Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Increase CAN votes required
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. 1358 (Talk) 19:20, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
Considering that the latter attempt, to decrease the fast rhythm (and somewhat improve the quality) of Comprehensive articles, will not result in a community consensus and so, will be refuted, I wanted to present an option that may have the same advantages of the latter but lesser disadvantages.
Comprehensive articles are known as being of minor quality when compared to GAs or FAs, being criticized, despised but mostly ignored by many users. What I wanted to propose is, increasing the number of votes required (considering that the existent are way too few) from both users and ECs, to grant the respective nomination succesful and providing it with the CA status. Now, the reason I'm taking this to SH is because I'm not sure what the number of votes required should be. I'll just leave my idea here.
The 4th point of the CANs 'How to vote' section would be modified to:
- Option A: "There are several ways in which an article can receive the required number of votes. Within a 48-hour period of nomination, only EduCorps votes will count towards the total, although anyone may choose to vote in that window. If five members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window, and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the {{Eras|comp}} template 48 hours after the initial nomination. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{CA}} template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If two EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, five regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with four EduCorps votes." (more similar to the GANs requirements)
- Option B: (...) If four members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window, and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the {{Eras|comp}} template 48 hours after the initial nomination. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{CA}} template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If two EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, three regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with just three EduCorps votes.
- Option C: Give your own.
Honestly, I'm more inclined to option B, as we have also to consider the low number of active ECs. I'll take this to CT in a week or so, unless anyone is able to provide a good point on why this shouldn't be applied. Discuss. Winterz (talk) 21:22, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
- I do think 5 EC votes is way to many, as we don't have that many constant EC reviewers. Sure, we get the occasional on where everyone votes for it, but that's once a week. Having five EC votes required is a bit much. As for the two ECs and three normal, what if we have 3 ECs and 2 normal, would that be considered a pass, as technically that ranks higher than the former. Three EC votes at the most would be the requirement for the first two days I think, with 2 EC and three normal being the requirements for after that period. I'm not sure if this wiull actually work. It might just stall the CAN page, with every nom a vote or two a way, as it requires more ECs to be active on the page, which is something I don't see happening. Alternatively, we could raise the number of normal votes required after the two days. We have, I think, a few more non ECs that ECs reviewing, and an extra set of eyes, even if they weren't an EC, still helps and might not stall the page as much. 501st dogma(talk) 03:01, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- The number of reviewers has increased in recent days. At the top of my head I can count at least 4 ECs and 6 other users, and those are the regulars. The stalling isn't a problem in the GANs page, so it shouldn't be a problem here. Also worth noting that the reasons of why some more experienced users stay away from the CAN section is because of some CANs' quality. You know the CAN board needs a change in some aspect, I'm just pointing out one solution as you already did, mate. Winterz (talk) 04:18, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think that there's anything about the CAN system that needs fixing. If more activity is needed on the CAN page, that's not a fault of the system, and raising the number of votes required won't change a thing. Maybe people's attitudes toward the CAN page need to be changed, but the system doesn't. Menkooroo (talk) 03:48, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- You misunderstand my point. I'm not trying to fix its activity, I'm trying to fix its quality. I believe 2 ECs votes is way too low and most noms are able to pass in a single day. The noms should stall at least for a few days or with more than two reviews, that's where my opinion stands, that's the main reason I give to the so-hardly criticized CAs quality. Winterz (talk) 03:53, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- But CA's can't pass in a day. They are required to be there at least two days, and most stay there for at least three or four days. Most also get more user reviews than EC votes. Cade Calrayn
03:56, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- And for that reason, reviewing activity should not be a problem for the OT. Most nominations that stay there for more than 3 days are the ones with pending objections. Winterz (talk) 04:08, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- This is the first I'm hearing about users "despising" the CAN, or thinking it's somehow inferior. If that's the case, that's a fault of the reviewers, not the system or the nominators. Honestly, if there are issues with articles passing, that's what CAR is for. I'm not sure adding more hurdles to the system will help anything. ~Savage
