Forum:CT:Removing the under 3000 word GA rule

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Removing the under 3000 word GA rule

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 Main vote: Approve proposal; Side vote: Existing 1000+ word GAs will be grandfathered in. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:18, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

My first attempt at a CT, here goes. Following up from this SH thread, I'm proposing that we lower the maximum 3000 word count for GAs to 1000 words, since this is unnessecary because pretty much all of our writers will take articles they've written over 1000 words to Featured status, and from what I understand this rule only really applied when Good articles could be articles that weren't comprehensive in detail. The following GAN rules will have to be changed if this passes, the parts struck out indicate that they should be removed

  • Rule 7 ...have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This is essential in articles over 1000 words but may not be appropriate on articles with limited content.
  • Rule 9 ...have significant information, especially a biography for character articles. For articles under 1000 words in length, comprehensive detail is required with all information covered from all sources and appearances. For articles over 1000 words, broad coverage addressing all major aspects of the topic is sufficient.
  • Rule 17 ...counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 250 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Alternatively, a good article cannot exceed 3000 words.
    • This second sentance should be revised to Alternatively, a good article cannot exceed 1000 words, articles that do so should be nominated for Featured status

I'm going to divide this vote into two parts, semi-copying Trak's formatting for the other current CT, sorry. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 10:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Main vote

Okay, main part of the vote, should the GAN limit be lowered from 3000 words to 1000 words?

Support

  1. As the proposer. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 10:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  2. I do agree with Naru in that we should re-open discussion on the idea of allowing major articles like Luke, Han, Wookiee, etc, to gain some sort of "somewhat comprehensive" status (which is the Wikipedia definition of a "Good article," and which was also one of the original Wookieepedia definitions of a Good article). I think there's merit to that idea, but I see it as a completely separate thing from this CT. Such an article would be over 3,000 words anyway, so if it's going to be a thing, Xd's idea in the SH thread of creating an entirely new tier of articles is a good one. In practice, GAs have been mini-FAs for years now, and we might as well make it an official rule. I have some further, albeit wacky, ideas on the subject that I'll note in the discussion below. Menkooroo (talk) 11:46, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Per Menk. This is a baby step, but one in the right direction. Get this out of the way, and perhaps then the discussion about "Essential Articles" can be more focused without the distraction of the GA word limit or whether to create a new status or incorporate it into GA. I also wouldn't oppose reducing the FA/GA word count cutoff, as discussed below. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 19:07, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  4. I've often contemplated doing one of the Big Three, and it's not impossible, it'd just require a lot of work. Regardless, this is a good idea. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 19:17, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Winterz (talk) 19:34, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Again, let's make common practice common law. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 19:44, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  7. The 3,000-word limit was something we implemented way back when, when our standards were a lot lower and we used to allow these "broad coverage" articles in. It was basically a lazy man's way of writing a major and in-depth article without having to go through the "comprehensive" pain of FAN. No one does that anymore. I can't even remember the last time someone tried nominating a "broad coverage" article, because we have completely evolved past that point. I'm also extremely opposed to lowering the FAN word limit, but that's another fight. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:02, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Very much per Tope. This is a leftover of another time. CAs, GAs, and FAs should all be the same quality. The only difference should be word count. This is a good move.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 21:06, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Per Tope. I also see no reason for even entertaining the notion of lowering the upper limit of GAN articles. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:10, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per Tope and Cav. 1358 (Talk) 21:57, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  11. CC7567 (talk) 02:26, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Per Tope and Cav JangFett (Talk) 03:42, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  13. Well sure. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 15:21, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  14. 501st dogma(talk) 18:20, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  15. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 03:29, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not without something to follow the 3000 word rule up. If we get rid of it without something like that, we'll just leave it. It will probably be years before we talk about it again, as we sometimes tend to procrastinate, and that will help nothing. Taking the 3000 word rule out is not simply a procedural revision of obsolete prose like updating the MOS for the outermost future real-world year articles. It's removing the spirit of realism about handling crazy topics, and I can't support that. Reopening the discussion is the thing to do, not voting before we've properly hashed things out. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 11:18, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • In response to Menk above, my opposition is based on incentivising discussion about this. The discussion that lead to this CT stalled while it was still in place. Without the rule as a reminder, the goal being to create something better, it's just going to sit. So, yes, it's a separate thing in that not having the long articles is already being enforced as though it were the rule and this would be putting the letter in line with that, but we would be skipping a crucial step in the process of replacing it. We should look before we leap. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 13:41, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per the discussion in the SH thread: 3,000-word GAs that are not comprehensive are necessary if we are ever to have good versions of things like Twi'lek and Human that appear in thousands of sources. We need a mechanism to ensure that those articles are high-quality without requiring them to be comprehensive, and the 3,000-word GA is currently it. ~SavageBOB sig 15:59, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
    • The reason I'm proposing that we lower the GA limit is because 3000 word GAs aren't being written anymore, if users were still writing these type of articles then this CT wouldn't be needed. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 08:14, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Does anyone else want to revisit the 1,000 word cutoff, or is it just me? It's a number that was seemingly arbitrarily chosen, after all. This CT, if successful, will solidify GAs as mini-FAs, and 800- and 900-word GAs aren't exactly short. We could make the new cutoff a smaller number so as to emphasize the shorter length of GAs --- something like 700 or 750. To me, the spirit of GAs has always been about their small size, and the longer, 800+ word GAs never really captured that spirit for me. Especially since they're on the Main Page now, where they function as quick and easy reads for the casual visitor who isn't interested in reading the big long FA. This isn't something I'll push, but given that the original 1,000 word cutoff does seem to be pretty arbitrary, we might as well discuss this now, in this forum that's the perfect place to discuss it. Menkooroo (talk) 11:59, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • Further musing: With GAs already being showcased on the Main Page alongside FAs, the passage of this CT will solidify the difference in word count as the only remaining difference between GAs and FAs. This raises the question --- why distinguish between them at all? Why not just showcase them all on the same queue and ditch the arbitrary 1,000 word cutoff? I like distinguishing between them for the reason I mentioned above --- that is, having a GA on the Main Page as a quick and easy read for the casual visitor, contrasted with the longer FA. With that said, I think that a number around 750 would be a better cutoff point. I'm not saying that the system is broken and needs fixing; I'm just taking advantage of this CT to float these ideas, since it seems to be the perfect opportunity to do so. Menkooroo (talk) 14:07, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree. Dropping it to somewhere around 600–750 would work for me. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 19:07, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't see anything wrong with lowering the limit. I'm kinda ambivalent towards the idea, since it's trading one arbitrary threshold for another, but I'm not against it. However, just think of the spill over from GAs to FAs. It would be fairly massive. That's a place where I could see a limit on nominations coming into play, one to say that you can have up to three or so GA upgrades on the FAN at a time from a user, to keep the new 1000 word FANs from being washed away in a sea of largely procedural supports. Full reviews would be given to them all, of course, but most would probably slip through primarily unchanged. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 02:23, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Side vote

