Talk: Improvement drive

Back to page

Clarity

Please do us all a favour: When you vote, update the vote count in the subhead at the same time. If you're feeling generous, check to see if you've put it over the "stays until" margin and update that line too, if needed.

I have to admit: I don't have a clue what this paragraph is trying to say. 1) How is it decided how many votes are needed? Are we counting up or down? 2) What is the "stays until" margin? – Aidje talk 22:17, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Yea, I'm confused too. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:25, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • An artifact from a previous version of the improvement drive. I'll reword it. --Imp 22:29, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's what I've gathered:
  • An article needs two votes per week to stay on the list.
  • Every Sunday, the article with the most votes is selected for improvement.
  • Something like Nominated August 2, 2005; needs 2 votes by August 9, 2005 basically means it hasn't yet reached its goal of 2 votes, and if it doesn't by August 9th it will be eliminated. So, the current state for Luke Skywalker is Nominated August 2, 2005; needs 6 votes by August 23, 2005, which means it was nominated on August 2nd and needs another 2 votes to fill the criterion for the third week of voting. In other words, if an article doesn't reach the amount of votes stated by the date stated, it's off the list.
  • Please do us all a favour: When you vote, update the vote count in the subhead at the same time. If you're feeling generous, check to see if you've put it over the "stays until" margin and update that line too, if needed. This was copied from Wikipedia so the first sentence, since we don't seem to be using the "Luke Skywalker (6 votes, stays until August 23)" format for titles, is useless. The second sentence means, if you've put in that second vote needed for the particular week, increase the "stays until" date by a week. MarcK 22:30, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Bah, I removed the sentence altogether. I'll put in a new one describing the points outlined above when I decide how to phrase it. --Imp 22:35, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks MarcK and Imp; it makes much more sense now. – Aidje talk 22:36, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Any table wiz

Could anyone create Star Wars:Improvement drive/History in the style of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/History? Tables tend to hate me. --Imp 16:36, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Great work, Mark! --Imp 09:01, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Luke Skywalker

Interesting the Luke Skywalker article seems to have waned with the project. I was hoping to see a more active group of contributors take to the project, as well as a greater increase in the quality and quantity of the article's contents. --SparqMan 00:33, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe we're still too small for this to work? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:49, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Seems so, sadly... In my opinion, if someone goes first and contributes a major edit, others will feel more inspired. --Imp 01:56, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Vote?

Uhm, guys, I'm pretty new here and I have a simple question: How do you vote? --Inmobilus 17:59, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Simply type "#~~~~" under the Support column, and it will produce your name and time, like so:
  1. MarcK 04:01, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

A tie

  • It would appear we have another one. Obviously we can't have 4 improvement drive articles at one time, so what do we do? MarcK 04:25, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Ick, a four-way tie! -- Riffsyphon1024 04:38, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, I just voted for GCW, so we can avoid a tie for now. :) QuentinGeorge 06:12, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Not ready

  • After thinking about it a great deal, I don't think Wookieepedia is quite ready for an improvement drive. I think in, say, 6 months or so, when we've got more contributors and such, we might be able to try it again, but for the moment it doesn't seem like it's doing much good (only myself and Davin Rayce contributed to Galactic Civil War this past week). So I move for putting the SW:ID on hiatus until February or March, when, judging by our current rate, we'll have nearly 25,000 articles and over 200 contributors, and we'll be more mature of a wiki for this to happen. MarcK 17:57, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got to echo this. After reviewing the pre- and post-work articles that have been selected for IDRIVE, the results are minimal. A few additions, some copy work, but few substantial additions. There is no flurry of activity by the community. If half as much energy was put into the work on the selected articles as was on the nomination and voting that goes on beforehand, we'd have some nice work. I agree with MarcK that we aren't at the right place yet, or that the mechanism needs to be changed (perhaps to include a list of what work is required before it begins).--SparqMan 07:52, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe we could make the improvement drive vote biweekly rather than weekly, to give more time to fix articles? Or, rather than select one article and change it every week, we could make it a list of every article with x votes, and have them left on the list until x+1 people agree it's been improved? (I noticed significant improvement to Mon Calamari while it was just one of many nominated articles). Or, we could just keep renominating articles if a week passes and they still need work. — Silly Dan 02:35, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Another tie

This time between C-3PO and Mace Windu. However, I chose Windu because he collected 6 votes in a shorter period of time; also, his final vote was cast 4 minutes earlier than for C-3PO :). However, I'm not quite sure about that decision. - Sikon [Talk] 07:37, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems like a sensible way to break ties to me, if any of the admins want to codify it into a standard procedure. — Silly Dan 22:00, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Comments?

