't really useful for browsing a subject area of interest. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:39, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I've started to arrange a list like it exists at Wikipedia. While doing this I've noticed that the "alphabetical" category isn't really alphabetical, all characters are sorted by their first name. --Memory 23:44, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * This was brought up when we first started using categories... it isn't possible to sort alpha by last name (or ship name) without adding the category to each page and also keep the category link on the template... now that we've got many more featured articles, maybe we should reevaluate whether or not it's a good idea to include the category as part of the template. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:47, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I guess this is somewhat off topic, now since it is lost at the top of this conversation, would anyone still have a problem with changing our Recentchangestext to this? --Alan del Beccio 03:14, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

week/month
I thought it was article of the week, not article of the month. The Rotarran has been up there for weeks. C'mon, if you can't do it, let someone else who can do it _or_ change it to article of the month or something. --Babaganoosh 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bold links on this page
Is there any significance to the boldedness or lack of it, among all the article links on the MA:FA page? 198.49.180.40 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. To quote the page, "Articles in bold have already been on the main page and are ineligible to be featured there again. For a complete alphabetical list of articles, see the category page." --From Andoria with Love 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are the five Series articles Featured or not?
Presence here, with links (bold or otherwise), would indicate to me that they're Featured Articles, but the articles themselves show no evidence of Featuredness. Are they eligible for AotW? SwishyGarak 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear, the articles I'm talking about are under Memory_Alpha:Featured_articles as follows


 * Star Trek: The Original Series
 * ...list of episodes that are FA


 * Star Trek: The Next Generation


 * Star Trek: Deep Space Nine


 * Star Trek: Voyager


 * Star Trek: Enterprise

SwishyGarak 01:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe they are featured. Ideally (along with Star Trek: The Animated Series and any movies) they could and should be featured someday. No one has ever bothered to nominate them for featured status.
 * There's no rule that say they can't be featured (they need to be featured for AotW), nor should there be. I'm surprised that none have been nominated, afaik.--Tim Thomason 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Template protection.
I think only administrators should have the ability to use this template. Right now, unless I am wrong, anyone can simply put it on any article, no matter how poorly done. – Watching...listening... 06:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Because we are so many, a non-featured article could show up. But also, we are so many that it would be removed when we discover it. Unless you want to go against the idea of having the normal people taking care of their encyclopedia, then we could make this a page only admins can edit.
 * Sure, some pages should be protected so only admins can use them, like the ability to protect pages and ban users, but I don't like the idea that it should exist many pages that only admins can edit.-- Örlogskapten... Channel Open... 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the suggestion reads as if template use (the act of placing in an article) is supposed to be restricted. This can't be done anyway. -- Cid Highwind 10:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. As long as there is some kind of check and balance, even if it is as simple as administrators keeping an eye on these featured articles articles, spotting when an unapproved article appears on the list, and removing the 'illegally added' template. – Watching...listening... 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't just have to be admins. Anyone can partake in the checks and balances system.  That's the whole design of a wiki.  Just as Shran wrote on your talk page about it. -- Sulfur 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional Tag Proposal
I have been tinkering with a new Featured Article tag for the top of the article to inform casual readers which articles are the best of our work. The message at the bottom is great, but doesn't always get noticed unless the reader is looking for it. The addition of a small image tag at the top underneath the POV tag (if there is one) is the perfect solution to this. It would allow users instantaneously recognize the highest quality work that our project has to offer while remaining mostly unobtrusive. I have uploaded one possibility of what this image could be. It features the Memory Alpha logo in gold with the words "Featured Article" underneath outlined in blue. It could be placed as is or resized to whatever the community agrees upon. (Although much smaller and it becomes virtually illegible, but it could be remedied as well.) Please consider this proposal as I believe it will improve the visibility of our Featured Articles. – Topher 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think that image is big, and we'd wind up with the full-size MA logo in both top corners of the page. How about something that's more the size of the POV tag? Good idea, though. It should be at the beginning. TribbleFurSuit 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFS - much too big, and shouldn't be the MA logo. I've done a rough edit in Photoshop on a tag I think would be more suitable, with an interesting tweak for the realworld articles, to avoid having to shift the realworld template down, and cause formatting problems.


