Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Creating a CAN limit
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:03, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that a general limit should be imposed upon the number of CA noms each person can have on the CAN page at any one time. This is chiefly due to the fact that the page is being currently swamped by Cade's 13 or so noms, with more coming every day. I have no problem with his enthusiasm in completing his personal project, but his nominations do take up the majority of the page. I was thinking of enacting limit, such as 6-8 nominations, to avoid having the CAN page swamped every now and then with a user's multiple nomiantions at a single period in time. Any comments would be appreciated. 501st dogma(talk) 22:49, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose the real problem here is the lack of active EduCorps reviewers. That's chiefly the reason why these noms pile up. I think we ought to be tackling this issue from a different perspective. Stake black msg 23:03, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- If more ECs actively reviewed, than I'd gladly drop this arguement. However, besides me and EJ, there are no other really active ECs. 501st dogma(talk) 23:14, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- As an aside, should we be nominating content from Star Wars: The Old Republic this early in the game as it is an ongoing and constantly changing landscape? I can see articles being accepted as CAN only to be revoked due to new game updates and content released surrounding the game. Rokkur Shen (talk) 23:40, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- That's probably better discussed elsewhere, this threads about a CAN limit rather than SWTOR articles. Going back to that, I don't think a CAN limit is a bad idea, I mean a few months ago the page was backed up because there was a lot of CANs at one time, which really slowed the whole process down, and I don't think I've had more than 3 CANs on the page at one time so I won't be heavily affected by a limit if its put in. I also agree that the number of active Educorps members is a strong factor, since I've been actively contribtuing one has left the Wook, one hasn't been on since April, and some I haven't even seen on the CAN page. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 01:05, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want to discourage anyone's productivity, but since we only have two regular EC reviewers, I believe we should look into a CAN limit. Even if we had more active revieweres, it seems to me that eight nominations should be plenty for anyone to have on the page at one time. Most of the time CANs are on the page for less than a week, so I don't see a limit being too restrictive. Thanks for starting this thread Dogma, I have also thought for some time that a limit might be a good idea.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 03:01, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- This is sort of a rant/general idea as well. I like to say that I completely ignore the CAN. The reason? Well, it does connect with this subject. There's little quality control, as far as I'm concerned. When users crank out 5 or even 10 CANs in a certain time period, either little simple errors or rather apparent errors tend to get ignored or overlooked by the regulars that contribute in the CAN. (I am not pointing fingers.) Those errors tend to get carried over to the GAN by those who actively contribute in the CAN. It's annoying and I know these errors, such as infobox reloading, checking simple grammar mistakes (like punctuation), originated in the CAN because the nominator in question often edits in the CAN (I am not pointing any fingers :P, but just saying in general). I think I might step in one of these days to see what's going on, but I feel sorry for all of the other passed CANs that contain these errors. And granted, it's not just those errors I've mentioned. Anyway, tl;dr, I think the CAN needs reviewers that have experience in either the GAN/FAN and could help show CAN reviewers how to properly fully check an article (size shouldn't matter). Putting a limit on CANs could help ease the pressure for newer or "sort of new" reviewers as well. I hope no one there votes for the sake of voting without reviewing. Meaning, as an example, "Hey! There's another TOR article from Cade! It must be good! I'll just vote anyway." JangFett (Talk) 03:53, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Just a comment on infobox reloading: in the past that used to be common with at least older GAs. And quite possibly after the "mass" field was added in, a ton of quality articles from before then (CAs, GAs and FAs) most likely still exist with that older infobox code. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:06, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- So, would everybody be fine if a limit was imposed at 8 articles? This could always be removed if more ECs started reviewing again. 501st dogma(talk) 22:49, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Probably best to take it to a CT, I'd say. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 10:04, January 25, 2013 (UTC)