I an new here. I have noted that History of the Jedi Order is the only Nomination which don't have any Comments. Any special reasons. King2006 05:35, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • No. Comments aren't necessary in these sort of votes, but they are helpful if you want someone else to vote your way. — Silly Dan 02:55, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Re-nomination

Does a certain amount of time have to pass before an article can get re-nominated? -- SFH 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not at all. --Imp 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tie

We currently seem to have a tie between Mallatobuck and Sith. I would vote putting Mallatobuck up instead of Sith this week, as Mallatobuck is clearly the one in more need of help, but also because it got it's tenth vote before Sith did. -- SFH 17:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. —Mirlen 18:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image for Banner

I think that since a lot of the other images for various banners on here are screencaps from the movie, that this should be one too, instead of what looks like a stormtrooper shoveling bantha poo-doo or whatever. I think it should be the pic of when Han is up in the bowels of the MF fixing something. There are probably many good shots of him doing that in all three OT movies. Also, another good choice could be when Chewie had the arc welder in his hand and he was welding something on the MF at the HOTH base, and I think he had a welder's visor on. Just a thought.--Bruce the Bith 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps the nominations could be reordered by number of votes? It wouldn't take much effort, just a little copying and pasting, and would make the page more harmonious and easier to use. And if your vote tipped the count, you could copy and paste the article in question to the appropriate space.--Erl 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • We have enough trouble getting people to update the vote requirements under the section header. --MarcK [talk] 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, as of today I've appointed myself the official rankings checker. I just updated the rankings and I'll try to do it at least once a day... probably more since I am a loser with way too much time on my hands--Breathesgelatin 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Standings list

  • Is it necessary? It's not that difficult to skim the list and figure out who's leading. If anything we should put the number of votes next to the section header, like so:

New Republic (4 votes)

But again, to me it was simple enough as it was. --MarcK [talk] 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was handy in keeping track, and it's straighforward to maintain. I was hoping someone could write up some code, or maybe a template, but no such luck.--Erl 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know enough about code to make anything, but I've been checking it a few times a day to keep the list updated...-Breathesgelatin 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedia needs Improvement in General

All of the articles I've looked at are horrible - There is no separation of Film and Expanded Universe Sources, as with Starwars.com or even the Star Wars Portal on Wikipedia. There are even articles that are just plain fan speculation. (The Keyan Farlander article comes to mind). Worst of all, main characters like Han Solo have quotes that are not even from the Films. There seems to be absolultely no quality control around here.