12:43, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Bob. Not to say that's untrue, but I've never heard about CAs being despised. 5 EC votes to me is excessive, given that that's what GAs require. I sincerely think the only real problem the CA nominations is the lack of active EC reviewers. Stake black msg 13:05, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm only acquainted with one such cases, but that's not the point. It's more than clear that most ignore the CAN section, generally because of the articles' quality. It's not about the reviewers being bad, otherwise why would GANs/FANs need so many ACs/Inqs votes? It's a matter of it being reviewed by several experienced and less-experienced eyes, a pair is just not enough. Winterz (talk) 21:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- That's not clear at all. People tend to take on long-term projects and necessarily just write longer stuff, or they're are on the review panels and are committed to reviewing the longer nominations. The CAN was created to accommodate smaller articles that were being ignored completely, not to change the inclination of most editors to take on big stuff. The CAN was intended to be a stage production, while the GAN and FAN are the Hollywood blockbusters. The stage is smaller, but is no less (and sometimes more) technically accurate than the big-budget films. I'm thinking about going to the opera next month, actually. La Traviata is playing. NaruHina Talk
22:50, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is, we shouldn't care about ensuring the improval of CAs quality at all, lets just leave it as a "stage production", a school for the less experienced. I actually thought the CA was supposed to be for top-quality articles that don't warrant enough content/size for a GAN, I mean.. that was the original point was it not? Sure, their limited size would never make them as important as FAs or GAs but they should require the same worthy attention. Winterz (talk) 02:22, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot about this while I was in the middle of the one below. If you think actors in films are any more experienced than people on Broadway or on the stage, I invite you to go to a play somewhere sometime. There's no appreciable difference in their acting, though they may not look quite as attrative and stage actors have to emote with their voices more. The best film actors performed in Shakespearian troups before becoming famous for films, and they often visit. I don't think it makes sense to think I don't care about the quality of CAs, considering how much thought, effort, and hours I've put into them, the debates involving them over the years, and this very page. One does not volunteer to write several thousand words over something they don't care about, and I know others love the CAN, too. I merely don't think your methods of improving quality will work because they don't attack the problem you want to attack, bad nominators. We should continue putting CAs through the best scrutiny we can, but to improve quality further we should scrtnize nominators and deal accordingly with bad apples. NaruHina Talk
05:34, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you really know what you said, but "stage actors have to emote with their voices more" sounds a lot (figurative) like CA nominators should put more effort into their articles, which, in a way, supports my thesis ;). Attack bad nominators? Not really, no that's not my focus, it's more than clear, by what I wrote in the intro, that my focus is to slow the CAN process and not rush through them, which yes, (the latter) decreases its quality. You think only bad nominators make mistakes? By that logic, there would be no objections in "Good nominators'" articles. Winterz (talk) 14:04, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- When I don't analogize, my meaning gets lost in the mass of words. When I do, it gets mired in the ambiguity of my poor figurative language skills. xD The voice analogy was meant to show there's only the slightest of differences between them. Put directly to our status articles that would be the length. And besides that, it takes a lot of effort to talk like stage actors do and make it convincing. :P What I mean by "attack" is fix. I'm not saying that bad nominators are the only ones who make mistakes. I'm trying to look at the (unnamed) nominators who are nominating large batches of articles that aren't ready at the same time, and are behaving irresponsibly, and talk about ways we could fix them. So from this point in discussion, I propose we take "bad nominator" to mean the ones doing the things you're talking about, for simplicity and clarity's sake. Okay? The things you've cited as their problems are things that someone who's been around the block just won't even think of. It makes no sense to slow the process down for everyone, because not everyone is doing the things that inspired these forums. Bad nominators are going to nominate bad articles no matter what the numbers on the page's procedure say. Most nominations that clearly are not up to snuff at all are taken down, the same way that they are on the GAN or FAN. They're not going to be subject to any vote count required to pass because they'll be gone before anyone votes for it. It's not that having another pair of eyes look at a prospective CA would be a bad thing, and as I said above I support a change to the 48 hour corollary, it's that requiring one or two more sets of eyes won't catch anything on 90% of nominations. The vast majority of issues on a CAN article are noticed and settled with less reviews than are required now. NaruHina Talk 18:43, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- When I don't analogize, my meaning gets lost in the mass of words. When I do, it gets mired in the ambiguity of my poor figurative language skills. xD The voice analogy was meant to show there's only the slightest of differences between them. Put directly to our status articles that would be the length. And besides that, it takes a lot of effort to talk like stage actors do and make it convincing. :P What I mean by "attack" is fix. I'm not saying that bad nominators are the only ones who make mistakes. I'm trying to look at the (unnamed) nominators who are nominating large batches of articles that aren't ready at the same time, and are behaving irresponsibly, and talk about ways we could fix them. So from this point in discussion, I propose we take "bad nominator" to mean the ones doing the things you're talking about, for simplicity and clarity's sake. Okay? The things you've cited as their problems are things that someone who's been around the block just won't even think of. It makes no sense to slow the process down for everyone, because not everyone is doing the things that inspired these forums. Bad nominators are going to nominate bad articles no matter what the numbers on the page's procedure say. Most nominations that clearly are not up to snuff at all are taken down, the same way that they are on the GAN or FAN. They're not going to be subject to any vote count required to pass because they'll be gone before anyone votes for it. It's not that having another pair of eyes look at a prospective CA would be a bad thing, and as I said above I support a change to the 48 hour corollary, it's that requiring one or two more sets of eyes won't catch anything on 90% of nominations. The vast majority of issues on a CAN article are noticed and settled with less reviews than are required now. NaruHina Talk
