Forum:CT:Comprehensive articles

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 Implement a Comprehensive article process. --Imperialles 04:59, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

This vote is to decide whether or not the comprehensive article process, as demonstrated by the trial page, is to be implemented.

Support

1. I've made my arguments pretty clear in the original CT: I think this will be an invaluable tool for telling our readers what is "comprehensive" and what is not. It's a remarkably painless process, it allows more timid or unsure writers to have a punt without all the sturm und drang of other processes, and it's as unobtrusive as it could possibly be. I think that the rules have been very clear to most writers, we've seen a lot of participation, and basically I think we've seen that this can and does work, plain and simple. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Fourdot. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 01:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Definitely. It's already seen improvement in 50 articles that would otherwise not have received much attention. --Eyrezer 02:30, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. This has been kicking around for too long. It works great and should stay. NaruHina ^Talk 04:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. Imperialles 04:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. NAYAYEN:TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. Per everyone. Darth Karika^{will destroy your planet!} 13:33, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Xicer9^(Combadge) 15:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
16. Per others, especially Eyrezer. Also this is great way to get into whole reviewing and polishing process. --Tm T 17:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
17. Per 4dot and Eyrezer. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:09, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
18. Meh! -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
19. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:42, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
20. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
21. I think this works. jSarek 23:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
22. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
23. Looks okay from what I've seen. Riffsyphon1024 11:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I just don't see how this could work. From my experience on the CAN page, I noticed that some of the articles that were nominated could have been sent to the GAN page. Even my article that I nominated could have been easily sent to the GAN page. Something about a "less than 250" word nomination doesn't seem right to me. For a quick example, I don't see how a one-sentence article could be beneficial for us or to anyone. For me, I wouldn't even consider it a quality article, when it's actually more or less a stub. I've seen one-sentence, around 40-50 word, nominations in the CAN page before. Those to me are stubs and not some article that could adhere to certain "quality" standards. I don't see how a 40-50 word article could be certified as a "complete article." It just doesn't make any sense to me. Even though the CAN page has received a lot of attention during its trial run, and a lot of people were enthusiastic to nominate articles in the page, something about it was odd. Promoting stubs isn't what a quality article should be. That's not to say the entire CAN idea is bad for me; Fourdot has made some good points about the one-voting panel vote per nomination. JangFett ^(Talk) 17:27, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
   • It might do to know what "stub" actually means. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 17:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
     • I think he's actually using what I could term the "layman's" definition of what a stub means. And I think you know that too. I also think we can stop wikilawyering voting comments we don't agree with. You seem to have a bad a habit of that, Acky. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
       • Of course I did, I just let out my frustration at the ignorance of basic nomenclature, for which I apologize. I don't really know why commenting on something in a vote section becomes wikilawyering when doing the same in a comments section isn't. I wouldn't begrudge someone replying to my vote-statement, because ultimately it's supposed to be a discussion as well as a vote, and hopefully people are open to changing their mind. But yeah, if you want me to keep the bile in the comments section, I'm happy to follow example. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 23:22, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. I've waited to do this because I was trying to figure out how to word it, and ultimately, I think I can best state my reasons for objecting by simply saying "it's not needed." You have failed to convince me how this is necessary. I'm also not a huge fan of some of the aspects of how it will be run. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 23:51, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
3. I agree with Chack, in general about some way it will be run, but my greatest concern is the lack of a word minimum and the 48 hour time period. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• In the interest of avoiding any uh... "Wikilawyering," I think I'll just leave my 2 cents here. I can assure you that the vast bulk of the articles "promoted" in the trial run could not reach 250 words without significant amounts of fluff and nonsense. Or, potentially they could be—if we basically repeated the body again, and split it up into sections, while retaining the body as the intro. Which is about the most unhelpful thing anyone could ever do. I'd recommend that any doubters just peruse the "promoted" or even currently nominated articles—I think they'll find a wide array of interesting and informative articles that are indeed as complete as they could possibly be at this current stage in time. Calling them "stubs" is patently unfair considering that actual work and research has gone into them. Somewhere along the line people have forgotten that article milestones aren't actually about glorification (guilty as charged) and that it's actually about deciding what we're telling the readers they can trust implicitly for comprehensiveness and accuracy. There are many, many subjects in this fictional universe that simply don't have enough information to reach 250 words of content. That is a fact. And there's no logic behind anyone submitting something for the CAN process if it can realistically reach GAN. To say that anything can reach GAN if you "really try" is just advocating fluff, which, again, is absolutely useless to the reader. Thefourdotelipsis 01:37, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

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 Create a "Grey Cadre" usergroup to oversee the Comprehensive article nominations process. --Imperialles 05:04, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

This vote is to decide whether or not the Grey Cadre user group will be initiated. To sum up, the Grey Cadre is a collection of all Inquisitors and ACs, as well as any other users potentially judged by members of either the Inq or the ACs to be fit to provide a "qualified" review on a CAN. This is not an analogue to either the INQ or the AC—rather, it is a list of users who can provide GC votes on CANs, which are the equivalent of three user votes. There are also several other different rules pertaining to GCs, which are outlined on the trial page. Furthermore, GCs are able to strike answered objections that have been untouched for a week.