 * The realworld tag version would be sourced from a new template to replace realworld in those particular instances - (or something). As I say, this is a rough edit - I can certainly try and tweak it to look better, by all means. Or, if someone can improve the design, go ahead. The template will look better when coded, instead of cut-paste shifting of the text. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting somewhere - but I think if a FA has 2 tags, it's OK. I don't know about the need to combine the proposed FA tag with the existing Realworld tag. Please see an example here. TribbleFurSuit 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if we don't use my original tag, but at least we're talking about it now. The reason I used the MA logo was because I thought it would be like a gold medal or some such. I do like the Starfleet logo for it if using the MA logo is out, but I think we need to make sure it has a descriptor on it as in TFS's example. Either make it part of the image itself or like TFS has it. Just the arrowhead doesn't give enough explanation as to what it is doing there. – Topher 06:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have tried again and have incorporated the MA logo a little into a tag that would not need a description for it. It looks like a medal with laurels around it. I am not great with photoshop, but I think it is very presentable. As you can see here, the tag is not much bigger than the realworld picture tag and is also looks quite good on in-universe articles, too. Hopefully after the long Memorial Day weekend here in the USA, we'll have more contributors and be able to get a better feel for what the general population wants.
 * That's better, but the execution still isn't quite right - it doesn't fit right simply inserted there. A suggestion: remove the text and the MA symbol, leaving the gold Federation emblem. Reduce the image dimensions to 50x40 px. Then, use the style that TFS gave above - this would make it match the realworld template, and would look much neater stacked beneath it. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree something at the top of an article alerting a reader to the page's featured status would be great. I like Michael's suggestion and Topher's updated gold Federation emblem, so I think we should combine the two. That's my suggestion, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 18:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Topher, nice work on the logo. I like the wheaty Federation logo (I already saw your newer version that's blank in the center), I think it's a good direction to go in. --TribbleFurSuit 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a few decisions to make, after we decide if we want this new tag. If so, there are 2 ways to do it:
 * We can create one new stand-alone articletype tag which would be stacked with any others on a page, like I was advocating (demo here), in which case we'll have to solve some template programming issues. Particularly: the templates will have to contain some logic that presents a different CSS positioning declaration depending on whether only one or more than one such tag are present. Otherwise they layer right over each other and one gets hidden (my example has an explicit CSS declaration which pushes the FA tag into visible page space - this won't work when FA is the only tag present, without Realworld, because it will be in the wrong place)
 * ...or create multiple versions so that a single combined articletype tag can be shown on a page, like Topher originally demonstrated (third screenshot above). This will require drafting new versions of sidebar templates which include the tags. The episode template always calls the realworld tag, but if its a FA as well, we would need a episode-featured template that calls the alternative combined RQ/FA tag instead.
 * Personally, I think that each option probably will require a similar level of efffort. I actually don't know if the logic I described in the first option can be done with the template language we're using, but instead of trying to let the template "figure out" whether extra "articletype" boxes are present, maybe a sidebar template parameter can be created so the author can specify whether it's FA or not. At least that would make that decision-making step the author's job rather than some wikiscript's job.


 * So, decisions would be: Which do we even want? One tag or two? And, if two, how to do it? Build extra sidebar templates, or, retrofit the ones we have with program logic or a sidebar template parameter? And create some contingency for when it's a RW/FA article with no sidebar template at all?