- I'm not sure if you really know what you said, but "stage actors have to emote with their voices more" sounds a lot (figurative) like CA nominators should put more effort into their articles, which, in a way, supports my thesis ;). Attack bad nominators? Not really, no that's not my focus, it's more than clear, by what I wrote in the intro, that my focus is to slow the CAN process and not rush through them, which yes, (the latter) decreases its quality. You think only bad nominators make mistakes? By that logic, there would be no objections in "Good nominators'" articles. Winterz (talk) 14:04, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot about this while I was in the middle of the one below. If you think actors in films are any more experienced than people on Broadway or on the stage, I invite you to go to a play somewhere sometime. There's no appreciable difference in their acting, though they may not look quite as attrative and stage actors have to emote with their voices more. The best film actors performed in Shakespearian troups before becoming famous for films, and they often visit. I don't think it makes sense to think I don't care about the quality of CAs, considering how much thought, effort, and hours I've put into them, the debates involving them over the years, and this very page. One does not volunteer to write several thousand words over something they don't care about, and I know others love the CAN, too. I merely don't think your methods of improving quality will work because they don't attack the problem you want to attack, bad nominators. We should continue putting CAs through the best scrutiny we can, but to improve quality further we should scrtnize nominators and deal accordingly with bad apples. NaruHina Talk
- So what you're saying is, we shouldn't care about ensuring the improval of CAs quality at all, lets just leave it as a "stage production", a school for the less experienced. I actually thought the CA was supposed to be for top-quality articles that don't warrant enough content/size for a GAN, I mean.. that was the original point was it not? Sure, their limited size would never make them as important as FAs or GAs but they should require the same worthy attention. Winterz (talk) 02:22, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- That's not clear at all. People tend to take on long-term projects and necessarily just write longer stuff, or they're are on the review panels and are committed to reviewing the longer nominations. The CAN was created to accommodate smaller articles that were being ignored completely, not to change the inclination of most editors to take on big stuff. The CAN was intended to be a stage production, while the GAN and FAN are the Hollywood blockbusters. The stage is smaller, but is no less (and sometimes more) technically accurate than the big-budget films. I'm thinking about going to the opera next month, actually. La Traviata is playing. NaruHina Talk
- I'm only acquainted with one such cases, but that's not the point. It's more than clear that most ignore the CAN section, generally because of the articles' quality. It's not about the reviewers being bad, otherwise why would GANs/FANs need so many ACs/Inqs votes? It's a matter of it being reviewed by several experienced and less-experienced eyes, a pair is just not enough. Winterz (talk) 21:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Bob. Not to say that's untrue, but I've never heard about CAs being despised. 5 EC votes to me is excessive, given that that's what GAs require. I sincerely think the only real problem the CA nominations is the lack of active EC reviewers. Stake black msg 13:05, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- This is the first I'm hearing about users "despising" the CAN, or thinking it's somehow inferior. If that's the case, that's a fault of the reviewers, not the system or the nominators. Honestly, if there are issues with articles passing, that's what CAR is for. I'm not sure adding more hurdles to the system will help anything. ~Savage
- And for that reason, reviewing activity should not be a problem for the OT. Most nominations that stay there for more than 3 days are the ones with pending objections. Winterz (talk) 04:08, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- But CA's can't pass in a day. They are required to be there at least two days, and most stay there for at least three or four days. Most also get more user reviews than EC votes. Cade Calrayn
- You misunderstand my point. I'm not trying to fix its activity, I'm trying to fix its quality. I believe 2 ECs votes is way too low and most noms are able to pass in a single day. The noms should stall at least for a few days or with more than two reviews, that's where my opinion stands, that's the main reason I give to the so-hardly criticized CAs quality. Winterz (talk) 03:53, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I actually would be in favor of increasing the number of EC votes for the 48 hour initial period. Not to five, but I would be in favor of it. As it sits, it is possible for a nomination to go through with only two votes within two days, and I don't think that's right because if it doesn't get through in those two days it has to wait a week and be reviewed several more times. That doesn't really make sense to me. Why do we even have that corollary? I'd actually be in favor of removing that 48 hour period entirely. However, I'd like to point out again, since I'm sure no-one read that monster post on the previous forum, that changing the rules in ways like this, so that it's not targeted at helping people who nominate articles that aren't ready do better jobs, there won't be an increase in quality. It'll just be the new normal of the system, and if people are abusing the current normal they will abuse the next one, too. NaruHina Talk 20:29, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- What would you suggest then as an option? (numbers) Winterz (talk) 21:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- (Assuming "an option with numbers." Usually, I'm pretty good at gleaning meaning, but this is one of those