Forum:CT:FA reform proposal

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:FA reform proposal


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 to not freeze FA passage until after debate was finished, add a 1000 minimum word requirement for FAs, and include introduction and BTS in the word count, not make GA status a prerequisite for FA status, not to split the FA page, no consensus on section requirements (revert to policy), and not shorten the FA rotation cycle. Atarumaster88 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It has become evident that something needs to be done with the current FA system. Certain individuals continue to nominate articles that technically fulfill the FA requirements, but are believed by a considerable fraction of users not to be the best Wookieepedia has to offer - which is what FAs are supposed to be.

Also, the existing system was not designed with such level of activity in mind. We risk overflowing the weekly queue.

This is a crisis. And when a crisis occurs, we must act swiftly.

On IRC, Imperialles has made a suggestion to separate two processes: nominating an article for featured status and nominating a featured article to be highlighted on the main page. He says he has diagrams.

Other possible proposals: requiring GA status prior to nominating an FA, or shortening the rotation cycle. Thefourdotelipsis proposes a half-weekly cycle, or 3.5 days per article.

Let the discussion begin. - Sikon 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You know, I wondered how FAs could jump from no status to FA. Having all FAs have to go through GA seems like it's reasonable and sensible. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahem. To me, it seems that the problems people have with the current FA system boil down to: 1) "Silly" articles get featured on the main page, and 2) some of the articles are too short. In light of this, I propose the following: Split the FA system in two; one page for nominating articles for Featured status, and one for nominating Featured articles to appear on the main page. Additionally, instate a rule that makes sure no FAs can be under 1000 words, and a rule that requires articles to be GAs prior to being nominated for FA. --ATATatarismall.png 12:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think Imp here has it nailed here. This is how it should be. - JMAS 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The only issue I sense with specializing two FAs is that the FA process might slow to a trickle and maybe even stop. I know we have a queue already that is 3 months long, but after that, then what? Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I suspect it won't be an issue, Jorrel. We want LOTS of Good Articles, and we already have many (and will get more). I also support Imp's notion of a separate Main Page Article concept, though I think the prerequisites would need to be voted on (IMO they shouldn't be much stricter than what we've been doing, or else it'd seem that we're excluding certain topics *cough*Burl*ahem*). So, to sum up, I'm in favor of GA -> FA -> MPA. Let's make a cheer out of it! "GA, FA, MPA!" Gonk (Gonk!) 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Alright, explained, it makes sense. I wasn't criticizing the plan, just bringing it up for any concerned users. Maybe even Imp's diagrams would aid the thought process :-P Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
            • How about, it has to maintain GA status for a 2 weeks, then it can be nominated for FA status, and after maintaining FA status for another 2 weeks, then it can be queued for MPFA (Main Page Featured Article) status. - JMAS 13:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
              • It's a good idea, JMAS, but if the articles are silly to begin with, and make it to FA, they'll stay there for two weeks anyway. I like Imp's idea. Darth Maddolis 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I'm split over this proposal. I don't like the idea of splitting the FA page, and so I disagree with that. On the other hand, I like the idea of a 1000 word limit and making FAs go through GA first. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Silly is a point of view, Darth Maddolis. Some would say all that is Star Wars is silly. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting the FA page, but Support length limit for FA noms and having them go through GA status first. Saying that some article are worthy to be put on the front page and others aren't kind of defeats the purpose of FA, does it not? They are called "FEATURED" articles, not "Some are featured, while the rest are stuffed in a dark corner" articles. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Support putting them through GA first, Strong Oppose 3.5 days and two kinds of FAs. I think it's pretty good as is. Just for frame of reference, can someone give me a previous FA that was less than 1000 words? Chack Jadson 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • AFAIK, there aren't any. A good thing, if you ask me. Some have been close, but not under. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support length limit and GA review, so very opposed to the separate main page idea. Why does it matter if somebody thinks an article is "silly"? - Lord Hydronium 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support minimum length limit and Support GA to FA flow. -Fnlayson 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing two sorts of FAs… think of it more like QOTD—it's just a place to nominate your favorite featured articles for showcasing on the main page. --ATATatarismall.png 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting the FA page is going to result in the community deciding what is "cool enough" so to speak, to be put on the front page. FA should not be like QotD, and hopefully it won't become that way. Terrible idea I believe. Per StarNeptune. Oppose changing the GA into a gateway for FA. That's not what it was created to be, and will serve to cement the idea that not everything can be an GA, which I strongly disagree with. Support a length limit for FA. I want FAs to be at least 1000 words, at least then we can be sure that they will represent articles that actually have some information, instead of basically one or two facts stated multiple ways.
    • To answer Chack's question, sans image, quotes, header, and source and ref characters, there are a few articles that have been under 1000 words, but if we do institute that policy, we'll probably have to decide what constitutes part of the word count. Cull Tremayne 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose to everything, on second thought. I'm just not a fan, and I think we're running alright at the moment. And I don't really think that some of the FA's under 1000 words are unsuitable in the traditional sense. Granted, I wrote most of them, but I'm not sure that length = quality. I don't like the set limit, I think we should just use good common sense with the length limit. .... 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support, for several reasons. Actually, I wasn't gonna bother with this, but this thread seems like the place for it - I've long wondered whether section-based requirements, Behind the Scenes being an obvious example but also Personality & Traits, make sense - if something has worthwhile info for a BtS section, than all well and good, but it's very possible that the opposite could be true. Requiring a FA to have one strictly for the sake of, well, whatever you'd call it, seems unnecessary. As for Personality & Traits, my personal feeling on the matter is that a good character article would include all the relevant personality info as part of the biography. Making a separate section might be necessary for some people, but again, strong cases can be made against them being necessary all the time. Should I add a vote to the end of the page, perhaps? CooperTFN 05:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • An additional vote can always be added. I know what you're saying, but I think having a section on P&T, even if it is redundant seems fine. Cull Tremayne 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's anything wrong with them inherently, just that they shouldn't be required for a FA. CooperTFN 08:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal Vote