 * The main reason I would prefer to have separate RW and FA articletype templates instead of combined ones is that it will keep the number of templates to a minimum - there will only be one new one. Any sidebars that also include articletype templates can be simply upgraded instead of multiplied/duplicated. --TribbleFurSuit 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe there's a simple solution to that problem - what's needed is an #if statement in the template code. Here's what would happen: the new box would go in featured, using the code you've used, with   inserted into the     tag. The featured template then has an extra component for realworld articles, being inserted as , which activates the extra CSS positioning. If that extra component is not present, the box simply displays at the very top. It doesn't require changing sidebars, nor creating additional templates, not even for the featured box.


 * This is assuming I've got my parser function logic correct, but I'll need to test the coding first, so stand by for confirmation. Test completed - mission successful! Template, in-universe article, realworld article with sidebar, and realworld article without sidebar -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * wow :) I gots ta spend some time learning that stuff :) nice. --TribbleFurSuit 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't had the time to study the proposals in detail, yet - but regarding positioning, interference between different templates etc.: What about the easy way out - wouldn't it be possible to simply have the two templates in different positions from the start? -- Cid Highwind 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno what you mean by "different positions", I mean, they both would go in the top right. Right? The thing is, when a FA is not RW, the FA tag shouldn't still be 6em from the top, it should be AT the top. You didn't mean, set aside a totrally different part of the page for the new FA box, did you? Anyway, DarkHorizon is already making it look easy, so, we're probably gonna be all set =) --TribbleFurSuit 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is exactly what I meant. We managed to survive for over four years without any FA icon, and implemented some other icon for the top right corner in the meantime. Why does this new icon now have to be located in the same spot? It's not as if there isn't any other... -- Cid Highwind 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. Do you have a proposal? The rest of us are saying, FA actually does already have a spot, and we think it's not ideal. Do you like the idea of         having any kind of FA indicator at or near the top? --TribbleFurSuit 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the current proposal.– Cleanse 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for supporting this endeavor. I've got a couple of other versions of the "wheaty" UFP logo. One like the original one, but with the just the MA logo on it (and smaller) and another like the plain one, but with Michael's Starfleet arrowhead on it. I can upload (or email) them if anyone would like to see them. I think with nothing on it, it looks too much like a TNG style rank pip. Or is that a good thing? I'm not entirely sure.

Cid, where do you suggest we put this tag at the top? Or doesn't there need to be a tag at the top? I don't see a problem stacking the messages, personally. As far as managing "to survive for over four years without any FA icon", can you really say that an article would be harder to read because of any of these ideas? The sole purpose of this is to raise the awareness of the casual reader that they are reading one of the best articles we have to offer. In my opinion, the message at the bottom just doesn't get noticed.

Michael, the templates turned out great! I have no idea how to do that CSS stuff. I just noticed that in test 3, the last part of the first line of text is hidden underneath the tag (at least on my resolution and font size). Any way to fix that, or is it unavoidable due to the extra margin we need to stack the tags? If so, what about changing the realworld template so it reads, "This Featured Article is written from the Real World point of view," and put the FA tag image on it instead of the filmstrip? (Similar to how you had it in your counter-proposal originally.) – Topher 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to TribbleFurSuit: Having read more about it, now - actually, no, I'm not really convinced of an FA icon as suggested. First, because I don't think that it really matters. Who would be the "target group" for this icon? Not contributors, not people actually searching for FA articles (who could use the category listing), just people stumbling across some article that happens to be FA. In that case, the only intention of this icon could be to tell people: "Hey, stick around, this article is worth it!". In that case, which is my second objection, FA should actually mean something. There's a bunch of discussions, hidden somewhere, that say that actually, FA status currently doesn't really mean much. We have FA's dating back from ~2005, at which point we didn't have a strict process of determining whether an article really is the best there is - and even if it was one of the best 3 years ago, that doesn't mean that it still is one of the best. So, if we're thinking about advertising articles as "the best" more than we do now, we should also think about the process itself and make sure that articles tagged with that icon actually are the best.