  • I can't speak for the accuracy of the Farlander article (seeing as how its listed sources are all books and articles I haven't read and a video game I haven't played in years), but we decided quite some time ago that this wiki would contain articles written from a primarily in-universe perspective, and without separating Prequel trilogy, Original trilogy, and Expanded Universe canon. So, your main suggestion for improvement is a no-go at this point, I'm afraid. Mind you, there are probably still a lot of articles which may have excessive speculation: feel free to take up those discussions on their respective talk pages. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I see. Unifying Film and Expanded Universe is fine and well Dan, but maybe a more potent disclaimer about this on the homepage is in order? And again - from an editorial stand point, it's a travesty to have Han Solo's quote come from some Off-Screen Source. I am a huge fan (some of the EU stuff as well) but looking at Han's Page just made me go HUH?!? It's almost as bad as quoting dialog from a video game. I repectfully urge you to consider enacting some community editorial standards. Right now, this webpage would be more accurately entitled "Star Wars as envisioned by XBOX and Kevin J Anderson".
      • Your attitude needs improvement in general. Just barging in and saying things like "All of the articles I've looked at are horrible" and "There seems to be absolultely no quality control" is just plain rude. We don't need a disclaimer any more than the Essential Guides need stickers on the front that say "Warning: contains Expanded Universe material!" We have a ridiculous number of community editorial standards, and it's just too bad that none of them require us to be stuck-up movie purists like you. —Darth Culator (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And bold shouting is not rude? You're not reading closely, you're just reacting to what you don't like instead of looking for opinions, which is what this discussion page is supposed to be for. I said I am a fan of some of the EU stuff, so I'm certainly not a movie purist. I also mention that other pages include EU Material, but separate it. Try listen to what I am saying objectively - flipping to the Han Solo bio yields almost nothing of the character that isn't EU. OK fine, let's let people know more clearly that EU is what this site is about.
      • All the same, we could consider changing "a Star Wars encyclopedia that anyone can edit" on the Main Page to "an encylopedia of Star Wars film and Expanded universe material that anyone can edit." We'll be phrasing it as a feature, not a bug, since we like it that way. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying it's a bug or that there is anything wrong with EU, but its just not what most people would expect. Other Star Wars sites look nothing like this one.
        • I think that's totally unnecessary and possibly harmful. Star Wars is Star Wars, no matter what the anti-EU snobs think. Doing anything even similar to that would just encourage them to push their prejudice a little further, and then a little further, until we realize just a little too late that Wookieepedia has become as crappy as the Databank. If the EUphobic morons want an encyclopedia that distinguishes between film and EU (or excludes the EU entirely, which is what they actually want even if they don't admit it), let them build it themselves. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Again with the maturity and intelligent discussion... Wookiepedia is lucky to have you.
            • This site focuses mostly on EU, because EU is the bulk of Star Wars, by volume. For example, if Han Solo is 70 years old, and the EU basically records his entire life, than the events of the films aren't going to be a huge part of the article. The Han quote could be better, but it's from Han Solo at Star's End, the first novel to feature Han. If you can think of a better one, feel free to suggest it.LtNOWIS 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • There - you said it- 'The Site Focuses on EU', so why not let it be known far and wide? Suggestions? How about "I ain't in this for your revolution", "Never tell me the odds", anything at all that the world at large would be familiar with. Why have something that almost no one but hard core fans (which I include myself in, and again, I have read EU, including the Han Solo Novels which you cite) are familiar with?
            • We don't look like other sites because Wookieepedia has a different purpose from those other sites. Why should we be the exactly the same? And by saying you would prefer us to separate movie and EU material, you're implying our current setup is buggy. I'm not really sure how, given that we're writing what are meant to be simulations of in-universe encyclopedia articles, we'd separate film from EU material. You wouldn't pull three years out of someone's life story and present them in isolation like that, no matter how momentous they were. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Again, as I mentioned in the first place, and you considered Dan - I think clairifying that Wookieepedia emphasizes EU material would be nice for all.
                • What would you -put- in a film-only encyclopedia, if you aren't counting EU? Can't even put backstory of film extras, since that's EU too. "Han Solo, of uncertain background, did x, y, and z over a couple of years and helped saved the galaxy?" Might as well just watch the films, if you don't think anything outside them is canon. Do you actually want articles like "This guy the script calls Walrus Man was a cantina patron, along with the Devil, the Bat, Snake Head, Skull Head, the Space Girls, and Goggle-Eyes?" Yrfeloran 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Again - I never said EU is bad/film only, just that this place is loaded EU, so why not just say so upfront? I am done with being called a Film-Purist Snob. Have a nice evening.
            • Shouting is all caps. Bold is just emphasis. And this page is supposed to be about discussing the improvement drive process, which is itself intended to address the improvement of individual articles on a case-by-case basis. I apologize if you think I'm being rude, but your opening statements were quite unpleasant and displayed a stunning amount of ignorance about the amount of work that goes on here. An article is not "horrible" just because you don't like the style. And saying that we have "no editorial standards" shows that you haven't bothered to look any deeper than the particular articles you feel like complaining about. Read the Manual of Style or the featured article nomination process, or the peer review page and then say we have "no editorial standards." And the EU/film separation argument comes up so often in so many places that it just plain gets on my nerves. Anyone who reads an article with EU material should automatically realize that it doesn't all come from the movies, so the only people such a disclaimer would actually be nicer for are the movie purists. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the half-hearted apology there, Darth. I am sorry to have ruffled your feathers too. No, a disclaimer would not only be for so-called movie purists, it's for anyone who has never read any of the EU stuff, which is a lot of people. Not everyone lives and breathes Star Wars, and again, my point is - Seeing the movies for the first time, and then looking up some key articles here- Can you honestly say that wouldn't yield a great big 'HUH?' from anyone who's not hard core? Regardless, I'll stand by my assertion that listing non-film quotes at the top of the article for major characters is bad form and puzzling for most. It makes the site seem amateurish or like a great big Fan-Fic collection if this isn't pointed out.
              • I think that not having an EU disclaimer is better for the Star Wars community in the long run. People go to a page full of EU material, and the "Sources" and "Appearances" sections spell out where the extra stuff came from. A disclaimer does nothing to help the average reader. But the quote thing, all other issues aside, is a valid point. There should probably be a separate discussion about that. —Darth Culator (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Thank you for at least seeing my point on the Quote part, Darth.
                  • Sorry, but it's always been a Wookieepedia standard that we follow official LFL guide on canon - to say otherwise is to open the debate to tedious back-and-forth canon pissing matches that infest every Star Wars community on the web. The movies are the core of the Star Wars Saga, and, yes, the EU does have it's problems, contradictions and so forth - but without the EU, large portions of Star Wars have no depth, many characters have no names, backgrounds or histories and we'd have no articles on any event prior to 32 BBY, or after 4 ABY. And as for Han Solo's quote - although it comes from an EU book (albeit one which predates every movie bar ANH), it's also a reference to the most commonly known OOU dispute about Solo, which even the movie-only fan is aware of. QuentinGeorge 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (De-indent) I think quite frankly that anyone who is coming to this site is either involved enough in Star Wars to appreciate the effect of the EU, or would be happy to learn. Dividing articles along G-canon vs. C-canon lines would make them harder to read, and would ruin the IU perspective Wookieepedia has developed. If you'd like, you could create some sort of category "Articles containing G-canon elements"--Erl 19:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And another thing: We're always looking forward to new users and editors providing their ideas of how to improve Wookieepedia. It's just sorta off-putting when an anon shows up and announces, without reviewing established standards, and in an unusual place, that we simply must remake Wookieepedia into something that we already decided it should not be (before my time). If you want to point out areas where you think that Wookieepedia could be made more friendly to the general public, we would really appreciate it.--Erl 19:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Timeout

