Forum:CT:Showcasing Good articles: Final round!!

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 Approve creation of following new pages and templates. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC) This one is a bit complicated. Please read it carefully and ensure that you understand. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. Some new pages need to be created. We just need to approve them as a community.

This vote is for approving the creation of Wookieepedia:Good article queue, Wookieepedia: Good articles/History, [[Wookieepedia:AC/Old GAs]], {{Tl|GoodOn}}, and {{Tl|NewGAs}}, as well as some [[User:Menkooroo/GA queue checklist|proposed updates]] to Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/instructions.

1. The basics:Wookieepedia:Good article queue and Wookieepedia: Good articles/History will be identical to their FA brethren. They keep track of GAs that will soon and have already been showcased on the Main Page, respectively. {{Tl|GoodOn}} is the GA equivalent of {{Tl|FeaturedOn}}. It goes on GAs' talk pages and states when they will be/have been showcased.
2. Now, the slightly more complicated ones: [[Wookieepedia:AC/Old GAs]] will be a list of all of the oldest GAs. It will be a handy shortcut for Agricorps to know which old GAs will be showcased on weekends, and it will basically look like the top of [[User:Menkooroo/R2-D2#The_oldest_GAs|this page]]. The AC will strike out old GAs after they're placed on the queue. Any old GA that needs heavy cleanup will be marked as such and will be brought to the Agricorps' attention rather than being placed on the queue. If it passes AC review, it will be added to the queue at that time. See the proposed updates for more details; they let the AC know how to peruse and update the list.
   
   {{Tl|NewGAs}} will be a number from 0 to 7. It's modelled after {{Legacyfac}}. It will initially be set at 5, since we voted to showcase 5 new GAs per week. If the Agricorps votes to change that number, all they need do is change the number in this template. View the [[User:Menkooroo/GA queue checklist|proposed updates]] to see where this template will appear.
3. And finally, here are the [[User:Menkooroo/GA queue checklist|proposed updates]] to Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/instructions. Check out here to see exactly what will change. Please read the changes carefully. They include instructions on how to add both old and new GAs to the queue, how to add them to the GA history, how to update the "Old GAs" list, and exactly what to do with old GAs that need heavy cleanup. If you have any questions at all about these proposed changes, feel free to ask them in "Discussion" below.

Approve the creation of Wookieepedia:Good article queue, Wookieepedia: Good articles/History, [[Wookieepedia:AC/Old GAs]], {{Tl|GoodOn}}, and {{Tl|NewGAs}}, and the [[User:Menkooroo/GA queue checklist|proposed updates]] to Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/instructions.

1. Menkooroo 02:57, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 03:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. Heck yes. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 04:05, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 04:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. Well, how would we do this without these pages? —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 04:16 UTC
6. So many redlinks. nayayen★talk 11:13, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
7. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 15:56, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Master Jonathan. None of these items require community consensus to ratify. The first CT already established the creation of a Main Page queue. All of this is simply necessary technical matter that needs to exist for the queue to function. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:33, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
9. —Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 22:00, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
10. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
11. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
12. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 14:20, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
13. ~Savage 21:52, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
14. graestan^(talk) 22:00, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
15. Jinzler 21:49, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
16. Final rooooooouuuuuuund! IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 23:50, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
17. Yes. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 17:38, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
18. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 19:03, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
19. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:53, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
20. --Eyrezer 05:19, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Do not approve them

Discussion

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 Showcase the first GA on Monday, April 16. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Second vote: When do we start?

This is pretty simple. Do we wait until May 1st, or do we get this party started as soon as possible?