times I get confused.) The crux of my concern with your initiative, Winterz, is that I don't think an option where we just swish numbers around is going to work at all to increase quality. Yes, it would stem the flow of output, but that doesn't mean the quality of the articles being nominated would be better. It would decrease the number of articles on the nomination page, but you can't improve how well people write this way. It's targeting the former hoping that the latter will follow, when we can and should just aim at the latter. Worse, it's targeting the bad nominators without telling them that "this rule exists to keep you from doing something stupid." They won't know that's what you intended, ad they won't learn the lesson from it. That said, whatever numerical bar you set, there will always be people who will to try to scrape by under it. And we shouldn't let them. We don't let them as it is. As an option, I will suggest again (third time's the charm) that we have a system in place for forcing problem nominators to take complete timeouts from the nomination pages to be mentored by a veteran editor. That way, they get talked to and told what's going wrong like I want, they get off the page like you want, and they come out of it with advice from more experienced writers. NaruHina Talk 22:42, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- The mentorship thing might work. We should do a CT on it to see what others think. On the other hand, how about changing the shortest period a CAN can pass in to three days? Two days sometimes lets CANs get past some of the editors who want to look at them. 501st dogma(talk) 23:05, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Naru, and what is a "problem nominator"? Sounds a bit arbitrary. Stake black msg 02:28, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I initially thought of it under the old forum, so pretty much what Winterz and the others were talking about here. Specifically, Winterz was talking about people who would nominate hyperbolic batches of bad nominations at one time, and I took that to be the impetus for his campaign to improve the CAN. People who consistently nominate articles that are clearly not ready by any sense of the word. I think mentorship should probably be a last resort, since talking to these people on the nom page has worked for editors who stuck around for the long haul for years and taking someone off the nom page completely for a bit is drastic, but it should be a card we can play. NaruHina Talk 03:48, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I initially thought of it under the old forum, so pretty much what Winterz and the others were talking about here. Specifically, Winterz was talking about people who would nominate hyperbolic batches of bad nominations at one time, and I took that to be the impetus for his campaign to improve the CAN. People who consistently nominate articles that are clearly not ready by any sense of the word. I think mentorship should probably be a last resort, since talking to these people on the nom page has worked for editors who stuck around for the long haul for years and taking someone off the nom page completely for a bit is drastic, but it should be a card we can play. NaruHina Talk
- Naru, then do you care to explain why is the votes required-poll so high in FANs and GANs board, if not for improving quality and more attention required for the respective article. As for the mentorship idea, I'd have a no-go. There are no obligations here besides complying with the rules. Assigning mentors to respective users would be like forcing their hand. Any user is already free to seek help from more experienced people (initiaves are expected as they prove improval interest from the said user) however, that doesn't entirely mean that those, who are asked for help, must give it. Winterz (talk) 02:37, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- There are more votes required on the GAN and FAN because those articles can be so goddam long, for starters. For seconds, it's because CANs can be so goddam short. If fewer reviewers (EC and not) can't pick out 97% and up of the mistakes in 250 words, at some point some blame has to come down on them. They share in and are meant to ensure article quality, and what we're talking about here the difference between seven people looking over an article that goes upwards of 1000 words, and four people reading less than 250 words. Red Delicious and Granny Smith. They're both apples, but eventually you have to get to the fact that one is red and the other is green. Next point. "Any user is already free to seek help from more experienced people." Why don't they actually do that, aside from how to code articles? Beacuse we don't offer them a clear avenue. They don't know us. Why should they be expected to approach us if we don't tell the it's OK? People don't even do that very often in real world situations. Why do they nominate swatches of bad articles, earning ire and spurring this very debate? Because they don't know any better, because they haven't learned how to do it properly yet. Why would they know, learn from, and bear in mind the fact that the reason the CAN rules were changed as you want before they joined Wookieepedia was to keep them from nominating bad articles while they nominate their first, expectedly bad articles? I don't know. "That doesn't entirely mean that those, who are asked for help, must give it." I undertstand that I can be long-winded (in the extreme on the last forum), but I said in the previous forum twice, in response to you, that it would be a volunteer program, and in this one I never even thought to imply that anyone would be forced to mentor new guys. That would be an excedingly silly idea, since just because someone's experienced doesn't mean they'e good at teaching or dealing with people, or that they would want to. If we had volunteers and a framework, there's no reason that we can't advertise that we have a program (not a punishment) to help people stuggling. There's not even reasaon we can't use this as an excuse to invite people to ask for help before they do the things you have a problem with. NaruHina Talk 04:25, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Naru, I understand what Winterz is saying. When I was new to this place, I knew who was more experienced than I was simply by noticing how that user edited and how he/she communicated to others (not to mention AC/Inq templates). That's mainly how I got started until I actually talked