There are a number of issues here relevant to FA.

Freeze passage of all FAs until this thread is over

  • To make sure that everything is somewhat standardized, should we freeze promotion of FA noms until this thread ends? We have a queue of articles until September. Any old articles will be reviewed retroactively by the Inquisitorius to make sure they pass muster, that's why it was formed.

Support

  1. Comedy maniac option. --ATATatarismall.png 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No. God. .... 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dumb. In the most literal sense. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. No. The future always in motion, it is. Use criteria when article started FA review. -Fnlayson 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. You took my quote Fnlayson. Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Unnecessary disruption of a process we've finally given inertia to seems counterproductive in every way. jSarek 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Shouldn't be necessary. KEJ 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. We have the Inquisitorius for this type of thing. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Ozzel 05:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Word Limit

  • Have a word limit of at least one thousand words of prose (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc.) for Featured Article noms

Support

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. ATATatarismall.png 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) -- Will fix the problem (we had a problem?) Yes we had a problem. (you talk to yourself?) Who is this again?
  4. Especially since my proposed WP:CA allows short articles to be recognized. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Also exclude references.-LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Actually, Burl's only 100 short. Nice. .... 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. I support loose enforcement of this rule. In other words, if an article comes in maybe 100-200 short but no one objects, it can be overlooked. Length does not always equal quality. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Ozzel 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Yes! -Fnlayson 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. I'd be opposed if the limit were much higher, but you can write 1000 words about anything. CooperTFN 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. 719 is a much better number. .... 22:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Some articles will be worth featuring at substantially less: and this may simply inspire some of our colleagues, esteemed in other respects though they may be, to strain themselves to add excess verbiage in order to meet an arbitrary word count — which may result in a poor prose style, an unfortunate excess of speculation, and a myriad of other sins (which, while only minor transgressions of the Wookieepedia mission, are best avoided.) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a concern, but I think it can be covered by the "well-written" rule. As it is, there's pretty much no way an article with only one or two body paragraphs but fine in every other way could be objected to. - Lord Hydronium 07:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Lack of sectioning. jSarek 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I was leaning support until I read what Silly Dan had to say. I'd rather see Featured Articles that were slim on content than ones that were unnecessarily padded to meet the word requirements. jSarek 07:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Size doesn't matter. KEJ 08:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Arbitrary word limits only cause padding of the article to meet a randomly assigned standard. Not a good idea. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. I don't see the point. Evir Daal 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • A word limit of what? .... 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been a fan of a 1000 word threshold for FAs. However, I think it creates a real potential for padding out or "coaxing" articles just to meet the standard. Even without this as a requirement, this is already occurring. While it might make this worse, a higher limit, say 1500, might be better. At this level, any attempts to articifically extend an article should be quite obvious. --Eyrezer 07:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Include intro

  • Should the intro be included in the word count?

Support

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. ATATatarismall.png 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Why the hell not? .... 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Eh. I could probably be convinced otherwise. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per Cull. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Sure. Fnlayson 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Why not? Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. If you're setting a minimum length, of course you should. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. It's part of the article, isn't it? Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Of course. -- Ozzel 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Include Behind the scenes

  • Should Behind the scenes information be included in the word count?