Showcase the first GA on Monday, April 16

1. May 1st may be a nice even number for the history books, but why wait any longer than necessary? If this CT passes, and if the Agricorps are cool with a non-AC doing it, I'm volunteering to get the queue up-and-running as soon as this CT closes. If they're not cool with that, I'm volunteering to offer them support! :D Menkooroo 02:57, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. Get the ball rolling! Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 03:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. Eh, why not? At least it's on a Monday. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 04:06, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. Honestly, I'm good with whatever on this one. Voting here because: why not? Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 04:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. Entirely per Jon. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 04:16 UTC
6. No point waiting. nayayen★talk 11:13, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
7. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 15:56, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Jugs. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:35, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
9. —Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 22:00, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
10. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
11. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
12. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 14:20, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
13. graestan^(talk) 22:00, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
14. Jinzler 21:49, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
15. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 23:50, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
16. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 19:03, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
17. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:53, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Showcase the first GA on Monday, May 1

1. Just to make things interesting. :P ~Savage 21:52, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

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 Float the queue by 12 weeks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Third vote: A float

We need to give the queue a float. Otherwise it will be a mad, mad, mad, mad rush to pass as many new GAs as possible so that the queue doesn't dry up immediately. How long of a float do we need? These are my suggestions. A four-week float, for example, would consist of the twenty most recently passed GAs (weekdays) and the first eight old GAs (weekends).

Four weeks

Eight weeks

Twelve weeks

1. Starting with a three-month-long queue is, IMO, a good course of action. It will give us a good amount of time to see how quickly we're adding to it without the worry of it drying up. Menkooroo 02:57, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. Although I also think eight weeks would be enough. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 03:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. If only my savings account would have a nice queue like this... Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 04:07, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. Seems reasonable. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 04:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Menk. —MJ— _{War Room} Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 04:17 UTC
6. Less strain on reviewer output. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
7. —Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 22:00, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
8. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
9. Me gusta. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:57, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
10. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 14:20, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
11. Per all. ~Savage 21:53, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
12. graestan^(talk) 22:02, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
13. Jinzler 21:49, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
14. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 23:50, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
15. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:53, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

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 No consensus. Images will be aligned left by default. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:08, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Fourth vote: Aesthetics

Trak suggested that we take some steps to distinguish the GA box from the FA box --- specifically, align images to the right instead of the left. Make them visually different.

Align images to the right

1. I think this is a great idea. The casual reader will automatically realize that they're different. Additionally, two consecutive left-aligned images are frowned upon in articles for visual reasons; front page should be the same. Menkooroo 02:57, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. Because I suggested it and because the eye looks for distinct contrast when skimming a page. For articles without images, the bold text header will simply have to do. But with the alternate image placement, there will be a clear and distinct contrast without actually having to read the page. Since the advent of the casual Internet sub-culture, we have all learned to skim. We glance over a page, pick out key words, and determine a context with that. We do it without realizing it. It saves time. I can assure you that i didn't sit down and read this whole CT in the traditional sense as one would read a book; I skimmed it for contrast and context. That's what my eyes and brain have learned to do and I can reasonably assume that you do the same. Without contrast, the blocks of text will blur together. Alternating the image will help prevent that. It's the same reason why we do it in articles. Why not on the front page? Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 04:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Menk and Trak. —MJ— ^{War Room} Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 04:19 UTC

   nayayen★talk 11:13, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

4. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 15:56, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. Looks better this way, in my opinion. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
6. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 14:20, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
7. I think this option is more aesthetically pleasing. It also mimics the layout of the vast majority of our articles, which have right-aligned images in infoboxes at the top. ~Savage 21:56, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Bob. graestan^(talk) 21:59, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
9. Jinzler 21:49, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
10. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 23:50, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
11. I'm really ok with either/or here, but I kind of like the way the alternating breaks up the monotony a little bit. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:57, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Keep them on the left

