Requests for Comment/Giving the Featured template a second chance

When this RfC passed, I deleted the Good template, but not the Featured template. This proposal is the reason why I haven't deleted said template yet. While I see no use for the Good template, the Featured template however can still be a usable template if it gets reworked.

Here's what I'm thinking for a rework:
 * 1) Addresing the elephant in the room, the quality standards for featured pages are going to be reduced, meaning that they no longer have to contain massive walls of verbose text in order to qualify. I'd say lowering the quality standards to the quality standards of the Good template when it was still around.
 * 2) *Speaking of massive walls of text, this will be covered in the page about features pages in what not to do to get a page featured.
 * 3) The page in question shouldn't be about something obscure. If it's included in the monthly poll mentioned below, it'll most likely receive a low number of votes anyways.
 * 4) One page will be featured every month, and how said page gets featured is decided through a poll of nominated pages. Pages that don't meet the quality standards, or are about something too obscure, will be discarded in the poll.
 * 5) If a nominated page loses in the poll, it cannot be nominated again the next month since the same page shouldn't appear in the poll over and over again. Give it some time to improve in order to increase its chances of getting featured.
 * 6) Like with the admins template, there will be a navbox that organizes the featured pages based on the year and month they were featured. In addition, the Featured template itself will state when the page was featured.
 * 7) The featured article section will be added back to the main page, but will only feature the page that was featured for that month. In addition, the infobox will not be included in order to preserve compactness and not create a lot of empty space on the main page.
 * 8) (Optional) The page about featured pages could list all of the featured pages and when they were featured instead of simply linking to the category of featured pages.