Support

  1. If it's prose, yes, because it's an even more legitimate part of the article than the intro. If it's a list, no way. .... 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. With 4dot's prerequisite. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per 4dot. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per 4dot. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. -LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. It's still part of an article. Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. If you're setting a minimum length, of course you should (though excessively long trivia sections will cause the article to fail some other criterion.) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Any actual information should count. jSarek 07:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Per 4dot.Gonk (Gonk!) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. It's part of the article; it's part of the word count. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Definitely. -- Ozzel 05:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. No, a bunch of marginal triva could get an article a ways torward the 1000 words. -Fnlayson 00:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

GA prequisite for FA

  • Should all Featured Articles be required to achieve GA status first? Note that this won't apply retroactively: That'd be silly.

Support

  1. Yes —Xwing328(Talk) 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. ATATatarismall.png 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. KEJ 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. School of Thrawn 101 10:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Definately. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. I say it's worth a try. If it does indeed slow down the FA process rather than rejuvenating the GA process, we go back to the old way. But this might save the Inqs some time and hassle, anyway. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • GA is already slower than FA. GA lacks the Inquisitorius to speed things along. Stuff has been getting done on the FA page, and I can't say the same about GA, with some noms stagnating for months. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • And I suspect part of the reason people are so hot on FA is because they don't *need* to worry about GA. If this is instituted, and an article is truly good enough for FA, and if enough people recognize that, wouldn't the GA pass pretty quickly? Gonk (Gonk!) 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I still don't like the idea. GA just doesn't move as fast nor get as much involvement. I don't see a problem with people taking things directly to FA. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Yes. Also, maybe have the Inquisitorius oversee the GA process. tzzA 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. I support the idea, but not giving the Inquisition more power. Evir Daal 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Good God no. .... 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. I just don't get it. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. jSarek 07:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. I just see it as extra baggage, and could cause a good (no pun intended) candidate to fail, because few people pay attention to it. It's unnecessary I guess. Chack Jadson 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. - breathesgelatinTalk 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Horrible idea. GA is for articles that don't cut it as FA. That's the whole point of it. No need to add another layer of slow-moving bureaucracy. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Ozzel 05:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Doesn't really account for crummy articles that have one huge rewrite all at once. CooperTFN 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Per Havac. -LtNOWIS 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Maybe not this, but I'd like GA to be brought more into the process to get people interested in it. I'm open to ideas. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • GA provides a stepping stone to get articles up to par, then FA just makes them awesome (hopefully). Plus, WP:CA (if it goes through) would provide a separate system for short articles formerly nominated for GA status, and make this more suitable for an FA prerequisite. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I said support above, but I'm less sure about this now. On the one hand, it does help weed out the poor FA noms early and brings attention to GA. On the other hand, it's another layer to go through, which makes FA nominating longer and more difficult. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the Inquisitorius keeps poor FA noms weeded out anyway. —Unsigned comment by Atarumaster88 (talk • contribs)
  • This might be a good idea, if it weren't for the fact that the GA process is kind of slow-moving as it is. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If an FA candidate meets the standard quality criteria to be an FA, the GA requirement would just unnecessarily slow it down. And if it DOESN'T meet the quality criteria, it's status as a GA is irrelevant. Either way, this requirement is unhelpful. jSarek 07:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Why would its status as a GA be irrelevant? Irrelevant to the FA process, perhaps. But are you saying we should get rid of GA altogether? Look, the reason nobody uses it is because there's a bigger brass ring to reach for, and no additional hurdles to jump to get to it (if I may mix my metaphors a bit). Gonk (Gonk!) 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't cry a single tear if GA was gotten rid of altogether, but I also see it as a place for articles that can't be brought up to FA status for whatever reason (typically, insufficient published details to make a featurable article out of) but still deserve recognition. Good FA rejects going to GA should be the general rule, rather than good GA winners going to FA. jSarek 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, then it is a matter of differing perceptions as to GA's purpose. Perhaps that is the core issue here, then. Gonk (Gonk!) 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Split the FA page

  • Per Imperialles, we would split the FA page into noms for main page appearance and noms for Featured Article.

Split the page

  1. Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. ATATatarismall.png 04:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Evir Daal 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep it the way it is

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. I am no longer a fan. .... 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Never a fan. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. For now —Xwing328(Talk) 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Nein. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Chack Jadson 12:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Changed my mind per StarNeptune, above. It'd make Main Page status into a popularity contest. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Bad idea. We don't have enough quality articles to not put them all on the front page. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Ozzel 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Section Requirements Should Go

  • Personality & Traits sections should not be required of Featured Character articles.