to them. In time, even new members could learn this. While it may take some time, it's not that hard nor is it rocket science to get familiarized with GAN and FAN reviewers. I could see the CAN help develop new members, and I do see newer members go to it first before stepping into the GAN/FAN, but its quality control is just jarring. JangFett (Talk) 04:36, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- You were able to figure it out, and I did as well, but, apparently, there are new people who aren't getting the picture. And the way to fix that is to talk to them, not change the rules without doing that. This is not a place for Darwinism. We're talking about sharing a hobby we all enjoy with new people who want to help us, but cannot yet because they don't know how. In fact, until they start being nuisances, the situation will not have changed at all. New users will not be told more than "this outlet exists." They can still do what we did: see what other people are doing and follow suit. Frankly, after all these words across three forums, I would like Winterz and yourself to provide some examples, something that has not been done by anyone on any of the three forums. You said in the initial post that you choose to ignore the CAN because it's quality control is jarring. Winterz has felt the need to lead the charge to improve CAN quality. Surely, that can't be too much to ask? NaruHina Talk 04:49, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I frequent the CAN page fairly often, and to be honest, I've never seen an influx of poor-quality noms to the extent that the initial forum described. The only offender who was explicitly named was Cade, and to be honest, that's utter hodgepodge. Sure, he writes a lot of CANs, but he's a good writer and they're always solid. I haven't seen anything to back up the claims of bad quality, either. Menkooroo (talk) 04:57, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- The reason why I "figured it out" was because of the amount of work I put into my articles. All of that were based on the AC's rules and the quality of the reviews. The latter is what I want to see in the CAN, but I constantly see it failing. In order to ensure better editors and nominators in the future, we shouldn't hand pick new members or do some mentorship, but rather give quality reviews to an article. Don't just look, vote, and assume all is well. Take time to go through the article carefully with the new user. The reason why we think they are nuisances (and people that don't belong here) is because we ignore them and point and laugh. We could sit and type here all day long, but that is going to do absolutely nothing. If you want to transform a user from being a noob to a helpful contributor on this site (if he or she goes to the CAN and has no clue), then get to it and actually help out the user. How? By giving out quality reviews, and yes, IRC invites can help. The increase in votes is a good step toward that. You want an example? Look at Lee. He really improved his writing craft. He got better overtime due to the reviews we gave him on the GAN. I promise you that you'll see a completely different nominator by looking at one of his 2009 noms and compare it to a recent nom. I honestly don't understand why we are just arguing and butting heads instead of constructively getting a plan in order. JangFett (Talk) 05:04, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with the assertion that the CAN page is "failing." The claims of bad quality that are being thrown around are, IMO, greatly exaggerated (and still not backed up by any examples). If you have a problem with quality on the CAN page, then review there. Naru and I already take time to go through articles carefully with new users on the CAN page, and if you believe strongly in that, then back your words up with actions and go review. Menkooroo (talk) 05:10, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) And I think that's great that Lee's doing great. I'm proud, even. That's what we like to see. He is not, on the other hand, an actual example for what's currently going on that requires adjustment to the rules. If anythig, he's an example of how the current system has always been meant to work, the way you and I learned. What I'm trying to do with my mentor idea is get a plan together that will actually be constructive to the users you're taking issue with, and as far my logic goes, I've demonstrated that a strategy of just raising a couple of numbers in the CAN page procedure won't be constructive to those users and won't raise quality. NaruHina Talk 05:14, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I am not arguing about that yet. My argument is based on good reviews could help out new members. For what goes on in the CAN itself, What's this Menk? or this, this. A recent CA? Here you go. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more man. And I am still debating where Naru's usage of "example", came from. I've seen this carry over to the GAN recently. JangFett (Talk) 05:26, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- What is that supposed to prove? Are you asserting that if someone objects to a nom, then anyone who's already supported the nom isn't a good reviewer? There isn't a single person on the site who hasn't had somebody else object to a nom after they've supported it. Under that logic, the GAN and FAN pages are "failing" too. No, you'll have to do better than that. Menkooroo (talk) 05:32, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously you missed my point. To reword this: If you're highlighting other users, such as Naru, and claiming that you guys are carefully looking over the quality on the CAN, then why do I see this stuff get carried over to the GAN? Complete with certain CAN reviewers. Do you really think newer users could learn by seeing users argue against others? Or if reviewers on the CAN tell them "don't do this," do "this",? Look at those links above and you'll see more of what I mean, both argument and grammar control. JangFett (Talk) 05:38, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- The things you objected to on Booba Fett were excessively minor. The reason I got upset about them was because I was upset in real life and I projected that onto you because I was pracically looking for an outlet. That was wrong of me, and I apologize. That said, the only objection that wasn't trivial enough to draw me even in that rage was the one about the mass, because that was actually a problem, and kudos to you because it was minor enough that the CAN reviewers looking for the tiny details didn't see it. The others just required changing the order of phrase positions around, a regular 2 + 2 = 4, 1 + 3 = 4. NaruHina Talk 05:56, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- The things you objected to on Booba Fett were excessively minor. The reason I got upset about them was because I was upset in real life and I projected that onto you because I was pracically looking for an outlet. That was wrong of me, and I apologize. That said, the only objection that wasn't trivial enough to draw me even in that rage was the one about the mass, because that was actually a problem, and kudos to you because it was minor enough that the CAN reviewers looking for the tiny details didn't see it. The others just required changing the order of phrase positions around, a regular 2 + 2 = 4, 1 + 3 = 4. NaruHina Talk
