Forum:CT:Additional FA rule suggestion

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Additional FA rule suggestion


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Sikon 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the light of the Burl Ives affair, which is apparently a perfectly legitimate FA nominee because of a flaw in the rules, it is obvious that the following rule should be added:

  • In order to be accepted as an FA, the article must contain information that is sufficiently relevant to Star Wars

I'm sure this suggestion will be shot down by those assuming powerful and influential positions in Wookieepedia, but I've put it up for a vote anyway.

Such a rule should be added

  1. KEJ 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Jinko 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. SFH 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Wildyoda 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Chack Jadson 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Hell yes Stake black msg 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Definitely. Fnlayson 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Like Candy. Darth Maddolis 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)... going with the reworded suggestion.
  9. Sikon 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. JMAS 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. This is a Star Wars wiki. - TopAce 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The rules should not be changed

  1. I oppose this silly restriction, but as it's presently worded it still wouldn't exclude Burl Ives in its current form. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. The FAs represent the best of all articles. If they don't contain an excess of information pertinent to Star Wars, what should it matter? The articles are still good.--Doquis(HoloConference)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jesus... .... 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. ATATatarismall.png 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per above. Adamwankenobi 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Even Lucas's bio would be mostly non-Star Wars. This may be aimed at one article, but I think it would affect a lot more negatively. Even a "Burl Ives cannot be FA" CT would be better. - Lord Hydronium 23:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Any rule that would exclude perfectly executed articles on George Lucas, Harrison Ford, or Samuel L. Jackson from the possibility of obtaining FA status is a rule that needs to be avoided. jSarek 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Ozzel 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Everything (almost) pertains directly to Star Wars. This would be a pointless rule. Jedipilot94 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. —Xwing328(Talk) 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. I waited a long time before voting on this one. But the way I see it, no negative consequences would arise from this course of (in)action. But unforeseen negative consequences would certainly arise from the change. Gonk (Gonk!) 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Changed my mind: we should have featured quality OOU articles, and no real-world bio article worth featuring will revolve entirely around Star Wars. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Per LH and jSarek. Where do you draw the line? -LtNOWIS 21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Per Gonk. - breathesgelatinTalk 22:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Death to silly knee-jerk reactions. Havac 05:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Define "sufficiently relevant". CooperTFN 05:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly reworded rule suggestion

Prompted by an IRC discussion, some people thought "In order to be accepted as an FA, the article must primarily contain information relevant to Star Wars" might be a better amendment. Thus, an article on oxygen which includes most of the Wikipedia article in a lengthy BTS section without Star Wars references would be rejected, as I suppose would the Burl Ives article. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

—Silly Dan (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Much better. Fnlayson 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Jinko 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Burl Ives?? No. That's not true. That's impossible! [lets go and falls into the abyss]. Evir Daal 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Like Ca- well, it's easter. Like chocolate. Darth Maddolis 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charlii 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • One would think it was common sense. -- SFH 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure this suggestion will be shot down by those assuming powerful and influential positions in Wookieepedia Yes, watch out for us, we're evil. To the MAX! *Rolls eyes* Cull Tremayne 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would just like to remind everyone There Is No Cabal. Well, I guess there's a cabal in SW. But not in Wookieepedia. There Is No Wookieepedia Cabal. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That was just a "thinly veiled" joke, to use an expression which appears to be popular these days. KEJ 08:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really know which way to vote. I think this rule could potentially be abused. Basically any real-world article is definitely going to come under scrutiny for this. If this does go through (and it looks like it will), I can object to someone like Harrison Ford being featured right? There's definitely not enough information on Ford that sufficiently relates to Star Wars, except for his part in playing Han Solo. The majority of information on him will relate to other things that have nothing to do with Star Wars. Cull Tremayne 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd say the lack of such a rule appears to be abused presently. KEJ 08:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We could still include a lot of information on things like the audition and rehearsal process, other Lucas productions he's been involved with, other parts in science fiction or fantasy films (which, while not directly related to Star Wars, are at least in the same genre.) That might be considered "primarily pertinent information." On the other hand, perhaps this rule should only be applied to IU articles to prevent the oxygen situation from earlier today, and real-world bios should be covered under a different rule. (I'm not changing my vote, just putting that out for consideration.) —Silly Dan (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • My vote on the first option is based on the premise that an article must have some relevance to Star Wars. For real-world articles, some discussion of non-SW related material is not a bad thing. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Erm...if it doesn't have any direct relevance to Star Wars, then we shouldn't have the article anyway. 60.230.44.199 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • In any event, I think SW should be the primary focus of FA and GA. Either use 2 rules to cover these cases or a SW related content length criteria. An article with only 2 sentences of SW content with 2 pages of other stuff wouldn't pass. -Fnlayson 05:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, then, what's the point of having an article at Burl Ives then? We should just link to Wikipedia on the Caravan of Courage page. .... 07:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Wipe them out. All of them. Evir Daal 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • My comment was about FA and GA NOT about whether the article should be here. There's plenty of articles that would never make the GA or FA because they are too short or something. -Fnlayson 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • George Lucas is suffieciently Star Wars, because he is Star Wars. Burl Ives is not; he has only done one single thing that relates to Star Wars, and that was that of a narrative part only. Also, Harrison Ford would still be applicable, as would Carrie Fisher, or Mark Hamill, because they portrayed foundational characters in the Star Wars universe. Samuel L Jackson, no so much. Burl Ives, definitely not. - JMAS 15:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said on Forum:FA rant: Burl is not canon. However, he still is connected to Star Wars in some way. So, since Burl in out-of-universe, we can have out-of-universe information about him.--Doquis(HoloConference)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Doquis says it best. .... 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But does he deserve an FA nom? --School of Thrawn 101 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't it? .... 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.