Support

  1. CooperTFN 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. I follow you. KEJ 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Required, not so much. It is a nice, uniquely Wookieepedian touch, though. Enochf 09:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Nice to have but should not be required. Personality or Traits may not exactly apply to everything. -Fnlayson 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Doesn't always fit. Chack Jadson 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. God forbid we should want to get a feel for the character without hearing about how they once spent a night with a borderline-tree woman. .... 09:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. If anything we should have more section requirements. It makes the articles more consistent and complete if all characters have a personality and traits section. I'd like to see more Jedi with a powers and abilities section too. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sorry, I don't follow. Just because we have a P&T section, doesn't mean we have to use non-descriptive adjectives in the Bio. If anything, it helps someone go right to that section without having to read the entire article to get a good feel for the character's personality. Cull Tremayne 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. It's the only chance I get to use thick prose.-Solus (Bird of Prey) 11:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Bah! Per GT. Require more sections. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Sections are good and don't hurt anyone. Even if it just ends up restating information from the main biography, it still gathers it all together in one concise spot. Havac 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Even Darth Maul has a personality. Somewhat. Atarumaster88 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I feel basically the same way about these as I do about Behind the Scenes sections, which are encouraged, of course, but not required for FA - there can and will often be characteristics of a, erm, character, that are so noteworthy as to necessitate a special section just to discuss them, but I don't think that's always the case - do we need a special section to point out to us that the Tumble bunny trainer was enthusiastic? And anyway, I think any article sufficiently well-written to deserve FA status would include all relevant personality information in the biography. Which of these would we rather have:

Biography

Emperor Palpatine took great pleasure in his eradication of the Jedi.

...or...

Biography

Emperor Palpatine killed lots of Jedi.

Personality and Traits

Emperor Palpatine enjoyed killing Jedi.

CooperTFN 08:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Here's another way of looking at it - all planets have weather of some sort, and if I were writing an article about Kamino, or Ryloth, there's enough to say about it that I might want to include a Weather section. But we wouldn't want to require such a thing, because for every Kamino we'd be necessitating a dozen instances of "Chandrila was temperate. The weather was nicest by the ocean." CooperTFN 09:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the rotation cycle

Since our FA system was not designed with such activity in mind, the FA rotation cycle should be shortened. Fourdot proposed 3.5 days on IRC, which means two FAs per week. - Sikon 10:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Sikon 10:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Maybe it should be an even 3 or 4, though. CooperTFN 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. As the queue grows ever longer articles have that much more time to slip from having featured quality, and having an article featured in a year is awefully abstract for someone finishing work on it today. jSarek 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per jSarek. We have enough of a buffer that if the current wealth of FA noms dries up, we'll have time to go back. Even if it's halved, we'd still have almost 5 months of noms built up. - Lord Hydronium 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Even though it means I might have to look at Burl Ives for a week ;-) KEJ 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. A week is a nice round number. Gonk (Gonk!) 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. NO! I hate this idea. Chack Jadson 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Better to build up a large queue than to exploit a current bounty and run ourselves out of FAs a year down the line. Havac 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, is it good to have a queue so large that articles have time to substantially degrade before they appear on the front page? jSarek 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, even before things started moving up, the queue was a few months long, which is more than enough time. That's just something people have to keep on top of. That's why I'm somewhat dubious of featuring people like Zayne who are in the middle of an ongoing story and will be receiving constant updates, but that's just the way the system works. I don't think degradation is as big a concern as running out of articles. Havac 05:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Havac. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per Havac. Atarumaster88 18:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Hmm...thought I voted already —Xwing328(Talk) 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I actually proposed, just recently, "Minor FAs" getting a 3.5 rotation, with "Major FAs" getting a full week, but I can just see that that's not going to take. .... 10:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of FA status?