- Obviously you missed my point. To reword this: If you're highlighting other users, such as Naru, and claiming that you guys are carefully looking over the quality on the CAN, then why do I see this stuff get carried over to the GAN? Complete with certain CAN reviewers. Do you really think newer users could learn by seeing users argue against others? Or if reviewers on the CAN tell them "don't do this," do "this",? Look at those links above and you'll see more of what I mean, both argument and grammar control. JangFett (Talk) 05:38, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict. We're getting busy, huh? :D) And if I might say something, how was this a constructive review? When I asked you what the problem was you refused to tell me, and if I didn't fix it the problem clearly wasn't obvious to me. When I tried to fix it, you reverted what I did and still didn't tell me what was going on. That's not helpful. That's not how a new user would have learned what tense shifting is. NaruHina Talk 05:42, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument is weak there based on the fact that you should know better since you weren't exactly a new member, Naru, which is what we are (or at least I am) trying to argue. The grammar issues were pretty simple and I'm sure you were capable of knowing what they were. JangFett (Talk) 05:45, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Capable? Yes. Once told where the problem was, which I wan't until after the fact, I saw what you meant. I didn't see it before that. Even rocket scientists forget to carry ones every now and then. Rocket scientist will be fairly insistent that they didn't misscarry anything, too. :3 NaruHina Talk 05:56, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- So you really didn't know? All this time editing in IU articles, you haven't remembered past tense usage or even the MOS's explanation? Connecting back to what I just said, I hope this doesn't carry over to the GAN or the CAN (reviews included)... JangFett (Talk) 05:58, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Minor as they were, they're still grammar issues. Naru, I hope you don't argue or butt heads with others like you do toward me. New users most likely do see arguments on the nom pages, hell even this one. Cooperation could be a great tool to use. JangFett (Talk) 06:05, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- It takes two to argue, Jang. I apologize for the time I did so with you when I was angry, but it still takes two and the other was you. You were dismissive of me when I asked for help on the CAN (a quotation of the problem would have been nice), and the problems you pointed out on Booba Fett weren't grammatical errors. They were stylistic differences between you and me. However, as I said below, past fights between you and me aren't the point here. You're not demonstrating your problem, you're demonstrating that I can be cantankerous sometimes. Water is wet. NaruHina Talk 06:13, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- It takes two to argue, Jang. I apologize for the time I did so with you when I was angry, but it still takes two and the other was you. You were dismissive of me when I asked for help on the CAN (a quotation of the problem would have been nice), and the problems you pointed out on Booba Fett weren't grammatical errors. They were stylistic differences between you and me. However, as I said below, past fights between you and me aren't the point here. You're not demonstrating your problem, you're demonstrating that I can be cantankerous sometimes. Water is wet. NaruHina Talk
- Capable? Yes. Once told where the problem was, which I wan't until after the fact, I saw what you meant. I didn't see it before that. Even rocket scientists forget to carry ones every now and then. Rocket scientist will be fairly insistent that they didn't misscarry anything, too. :3 NaruHina Talk
- Your argument is weak there based on the fact that you should know better since you weren't exactly a new member, Naru, which is what we are (or at least I am) trying to argue. The grammar issues were pretty simple and I'm sure you were capable of knowing what they were. JangFett (Talk) 05:45, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- What is that supposed to prove? Are you asserting that if someone objects to a nom, then anyone who's already supported the nom isn't a good reviewer? There isn't a single person on the site who hasn't had somebody else object to a nom after they've supported it. Under that logic, the GAN and FAN pages are "failing" too. No, you'll have to do better than that. Menkooroo (talk) 05:32, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I am not arguing about that yet. My argument is based on good reviews could help out new members. For what goes on in the CAN itself, What's this Menk? or this, this. A recent CA? Here you go. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more man. And I am still debating where Naru's usage of "example", came from. I've seen this carry over to the GAN recently. JangFett (Talk) 05:26, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- You were able to figure it out, and I did as well, but, apparently, there are new people who aren't getting the picture. And the way to fix that is to talk to them, not change the rules without doing that. This is not a place for Darwinism. We're talking about sharing a hobby we all enjoy with new people who want to help us, but cannot yet because they don't know how. In fact, until they start being nuisances, the situation will not have changed at all. New users will not be told more than "this outlet exists." They can still do what we did: see what other people are doing and follow suit. Frankly, after all these words across three forums, I would like Winterz and yourself to provide some examples, something that has not been done by anyone on any of the three forums. You said in the initial post that you choose to ignore the CAN because it's quality control is jarring. Winterz has felt the need to lead the charge to improve CAN quality. Surely, that can't be too much to ask? NaruHina Talk