If the above change is implemented, what will happen to GAs that are currently over 1000 words in length? Should they be stripped of their status effective immiediately? Should the original nominator, if not, someone who is knowledgable about the source the article appears from, be asked to nominate them for Featured status? Maybe they could be automatically taken to FA status without need for a nominator? There's multiple options we can explore here. I'm actually unsure which option to pick, and some of the options suggested are a bit radical, so if anyone has any other ideas just say so. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 10:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Remove 1000+ GAs immediately

Users familiar with particular 1000+ GAs be asked to FAN them

Automatically take all 1000+ GAs to FA status

Existing 1000+ word GAs will be grandfathered in

  1. Per comments below. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 19:07, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Winterz (talk) 19:34, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  3. This is the only practical solution, and it's what we did for existing GAs when we first implemented the 3,000 limit. It's also unfair to everyone to force articles to FAN that may not even have the original author currently tending to them. If someone wants to take any of these to FAN at any time, the option will always be there for them. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:45, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Seems legit. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 19:49, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  5. 501st dogma(talk) 19:55, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Per above.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 21:06, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:13, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Boom shakka lakka! Menkooroo (talk) 02:08, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Okay, um…Ninth-ed. Right-o! NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 02:10, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per Tope JangFett (Talk) 04:18, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  11. As much as I'd like to see all of the articles in question be FANd, I'm afraid that it could just be too much trouble for users who might have these nominations forced upon them. It would still be nice to see some 1000+ GAs be taken to FA status if users are willing. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 06:30, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  12. CC7567 (talk) 12:04, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  13. Entirely per Tope. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 16:59, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  14. 1358 (Talk) 10:44, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
  15. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 03:30, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think it would be best if we allowed all old 1000+ word GAs to retain their status as part of a grandfather clause. No need to strip them of their status, as their quality will remain the same, and no need to clog up an already overcrowded FAN page. Automatically taking them to FA status might be a realistic option if the AC and the INQs were the same panel and/or had the same required number of votes, but presently I don't that automatically promoting them to FA status is a bridge we want to cross. Letting them be seems best, IMO. Menkooroo (talk) 11:28, January 27, 2013 (UTC)