Support

1. Basically, I think this is a good thing, if we keep it remarkably simple. If it's kept as simply a list, rather than a formal review panel, there's no feeling of real obligation for the Inqs and ACs, who have a lot of other work to do on the FAN and GAN pages, which are genuinely more important processes. Basically, as it expands, the way I look at it is "these are people we are trusting to give qualified reviews on something under 250 words." Of course, things can go wrong in under 250 words, but I really think that this will be a good way of streamlining the process. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. I thought this worked pretty well in the trial run. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 01:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
   • I still support, but I would like to note (as per Tope's points below) that I would prefer more than a 48 hour minimum time period, and I wouldn't be against a 25 to 50 word count minimum, since that could be extremely easily achieved. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 19:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. Good idea, will hopefully reduce the factionalist tendency of other similar groups. Of course, ideally I'd prefer not having any sort of review group at all, but this is a step in the right direction. --Imperialles 04:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
   • With the changes, as well. --Imperialles 05:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. NAYAYEN:TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. Xicer9^(Combadge) 15:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:15, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:42, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
16. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
17. Having some kind of review panel is mandatory. Count me in for the "longer than 48 hours" caveat, though. jSarek 23:46, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
18. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:36, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. New group, new people. NaruHina ^Talk 04:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
   • I'm not entirely sure why, but I feel like fleshing my objection out a bit more. Why, exactly, are the AC and the Inq automatically the GC? Who proposed that and who supported it? This is a brand new, separate review body and it deserves a new set of reviewers to sit on it's initial board. As it stands, the Inq are 90% of the AC already, in fact only a single GC isn't an Inq yet, and while I'm sure that monopoly will change on the whole for the GC later, there's noting stopping it from going the way of the AC and simply becoming this way again later. I'd support certain members of the Inq and AC in an advisory role similar to that of the original AC Inqs, but if it's going to be this way there's no way I could back this organization, especially considering most of the names listed never edited the CAN page during the trial and Cylka has been completely inactive during the month. The GC needs to start from scratch, IMO. NaruHina ^Talk 06:59, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
     • That's because this is not a new review panel. It will not operate the same way as the Inq and AC, and it is not an analogue to those organizations. It is merely a list of people who are trusted to provide qualified reviews on articles over 250 words in length, therefore, by extension, they are considered qualified to review articles under 250 words in length. They are not a separate organization—they are a list, and nothing more. All of the Inqs and ACs are there because it was designed to not be an obligation where their votes were required, merely, the idea was to have users who could, if they so chose, speed up the voting process. We're not forming a new review panel though, because we simply don't need it. I must stress that this is just a list of users whose opinions are considered "expert."' Thefourdotelipsis 07:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
       • It's certainly being treated as one. In fact, it's explicitly called such on this very page by Toprawa ("We have a nice theme going with the "Inquisitorius" and the "AgriCorps," and the name of this formal reviewing body should stay with this Wookieepedia lineage that we have firmly established for ourselves.") ("Allow me to say also that if we're going to have a formal reviewing panel and voting process in the first place, let's justify their existence by requiring at least one vote from these people for the nomination to pass.") though I absolutely cede his opinion is not that of the Inq or AC. It's clear that this is intentioned to be just a list of good reviewers and such a thing would be incomplete without any Inq or AC members, but if there is are even a few who believe contrariwise, there is no telling where it could lead to in the future, as evidenced by the whole nomination limitation debacle. I'm sorry if that sounds conspiracy-ish, but my problem is that they were put on the list automatically, without recourse from the Wook body. Each should be put up for nomination when/if CA passes. If (as the case will likely be) the names all remain, that's fine by me. NaruHina ^Talk 07:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. I have three primary objection points:
   • There's one element of the CAN voting panel rules that sticks out like a sore thumb: Additionally, members of the Gray Cadre can bypass the nomination process. Not including the writer of the article, two Gray Cadre members can sign off on an article's talk page in unison, and those articles will also be instantaneously promoted. This action can only be initiated by someone on the approved Gray Cadre list, and is performed internally. Regular users must go through the nomination process. This is absurd. There's really no advantage to doing this except relieving unnecessarily impatient whiners of having to wait 48 hours for their nomination to pass otherwise. I don't care if your article is 250 words or 2500 words. No one should be exempt from the formal reviewing and voting process. I don't care if you're an Inq or if you've written 500 articles. No one deserves this kind of special treatment. The beauty of the FAN and GAN voting process is that you can't go get your two best friends on the site to railroad your article through, like this convenient little loophole allows. You're required to actually get reviews from a fairly good cross-section of the userbase, some of whom probably aren't necessarily your friends, so they're not just going to sign off on your project for you.
   • Moreover, the minimum nomination period of 48 hours is far too short, and it too easily enables people to, again, railroad their crap through. This was discussed on the talk page to evidently no real end. I would support a full week to actually give people who don't stalk the site 23 hours a day an opportunity to review noms, though I would accept five days as a less-stringent alternative.
   • What about self-voting on noms, especially for panel members? Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't found anywhere that really specifically addresses this. The only place that comes close is in the preceding quoted text: Not including the writer of the article, two Gray Cadre members can sign off on an article's talk page in unison... What about nominations in general? Self-user votes need to be explicitly barred, as is the case on FAN and GAN.
     • If and when these items are addressed to my satisfaction, I'll be glad to vote support. But not before. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
       • To the first point, that was meant to have been axed from the proposal, as it has been now. To the third point, this has now been established on the trial page clearly, and will be considered a part of the rules. To the second point, however, I maintain that the 48 hour minimum is only for the Grey Cadre—and, supposedly, these individuals are trusted implicitly in the quality of their reviews. The shortness of the time is reflective of the fact that these are 250 words or less. I am confident that with two GC reviews, and the absolute plethora of Inquisitors there currently are, there will be an upholding of quality, while a fairly rapid speed is maintained to make sure that the process is as smooth as possible. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in the trial period, where articles with two GC votes have indeed been adequately reviewed. If Inqs can't find a spare 5-10 minutes to look over less than 250 words in the course of a week, that's their problem. And frankly, considering the rather tepid involvement of the vast majority of the Inquisitorius during the trial period, I see no reason for the process to be slowed down further, since the organization's enthusiasm for the initiative, by and large, is clearly nil. Thefourdotelipsis 05:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
         • I've stricken my opposition points that have been addressed, but I'm still against the 48-hour period, which I believe is too short, makes it too easy for people to railroad things through, and doesn't give many much of an opportunity to look at the majority of noms that will be flying off the page with record speed. I would prefer a week, or even five days. At this point I would even accept three days, which is just about the equivalent of a half week. But not 48 hours. And while we're on the subject, I would also prefer there to be some kind of easily-achieved minimum word count. This was discussed a while ago on the talk page. It can be as short as 25 or 50 words, so that 15-word, two-sentence stubs aren't recognized for holding any kind of plastic status. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:33, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. Before I voice concern about anything else, I'd like to point out that if I have a party tonight, and tomorrow is a holiday which I will be spending cavorting downtown, and I'm working Monday morning, but someone is going to nominate a TOTJ article or something else I'm an expert on in the meantime, I'd have no opportunity whatsoever to catch it before it's already through the "gauntlet," which, given such a short period of time, really isn't a gauntlet whatsoever. The beauty of the Inq and AC is that they are teams of people with varying fields of expertise. Let's give this new body more than two days in which to cast their sharp glances. Graestan^(Talk) 13:07, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
4. Again, time and word count. It needs to be more than 48 hours. I would prefer 72 minimum. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I'd like to have 4dot clarify two things for me here. Firstly, am I to understand that simply being the leader of a prominent WookieeProject no longer automatically qualifies you for voting privileges, that we're voting here on the initial master list of voters, seen here? Also, can you please specify exactly what you mean by There are also several other different rules pertaining to GCs, which are outlined on the trial page., please? Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

