Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artemis Fowl

WT:AF

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Artemis Fowl, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Artemis FowlWikipedia:WikiProject Artemis FowlTemplate:WikiProject Artemis FowlArtemis Fowl articles

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Artemis Fowl and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Userbox Template

Please use this so that category links can be made.

Article Statusbox

This could be put on the main WP:AF page to show how many articles we have and what are they ranked at

Artemis Fowl articles		Importance
Artemis Fowl articles		5	4	3	2	1	Total
Quality
	GA						0
	B					9	9
	Start				1	14	15
	Stub					6	6
	Assessed				1	29	30
	Unassessed					29	29
	Total				1	58	59

Note: If the article did not have a priority assigned, it is placed under priority level 1.

As of 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be ranking a lot more articles soon, and should the books be at priority level 5 as they are important to get to FA status

I did this all by looking at each article's talk page, so it would be much easier if there was a bot maybe to do it? ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a bot to do that, but priority 1 is the most important, not priority 5. See WP:AF/P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin 1998 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an FA row, fixed the priority order, changed the heading from "Importance" to "Priority", and made the priority columns wider. ( I didn't update any of the numbers, though.) Laptopdude Talk 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl articles		Priority
Artemis Fowl articles		1	2	3	4	5	Total
Quality
	FA						0
	GA						0
	B					9	9
	Start				1	14	15
	Stub					6	6
	Assessed				1	29	30
	Unassessed					29	29
Total				1	58	59

Actually, there is a bot that updates status boxes like these. But, as we seem to be using a different priority system (1 to 5, instead of Top, High, Mid, Low and None) from every other WikiProject, I don't know how it would react to our articles.

If I'd actually been around at the time this was being implemented, I would've suggested that we use the Top-High-Mid-etc system (apart from being more widely used, it's also more intuitive - whereas as this thread has shown it has to be explained whether 1 or 5 is the highest rank) but I suppose it's too late now...

-- KittyRainbow (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: While I was writing this reply, that archive bot came along and moved this thread to the archive page! Grr! *shakes fist at bot* Silly bot, LOL.

Priority

What exactly are we defining priority as? My thoughts were that it was a combination of both class (see: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades) and importance (notoriety and significance of a topic within the Artemis Fowl universe), not just one or the other. But seeing as we already have the class scale, would it make more sense to make importance a larger factor in priority than class? Laptopdude Talk 20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was how much work it needs to get to FA class, with 1 being needing most amount of work (stub) and 5 being pretty close (A) or already FA. ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it makes sense to define 'priority' as the amount of work it needs, combined with the time urgency and importance.

Example: If Artemis Fowl II were a stub, it would be priority 1, as it both needs work and is important. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hate to disagree, but it makes absolutely no sense to me to have priority be how much work an article needs. Surely that is what the class parameter is for? Why duplicate that information? Also, you might like to note that elsewhere on Wikipedia, "priority" is synonymous with "importance". And, even if we had "priority" be a separate parameter from "importance", why should "priority" be a combination of class and some hidden, intangible "importance" parameter? Surely the urgency of work on an article could be determined by its position in the table: i.e. bottom left (stub, 1) - urgently needs a lot of work, bottom right (stub, 5) - needs a lot of work but not so urgently, top row (FA) - doesn't really need work at all. So, yeah, that is basically my opinion on that. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Artemis Fowl (novel)

Artemis Fowl (novel) is currently going through a good article review, at WP:Good article nominations#Literature ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer, Million Moments, apparently is a little worried about the status of the film mentioned in the article. See Talk:Artemis Fowl (novel)#GA on hold. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to say that it passed! :) Ale_Jrb^talk 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants List

Can we change all the sigs on the participants list to standard sigs like Example (talk)? It's cluttering up the code in the list.Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be sensible. Personally I find it visually confusing with all those different styles. (And you're right, it also produces a lot of code.) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding notice of new members

In case no one noticed, here are some new users we've gained recently:

PwnerELITE
Danny sepley
Smashbrosboy - Insanely long sig, takes up 3 lines of wikicode, and I'm using a widescreen monitor Calvin 1998 ^(t-c)
Ale_Jrb^talk
George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help
GlobeGores (talk page | user page)

Bringing the total to 13, including some rather inactive members. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters pages

Why do we have a "List of minor Artemis Fowl characters" and a "List of Artemis Fowl characters"??? The former appears to redirect to the latter, but we obviously don't need both so one of them needs to be deleted. And when I checked yesterday, the "List of Artemis Fowl characters" was missing many characters, but somebody's redirected the MINOR characters page to the characters page and merged them together, too-it's a lot improved from yesterday. Which one are we going to delete? Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky ^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you merge pages, you always redirect the merged one to the one they merged to. We're going to keep the "List of Artemis Fowl characters" because that's the one with all the content on it. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of pages in this WikiProject

Shouldn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/List of articles covered by this WikiProject be a category, not a manually-updated list? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:WikiProject_Artemis_Fowl. Laptopdude Talk 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should we replace the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/List of articles covered by this WikiProject on the project page to Category:WikiProject Artemis Fowl ? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New User

Hello Project Artemis Fowl editors and coordinators - I have joined your endeavor, and started off with making some grammar edits to the Series Page. Please tell me if you want me to take care of some edits. I will continue to improve the quality of many Artemis Fowl Pages, and hopefully Project Artemis Fowl will be a success.