- So, would everybody be fine if a limit was imposed at 8 articles? This could always be removed if more ECs started reviewing again. 501st dogma(talk) 22:49, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Just a comment on infobox reloading: in the past that used to be common with at least older GAs. And quite possibly after the "mass" field was added in, a ton of quality articles from before then (CAs, GAs and FAs) most likely still exist with that older infobox code. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:06, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- This is sort of a rant/general idea as well. I like to say that I completely ignore the CAN. The reason? Well, it does connect with this subject. There's little quality control, as far as I'm concerned. When users crank out 5 or even 10 CANs in a certain time period, either little simple errors or rather apparent errors tend to get ignored or overlooked by the regulars that contribute in the CAN. (I am not pointing fingers.) Those errors tend to get carried over to the GAN by those who actively contribute in the CAN. It's annoying and I know these errors, such as infobox reloading, checking simple grammar mistakes (like punctuation), originated in the CAN because the nominator in question often edits in the CAN (I am not pointing any fingers :P, but just saying in general). I think I might step in one of these days to see what's going on, but I feel sorry for all of the other passed CANs that contain these errors. And granted, it's not just those errors I've mentioned. Anyway, tl;dr, I think the CAN needs reviewers that have experience in either the GAN/FAN and could help show CAN reviewers how to properly fully check an article (size shouldn't matter). Putting a limit on CANs could help ease the pressure for newer or "sort of new" reviewers as well. I hope no one there votes for the sake of voting without reviewing. Meaning, as an example, "Hey! There's another TOR article from Cade! It must be good! I'll just vote anyway." JangFett (Talk) 03:53, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want to discourage anyone's productivity, but since we only have two regular EC reviewers, I believe we should look into a CAN limit. Even if we had more active revieweres, it seems to me that eight nominations should be plenty for anyone to have on the page at one time. Most of the time CANs are on the page for less than a week, so I don't see a limit being too restrictive. Thanks for starting this thread Dogma, I have also thought for some time that a limit might be a good idea.--Exiled Jedi
- That's probably better discussed elsewhere, this threads about a CAN limit rather than SWTOR articles. Going back to that, I don't think a CAN limit is a bad idea, I mean a few months ago the page was backed up because there was a lot of CANs at one time, which really slowed the whole process down, and I don't think I've had more than 3 CANs on the page at one time so I won't be heavily affected by a limit if its put in. I also agree that the number of active Educorps members is a strong factor, since I've been actively contribtuing one has left the Wook, one hasn't been on since April, and some I haven't even seen on the CAN page. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 01:05, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- As an aside, should we be nominating content from Star Wars: The Old Republic this early in the game as it is an ongoing and constantly changing landscape? I can see articles being accepted as CAN only to be revoked due to new game updates and content released surrounding the game. Rokkur Shen (talk) 23:40, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- If more ECs actively reviewed, than I'd gladly drop this arguement. However, besides me and EJ, there are no other really active ECs. 501st dogma(talk) 23:14, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- New section because I don't want to count the asterisks! If it's simply a matter of inactive EC members... would nominating new ones for the interim work? I've weighed in on FANs and GANs, and a few CANs, usually as a "Hey, we need an extra user vote, and you're decent at reviewing these things!" If you needed another EC member to tackle some of these in the interim, I'd be willing to do it. Trak Nar Ramble on 10:24, January 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Unlike user rights (rollback, etc.), you can nominate yourself for EC membership if you want. —MJ— Council Chambers 19:12, January 25, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with this limitations (even though I'm one of those who sometimes nominates a large number of CANs). 8 is fine by me, as it's not as limited as in the GANs but not a big number either. For the sort of problem that JangFett mentioned I would propose an increase in the number of EC votes required (and more active ECs as well). However, about expecting more experienced reviews I think it wouldn't change anything as anyone else more experienced is free to do it right now yet this happens rarely, considering that the GAN and FAN sections already give loads of work to these said individuals. Winterz (talk) 02:26, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
- The CT's up. Go and vote! 501st dogma(talk) 20:37, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