 * Talking about implementation. I think we should, preferably, continue with the rule-of-thumb of "one function, one template". If there is a function to tag articles as "realworld", and another function to tag articles as "featured", the templates to achieve that should be independent of each other. If that is not possible, we should have one "tag template" that can be used to add all kinds of icons to an article, even in combination. What's currently being suggested are two template calls, where one needs to be changed depending on the existance of the other. I think that this is, in the long run, the worst way of dealing with it. -- Cid Highwind 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what, Cid, as far as your implementation points go, I am right there with ya. I was already thinking about this before Michael did his demo, and it's behind my own preference to not combine/duplicate templates. I have an idea. It won't change the appearance of the option we're considering, it will just change implementation so that templates can serve their purpose without tinkering at authorship-time. Here goes:
 * A new template can be developed to hold "articletype" boxes. THIS template will contain the CSS positioning info, and the boxes it contains won't have to be absolutely positioned at all. That will prevent them from overlapping each other, which was the problem Michael and I solved strictly for demo/mockup purposes. This is exactly what you suggested, pretty much, calling it a "tag template". I grant: the community hasn't decided to do this at all yet, and that if that is decided affirmatively, we'll still have to code these templates "for production", so to speak. I already know that the widths of both articletype boxes should be controlled by CSS so that they're equal, and Topher points out that the overlapping problem still exists in his browser. My proposal will fix that particular detail, but the point is that this whole thing would need wide testing before bringing this feature closer to a public "release".
 * And I also agree with "if we're thinking about advertising articles as "the best" more than we do now, we should also think about the process itself and make sure that articles tagged with that icon actually are the best." This discussion we're having here might jumpstart that, if it's true that "There's a bunch of discussions, hidden somewhere, that say that actually, FA status currently doesn't really mean much". If that's really a consensus, it means that some action should be taken, probably starting with identifying those "FA's dating back from ~2005, at which point we didn't have a strict process" and removing them from FA and re-submitting them. So, whatever came out of those discussions either was a lack of any consensus or a lack of any motivation to implement the new consensus. So what we're doing here ought to shoot that in the arm. TribbleFurSuit 17:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember those conversations, Cid. I ran across them at one point and thought that we should change all current FA's to "Quality Articles" or something similar and then reannoint Featured Articles. The second option I thought of was to have some sort of sunset period on the FA's and have them re-nominated every couple years. The conversation had been over by the time I got to it and the decision to retain the status quo had already been made. It seemed like a hard fought battle and I didn't think it wise to restart the argument. If you wish to reopen that can of worms, I'll support making sure FA's are the best of the best.

Perhaps poor quality FA's is a symptom of them not being more highly visible? If they are better advertised as such, then maybe we'd get more nominations for deletion as appropriate.

