Requests for Comment/Remove both the "Featured" and "Good" templates

Okay, so for a while we've had the "Featured" template for a long time, right? Well, I think it's starting to overstay its welcome for a lot of reasons: rather than using the template for pages with subjects of high recognition, it's used for articles that are overfilled will details and content, and because of that, I think the standards for the template are way too high, because it just makes us look really picky with what pages are required to be under the template, and 90% of them with the template were a bit overly detailed like the Balan Wonderland page on CGW, and Space Jam: A New Legacy on AMW with nothing but walls of text and details with filler. Sure, most of them have been scaled down, but that's besides the point.

As for the "Good" template? Well... such a template was never really a good idea to begin with, because most of the users who try to make their pages of high enough quality effort to feature them only earn the "Good" template instead, thus making all of their hard work into making those pages for nothing. Not to mention that it's just the same as the "Featured" template, except with lesser standards, which still isn't enough to justify its existence. Not to mention that the "Good" template doesn't really add anything to a page and is pretty redundant. Like Marxo Grouch once said: it's just symbolic of the Reception Wikis' current quality standards of how we write articles, and is really starting to get a negative look from some viewers.

With the new quality standards that Allistayrian created before he left slowly but surely dying out, and most of the pages are going back to normal, I don't think either the "Featured" or "Good" templates have any meaning to be kept around anymore and should just be abolished at this point, because they're one of the reasons why being on these wikis feel more like a workplace than a simple hobby, and we're doing everything we can to make these wikis fun again. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 11:51 AM, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Since I'm the creator of this RfC, why not? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 11:53 AM, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't even know why they need to exist anyway. It's not like Qualitipedia is based off of real life. And not many people are good (actually, experienced) under quality control. Restrictions can suck sometimes (P.S. I can't believe you're the only one supporting this). YouKonade (talk) 07:51 AM, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the quote from me above: they're symbolic of high standards. Editors shouldn't strive to make every page perfect since it just leads to them adding pointless crap to the pages that could be truncated or omitted entirely. They should feel allowed to write pages the way they want to (so long as they finish them). Lastly, just because other wikis use them doesn't mean we have to conform to this as well. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I think SuperStreetKombat has a point. We're building our wikis to show people what the opinions by different people on various media are. The whole purpose of being a wiki editor is to help share and create information for people, and maybe, improve upon it; not for the sake of competition nor showing off impressive works. And what purpose do these two templates serve? Absolutely. Nothing. At. All. Unlike those two, the Stub and Cleanup templates are pretty useful, because it reminds any passing-through editor that there's something wrong with the page they're reading, and they could fix it at any time. The Good and Featured template clearly function like trophies and badges — they only tell the editor that "Hey, hey, this page has this template on it, because it's long and informative. You want that real bad? Then make a page as long as that!" It's ceremoniously ridiculous on so many levels. Why would you ever try to make a really long page? What's the reason for it, to show off or something? Is that why you create a Miraheze account? If you really want to receive prizes or merits from us for contributing, there are Barnstars. You do not need the templates slapped on a page. You do not need to write lots and lots of words just to meet the criteria. All you need to do is to contribute continuously, to build the wiki creatively. Those templates mean nothing, they'll eventually disappear as soon as a beeg portion of the content of a page is cut off. I myself created a couple of articles on CGW, and I am proud of them — but not because they're long (and they're not that enormous to begin with). Instead, it's because after finishing them, I could feel the joy of creating, the joy of leaving my mark on this community and helping expand it. That's what it truly means to have a Miraheze account. If you want to build the wiki, do it good. Contributing to us is a privilege, not a competition or a game. Phew... and that's all for one big rant from me. Final verdict? Wipe 'em off the wikis. And the quality control? Do something about it. Katsumi, out.  Woomy~!  超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi  ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  15:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Katsumi's vote above.  16:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) These templates should have more of a rework than an abandon. After all, Wikipedia has featured and good articles. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) The featured and good template are getting slowly depreciated (mostly the former), I know they aren't supposed to be used often but the process is slow to the point of being forgotten feature. I read the featured and I too can agree the complaints on some people reading them which they tend to be bloated with too much detail. As for good article, I don't really see it have a lot of use apart from to highlight good example of page but admins can personally award pages anyways which makes this template redundant and the original meaning is slowly losing especially when larger articles are being condensed currently. I also think maybe featured shouldn't make the pages be featured forever, they were more of a temporary award like employee of month thing. You don't see generally other wikis awarding detailed pages. I agree with above that they may need a replacement such as this: a random article that gets spotlighted for each week or change a select few front page items now and then which I may discuss this at bottom. Equal One (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) *Basically my suggestion: a page of the week idea that is just simpler version of featured. Admins chooses one random page of liking and feature for a week and then next one. Or the other option being somewhat relevant is to just replace one of the front page with 1-2 items per month (admin choice again), that section is a practical way to feature something when the templates are discontinued, and that its another thing that isn't very updated often that could potentially benefit from this. Only flaws are deciding who gets to ultimately get their content up there though with both suggestions. - Equal One