• To the first, yes, since anyone can just make a WookieeProject and would then be considered a GC, so that's no longer a part of the deal. As for the current list, well, it's just the Inqs and ACs really, and Trayus was added by an Inq, although I've now removed him from the list so he can be added in a more formal way afterward, if this does indeed pass. As for the other rules pertaining to the GCs, those refer to the way in which the GC votes function on nominations, which is established in the rules on the trial page. Thefourdotelipsis 04:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Now that the realities of user expertise have been highlighted, I'm thinking that extending that 48 hour period might indeed be good. How do people think about 5 days? Would that be satisfactory? Thefourdotelipsis 11:02, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

• I'd personally prefer a full week, so articles posted on a Monday are available for weekend warriors to review (or so articles posted by weekend warriors can be reviewed by folks with nothing better to do on a Friday night), but five days is at least a step in the right direction. jSarek 12:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, then, that would mean getting rid of the "early 2-GC pass" caveat entirely, since it's a week anyway. If we're fine with that though, so am I. It was purely in the interests of perhaps speeding up this process, given the actual length of the articles, in comparison with our other milestone systems. Thefourdotelipsis 13:17, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • After reconsidering, I too would prefer a full week for the same reasons as jSarek. At this point though, it might be better to just start a new vote on this issue at the bottom of this page rather than amending this vote and having to spam a boatload of talk pages. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 19:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

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 Review group will be called the EduCorps. Grunny (talk) 00:10, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

This is a vote to decide whether the "Grey Cadre" will indeed be called the "Grey Cadre" or the "EduCorps"

Grey Cadre

1. I just prefer this name, since it doesn't sound like an analogue for the "AgriCorps"—because it's really not meant to be. The core of it is made up of grizzled vets from the review panels, so it kinda fits. It doesn't matter, really, but... hey, WEG reference! Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

   Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

3. I'm indifferent about these names. Per 4Dot though. NaruHina ^Talk 04:39, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. Only if it's spelled "grey." -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Xicer9^(Combadge) 15:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. Imperialles 15:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. I guess I just don't have the right sense of humor. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
10. While EduCorps and AgriCorps do seem analogous, Inquisitorius doesn't. I'm in favor of an all or nothing policy. And since we're not renaming the Inq anytime soon, I'm not in favor of a half-assed attempt homogeneity. SinisterSamurai 15:21, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

EduCorps

1. The definition of "EduCorps" from our own article: The Educational Corps, also known as the EduCorps, was a branch of the Jedi Service Corps that was similar to the Agricultural Corps and the Medical Corps. This group of Jedi Knights consisted of students of the Force who were in training during the days of the Old Republic. Their mission was to provide educational needs to the underprivileged children of the galaxy. If that doesn't spell out exactly what the point of the CAN is, I don't know what does. This is the most appropriate choice. We have a nice theme going with the "Inquisitorius" and the "AgriCorps," and the name of this formal reviewing body should stay with this Wookieepedia lineage that we have firmly established for ourselves. "EduCorps" is significantly appropriate in regards to the FAN and GAN page, it has a nice ring to it, it's funny in the same way that "Inq" and "AC" is for those who actually have the right sense of humor, and it helps reinforce the idea that this is a separate reviewing body and process from the FAN and GAN pages. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:01, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. I honestly think that "Grey Cadre" is kinda corny, and that EduCorps is a much more appropriate title.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 04:09, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Tommy. Grunny (talk) 07:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Ditto. NAYAYEN:TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 14:59, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 15:15, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. Darth Karika^{will destroy your planet!} 15:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. I could really care less which way this goes, but between the two I prefer EduCorps. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 19:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. Strongly per Tope and Tommy. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. "Grey Cadre" does absolutely nothing to stem the accusations of cliquishness this group already faces. If we want to be as populist as possible in all of this, we can't have an aristocratic name. Graestan^(Talk) 22:02, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. This atleast gives me a hint what its about. --Tm T 22:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. Yay for continuity! -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
16. While I do like the Grey Cadre, that brings to mind a far smaller and insular group of grizzled but highly accomplished veterans ... in other words, it's more suited to the body we call the Inquisitorius than it is to this broader group that is intended, at least in part, to be an entry point for new reviewers. jSarek 23:52, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
17. If anything, this is the best choice. JangFett ^(Talk) 15:25, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
18. After doing more thinking about it.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 02:23, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
19. If we are going to do this, let's do it right. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
20. --I like the sound of this one a bit more. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:38, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
21. --Eyrezer 05:01, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
22. More consistent with existing AgriCorps, and less likely to be misspelled, i.e. "Gray". -- Riffsyphon1024 11:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

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 Implement a voting procedure for admitting members to the Grey Cadre group. --Imperialles 05:07, July 12, 2010 (UTC) This is a vote to decide whether a formalized GC voting process will be initiated. It will take the form of a standard Forum, in which users can nominate others, or even submit themselves for GC candidacy. Everyone will be able to vote, and like the RFAs, a 2/3rds supermajority of both users and GCs will require for anyone to be added to the GC list.

