Warriors Wiki talk:Operations

Project Operations This is a project discussion page, where a group of dedicated editors may come together and work towards their common goal. For more information on projects, please see the community portal.

News Welcome to Project Operations! The leaders of this project are Spookywilloww and SnowedLightning. Our aim is to strengthen the policies on the wiki, to keep the operations in check, and to discuss any changes or any ideas that pertain to the Wiki as a whole.

Votes None

Archives Discussion Archives [1] [2]

Image policy tweaks

Right so seeing as the 'one image' thing is so rigid, I think we should start to make some official allowances in some circumstances. I mean, it's already wiggled some, with how many .personal2 from various things;; because we have the contests, and they're recurring and here to stay, I believe the image policy should be tweaked to allow someone to be able to upload something such as:

File:USERNAME.contest.png

or,

File:USERNAME.blank.png

- basically only those two revisions, but since it's policy, would like to get that officially changed. Thoughts? —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 22:13, 3/01/2019

I think this is a good idea and we should tweak it. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 22:46, March 5, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it makes sense with all these blanks happening O.oStealthf🔥re ^{❤Warriors Forever!❤} 22:40, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. It can help to prevent images constantly reverting and replacing each other, and it's much more organized (I need to get in the PCA blank-making game now that I think about it.. XD).Av ^{Out of sight and out of mind} () 04:52, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 03:02, 3/16/2019

Gold grade articles - PB, PC, and PW

Had been meaning to bring this up for awhile. Right so we have the grading system - planned, started, bronze, silver, gold. We rank planned through silver on merit, how complete an article is, how well written it is, and that’s why we nominate for silver, to ensure the level of quality. Gold, though, has always been awarded to those who were picked as the respective FA in a project for that month, and then featured on the main page. However, this isn’t always reflective of having our best articles becoming gold.To me, it is misleading to have articles marked as gold for FA, instead of having them be nominated and earn gold because they are good articles - and that any article should have the ability achieve gold, not just the few that get selected each year.

I suggest changing this in all three projects, hence why in Ops, not just on one project’s talk. The FA boxes are no longer in use, and currently, what we have left is just a FA box for all of them. Which, kinda moots giving them gold. I believe we should change the system to not give out gold grade to FAs, though ones that have it already would stay. And then, articles could be nominated for gold just as they are for silver - to reflect quality. With all the new switches, there’s so many things that need to be done, marking these as gold will ensure the ones we pass through are completely up to par. Thoughts? —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 20:46, 3/03/2019

So, basically grandfather in the articles that are already featured, but allow a regular nominating process for everything else? I'd be perfectly fine with that, because a featured article is just that; it's been featured... but that doesn't mean other articles aren't worthy of a gold ranking. Just because it hasn't been on the main page yet doesn't mean it shouldn't get gold. —Jayce(20:49, 3/03/2019)​

I agree with this, it seems weird that articles that have been on the main page are given gold even though they're not completely up to par. Changing it so that they have to earn it sounds like a good idea. ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<00:56, 3/04/2019>

I agree^^ having them be nominated for the gold grade makes more sense to me. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 22:46, March 5, 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There's so many articles that would deserve gold status but are not major enough characters to be thought of being on the front page.Stealthf🔥re ^{❤Warriors Forever!❤} 22:40, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

I agree too! There are so many articles deserving of this rank. It can make people impatient thinking about the FA every month (although the annual jump in time has started and the days go by fast now), which can make complete articles sit there.. while the years go by without being nominated for gold. We really should incorporate this feature.Av ^{Out of sight and out of mind} () 04:50, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 19:00, 3/16/2019

Featured articles

Concurrently running with the discussion above this, shall we just have the featured articles be picked by poll on Twitter or something of the like? It's just the box on the side now, and with gold being by merit from now on and not just picked, I think it might be better. Due to lack of comments on FA discussion sections anyways, and the fact that a vote is just kinda a vestige of a past time.—spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 03:08, 3/16/2019

I think making a poll on twitter would be better than how we've been doing it. Hardly anyone ever comments on the discussions and this way we can see what the rest of the community wishes to see featured. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 03:40, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that seems right. The point of an FA it's we're telling the community "hey look at this article we're proud of it!" not "go through the wiki and do our jobs for us".

Though I also think using software, such as Google polling, to make the process more modern for nominating and voting on articles would help. -Rustle _{it takes a leap of faith}4:21 Mon Mar 18 2019

Warriors official website articles

To what degree of canonicity do we confirm these articles to be? So far have just been linking them as such, but would like to get usage confirmed so there's a standard. My personal stance is that they cannot be used and cited to as a source alone, but can just be included otherwise for personality/relationships sections, footnotes, and external links sections due to their subjectivity.—spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 03:08, 3/16/2019

I agree they should be used as a source alone, but can be used for personality/relationships... etc. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 03:40, March 18, 2019 (UTC)