1. I much prefer uniformity on the main page. Plus, I think the bolded "Good Article" bar above the text will be a bit of a dead give away to our readers regarding what the following text will be. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 03:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. Though honestly I don't care that much one way or the other. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 04:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Trayus. I don't see much point to switching them around. I think they'd be fine as the same.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 22:00, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. Simply because I feel this option looks more aesthetically pleasing. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:56, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
5. After looking at it again: per Trayus' comment below. nayayen★talk 14:16, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
6. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 17:40, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
7. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:53, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
8. I prefer the consistency of left-alignment. --Eyrezer 05:19, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Would someone mind cooking up a quick example of each to get a better visual idea of what each option will look like? That may make it easier to pick a winner here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • Using a old short FA blurb for the example, here's image on left and image on right. Does that help? —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 01:40 UTC
    • Gracias. Yes. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:51, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
• Having that GA image smack dab in the middle of the page just looks funky to me. There's more than enough of a bumper there to prevent the two texts from blurring together. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 08:28, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
• Just as a procedural note for this forum's imminent closure, I (assuming I'm the one to close it) am going to treat this individual vote as a straight plurality vote, meaning general majority, in the interest of adopting one or the other option, as a no-consensus outcome in this instance is impractical in the interest of implementing this new system. I'm going to leave this vote here until Monday sometime and plan on closing it then. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:37, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds fair to me, but note that in vote number two above, we've clearly decided to start this in under 24 hours, so this needs closing before Monday in order to get this on the Main Page on time. —MJ— ^{Training Room} Sunday, April 15, 2012, 01:54 UTC
    • This seems more like a no-consensus = default to keep to me. Left is the default/keep, since this is modeled after the FA system, and Vote #1 above says that the Good article queue will be identical to the Featured article queue. Additionally, the vote here says "Keep them on the left." Menkooroo 02:14, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
      • I see that now, and I have misinterpreted this vote's meaning. Thank you for clearing that up for me. No consensus does indeed seem to be the more appropriate option here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:39, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

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 Do themed weeks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Fifth vote: Themed weeks

There was a lot of discussion about allowing room for themed weeks. ie, once every month or so, do an entire week of old GAs that follow the same theme, eg Stormtrooper week, Planet week, DarkStryder week. Since we have over 1400 existing GAs, this would be a fun way to showcase them with more frequency with minimal disruption to our regularly-scheduled queue. If this passes, we can work out the logistics in a later CT.

Do themed weeks

1. I like this idea. I don't think we should start right away --- we should get the queue up and running first --- but, beginning a few months from now, I think that doing this once every month or two would be fun. Menkooroo 02:57, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes! Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 03:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. Can't wait for Insect Week! :D Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 04:05, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. I think this'll increase interest in the site for readers and users alike, and that can only be a good thing. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 04:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Jon. —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 04:20 UTC
6. nayayen★talk 11:13, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
7. If only as an excuse to keep doing themed noms for myself. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 15:56, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
8. I'm obviously in support of this, but again this is something that doesn't need CT consensus to exist. The Inq (namely, GT), for example, has always had the prerogative to move the queue around to accommodate a batch of themed articles, like when people wrote all the Grand Admirals. And I think I can speak for the AC when I say that no one is going to oppose entertaining similar ideas for the GA queue. I think this is ultimately something that would be more effectively discussed during AC meetings (everyone is welcome to attend Inq and AC meetings and may contribute input to the proceedings for matters such as this) to establish some sort of logistical plan for when and how to do it, rather than starting another CT. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:45, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
9. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of this. However, if this is going to be the consensus of the community, I'd be willing to go along with it. Per Tope on the subject of this really being more of an AC matter. As he says, anyone can attend the meetings, and it would be better sorted out among the AC during a meeting or such, IMO.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 22:00, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
10. Per Tope. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
11. Yes. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
12. Months. DarkStryder will need months. Or four consecutive theme weeks at a time. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 14:20, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
13. Yes, please. And I appreciate this forum for being more open than the AC meetings, though I don't dispute the AC's mandate to monkey with queues if they want. ~Savage 21:58, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
    • Anyone is allowed to join the channel and watch the public part (though it's invite only so you need to ask a member for an invite). If you have a good idea regarding the queue for example, feel free to pop in and tell us. 1358 ^(Talk) 12:43, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
14. graestan^(talk) 21:59, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
15. Jinzler 21:49, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
16. We could do an all-Floyd week! IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 23:50, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
17. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:53, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
18. --Eyrezer 05:19, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Do not do themed weeks

Discussion