Support

1. Since this is a fairly minor process, and rather informal, I think it would be good to give users more involvement in the GC element of the process. Since existing Inqs and ACs have to sign off on nominations, it's not as though the list will flood with incompetent individuals. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. I actually find myself liking this idea a lot; sounds pretty fair to everybody. I wouldn't mind having it just straight-up internal, but this is not just a new tier of article class, it is also a stepping-stone process for getting new users involved and up to quality; and I can't think of a better way of getting more reviewers involved and up to quality than this. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 01:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. IIRC, the original idea was just to have one person nominate someone and then have one or two more people sign off on it and then they were in. This is far and above a more logical way of doing it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:56, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. NaruHina ^Talk 04:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. Imperialles 04:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. There Is No Cabal! -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. Grunny (talk) 07:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. Stepping stones, people, stepping stones. NAYAYEN:TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. All three review bodies should operate under this sort of system. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Xicer9^(Combadge) 15:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
16. Per Acky. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
17. Working on it, Acky. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
18. Although I'm afraid I disagree with the sentiments listed above regarding the Inq and AC. Experts should be the one to qualify experts, not popular votes where people's feelings are too exposed and the unworthy may be selected due to excessive tenderness/cowardice. Graestan^(Talk) 12:37, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Weren't you just arguing about how it's impossible that the community would elect unworthy candidates to office? Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • I believe my response to that would be "apples and oranges." If you can't see the difference, that's your problem, not mine. Graestan^(Talk) 13:02, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
19. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:44, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
20. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
21. Per Acky. jSarek 23:55, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
22. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
23. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:47, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
24. --Eyrezer 05:02, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
25. Riffsyphon1024 11:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

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 One GC vote will be required. Grunny (talk) 00:11, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

This is a vote to decide whether or not at least one Grey Cadre vote will be required on every comprehensive article nomination in order for it to pass.