The next project article is to be selected on Sunday, June 4. It's June 5th - 12:30 GTM+1 and... 1st: No article was selected; 2nd: it is: 1. Kuat Drive Yards / Kessel Run (9) - what are you going to do whan KDY and Kessel Run have same number of votes? Will there bo 2 articles in Improvement drive or what?SkywalkerPL 10:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Update

I went ahead and updated everything for today, and I left a note on MarcK's talk page. The only thing I wasn't sure about was the votes for the winner. I already updated the Archive pages, so we're just supposed to remove the winner votes, right? -- Ozzel 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If nobody else is gonna update this, I guess I get to do it again. Both Quote:Han Solo and Kuat Drive Yards have 12 votes. The only way to decide that I can think of is that Quote:Han Solo reached 12 votes first, so I'm going with that one. I'm sure the other will win next week, anyway. -- Ozzel 18:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Objections

Uhh... since when do we have objections on the Improvement Drive? If you don't support it, don't vote for it. -- Ozzel 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • We don't. I'm deleting them. - Breathesgelatin 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting amounts

How many times can people vote? Because i see some people have voted more than twice...Jedi Dude 08:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Like me and you? Not sure, and I didn't think there was a limit. I'll find out. SecondSight 08:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, i just wasn't sure if there was a certain amount you can do? Jedi Dude 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Haven't found anything saying otherwise, but do you want me to place a question on this to an admin? SecondSight 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It says on the project page that "you can vote for as many pages as you like." Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 21:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Thats good then. Thanks Atarumaster. SecondSight 15:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying vote counts

Someone is mucking up the vote counts. I don't want to point fingers, but I'm going to try to clarify the vote count process. The vote count for a specific nominee is NOT linked to any other nominee. Every time an article receives 2 votes, it stays for another week. So when an article is first nominated, the vote count should read something like "Nominated January 1, 2007; Needs 2 votes by January 8, 2007." When it receives two votes, whoever gives it the second vote should update it to read "Nominated January 1, 2007; Needs 4 votes by January 15, 2007." And so on. Does this make sense? If you have questions I will be happy to further clarify. - Breathesgelatin 04:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

I may or may not be online at all until Sunday evening, so if somebody else would like to update the improvement drive before then, please do. -- Ozzel 07:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

vote counts

form 2 had 7 votes and needed one more but now its turned back can someone sort this out

Goal with voting?

Should the goal be to vote for articles that needs the most help? I mean I could vote for articles I like or ones that are closest to full coverage (all appearances covered) just the same. Any thoughts? -Fnlayson 05:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes the goal of the improvement drive is to improve articles most in need of improving. Articles that are sourced and written well can be voted for under the featured article or good article voting system. NighthawkLeader 06:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)