If there's anything I missed, let me know in your vote or in the comments, and I will address it. Blazikeye535 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) To be honest, I actually kinda regret the decision to remove the Featured template. I can see leaving out the Good template completely, but I think Featured should come back in order to liven up these wikis. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Having the Featured template come back will liven up these wikis. Oh, and they will have to revert back to their previous designs if this gets brought back. ShawnTehLogoBoi (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Or maybe a new section could be added to support featured pages while keeping the new design, as is suggested in pointers #5 and 6 of Blazikeye's idea. Marxo Grouch (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This sounds like a pleasant compromise between directing people to quality pages and showcasing the most (in)famous media in history. The fact that your ideas sound like they could be organically inserted into the main pages without damaging too much gives me confidence in this proposal. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I like the idea, but why limit to one page a month? I see this as a way to highlight pages that could interest readers like the old main page layout had with the list of pages (I was always confused on why that was removed since not all pages on the main page didn't have pages that were featured). I think that pages talking about something obscure should be included because they would benefit greatly for being highlighted, especially for wikis that have thousands of pages that aren't viewed as much as more well-known pages. Maybe the top 3 most voted choices can be featured. Sofaking we todd it (talk)
 * Since there's six wikis to deal with (the literature wikis don't have enough content for this template), featuring one page a month on all of them is enough work. Any more than that, and I can see things getting tedious. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tedious work? Divide the work with the admins and bureaucrats. Sofaking we todd it (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Like what some said, getting rid of the template entirely does lack some respect for some users, so retooling it in that way does sound like a nifty idea. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) It sounds good but I do not completely agree with removing a lot of content from the pages, I could understand that it is to make it easier to read, but sometimes I feel that it is unnecessary and reduces the effort of the author (If the page is well written but it is very long, although I simply read long articles in parts),  leaving that aside, a featured page is a very small amount, being that in Atrocius Youtubers Wiki more than 2 pages were featured,also as Sokafing said should give a chance to the pages about something dark to have more relevance, with the rest I agree. Rem69 03:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Pretty decent idea.  07:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) This very template is what made Wikipedia prominent to the internet. The Dunkman (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I was going to suggest a rework of the featured article system after the proposal to close the Literature wikis passed. But the problem is that since the Literature wikis are never updated, and have very little users, it seems like this will de facto only apply to the other six wikis. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Honestly, I was going to change my vote on the original RFC to oppose but I was too late. The featured article template is useful for what articles should appear on the main page, and as for the argument "then remove the pages on the main page," I think there should be pages on the main page because it is good to give the reader some interesting articles to read. Hell, even Wikipedia has a featured template. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Like the new way this featured template should come back as. The previous version just encouraged people to make very lengthy pages which didn't turn out well and it was quite hard to get accepted because of the high requirements and as a result hardly gets any new featured. Having this be controlled by a poll is viable solution for nomination as we get to choose properly what deserves the spot, and also this makes good use of the poll feature as they are currently most used for offtopic stuff. Only one page does feel a bit limited, top 3 is slightly feasible for featured especially since 1 would be a little unfair and give the others chance. Also I agree with others that obscure pages should be allowed as they can be possible to create into good page (Wording is vague but assume that means if the page has reliable sources/reception they have higher chance of being featured). Equal One (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Just like what I suggested on the previous RfC about removing the templates, I suggested that the "Featured" template just needs to be reworked on, because while I don't really see a point in the "Good" template hence my weak support on that previous one as I believe that only the "Good" template just needs to be deleted (which already is), the "Featured" template still has potential and a place in these wikis, and since pretty much many wikis have that template as well including Wikipedia, we should just write new rules on how pages can qualify for being featured. Dragonite (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) The featured articles will make it easier for readers to discover pages other than by searching  -  15:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) I like the old design.Singlestuforeo (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) The "Good" template didn't really serve that much of a purpose other than to highlight pages that looked okay. But for the "Featured" template, on the other hand, pretty much every single wiki outside of Qualitipedia, including Wikipedia itself, uses that template, so I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed to return. It'll be easy for newcomers to discover new pages. JigglypuffGuy04 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Removing them was a terrible idea. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) I agree that the good template served no purpose and was very unnecessary. But the featured one deserves to have a second chance because it highlights our best work. Boomerang289 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I said it once, I'll say it again / There's virtually no need for the Featured template, men! Now you want one template back, there's something wrong with your vision / What is this? A wiki or a freaking competition? Readers do not bother reading the featured, they prefer something random / This kind of Featured bulls*** should be reserved for wikis on Fandom. Another ridiculous excuse for quality control / Oh it will backfire again... Fire in the hole! Your idea sounds good on paper, but in real life could escalate into arguments / We're running a wiki here, not a parliament! The last thing I want to do is deciding every page's fate / If I had to oversee this process... I'd rather be a castrate. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi  ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  02:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As Raidarr has pointed out, your points are easily debunkable. "What is this? A wiki or a freaking competition?": A lot of other wikis feature articles, and yet they aren't viewed as competition. This is meant to be something else that users can engage in aside from the usual page creating/editing on the wikis. "Readers do not bother reading the featured, they prefer something random": Proof? And besides, this is the first page many users will see when going on the wikis, so there's always going to be at least some users who will read the page. "Another ridiculous excuse for quality control": Does this RfC mention anything about how this will alternate the quality control? No, that will stay the same. "but in real life could escalate into arguments": Again, proof? I've never seen any drama regarding what page should've been featured on these wikis let alone any other wiki outside of QP. "If I had to oversee this process... I'd rather be a castrate.": If you did decide to oversee this, you'd only have to do so only once a month on two wikis, which isn't cumbersome in the slightest. The rest that I didn't quote is purely nonsensical filler that adds nothing to your argument. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sh**! I got roasted by the Florida man again / At least my vote is in rhyme, that's something I cannot pretend! 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  08:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You don’t have to speak like you’re out of an anime, buddy. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 15:43:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * It's called rhyming and virtually everybody does it. It doesn't have to be used in animes. Besides, it's just experimental. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  01:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "I'd rather be a castrate?" Seriously, are you insane? Castration is probably one of the worst things that could happen to a person, and yet, you'd rather be one than change your mind on a goddamn RFC? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My man really took for granted that a blatant joke is in fact not just an expression 💀 Zangler (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly couldn't care less if it's a joke, it's still incredibly stupid. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought that was the meaning of a joke... to not make sense? Zangler (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * why are you guys even fighting about a joke in an RfC about a template? can't you think twice and decide on better and worthwhile fights? Yonydesk (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree here. When the oppose section is mostly just arguing over a bad joke, you know that there isn't a certain semblance of constructive discussion going on. Please drop the subject and find something more important to discuss. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * and A couple of things:
 * I'm not trying to "fight," I'm just trying to have a discussion.
 * It's not just that "it doesn't make sense." It's that it's unbelievably stupid regardless and also quite offensive. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that there should be political correctness in humour or anything, but with this, it's not even funny at all - it's just stupid and offensive.
 * FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You forgot to sign your edit without breaking the vote count pal. Zangler (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you can fix it too btw. Yonydesk (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I don’t care, and I really couldn’t any less. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 04:53:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * 2) Get the featured template back, but some modification on it wouldn't hurt. Would it kill for a bit of decoration? YouKonade 09:50 AM, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Honestly speaking, I have long thought that qualtipedia is one big circus where no one can get along with anyone, first you want to remove good and featured templates, just to bring them back now. Does this system work at all? I don't think so. Szczypak2005 (talk) 11:03 AM, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've heard similar complaints before and honestly, I'm not convinced. People are allowed to change their mind. Relevant information may have been ignored, or irrelevant information may have been given too much attention, may be the reason why changes are made. Just because weird changes like this happen doesn't mean that no one gets along with anyone. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well let's try changing our minds every nanosecond then. (Jk) YouKonade (talk) 21:34 PM, 20 July 2022 (UTC)