Support

1. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. Unless you plan on performing a sock-check on voters, I'm in favor of this. SinisterSamurai 01:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. I would actually prefer 2 GC votes—the reason being that I glanced at one nom that had passed with just 1 GC vote, and it had the basic mistake of underlinking; and one of these missing links was essential to the article's topic, too. I don't think that something like that should be able to get by the process so easily, and that's something that the requirement of an extra GC vote could likely prevent. However, I'd be willing to settle for 1 GC, because 1 GC is a far better idea than none. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 01:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. Oh my God. You might have to wait an extra 48 hours for your article to pass. Tough titty. This makes sure things aren't necessarily being railroaded through. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
   • Allow me to say also that if we're going to have a formal reviewing panel and voting process in the first place, let's justify their existence by requiring at least one vote from these people for the nomination to pass. Otherwise the designated CAN voting list is completely unnecessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Weak support. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. Grunny (talk) 07:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Completely per Tope. NAYAYEN:TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. More CAN-focused users will join the GC/EC as time progresses, so getting a single review from one per article shouldn't be a problem. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 14:59, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. Because we need a system of checks and balances if this process is to be formally established. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 15:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. Per Tope and Jujiggum. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. The whole point of this is article quality, right? Graestan^(Talk) 21:59, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. We said "meh!" -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:46, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
16. Reviewing Comprehensive Articles isn't just about critiquing what's in the article; it's about critiquing what's not in the article. While regular users can probably whip existing text into shape reliably, we need people with experience in finding what an article is missing to be involved in every CAN review. Count me among those who would prefer a two-GC-vote minimum. jSarek 00:01, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
17. I completely agree with Toprawa and jSarek on this. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
18. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:53, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
19. Riffsyphon1024 11:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I actually don't like this. Basically, I think that anything under 250 words can be trusted to be given a thorough review by six users. At any rate, there is a week grace period for every nomination, in which it would not be able to pass without any GC involvement whatsoever. I think if GC members are concerned that there might be a quality deficit, they've got an entire week to read 250 words. And with the number of Inqs, it shouldn't be a problem to cover all nominations, honestly. I just feel that requiring one GC vote has the potential to bog down the page, much like the FA and GA processes. I also think it is beneficial for the GCs to have no actual obligations to distract them from the FAN and GAN pages, outside of striking neglected objections and removing articles that are below par. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm for no GC vote required. INQs and ACs get pestered enough to review articles and requiring one GC vote is just going to add another task to their duties, when I would prefer they work on reviewing our larger articles. To respond to a point made above, it is not a question of waiting 48 hours. Requiring a GC means it will need to wait as long as it takes to get a GC, not a mere 48 hours. My experience is many GCs aren't particularly intered in the CAN process. --Eyrezer 02:29, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. NaruHina ^Talk 04:42, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Imperialles 04:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Per Eyrezer. Darth Karika^{will destroy your planet!} 21:50, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. I think the community can handle 250 words. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
   • I simply don't understand how you can possibly say that when I've given proof that this is not the case. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 22:29, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
     • Um, Inqs have let through articles with more glaring problems than underlinking when five of them have reviewed. There's no absolute guarantee some sub-par stuff won't get through with any number of required votes. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 22:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
       • Of course there's not, but we can at least do our utmost to try to prevent that from happening. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm making a big deal out of this, but the degree to which everyone here is disregarding article quality is just outright sickening. And it's beyond sickening to me that nobody here cares about our integrity as a site—we're making a promise to our readers by calling these articles comprehensive and up to quality, and the willingness with which we are disregarding that promise is very disturbing to me. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 22:44, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
         • One GC not catching underlinking is your proof that GCs know better than the community at large and are necessary for quality? I'm afraid I don't follow. "Proof" implies something a lot more conclusive than that -- like a consistent pattern of lower article quality with lower GC-reviewer numbers. Not one article that was underlinked. If you present actual proof, I'll change my mind, but until then I will continue to perform the magic trick of both thinking the community can handle 250 words and caring about article quality and our integrity as a site. Havac 22:54, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
           • Here's another example. Here's another. Here's another. Here's another. Here's another. And guess what? Here's yet another. And most of these have more serious issues than just incorrect linking. I apologize for not providing more examples sooner; I had assumed that you would decide to take the responsibility yourself to look fully into the issue so that you could make sure you were appropriately addressing the problem, but it seems I was mistaken. Anyway, these are just a few examples; I'm sure if I went through the entire archive there would be more. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 00:27, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
             • Every single one of those was voted for by at least one GC member, and probably one or two other users who will become members of the more inclusive GC. I think you're confusing quality with perfection. Every FA/GA/CA will potentially have some minor errors in it that didn't get picked up in the review process, but that really doesn't diminish their quality. I'm sure if I went through every FA of you or any other distinguished writer I'd find a couple of minute errors, but that doesn't actually take away from their quality or mean the Inq failed. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 09:27, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
               • No, they weren't: take a look at who currently qualifies as a GC/EC, and you'll find that some of them did not have a single GC vote, while the others had only one; and if you actually paid an ounce of attention to my arguments, you'd know that what I would prefer is 2 GC/EC votes, anyway. And please excuse me if I misunderstood you, but are you saying that mistakes in status articles are OK? When I give a review, I do my utmost to make sure that there is not one single error left; and I would hope that every single other member of the Inq and AC do the same. While this may not always happen realistically on larger articles, it should be able to happen—or, at least, come very close to happening—on such small articles as these. I just cannot fathom how you can comfortably say that errors left in articles are OK, simply because you believe they're inevitable. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 15:03, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                 • I'm not saying errors are okay, I'm saying there's only so much you can do to ensure they aren't present; if every GC had to support a nom, it would better ensure there aren't any errors, surely you strive for that? Ultimately it's not that anyone doesn't care about quality, it's just where they think the line between quality-insurance and practicality should be drawn. But, especially since we do essentially agree at least on this specific case, this will probably continue to be a circular argument. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 17:44, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
         • But it's not about people disregarding quality at all. It's about what processes we think should be in place to try to ensure articles meet a set standard. Ideally, every GC/EC member should have to support the article, as that would better ensure quality than just one or two: that would be us doing our utmost to try to prevent subquality from getting through. But that's not practical and I think everyone would consider it unnecessary, so we just require at least three; it's the same issue here. I happen to agree with you on the matter of requiring one GC/EC vote, but I don't think people are opposing out of disregard for quality, merely a difference of opinion on what's the best way to ensure it. (edit conflicted) -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 22:56, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
           • How is saying that no GC/EC votes should be needed at all ensuring article quality in any way? By definition that is disregarding it. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 00:27, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
             • No, it isn't. It's saying that if GCs/ECs are so riled up about not being able to trust regular users, there is nothing whatsoever stopping them from taking ten, maybe fifteen minutes off from all the FAN reviewing that they're doing to take a look at one of these nominations. I can only speak for myself here, but I'm voting this way because I both believe that the community can be trusted (yes, the lack of glossary-linking is perhaps unfortunate, but one of the more minor issues anyone can have with an article, and I think people will improve) and I believe that people on these review panels can be trusted to value their own input enough to ensure that it is afforded to these articles whether it is required or not. I'm saying that people shouldn't be forced to do this, they should want to do it, as you so clearly have demonstrated here. Again, I'm only speaking for myself here, but I'm not voting for no GC votes because I'm flipping the bird to the concept of quality, I'm doing so because I wouldn't want to see this potential process become the absolute mire of inactivity that the FAN and GAN pages have become (and the FAN page has sped up in the last few months because of, and this can be statistically proven, user votes. Without a detectable lag in quality.) Thefourdotelipsis 01:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