Implementation: Agree we need to make this as simple as possible, but unfortunately I don't have the CSS knowledge to get there. To that end, I defer to the combined knowledge of the community. We are still in the alpha testing phase of this project and we are solving issues quite well, in my opinion. – Topher 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably the next move would be to hold a... --TribbleFurSuit 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides that, can anyone point out to me the old discussions which apparently yielded the judgement "that actually, FA status currently doesn't really mean much". I'm really interested to know what actually has gone on. As far as I know at this point in time, that's one person's characterization of the discussion(s) - I don't have any evidence that it's any kind of a consensus. Evidence to the contrary is that FA nominations continue to be approved, and that recently a large effort to automate the Articles of the Week was welcomed and rapidly approved. If FA were widely believed to be a meaningless status, garbage in having yielded garbage out, then I doubt four people (not counting myself, for fairness's sake, and Cid) would have expressed any enthusiasm for this proposal. Thanks to anyone who can show me any of the old discussions, or, at least tell me how long it's been since they took place. --TribbleFurSuit 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 *  --TribbleFurSuit 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * this is a procedure proposal I did years ago. It is terribly outdated, my opinion has changed on some of the details (and, yes, I'm talking about "voting" there ;)), but at least it lists some of the oldest discussions about the FA process. Some more recent discussions do exist, I'll have to look for those - probably somewhere in Ten Forward... -- Cid Highwind 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Preciate this. thanks --TribbleFurSuit 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, should the consensus be to use a top-right corner icon, to the right is my suggestion for it. The RW box would need to find another place in that case. -- Cid Highwind 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit smaller, and I could go for it. The arrowhead seems to have some promise, also. :) – Topher 05:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote on proposal
To create a "Featured Article" articletype box template, similar to our "Real World POV" one. Specific design and implementation details to be worked out later, if this vote is affirmative. --TribbleFurSuit 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I am, obviously, if favor of this proposal. Why are we currently hiding the fact that an article is featured all the way down at the bottom of the article where very few people see it? What is the point of having featured articles if they aren't really given any special prominence? Why would a contributor work hard to get an article to featured status only to have the "award" shoved to bottom of the article? – Topher 04:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a little premature... I oppose creating a "realworld-like" box for FAs, at least as long as there are still open problems with it (for the record, the main problem I see is that having both RW and FA boxes side by side looks ugly, and combining them into one doesn't look like a good alternative to me). If there really needs to be a "FA notifier" at the top, why not make it a simple icon instead of a big text box?
 * Also, as an aside, "no special prominence" is simply not true. "FA" are listed on a special page. The "Article of the Week" is chosen from the available FAs and shown on the main page. A note about the FA nature does exist on the page (and it is located at the bottom to not be too distracting for people not interested in such stuff). -- Cid Highwind 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to Cid: FAs may indeed already have some exposure, but would a little more really hurt? Someone stumbling around the wiki who sees the FA tag/icon of at the top may decide to follow the link and will find our best articles. This seems less likely to occur when we're intentionally (?!) hiding the template.


 * I see no reason this should be dealt with differently than "Realworld". Perhaps the realworld tag distracts people ambivalent about POV issues? But no, we have decided to place a note about the type of article at the top.


 * I support some kind of tag at the top, be it a simple icon or an articletype template.– Cleanse 08:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the small gold arrowhead at the top. I feel it's not too distracting from the article and does convey a sense of specialness about the particular page. I found it particularly odd that the FA was at the bottom of the pages for a while but didn't think too much about it. (I didn't know I could offer changes!) --Morder 09:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: For sake of civility, I don't think it matters all that much what goes at the top of the page, as long as something goes up there. Yes, I would like it to be something that I had a hand in (like the FA medal in or out of an articletype box), but as long as something allows a reader to know at first glance this is going to be a good article, then I will be happy. A realworld style box, a little icon near that location, a little icon before the start of the first paragraph, doesn't matter. Keep it simple and easy to use and I'll be happy. – Topher 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I'm not a fan of any of those featured boxes that look similar to the realworld one. Too many things like that start to clutter.  I liked Topher's original MA logo at the top... what if we could come up with a way to put that in the top left corner instead of the standard MA logo instead? -- Sulfur 15:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"as long as there are still open problems with it" - Cid, that's the point of voting now. Why would anybody put effort into working out design or technical issues if the community says "just don't do this"? That's why the motion says "Specific design and implementation details to be worked out later, if this vote is affirmative". If you want to vote against it outright, do that, but don't let "open problems" be a reason to waffle your decision on the overall concept. --TribbleFurSuit 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's kind of the point why "votings" are a bad way of dealing with things on a wiki. Something has been suggested, and problems with it have been identified. The better way to act now would be to find ways to resolve the problems... not have a vote on some completely theoretic possibility first, after which we still would have to solve the exact same problems. Or is this vote supposed to end all discussion on the topic, to allow someone to just implement the first-best solution without considering the problems? This surely won't (and shouldn't) be the case...


 * On the other hand, as long as the suggestion we're supposed to "vote" on is as unspecific as "some tag to go somewhere", I don't really see how the answer to that could be anything but "Yeah, depends...".