Part of the problem may be that FA status currently does two things: (1) recognizes articles which fit all of our quality requirements, and (2) puts material on our front page to attract more readers and contributors. Is this why we have such an outcry when articles on fan favourites get de-featured, while articles on peripheral topics get approved? —Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Probably. The problem with the fan-favourites, is that while they are notable and people like them, a closer look of the article usually reveals an article of poor quality. The Inquisitorius isn't out to make all the FAs really obscure, just meet all the FA requirements. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The only problem, I think that exsists with FA, is that people don't realise that it's about the quality of the article, and not the quality of the subject. .... 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It seems as though some editors think that it should be about both. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Personally, I would direct them to the FA requirements, of which notability is not one. In the past, we've ignored notability objections on the nom page- Bastila Shan and Jar Jar Binks had some IIRC, because they have little to do with the definition of FA. We did have a CT that said FA objections must fall under a rule, it should be listed on the FA page. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If we're talking about reforming FA, we should talk about what it should be. It is true that at present notability is not an FA requirement, but perhaps it should be. I tend to think articles need an "X-factor" other than merely meeting formatting rules. Splitting the FA process provides for both these. Articles that are technically correct recognised as being comprehensive on their subject can be FA'd. Being put on the front page should be reserved for those that will strongly promote the wiki. Yes, I see that problem with something like x factor being subjective, but why not make it a straight vote? --Eyrezer 07:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please, no notability requirement. Considering that I've seen people object to FAs for being too well-known and not well-known enough, I can't see any roundly satifactory way of measuring how notable something has to be before we can talk about it, not to mention that that's incredibly subjective, even more so than quality of writing. Is a minor movie character more or less notable than a major character who's only in the EU? What about important characters in lesser-known EU works? And besides, if we only feature "notable" stuff, that kind of misses the point of a wiki that lets people learn stuff about Star Wars they didn't already know. What I would be in favor of judging by is scope; there has to be a sufficient amount of information actually on the subject, and the article can't be mostly built on information that's only indirectly related to the topic (Like if I'm doing an article on a guy in a bar, talking a lot about a conversation he overheard, while technically involving him, is not information on him and therefore needs to be limited). - Lord Hydronium 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed, we should not have notability requirements. I have learned a lot thanks to the current FA system nominating some lesser known things. Also, articles about major characters should still be allowed to be featured. The point of a Featured Article is to showcase the best Wookieepedia has to offer. If an article is good, who cares what it's on, as long as it's Star Wars related? I don't, and I don't think "he is too well-known", or "who's ever heard of this guy? In all my omnipotence, I haven't, therefore, it would not make a good FA," are valid objections. Just please, make them about Star Wars. Chack Jadson 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The more I learn about all this, the more I think FA needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Even discounting the numerous issues being debated here, there are three other CTs currently active pertaining to FA rules, plus the multiple controversies related to the Inquisitorius, plus the simple fact that, c'mon - the FA queue in February was about two-three months ahead, and now it's seven months. What do you think it'll look like by July? If the rate of article passage has suddenly increased that much, and has done so concurrent with the formation of a group whose purpose is to tighten up the approval process, something is seriously wrong. We're wasting valuable time patching up dozens of small cracks when we should be redesigning the building. CooperTFN 06:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Has the actual article quality deteriorated? Nuh-uh. The Inquisitorius, believe it or not, is not out to eat your babies, and actually speeds up the FA process. The reason the Queue was so short back in Feb, was because we had Luke Skywalker floundering around for several months. The Inqs just see that nothing is being done, and kick it off the queue. This sped up procedure makes FA far more attractive to most users, as they know their article won't spend 4 months of nommery if it's up to scratch. If you think that the articles themselves are poor, object. If you think that the rules need a big overhaul, bring up a CT, which was done recently, and, for the most part, shot down, because we're getting a higher turnover rate of high-quality articles as opposed to a doddering trail of ambiguously good articles. .... 06:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This isn't fundamentally about the Inq, and I think I've demonstrated that I'm not just out to get you - I can envision, in fact, a post-reform Inquisitorius that's at least as helpful as it is now, if not moreso because of everything we'll have learned from the current incarnation. And maybe I don't exemplify most users, but I don't see sitting in a queue for a year as being vastly more appealing than four months of "nommery". CooperTFN 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I, as someone who has written several FAs and has three on the queue now, can say that I'd much rather have my article put up and approved and then have to wait a few months to see it than to put it up, have it flop around wondering if it was dying a painfully slow death, and then get put on and featured . . . a few fewer months later. I can say for a fact that the huge buildup of old, inactive, mouldering noms was a huge turnoff to FA for me because everything seemed lost under the weight of half a dozen huge, cruddy noms floating around and nothing moving due to some standing objection. Now that things move a lot faster, it's a lot more attractive to use. Also contributing to the uptick is a sudden slew of FAs coming from people like Fourdot and me whose output just seems to have gone up recently, whether it's a temporary aberration or whatever. However, it's certainly not a matter of standards becoming more permissive. Havac 06:36, 15 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.