               • Firstly, let me say that I do understand the arguments posted by many people already about not wanting to "force" people to do this; I disagree with the view, but I do understand from where it's coming. Secondly, allow me to repeat yet again that 1 GC vote did not slow anything down. Your whole paranoia about the CAN becoming "glacial" is completely baseless. Thirdly, maybe you didn't take a look at what I posted above in response to Havac, but I suggest you do so now—this is not just about a "lack of glossary-linking;" there are some far more serious and basic writing-quality issues afoot here. And I am not willing to sacrifice our integrity as a site to just let such things slide—as they inevitably would without GC/EC votes required—because that's just completely irresponsible. Also, no, there has not been a significant drop in quality on the FAN—but as you may recall, a minimum of three Inq votes are still required there. And yes, the FAN has indeed sped up with the allowance of user votes counting toward something—but if you so choose to remember, I strongly supported that change. Now, what confuses me is that you said yourself during that good old CT that you weren't willing to just "drop-punt it [the quality] out the window," by getting rid of any review panel, but that's exactly what you are doing right now on the CAN. I understand that that is not your intention, I know that that isn't what you're going for, but unfortunately, as I have statistically proven, it is the inevitable result of what you want here. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 04:26, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                 • My paranoia about the "glacial" process has no less than two massive foundations in the FAN and GAN pages—the FAN page in particular enjoys attention from approximately 3 or 4 or maybe even 5 separate Inquisitors on a regular basis, and even that's being generous. Secondly, the trial run went for a month. It's very very hard to tell what is going to happen in terms of activity trending, over the course of a month—actually, half a month, since the rules changed halfway through. What Master Jonathan actually demonstrated was that everything before the rules were changed had at least one GC vote. So while the procedure was not slowed down by the implementation of the vote, it slowed down nonetheless. That's only natural, but the fact that I'm now expected to believe that Inquisitors will take an interest in this process when they had a whole month to demonstrate whether or not they had any enthusiasm for it whatsoever is a bit of a tough call. And I'm not "getting rid of" a review panel, considering that it doesn't exist yet. Furthermore, I can't imagine what all this caterwauling will achieve when we are approaching no consensus on this particular vote, which means that we will likely revert to the current state of the trial page, which, if you'll take a look currently requires 1 Inq vote. Lastly, you have not "statistically proven" anything whatsoever. You just posted a bunch of random links and said "Look at how bad these are!" Would you be willing to specify just what your issues with those articles are? My eye is not trained for these things. Thefourdotelipsis 05:11, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                   • FAN and this are completely different. I don't know how you fail to see that, and how you can continue to insist that it is "glacial." CANs would only require one GC vote, not 3 or 4 or 5. But that's not the difference. The difference is FANs are a lot, lot longer. These CANs are less than 250 words long. Do you know how long it takes to read one of them? Not long. Not long at all. A 3 year-old could figure that out. As for slowing it up, there are currently 25 FANs on the page. 14 of them were added within the past week. There are 24 GANs, 15 added in the past week. Really, I don't see why you are so concerned about slowing up the page. And if requiring an EC vote slows it down by a day or two on the CAN (which I doubt), oh horrors, what a tragedy. As Jon said, your paranoia is unnecessary, and we simply can't risk sacrificing quality. Certainly the community can be trusted, but the EC is composed of experts in the field who provide extra insurance. How does this hurt? Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 14:44, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                     • Thanks, I'm well aware of the time it takes to read a CAN, since I actually took the time to actually read a few during the trial period. I have highlighted it repeatedly, as a reason as to why this limit should not be required. I would strongly suggest a perusal of my previous comments before accusing me of ignorance on this subject. There is a whole week provided for GC/ECs to register their expert opinions. A whole week to read these articles that take "not long at all" to look at, before the doors are opened. And even then, there's no guarantee that the required number of user votes will be registered by then. And since we're looking at a list of 18 experts at the very least, I'm struggling to see how this is unreasonable. As for the FAN and GAN pages, well, I simply disagree that the current level of Inq and AC activity even approaches being acceptable, especially when the work is done by a select few out of a much larger group, but that's another discussion entirely. Ultimately, I fail to see what is preventing users who are so convinced of their own expertise in contrast to the general inadequacy of the layman from simply tendering their expert opinions on an article even when it is not strictly required by law. The fact that people have to basically be pressed into work instead of simply wanting to be involved because it invariably improves the quality of the site is a concept I admittedly lack the maturity to grasp, and for that I apologise profusely. In the general interest of civility though, the boundaries of which are already been pressed and are perilously close to breaking, I'd suggest that this line of discussion actually be dropped, and that people be allowed to vote whichever way they want without being harangued by those stricken with great waves of moral and ethical outrage. Thefourdotelipsis 15:20, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                 • That's ok, I accept your apology. :) But yeah, let's drop this here now. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 15:27, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                   • As to the issues with those articles I listed: Topas dosLa should either have no intro, or else it's current intro should be expanded, as it is right now it's completely useless; Borna is missing some links; Pelemaxian lacks an infobox; Canary has a minor linking mistake and extraneous info in the intro, although that info could be worded differently so that it properly fit in; Dulin uses OOU wording in the infobox; and Melik Galerha has a minor grammar mistake and a couple otherwise awkward phrases. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 15:03, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                     • To DosLa: No, it shouldn't, it has a P/T, therefore it can no longer merely be a body and a BTS—to that end it must have a perfunctory introduction. In regards to Pelemaxian, reading the article would reveal why it doesn't have an infobox. To Dulin: No, it doesn't. If someone's apprentice was listed as the "Unidentified Chandrilan" or whatever, that would be listed in the infobox, and... here you go. That passed muster with not just one, but three whole ACs. And yet it still has the crippling flaw of OOU wording in the infobox. Canary has a link to a disambig, which if I'm not much mistaken was something actually enforced by Inquisitors not to long ago, despite being erroneous, so I would forgive anyone for thinking that it was policy, and Borna, admittedly, does indeed lack links to death and politics, amongst other things I'm sure. Thefourdotelipsis 15:20, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                       • To dosLa: then the intro should be expanded; to Pelemaxian: I read the article, and that doesn't mean it cannot have an infobox. You will find that planetary demonyms also use species infoboxes, and I'm certain the writer could use the species infobox without specifying whether Pelemaxians are species or planetary demonyms; to Dulin: that's incorrect, just because it hasn't been identified for us yet does not mean that it is unidentified IU, and just because mistakes were made in the past does not mean that they are warranted now. Besides, that rule was not so very heavily enforced until more recently, so I'm not surprised to find an example of such a mistake (see here for an example of correct IU identification of unidentified subjects in the infobox); and Canary's link to a disambig actually wasn't the linking mistake I found, so apparently it had two. Anyway, it seems we've drifted quite a ways off-topic here, and I'd prefer to just leave this be and let the people vote, so I can get back to doing more contructive things like reviewing FANs and GANs :P. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 15:40, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
                       • Hello, I'm here with your friendly administrative warning. WP:CIVIL still applies. Thank you for your cooperation. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 16:14, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I feel the need to make a few points here: firstly, I reiterate Tope's point above that there is no point in having another review panel if not even one vote from that panel is required. In response to Eyrezer, I actually didn't mind reviewing smaller articles at all; the main reason I didn't review more was that it was a trial run, and I felt that I'd reviewed enough to get a good idea of how the system worked. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that if a GC/EC vote was not required, I would not spend nearly as much time reviewing on the CAN than if it was required; meaning that no, if GC/EC votes aren't required, you can't just assume that they're going to watch every single nomination and catch everything that other users might miss. For this reason, I can't wholly support the CAN system at all unless at least 1 GC/EC vote is required. Reiterating what I said above: this is a third tier of quality articles, and I saw articles pass that were not up to quality. That's why I'd prefer at least two GC/EC votes; but I'd be willing to settle for one, because one is far better than zero. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 20:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • "I can guarantee you that if a GC/EC vote was not required, I would not spend nearly as much time reviewing on the CAN than if it was required" - Why is this? If people within these organizations are so interested in quality being the main objective, why is it that they need to be essentially "forced" to review articles that are less than 250 words? And I stress, as I continually have, that this is not a "review panel" it is a list of users qualified to provide reviews. It is not an analogue to the Inq or the AC. The point of having this list is to make the process smoother if possible, not slow it down, which is what it will inevitably do if we use the glacial FAN and GAN pages as examples. Even if one GC/EC vote is not required, there is absolutely nothing stopping those users who have no faith in the ability of six laymen to judge less than 250 words worth of material to step in, in the time period that will be at least a whole week and lend their opinions. Thefourdotelipsis 01:23, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • The point I'm trying to make is that when GC/EC votes are required, I might think, in the midst of my editing, "Oh, I should go check out the CAN page." Whereas if they are not required, I might think, "Oh, I should go check out the CAN page—but wait, larger articles like FANs and even GANs actually require my attention more right now; I'll get around to the CAN later maybe." So you might say the requirement of the vote makes it more…obligatory, for lack of a better word. Also, as has been reiterated over and over by myself and others already, regardless of what you originally intended them to be, this EC/GC is a new review panel by its very definition, otherwise there is no point in having it at all. Also, as pointed out by MJ endless times, the 1 GC vote requirement did not slow anything down, so that concern is completely baseless. But the number one most important thing that I have said over and over from the very beginning is that no, the article quality cannot be trusted fully if left to "laymen" votes—and again, I've already provided an example above of one such case. Go ahead, call me egotistical, call me elitist, tell me that that's a poor thing to say from a political standpoint, but you know what? I'm actually more concerned with the wellness of the site itself than the politics here, so I feel quite comfortable saying that. Furthermore, here's the thing about your trusted "laymen" votes—any "layman" user whose reviews prove to be of sufficient quality will be elected to the EC/GC, anyway. If any "layman" user proves interested and skilled enough, then he/she will be rewarded for it. But I'll tell you right now that I will simply refuse to call an article "comprehensive" if I can't be certain that it is of good quality, just as I would not deem an article "Featured" or "Good" unless I was certain it was such. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 02:51, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's fair enough. I don't agree, naturally, but I don't begrudge that viewpoint at all. I should just hope that the CAN page will enjoy a greater level of activity from Inquisitors and the like if the proposal does indeed go through, and I would hope that it doesn't become the laborious and glacial process that both the FAN and GAN pages have become. Thefourdotelipsis 03:10, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for hearing me out, and I, too, hope that (if this passes) it does not suffer that fate; although, on that note, I'm happy to say that the FAN has actually sped up recently—in just the past 2 months, we've gone from 47 noms on the page, with the oldest nom being just over 8 months old, to 25 noms, with the oldest being just over 4 months old. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 03:19, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
        • I'd also like to defend the GAN here: with only 26 noms, 16 of which are less than a week old, I'd hardly call it glacial ;P. Grunny (talk) 03:22, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
• This is prolly said already, but I like to hear(see) my voice so... I'm all for having experienced and trusted reviewers being in this process, but they should be because they care about the quality of these articles, not because necessary obligatory. Shouldn't 6 user votes with week or more of review time be enough, considering if someone thinks it's not enough, there's plenty of time to oppose per article? But, I don't like to vote on this as if GC members think they need it be that way to motivate them, maybe it should be that way, my likings means nothing on this. Tricky thing... --Tm T 09:41, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right, it shouldn't have to be obligatory, but making it so that the GC/ECs know that their attention is needed will inevitably motivate them to review more on the CAN; it will ensure that the process goes quicker and cleaner. And yes, a week gives plenty of time to oppose to an article, but you cannot guarantee that a GC/EC will look at every article in that time span, and there is a chance that an article with some mistakes might be able to slip by. I simply cannot bring my conscience to allow for us to allow for potentially non-top-quality articles to be freely labeled as top-quality articles; to me, that seems wrong—both to ourselves and our readers—on a very basic level. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 21:41, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