 * 9) I'm actually super-ok with this, as featured and good pages have all lost their meaning in recent years, and they feel like criteria for how you're supposed to make a page than being an example (and we have a tutorial section for examples). Plus most of the featured pages save for a few large ones are pretty shit, including some of my own. Plus, I think removing them will make page creation for lenient, as in being able to write an article with as much length and detail as you think is necessary, while abiding basic page creation rules. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Ditto with Tiger. I think the inclusion of these templates do create this idea of living up the expectations of admins rather than make a page that can be both informal and entertaining to read. I know this because that's how I feel when I see it on a page. HawkeyeSolo (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) While I think the "Good" template should be deleted, the featured just need to be heavily worked on, and cutting content from pages is not the answer.  16:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) I don't know why I'm doing this, but... yeah, I felt convinced by the arguments. Skeletacean (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After seeing how people thought how the "feature" template could be reworked, I thought of a possibility to vote for featuring pages. Skeletacean (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The featured template is a way to present the best articles (some may be difficult to read or have filler but that is a separate problem), it has been an essential addition and I do not think it is the best idea to delete it, however the good template possibly if it could be deleted (although I really do not know), is a very derived template and has no impact on the main page, i still think that the requirements of featured pages are sometimes exaggerated. You could still easily move several pages with the template good to featured. -Remely1000 (or simply Rem69) (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Remely, it's been a while. Good to see you again buddy. 13:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I previously abstained, however, after reading other users' support votes above and agreeing with them, I believe these templates have lost their meaning over time, however, just like what King Dice suggested, I believe that only the "Good" template can get deleted as I find them unnecessary, while the "Featured" template just needs to be reworked on by writing new rules and tutorials on how pages can qualify for this template. Dragonite (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) After thinking about it for a while, I think that I'll go with Support instead, and while I do agree with some of the people above me and say that the requirements of Featured Articles should be worked on, I was wondering if we treated Good Articles similarly to how Featured Articles would be treated (which includes the adjustments for Featured Articles stated above), but not treated as well as Featured Articles. I have a few thoughts about how this could be handled, but I was wondering on what you guys might think about this. Of course, you don't have to agree with me, but if anybody's reading this, can I please have your thoughts on my idea without being rude please?  Inka Dinka Doo (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I still think we should keep the good template so we can show new users how to make pages, but I'm in favor of replacing the featured template in favor of the good template.  21:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Many pages just simply can't be expanded because there's not enough individual pointers for reception. It doesn't necessarily make them considered lower quality, unless it seems incomplete in which we have a cleanup tag.  -  05:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * They should not be deleted, especially since they are very iconic and other wikis outside of Miraheze have them, so this is no exception for now. MarioBobFan (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I opposed this RfC, but can you explain your point a bit better? 00:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going originally to, but I need to say this. While I mostly agree with Goose's idea of just lowering the requirements for a page to get the featured or good template, I think that just deleting content of pages is a lack of respect towards some users. It's like saying to them "Wow, you made a decently long page with well explained pointers and enough sources. Unfortunately, we have to cut it down because due to the pages quality, new users may get demotivated to create their pages". It's like trowing away their job just because it's a little above the standard. This also may demotivate users that want to make high quality pages and promote indirectly mediocrity and biasness. I think the correct thing will be lower the requirements to be featured and tagged good. Some people make long pages for fun and not to appeal any standard. We shouldn't promote extreme professionalism, but also not punish neutral one and let people make pages how they want. Someone wants to make one with the minimum required to be acceptable? Let them. Someone wants to make a long and well explained page with various things? Let them too. My point is that we just just lower the requirements, not delete the templates or cut information of pages.  18:57,18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Featured articles are the articles that are displayed on the main page, and a reliable indicator of what new readers will expect to see on the wiki. Though they are an indicator of an article's quality, that does not mean that people should assume that their article not being featured means that it is a bad article. Also, both templates encourage editors to make good articles. Without them there will be no standard for creating articles and if anything, it will demotivate users from creating articles since there will be no incentive to make their articles good. This is basically just like the concept of medals for participation. Also, articles are a group effort, meaning that many users may stop editing if there is no standard for article quality. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything in my abstain vote still applies, but I think the 'Good" template can be used to show new users how to create decent pages. However, I think 'Featured' needs to be reworked. 02:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Jesus… The Dunkman (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think you can share your reasons to why you are opposing the request? Expressing denial in such an apathetic way simply leaves us with no explanations to why you think the templates should stay in the first place. 05:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Featured articles are displayed on the main page. Also they make new readers know what they will see on the wiki. Also, both templates encourage Miraheze users to make high quality articles. Without them, it will demotivate Miraheze users from making new pages since there will be no aspiration to make their pages high quality. Also, pages are literally just a group effort, meaning that everyone will stop editing if there isn't any standard for page quality. Am0ngU$ (talk) 0:05, 22 June 2022 (Zurich Time)

