Forum:CT:FAN rule amendment

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:FAN rule amendment

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 amend Rule Five to "5...following the review process, it is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism." Graestan(Talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not long ago I came across a rule on the Good article nominations page that I feel is vaguely alluded to on the rules for the Featured article nominations page. I believe this FAN rule wording should be modified to greater reflect this GAN wording.

The GAN rule states: "5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism."

The FAN rule I refer to, which I believe is meant to deal with the same idea, reads, in not so many words: "5. …not be the object of any ongoing edit wars."

I propose we reword FAN rule 5 to reflect that which I believe is presented more specifically clearer and straightforward on the GAN to read, for the purpose of greater article stability: "5...following the review process, it is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism." Toprawa and Ralltiir 13:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting

I support this measure

  1. I don't think an article's potential instability is so great. Toprawa and Ralltiir 13:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. —Xwing328(Talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Defintely. Great catch, Toprawa. DC 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Makes sense to me. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 15:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Graestan(Talk) 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Thefourdotelipsis 01:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  11. I guess. Unit 8311 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  12. Probably.-- DarthBlurrr(I Am the Chosen One) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the GAN rule is what we need on the FAN page

  1. I'm going to have to vote against this, after due discussion about the matter with Toprawa in IRC, and to preface my opposition, I think I understand where he's coming from. I just have some concerns. First, it could create a sort of "FA trap", a scenario best illustrated with an example. Say an article, for example Shaak Ti, is an FA, and has been for some time. All of a sudden, TFU and TCW are released and new information is pumped into them. That's technically not "stable" and might be considered grounds for FA removal. Second scenario, let's say the Inq reviews this hypothetical Shaak Ti FA and find it lacking on various grounds-let's say the only images are crudely drawn concept art sketches and there's no Personality and traits section or Behind the Scenes. In the event that large expansions/edits are needed, editors could make those edits and still have the FA status removed because, by very nature, the article has changed drastically and is not "stable". It's not that I suspect the Inq or anyone of trying to gimmick the FA rules, but as worded, there's too many particularly nasty loopholes for me to support this measure. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Ataru, and furthermore suggest we need to remove that existing wording from the GAN page. In a dynamic storytelling environment like Star Wars, at any time any article's subject may be revisited by the creators and there will be a need to update the article. If that update isn't perfect the first time, it may need several revisions, possibly by several authors over the course of several days or more. Unless we want that to invalidate all FAs or GAs that undergo such a process (which would essentially rule out ever making an FA/GA of any main character or major subject of the franchise), the rule needs rewording. jSarek 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. I have to agree. I've always thought that was a rather bad rule. Basically we're saying "You're not aloud to add lots of content to FAs if you want them to remain FAs" which doesn't really work, sometimes FAs do need more content. Admittedly articles shouldn't become FAs if they are missing substantial information, but as new books come out the information from them will be added to the FA. This'll mean it'll no longer be one, and then it'll simply be a drag to nominate it again. - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Per below, I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case, but so what if it's a drag? We should be interested in quality here, not easiness. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Didn't see below. But about the quality, it seems pointless to make it more difficult when you come out with the same result as when it's more easy, if you see what I mean (also see below). - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree with the statements made in this section. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I do have one concern, and that's with "rough" noms, for example, Dooku or Natasi Daala, that aren't stable from day-to-day as Inquisitors and other objectors ask for expansions, etc. I'd like that sorted somehow, or point it out to me if it's already there and I skipped over it while reading. Or just some clever explanation. I can see how we wouldn't want an actual FA to be unstable and I agree with that, but a nomination can fluctuate if stuff needs added. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, after the main additions there would usually be plenty of fine-tuning, wording/POV changes, that type of thing, so there would be a period after the large additions in which it would be more stable before it's likely to become an FA. If that makes sense. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
      • A very good point, Ataru, and one that, fortunately, was already brought to my attention and I've modified the GAN wording as such to address this. "Following the review process" is intended to mean that, naturally, it's ok for an article to fluctuate greatly from day-to-day while its still up on the FAN page, but after it passes, these kinds of huge edits shouldn't really be happening. Toprawa and Ralltiir 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Ataru and jSarek are interpreting this differently to me, though I haven't spoken to Tope so I'm not sure how he intended it to be interpreted. Let's take Jagged Fel: he became an FA before the end of LotF, so Havac has had to update it as the books were released. Havac, the original writer and nominator, seems to have done it well, updating the book soon after it came out; all fairly clean cut, and no mass of users making additions that aren't up to FA standard. This, in my estimation, is stable; the additions have been made promptly and in few edits to a high standard of writing and detail. However, if someone FAed a major character is an on-going comic series (let's say Cade Skywalker) and then just left it to other, less-able or established writers to add it, bit-by-bit, with loads of revisions in the history, that would be unstable. As I said, I might not be extrapolating this from anything Tope's said, but that is my opinion on how the rule would work. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Then the wording of this existing proposal needs to be changed; as Tope and I discussed in IRC, it all depends on what "stable" means. That lack of clarity is why I'm opposing this. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)