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 Implement a Comprehensive article removal process. --Imperialles 05:00, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

This vote will decide whether or not we create a formalized CA removal process. This would function as a sort of anti-CAN page—any CANs in need of an update or that have fallen can be nominated by anyone, and then after a week, if the updates have not been made, the articles will be removed by two GC members. At any rate, if an update does indeed have to be made to a CA, it is likely that in many cases it will push the article over 250 words, and therefore they will no longer fall under the CA rules.

• Amendment, outlining the way in which the system will function: "Anyone can nominate an article for removal, and must list grievances with said article. A week is then provided for writers to address the grievances, before the article's status is voted upon by members of the GC for a period of five days. If it has at least two remove votes and no more than two votes to keep, it will be removed. If it has more than two votes to keep, the article will be kept." Thefourdotelipsis 02:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. This is obviously needed. It would be much more simple than the FA and GA removal processes in effect, since it would not require IRC meetings and the like, but would rather be a continuous process. It would function in much the same way as the other processes, though, where any user can nominate an article, and the GCs remove it afterward. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. Sounds good to me. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 01:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
   • Amendment looks good; I still support. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 20:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. I am now satisfied with the amendment. And I don't think this is redundant. These things needs to be spelled out to the "T", or else un-agreed-upon practices have a weaselly way of sneaking themselves into the process. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. I like it. Beware the Anti-CAN! NaruHina ^Talk 04:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. Imperialles 04:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. NAYAYEN:TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. The Inq and AC should definitely follow suit here. It means the people who know what they're talking about can give specific objections, which is more helpful for everyone. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • And we don't do any sort of thing about let people know what their articles are lacking? We just probe and kill arbitrarily? Users are allowed to point out FAs/GAs that are apparently lacking, as they have done many times before. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 14:59, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. Xicer9^(Combadge) 15:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:22, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
16. Grunny (talk) 22:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
17. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
18. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:47, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
19. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
20. jSarek 00:04, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
21. Graestan^(Talk) 12:54, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
22. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
23. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:54, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
24. Snowball. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
25. Darth Karika^{will destroy your planet!} 13:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