- Actually Naru, I understand what Winterz is saying. When I was new to this place, I knew who was more experienced than I was simply by noticing how that user edited and how he/she communicated to others (not to mention AC/Inq templates). That's mainly how I got started until I actually talked to them. In time, even new members could learn this. While it may take some time, it's not that hard nor is it rocket science to get familiarized with GAN and FAN reviewers. I could see the CAN help develop new members, and I do see newer members go to it first before stepping into the GAN/FAN, but its quality control is just jarring. JangFett (Talk) 04:36, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- There are more votes required on the GAN and FAN because those articles can be so goddam long, for starters. For seconds, it's because CANs can be so goddam short. If fewer reviewers (EC and not) can't pick out 97% and up of the mistakes in 250 words, at some point some blame has to come down on them. They share in and are meant to ensure article quality, and what we're talking about here the difference between seven people looking over an article that goes upwards of 1000 words, and four people reading less than 250 words. Red Delicious and Granny Smith. They're both apples, but eventually you have to get to the fact that one is red and the other is green. Next point. "Any user is already free to seek help from more experienced people." Why don't they actually do that, aside from how to code articles? Beacuse we don't offer them a clear avenue. They don't know us. Why should they be expected to approach us if we don't tell the it's OK? People don't even do that very often in real world situations. Why do they nominate swatches of bad articles, earning ire and spurring this very debate? Because they don't know any better, because they haven't learned how to do it properly yet. Why would they know, learn from, and bear in mind the fact that the reason the CAN rules were changed as you want before they joined Wookieepedia was to keep them from nominating bad articles while they nominate their first, expectedly bad articles? I don't know. "That doesn't entirely mean that those, who are asked for help, must give it." I undertstand that I can be long-winded (in the extreme on the last forum), but I said in the previous forum twice, in response to you, that it would be a volunteer program, and in this one I never even thought to imply that anyone would be forced to mentor new guys. That would be an excedingly silly idea, since just because someone's experienced doesn't mean they'e good at teaching or dealing with people, or that they would want to. If we had volunteers and a framework, there's no reason that we can't advertise that we have a program (not a punishment) to help people stuggling. There's not even reasaon we can't use this as an excuse to invite people to ask for help before they do the things you have a problem with. NaruHina Talk
- (Assuming "an option with numbers." Usually, I'm pretty good at gleaning meaning, but this is one of those times I get confused.) The crux of my concern with your initiative, Winterz, is that I don't think an option where we just swish numbers around is going to work at all to increase quality. Yes, it would stem the flow of output, but that doesn't mean the quality of the articles being nominated would be better. It would decrease the number of articles on the nomination page, but you can't improve how well people write this way. It's targeting the former hoping that the latter will follow, when we can and should just aim at the latter. Worse, it's targeting the bad nominators without telling them that "this rule exists to keep you from doing something stupid." They won't know that's what you intended, ad they won't learn the lesson from it. That said, whatever numerical bar you set, there will always be people who will to try to scrape by under it. And we shouldn't let them. We don't let them as it is. As an option, I will suggest again (third time's the charm) that we have a system in place for forcing problem nominators to take complete timeouts from the nomination pages to be mentored by a veteran editor. That way, they get talked to and told what's going wrong like I want, they get off the page like you want, and they come out of it with advice from more experienced writers. NaruHina Talk
- What would you suggest then as an option? (numbers) Winterz (talk) 21:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict with Jang 06:05, February 21, 2013 (UTC)) Alright, we're getting off-topic here. If these problems exist, they either exist outside of two situations not involving me or I'm the problem. So far as those two goes, neither side was perfect. And none of these four nominations from four nominators demonstrates a prediliction of new users to nominate "20 low-quality nominations from the same person," as Winterz claimed. Not even the broad stroke interpretation of that hyperbole: "a lot." NaruHina Talk 06:07, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Off topic? Hardly. As Menk pointed out, he mentioned you as a person who carefully looks over articles. As you pointed out above, there are some flaws. I hope they don't carry over to reviews. Anywho, I am leaving for the night. JangFett (Talk) 06:11, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Sweet dreams~. He mentioned me as a person who looks carefully over articles. I could say the same of you. Have you ever had an objection on any of your nominations in the past? I'm thinking yes? You've proved nothing. NaruHina Talk 06:17, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, we're not even arguing about that... JangFett (Talk) 06:20, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that "As Menk pointed out, he mentioned you as a person who carefully looks over articles," and the mention of yor objections on Booba Fett, were part of what we were arguing about. If not, enlighten me tomorrow. As to the flaws, there's