 * So, for the record, and I think this is just spelling out the opinion I've already given above:
 * Some form of FA notifier somewhere near the top of the page, as suggested - I really don't think it's necessary, or too useful, but as long as it is unobtrusive and doesn't clutter the content area, sure, why not, more power to you.
 * An additional realworld-like box with text - no, too much clutter.
 * A combined RW+FA box for articles that need it - no, mixing different functions into one template.
 * Which, IMO, only leaves the (already mentioned) options of either a small icon in the top right corner while finding something else for the RW template; or find another spot for the suggested FA icon to begin with. Actually, I like Sulfur's suggestion of changing the site logo itself, as long as it is done professionally... -- Cid Highwind 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolution?
It seems that we have run out of steam on this topic. We all agree that it wouldn't hurt to have featured articles more visibly marked. We can't seem to agree on how they should be marked. There was a late call to change the look of the MA site logo itself on FA pages. How could that be implemented? Who needs to make the changed logo for it to be "professionally" done? (Was mine professional enough?) I'm not trying to pick things apart, but there doesn't seem to be any resolution here. Everyone just got tired of discussing it when so many differing opinions were put out there. Let's try to get this done. It would be nice for these great articles to really stand out when everyone starts coming here looking for Trek info when the movie comes out next year. – Topher 05:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The link on the MA logo takes you to the homepage. What would happen if a special, FA-only version is dropped in on FA pages? Would the link still take you to the homepage, or, to the main FA's page? My opinion is that changing the MA site logo on certain pages is not a good thing. Have you ever seen any website anywhere that modifies its logo/home link on arbitrary pages? Good reasons to replace a website's main logo with a different version would be:
 * Members want a different logo for a different self-contained website (memory-alpha.org/ru, for example).
 * Members want a new (different) logo for the whole site.
 * And I can't think of ANY good reason to replace the Homepage link. There are better ways to highlight FA's than to do something which is really, really outside any conventions of web navigation and site design. I think several are proposed above. TribbleFurSuit 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... another convention (of several wiki encyclopedias, including this) is to not mix encyclopedic with administrative content/text too much. The content area, starting with the page title, should contain "on-topic" information, and not too much "clutter" which may not even be interesting to a reader. Exceptions to this convention can be (and are) made, of course, depending on the importance of such "off-topic" information. A warning about possible inaccuracies in the information presented (our PNA messages) are obviously more important than a POV disclaimer or the discussed "FA notification" - which is why a PNA message may be located in a much more visible spot (top of the page, red box) than a FA message (bottom of the page, grey box).


 * According to this convention, something outside the content area might be a better place for an additional FA icon. When talking about "replacing the site icon", we're not talking about doing some crazy stuff that no one will recognize" - from the example above, we're obviously talking about something small, like changing the border of our icon from silver to gold. This slightly changed icon would still behave like the unchanged one in any other way (including the HP link).


 * However, for further discussion, I created a changed version of the current "Featured" template in my user space. It can be seen in action here: User:Cid Highwind/Featured article procedure. Besides placing a small icon in the top right corner ("works" in combination with a Realworld box, but looks slightly ugly right now), it also includes a change to the message box itself. That box now states when the article was marked as "FA", and which revision this applies to (complete with links to the past revision and a diff with the current one). That way, one can easily check whether an article might still be considered "one of the best" right now. -- Cid Highwind 11:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Won't the realworld box obscure that icon? I take your word for it that it works in combination with a Realworld box, looking ugly or otherwise, but could you show that too? Anyway, I'm pleased that you continue to participate in this and offer constructive items even though you weren't that into the idea. Thanks, --TribbleFurSuit 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The FA icon is formatted so that it is on top of a potential realworld box, not the other way around. You can check this by simply editing my page to add a realworld, then preview. -- Cid Highwind 10:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)