Forgotten Realms Wiki
Forgotten Realms Wiki
Forums: Helping Hand > Nominated Feature Articles

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

Okay, I'm going to kick this off with a few nominations from the Special:LongPages list. Please add your vote and the For/Against, Pros/Cons as you see fit. If we get to +3 with at least one admin vote, then it becomes a featured article. Agreed? (Removing the rest of my original post because it is now redundant.) —Moviesign (talk) 05:34, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Moviesign (talk) 23:25, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Movesign! Nice work. I've added a few sections: Vote (the score you give it, whether −1, 0, +1), Request (what needs to be done), Disclaimer (whether you've worked on it or fully read it). More detailed discussions of what needs to be done should go to the article's Talk page.

For the record, this follows on from Forum:Featured articles!, where I outlined some suggested criteria for a featured article.

I'll offer my services as a technical editor to go over articles whose only problems are language and grammar.


These two I shoved in the featured article template as placeholders, but I'd like to do this properly and by-the-book.

— BadCatMan (talk) 07:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
(I will be editing this post as I get the time to review the nominated pages)
hashtalk 13:39, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Since each article is going to be mentioned multiple times with additional pros/cons, I thought I should remove the "+1" out front of the name and we will just tally the votes as they come in. If you want to keep the running total, I'll put it back.

Moviesign (talk) 14:26, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. This may get very complicated.To keep everything in one place and orderly, how about we arrange things in sections by nominated article? For example:


Then we just place all discussion re: a particular article within that section? That better help us keep track of votes (in only one spot) and current discussion, and enable editors to quickly work out what needs to be done months or more later.

— BadCatMan (talk) 14:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

BadCat, great idea :) Since I just took a look at Mithral Hall and Zhentil Keep... they both get a -1 from me... Procampur and Larloch get a +1... I would write pros and cons, but I'll wait until we have a general organization of this page :)

Darkwynters (talk) 19:42, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I've restructured the thread so that the nominated sections sit independently of our forum post boxes, so they're easier to find. I've also tried to make it ordered and neat, and given an introduction and instructions. Kick me if I lost anything.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:19, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

A bit of a bump. Moviesign's Elemental Plane of Fire needs one more vote to make it happen, so someone please have a look at it.

(I'm focusing on examining and helping one feature-worthy article at a time.)

— BadCatMan (talk) 09:38, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Just noting that Moviesign's World Tree cosmology has seen some action and needs one more vote to be made a feature article. I've also put forward my own Wheloon. No offense to Moviesign, but I've been avoiding Nine Hells and Plane of Shadow. Although they seem very good and feature-worthy, I don't want to see too many planes dominating our featured articles and would like variety at this stage. You're a victim of your own brilliance. :)
— BadCatMan (talk) 08:39, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Realms of the Dead, it would be more appropriate as a Featured Source. I wasn't going to worry about us voting on these, because it's comparatively easier to judge the quality of the summaries and link indexes and basic facts. But I would appreciate people pointing them out to me. :)
— BadCatMan (talk) 13:07, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's make a forum thread for featured source recommendations?
Moviesign (talk) 13:30, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your post. Then I left this too long and needed a featured source for July. I picked up Realms of the Dead after all. And now I've made the forum thread.

— BadCatMan (talk) 14:14, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I found a hidden featured article on the Geography Portal. If you scroll down you can see that Marsember is listed under the Featured Article heading. So, I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention.

Moviesign (talk) 14:11, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

I just love how we keep discovering things on this wiki's deep dungeon.. You did well to bring it up..

— Jandor (talk) 16:25, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yet another "featured article" is mentioned on the Portal:Deities page. I just happened to have updated the infobox on the Red Knight page a short while ago, but I didn't look at any of the text. If anyone knows about his deity and wants to spruce up the article, please do. Our featured articles should be the best quality we can muster. Oh, and is the Deities Portal good? It looks like it has the 3-3.5 stuff on the left and the 4th ed. stuff on the right, which I think is a good thing since we have lots of 3-3.5 players who are not going to 4th ed. anytime soon.

Moviesign (talk) 13:56, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
There's a fair bit more that could be added to the Red Knight page. Given the standard we're now pushing with Mystryl and Ilmater, the Red Knight just doesn't rate as a Featured Article any more, IMO. Similarly with our new Featured Article system and standards, the rest of the old ones marked at the portals no longer qualify: Portal:Sourcebooks: Elves of Evermeet (it's just a regular sourcebook page); Portal:Novels: Bury Elminster Deep (a regular novel page); Portal:Magic: sphere of ultimate destruction (unreferenced, present tense, sparse on detail); and Portal:Geography: Marsember (looks good, but not as obsessively detailed as Wheloon and Procampur).

