Forum:CT:GAN redlink count

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:GAN redlink count
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 Vote 1: Support lowering the GAN redlink count (as determined by Vote 2); Vote 2: Lower GAN redlink limit to 0. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:03, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Currently, our redlink rule for good articles reads

  • "have no more than 1 redlink for articles less than 500 words, no more than 3 redlinks for articles 500 words or more, and no redlinks in the introduction, infobox, or any templates."

However, 3 redlinks for an article under 1,000 words is quite a lot, and distracts from the quality of the article. Although much of the good articles that are passed do not have 3 redlinks, it would be beneficial to change our redlink guideline to prevent future nominations for passing if they had 3 redlinks. Thus, I propose to change the redlink rule to either

  • "have 0 redlinks for articles under 500 words, no more than 1 redlink for articles with 500 or more, and no redlinks in the introduction, infobox, or any templates." or "have no redlinks."

Vote 1 will deal with changing the redlinks allowed, while Vote 2 will decide if that number should be 1 for articles with 500 or more words and 0 for those under 500, or just 0. If Vote 1 does not pass, then the outcome of Vote 2 will not matter. 501st dogma(talk) 19:27, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 1: Changing GAN redlinks allowed

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in open discussion area or a new section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Support proposal to lower GAN redlink count (as to be determined by Vote 2). Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:56, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

This vote decides whether 3 redlinks is too much, and should be lowered.

Support

  1. As nominator. 501st dogma(talk) 19:27, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Laziness is the only excuse for a redlink to ever exist in a status article period. How hard is it to create a stub to kill a redlink? And yes, I understand that redlinks serve as an invitation for readers to contribute, but we have some 114,000 other articles for readers to find redlinks in. They don't need to be in status articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:55, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Per Tope.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:00, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. Supreme Emperor (talk) 20:17, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Per Tope. —MJ— Holocomm 04:47, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Trip391 (talk) 04:51, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  7. 1358 (Talk) 20:50, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  8. AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 23:56, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:44, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:24, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
  11. Good one, dogma. Winterz (talk) 21:32, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
  12. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 21:44, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
  13. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 21:47, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Vote 2: Updated redlink limit

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in open discussion area or a new section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Support 0 redlinks for Good article nominations. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:03, December 31, 2014 (UTC) This vote will decide whether the new limit should be 0 for articles under 500 words, and 1 for those with 500 or more words, or 0 for all articles.

Support 1 redlink for articles with 500 or more words, and 0 for articles under 500

  1. Allowing GANs a single redlink doesn't take away from the article, and the 1 redlink limit serves to differentiate GANs from CANs in a way. 501st dogma(talk) 19:27, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
  2. 1358 (Talk) 20:50, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:44, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Support 0 redlinks

  1. I don't see any reason why we should allow a redlink in any status article.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:00, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Supreme Emperor (talk) 20:17, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Extremely per EJ. —MJ— Holocomm 04:47, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Trip391 (talk) 04:51, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  5. I'm ok if the other option wins, but this is the most professional. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:49, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  6. AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 23:57, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:24, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Tolerance means 1 but f*ck that, one redlink can't possibly be that hard to fix and if one refuses to fix it, it proves laziness and that coming from a nominator, we just do not tolerate. Winterz (talk) 21:30, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 21:44, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
  10. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 21:47, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Just noting here that since this vote will only kick in if Vote 1 passes, Vote 2 will be a plurality vote, meaning simple majority wins. A no-consensus outcome here doesn't work. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:51, December 17, 2014 (UTC)