Abstain

 * 1) I don't care. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 22:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000, you should be more open with your reason. Try to contribute to the debate instead of saying something with so little discussion potential like "I don't care." and expect it to be of some utility to the people involved. 03:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually Zangler, RfCs are for bringing a proposal to the table and voting on if it should be delivered or not. It’s not strictly for discussion, and as Raidarr said in the comments section, FatBurn’s comment is representative of what most people think about this RfC, myself included. Though, FatBurn should explain why he doesn’t care, because as you said, it does help SuperStreetKombat improve on his RfCs and it does help the staff. MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 21:02:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC) MoistyPorky.jpeg
 * ...That's exactly what I just said. Zangler (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s why I said, “as you said”. MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 01:01:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC) MoistyPorky.jpeg
 * Featured and good articles, in their current state, are ridiculous to achieve. I would be more in favor of reducing the requirements for Good and Featured articles. 01:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For an example of an ideal featured-worthy article (imo) would be the Balan Wonderworld page in its current state. An ideal Good article would be the Cuphead page. 01:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever I said here still applies, but I'm changing it to oppose.
 * See, that's exactly my point: a lot of pages have been getting downsized (and probably more so later on), so having either of the templates is kinda useless at this point, because of it. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 8:44 PM, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that pages that are well written and have a solid reception section should be featured, not the long ones. And why butchering pages would be necessary if the good and featured ones are not necessarily the longest? 19:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am confused on what you mean.   22:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a rework like ZeusDeeGoose suggested is the better choice here. All we need to do is keep the welcoming nature for new contributors and implement a clear tutorial for what content we consider Featured/Good-worthy, as I did with my Request for Comments from April. 03:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about the templates at all, but we can just rework them just like what ZeusDeeGoose suggested, so we need some new tutorials and rules on how a page can qualify for these templates. Dragonite (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not quite keen on this, seeing as we have nothing to lose or gain if we remove these 2 templates altogether. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The templates kinda lost their meaning now with how quality control is being handled. But on the other hand, the templates can potentially still work well if they're reformatted. I'm thinking that instead of focusing entirely on them being "well written" (overly stuffed with verboseness and being too big that is), we feature them based on fame/infamy and making sure they're at least decently written/detailed pages. And instead of featuring them whenever, we have a monthly vote on what page should get featured. This is what the villains/heroes wikis, and Wikitubia does, and it seems to work pretty well. I'm not sure what role the Good template will have in this reformatting aside from being used for pages that got 2nd place in the polls. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I don’t care whatever action is taken because this doesn’t affect me. MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 21:02:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC) MoistyPorky.jpeg
 * After reading the other abstains I now feel mixed on this (even though I was quoted in the proposal). I do think that they've lost their former purpose due to how quality control is being handled, I agree that the templates should be given an overhaul. I like Blazikeye's idea of featuring pages based on infamous games (granted the pages themselves are at least decent) since it's a happy medium between quality control and discussing games that are infamous universally. Marxo Grouch (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)