Personally, I never use the Portals, and don't see the point in them, but I already know enough about the Realms and the wiki to search for stuff directly. However, I'm aware some users to use them. But the Portal pages need to be continually updated with each new release, new edition and change of circumstances in the setting. Another thing to overhaul, I guess. :(
— BadCatMan (talk) 02:26, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
February will be upon us before you know it. Please look at the nominations above and vote. Then spiffy up your favorite article and nominate it. By agreement, it takes a vote total of 3 (yeas are worth +1, nays are worth -1) including a +1 from an admin for an article to become a Featured article. I'd like to set a goal to fill out the slots (that is, have 12 different featured articles) by the end of this year.
Moviesign (talk) 16:51, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
Bump. Please write, review, clean up, nominate, and vote for articles that best represent our wiki. :)

Edit: Any registered user may vote! DW, you edited the page but didn't vote. Hurry up, it's already April in Australia :D —Moviesign (talk) 01:58, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Moviesign (talk) 22:37, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
I really hurried to write that summary up. :)

Of course, with today being April Fool's, maybe I should have written something funky like on Wookiepedia. Uh, maybe not that article. ;)

— BadCatMan (talk) 03:53, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

HAHA... of course, I yelled when I read this... it is a joke, right *DW quickly downloads all of the Wookeepedia articles onto his hard drive, thus destroying his entire computer system*

- Darkwynters (talk) 02:27, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
Any more featured articles, and we'll need to switch to a fortnightly schedule! :)
— BadCatMan (talk) 11:36, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
Can we do fortnights? Assuming we keep growing the FA pool, what should be our scheduling policy? We could just take 365 and divide it by the number of FAs and let each one be on the main page for that many days. Retire older FAs? Pick each month's FA from small pool? (i.e., October's FA would be chosen from all those FAs marked for October). Cycle through all available FAs, one per week? Ideas? Suggestions?
Moviesign (talk) 14:13, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Crap, I wrote my post, the computer crashed, and I lost it. Okay, more quickly.

I was thinking of using CURRENTWEEK, and arranging our articles accordingly, every four weeks (monthly), every three weeks, every two weeks (fortnightly), etc. The code to fall back to a previous week might need to be updated to fall back two or three weeks though. Or we could compress our current batch of articles into 6 months, then repeat them in the next six. Weekly keeps the main page updating regularly and keeps it fresh. It should also be the easiest to code and the most future-proof (up to 52, which will take us a few years to reach).

— BadCatMan (talk) 11:39, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on when images are to be placed in an article or in the gallery? I'm guessing my recent orb wraith article is too small?
--Eli the Tanner (talk) 20:51, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
Since this was a general topic, with a big answer, I shifted Eli's question down here to conversation. I'm answering here and elaborating on my answer to Terrorblades at tressym.

I say leave it to editor's/writer's judgement. That is, go with what looks best or suits the article. I prefer images embedded in the article as thumbnails in order to break up a big wall of text (as feature articles often are). It looks better and is more readable, like the layout in a sourcebook. A gallery I think would be best if there are more images than would be sensible to put in the article, or if you want to collect a bunch of images of a type together. For example, the map gallery at the end of the Vast. I think galleries need to have multiple images to be worthwhile.

Finally, a tabber in the infobox is best when something has multiple editions and has a distinctively different appearance or style in each. A cycler in the infobox is good when you have a lot of different, primary images of a subject (particularly a main character) that all deserve to be shown.

Orb wraith is only a medium-sized article and has only other image. I'd make it a thumbnail in the History section, but on the left it kind of distorts the layout or on the right it gets a bit lost sitting under the infobox (as a small image under a big box, it just looks odd). Maybe if History was expanded it could accommodate the image more comfortably.

One neat trick I've seen is to have infoboxes that accept two images, for example, at here and here. That way, the infobox can display two primary images, and one that sits beneath can be of equal size and balance.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:00, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
That "altimage" is a interesting thing, i tried something diffirent havign two images on a singular "Image" space... it didn't look that good but I think if we removed the white line in the middle it might work out better. But its probably no articles that will use the two in one image...
Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated 12:27,\ January 16, 2015 (UTC)
Re: Summary for the article about Eilistraee, would the introductive section of the article itself work? As requested by User:BadCatMan, I wrote that as a general overview of Eilistraee's personality, history and goal, which is what I think a FA summary would include.
--Tsammarco (talk) 14:18, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
Probably, although I might leave out the pronunciation guide, but that's just me. I'm sure BadCat will have some ideas and may even rearrange the order in which FAs are presented. Oh, and you might want to choose/suggest the best image for the summary thumbnail.
Moviesign (talk) 14:29, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
I've created the summary, using the introductive section of the article itself: Template:Featured article/15 (even if the link keeps showing as red). Hope that it is ok
--Tsammarco (talk) 20:02, September 7, 2015 (UTC)
That was good. As Moviesign said, I've re-ordered the FA articles to make Eilistraee our current feature. Congrats!
— BadCatMan (talk) 11:34, September 8, 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to get a bigger pool of Featured Articles so they update the Main Page more often. Please work up and nominate your favorite subjects! Can I get some love on Cathedral of Emerald Scales, Delzimmer, and/or Khôltar? Please don't make me vote for myself. :p
Moviesign (talk) 16:41, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
Would it be possible to come up with a way to delist some nominees that have too many issues to be FAs? Such as having a lack of attention over an extended period of time and a negative vote. If so, I'd say that Kalach-cha, Neverwinter (game), Moonshae Isles, and possibly Sha'ir all need to be delisted to declutter this page already, please.
SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)