no egregious examples of problems in any of these. Here, the problem wasn't enough for you to say what it was. Nobody is a machine. It's not reasonable to expect that 100% of mistakes get caught, and not right to say that an entire system is broken because of the occasional slip like that. Here, I was airing questions. I don't see a problem other than me digging in my heels, the reason for that being because I didn't get an answer I found adequate. You did the same thing when the shoe was on the other foot, on Booba Fett. Cessa Hun is a good example of what you're talking about, but that's not enough to show a problem, let alone the specific problems of rampant bad nomming or across the board inadequate reviewing and quality. NaruHina Talk 06:45, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that "As Menk pointed out, he mentioned you as a person who carefully looks over articles," and the mention of yor objections on Booba Fett, were part of what we were arguing about. If not, enlighten me tomorrow. As to the flaws, there's no egregious examples of problems in any of these. Here, the problem wasn't enough for you to say what it was. Nobody is a machine. It's not reasonable to expect that 100% of mistakes get caught, and not right to say that an entire system is broken because of the occasional slip like that. Here, I was airing questions. I don't see a problem other than me digging in my heels, the reason for that being because I didn't get an answer I found adequate. You did the same thing when the shoe was on the other foot, on Booba Fett. Cessa Hun is a good example of what you're talking about, but that's not enough to show a problem, let alone the specific problems of rampant bad nomming or across the board inadequate reviewing and quality. NaruHina Talk
- Yeah, we're not even arguing about that... JangFett (Talk) 06:20, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Sweet dreams~. He mentioned me as a person who looks carefully over articles. I could say the same of you. Have you ever had an objection on any of your nominations in the past? I'm thinking yes? You've proved nothing. NaruHina Talk
- Off topic? Hardly. As Menk pointed out, he mentioned you as a person who carefully looks over articles. As you pointed out above, there are some flaws. I hope they don't carry over to reviews. Anywho, I am leaving for the night. JangFett (Talk) 06:11, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Winterz, I'd be inclined to support some changes. I've seen a number of articles pass CAN that could still use some improvement/expansion particularly ones that have passed through disproportionate votes from regular users, as opposed to votes from EduCorps. But then again I'm new to the CAN system and still find the whole CAN system to be confusing. Rokkur Shen (talk) 03:16, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Currently, the CAN page seems to run fine, even with the varying number of nominations. The CANs are supposed to be smaller versions of GANs and FANs, and thus should require less votes, because they are smaller. Quality control is less of a matter as well, because they are small, and there are less errors usually in them than in a full length article. I'm not sure why we need more quality control, but if we must, moving the minimum period for a nom to pass to 3 days would do it. This would let more people look over it, and if they can't get to it in that time, their opionion on the quality doesn't matter. However, if the quality is really indeed bad, then the article could be taken to the CAN review page for further investigation. If people think that CANs are being passed while they are still poor, they should look through the CAN history to assess the quality of each article, and if they find one, take it to the reviewers. 501st dogma(talk) 23:04, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Dogma, I believe the point of the review system is for articles that need to receive updates or had missing content that the reviewers were not able to access (this fact itself reveals one more reason why more than two experienced reviewers should be required). It's not for reviewing articles that just passed with several mistakes as the ones Jang stated above. Don't feel insulted dogma, this is not attacking the reviewers at all, it just means that two reviewers, regardless of how good they are, is a small number to control the real quality of articles. Winterz (talk) 23:26, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- The point remains that CANs are small, and do not require large reviews like GANs or FANs, because there is limited space to mess up in. 501st dogma(talk) 23:32, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Some FANs are a lot larger than others. Does this mean that to achieve a better quality control there should be more reviewers than normally? Size is hardly significant, dogma. Jang pointed out several CAs with deficts above (I may even come with some of mine before some corrections I had to make after receiving status), can you explain to me why did that happen? The thing is, most non-experienced reviewers will just lay their vote without looking. Even some more experienced may do that sometimes, considering several circumstances. Do you honestly think two are enough? And you shouldn't be worried about them being stalled, I don't see what's the rush, especially when (considering our recent CT) there is no limit to each user's number of nominations in the page. Winterz (talk) 23:42, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- The point remains that CANs are small, and do not require large reviews like GANs or FANs, because there is limited space to mess up in. 501st dogma(talk) 23:32, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Dogma, I believe the point of the review system is for articles that need to receive updates or had missing content that the reviewers were not able to access (this fact itself reveals one more reason why more than two experienced reviewers should be required). It's not for reviewing articles that just passed with several mistakes as the ones Jang stated above. Don't feel insulted dogma, this is not attacking the reviewers at all, it just means that two reviewers, regardless of how good they are, is a small number to control the real quality of articles. Winterz (talk) 23:26, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Forgot to say it here, but the CT is up. Winterz (talk) 20:18, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