The description of this function doesn't spell it out adequately enough for me. Will there be a straight "Support-Oppose" vote for articles nominated for removal? What if someone contends that the article is in fact satisfactory for keeping? How do they go about voicing and possibly opposing removal? Frankly, until these questions are answered and actually included in the function description, I will vote oppose. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:05, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• OK, in answer to Toprawa's questions, I'm curious what form people would like this to take? I was thinking that anyone can nominate them, and there isn't so much a support/oppose system per se as there is a field for grievances to be raised, and for someone to then note whether they have been met or not. I was thinking that two GC votes would be needed to decide either way, whether it stays or goes after a week's time, with it perhaps working in such a way that there has to be +2 GCs either way. How do people feel about this? Ideas? Thefourdotelipsis 02:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no reason why it can't just function in the same way the Inq decides the fate of articles at meetings. There can be a vote for it over the course of, say, no more than five days. It needs two supports and no more than two opposes for removal. People must have the ability to oppose a formal motion that will affect the state of an article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:15, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that sounds fine. So, basically, we run with "Anyone can nominate an article for removal, and must list grievances with said article. A week is then provided for writers to address the grievances, before the article's status is voted upon by members of the GC for a period of five days. If it has at least two remove votes and no more than two votes to keep, it will be removed. If it has more than two votes to keep, the article will be kept." Does that sound fine? Or is there something there that's not quite right? Thefourdotelipsis 02:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • That sounds perfectly fine to me. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

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 Implement a user removal from master reviewing list process. Grunny (talk) 01:16, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

This vote will decide upon whether there will be a method of removing users from the master reviewing list, or "Grey Cadre" as it has been known throughout the trial period. This would take the form of a forum on the master reviewing list page, and would resemble the removal of user rights system, wherin a user could be nominated for removal, with grievances listed, and then the user base as a whole would vote on their removal. Like the RFRR process, a 2/3rds supermajority would be required from both members of the reviewing list, and standard users.

Support

1. Very important, as per Tope in the general comments section, as there's no accounting for when a given user might take hold of the reins and go nuts, or when the quality of their reviewing might fall dangerously below par. Or any other such worrisome behavior. So naturally, there should be a provision for this. Thefourdotelipsis 03:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. So long as this applies to the Inq and AC as well as those not part of the other panels. Just so if, for whatever reason, they needed to be kicked from this panel, they wouldn't be immune because they were part of a separate entity. NaruHina ^Talk 04:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Imperialles 04:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. NAYAYEN:TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 08:18, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. Xicer9^(Combadge) 15:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. Per Naru. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:24, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. Strong support. And in response to Naru, I don't see anything specifying otherwise—unless I am seriously misinterpreting something, then this applies to everyone in the GC/EC (as it should). Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 20:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 22:35, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Grunny (talk) 22:49, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
16. As long as there's no minimum activity requirement, since this organization is basically conscripting people.  :-P -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
17. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:48, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
18. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
19. Per Culator. jSarek 00:06, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
20. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
21. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:55, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

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 The circular icons will be used. Grunny (talk) 00:12, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

FAs and GAs have the star and tick to go in the {{Eras}} template and on the nomination pages etc. Long story short, CAs should have an icon for these purposes as well. After discussion on the CAN talk page, the selection was whittled down to three ideas as shown by INAN in this image. The final version would be tidied up a little for site-wide use. NAYAYEN:TALK 09:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Cresh icons (top set)

1. I like it. It isn't so important, though. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 09:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. Imperialles 15:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. TK-299 ^{(Click Here)} 11:57, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Circular icons (middle set)

1. NAYAYEN:TALK 09:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. Darth Karika^{will destroy your planet!} 13:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. Seems the most appropriate (complete circle/incomplete circle), although I like the plus/minus one too. Xicer9^(Combadge) 15:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. The FCA symbol should be a square. NaruHina ^Talk 17:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. I could care less about these too. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 20:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 22:35, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Grunny (talk) 22:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. This is a surprisingly elegant way to evoke the whole "incomplete but functional" Death Star motif. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 23:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. I like the plus/minus too, but this is much more amusing. And per Culator. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:28, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
10. Thefourdotelipsis 03:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
11. I don't like the Cresh symbols. +/- isn't bad, but I'm afraid that the minus might imply to users that those articles are below standard quality. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 08:09, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
12. Most clear of what's its about, even when I personally like Cresh symbol. +/- tells me more about "more/less" than "all(comprehensive)/not all". --Tm T 09:30, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
13. Very accessible yet not painfully obvious. Graestan^(Talk) 12:28, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
14. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 13:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
15. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 15:36, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
16. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:48, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
17. Per Soresu. jSarek 00:07, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
18. SinisterSamurai 15:08, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
19. Menkooroo 08:27, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
20. Although, I'm not against the plus/minus ones, these are better. Let PacMan reign. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
21. Also like the illusion to the incomplete Death Star/Pacman/ticking clock/you get the idea motif. The plus and minus might be confusing to new users. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
22. Lele Mj ⁽Holoprojetor) 13:02, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Plus/Minus icons (bottom set)

1. First choice, as they're the most obvious as to what they mean. My second choice would be the circle icons. The two Cresh icons are too difficult to tell apart, so strong oppose on them. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. --Eyrezer 23:07, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. I agree. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 23:09, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. These are the best choice, they fit with the academic style of the star and tick mark.—Darthtyler ^(Talk) 21:15, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
5. Simplest and most obvious, as well as the most consistent with the star and check. Havac 22:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• See this section of the CAN talk page for the aforementioned discussion and whittling.NAYAYEN:TALK 09:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC)