AVID:Requests for Comment/Defining a system for Featured Images: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa"> |
|||
:The following discussion is closed. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. |
|||
::Closing as '''passed''', with three support votes and zero oppose votes. [[User:HibiscusCrown20|HibiscusCrown20]] ([[User talk:HibiscusCrown20|talk]]) 16:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
Going back to the WF era, featuring images was very much down to the opinion of an admin. Even now anyone can slap the template onto an image and it will make the front page. For some time now I've wondered how we can do better with this. |
Going back to the WF era, featuring images was very much down to the opinion of an admin. Even now anyone can slap the template onto an image and it will make the front page. For some time now I've wondered how we can do better with this. |
||
| Line 10: | Line 14: | ||
# {{support}} Much better. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 09:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
# {{support}} Much better. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 09:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
# {{Support}} a better, more community-driven featured image system. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
# {{Support}} a better, more community-driven featured image system. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
# {{support}} [[User:Blad|Blad]] ([[User talk:Blad|talk]]) 20:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Oppose=== |
===Oppose=== |
||
| Line 16: | Line 21: | ||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
---- |
|||
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
[[Category:Closed Requests for Comment]] |
|||
[[Category:Passed Requests for Comment]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 07:05, 28 February 2023
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Closing as passed, with three support votes and zero oppose votes. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Going back to the WF era, featuring images was very much down to the opinion of an admin. Even now anyone can slap the template onto an image and it will make the front page. For some time now I've wondered how we can do better with this.
I think this era of transition would be a perfect opportunity to revisit this and create a more rigid system for deciding what images get featured. I believe the best framework for such a policy would be the way they do it on Wikimedia Commons as seen here.
In summary:
- Users can nominate images based on a set of criteria, in our case we could use rarity, historical merit, quality (e.g. an especially high quality capture of a a known, yet rare logo).
- The community then gets to vote. If the image has more than 7 votes of support after 9 days or a support:oppose ratio of 2:1 (two thirds majority), it gets passed and the template is added by a crat.
Support
Support Much better. 
· Talk · Edits 09:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)- Support a better, more community-driven featured image system. Logohub (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Blad (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
