This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was oppose proposed policy. jSarek 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This idea has been sitting in the back of my mind for some time now, and with the recent debate over FAs, I finally went through with it.

Proposed system: Wookieepedia:Complete articles

Very simple explanationEdit

Articles can be marked as "complete."

Simple explanationEdit

Separate from the FA and WP:GA systems, "complete articles" (CA) quite simply contain all relevant information related to the topic and Wookieepedia in general.

Major changesEdit

While this system is based on the FA and GA systems, there are several major differences:

1. Main requirement is completeness of content, which involves fully sourcing articles, listing every appearance, mention, etc.
2. Length matters not.
3. Prose matters less. While we would definitely want articles to be written well, writing in and of itself does not reflect the status of an article "completeness."
4. CA status can be revoked and/or restored if and when new information is revealed.

Extreme exampleEdit

This example would be the most extreme case of a CA:

If "bdaslhkjljfe" is mentioned to be a planet in one source, the properly-formatted article: "bdaslhkjljfe was a planet." could be marked "complete."

VotingEdit

SupportEdit

1. —Xwing328^(Talk) 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I like this. Way to remove stub labels too. Chack Jadson 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Maybe a completed Death Star for the icon. .... 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4. KEJ 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
5. --Titan^{Talk to me, damn it!} 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

1. Covered by existing "good article" status, or should be at any rate. —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I see what you're going for, but I also feel that this is what "good article" status is for. -- Ozzel 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3. As long as Star Wars is an evolving property, no article can ever be "complete." All that label would do is discourage editors from improving it. jSarek 06:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Sikon 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
5. I support removing stub status from article which cover all known information, but that should be a separate project. Oppose CA on "discouraging edits" and "already covered in GA" grounds. Wildyoda 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
6. I wouldn't say it would discourage editing, but I think there would be noticably fewer edits for "complete" articles than before. I personally like tampering with minor articles, changing some words, spellings, typos etc. I think making such a thing as a "complete article" would be flooded by such articles as "bfhgrsd was a planet." Besides, someone has to decide when all the relevant info has been added. I'm thinking of KotOR minor characters now: people like Gelesi. I added some stuff there, and I'm sure someone would have considered it as "complete" before my edits. Obviously, one cannot factually decide when an article is "complete" or it still needs some info added. (sorry for the awkward wording, it's too late around here and I'm not able to write too well when I'm tired)- TopAce 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
7. It doesnt seem very different from GA and FA. Besides, if an article is a CA, he most likely will be a GA or FA. Stake black ^msg 15:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
8. No way. No article is ever complete. What would even be our criteria? "Luke Skywalker was a Jedi Master and fighter pilot who served in the New Republic military, killed many threats to the New Republic, and married Mara Jade and had a son among many other exciting events" is technically complete, as it covers everything, though in the broadest strokes. If we have more detail, then when is it complete? There will always be more to add until we've simply transcribed the text of every book into his article with footnotes. It's a decent idea in theory but would never, ever work in practice. Havac 05:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Not a bad notion, but I think it'd be more practical going the other way - specifically marking articles as chronically missing some vital piece(s) of information. "Complete" should be treated as the norm, not a special circumstance. CooperTFN 23:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• Let me know if you have any ideas for an icon. Thanks! —Xwing328^(Talk) 22:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• This seems like an alright idea. It would encourage people to "complete" articles. But I wonder if it would discourage people from adding more detail because the article is marked "complete". -Fnlayson 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We could add a disclaimer at the top of this page encouraging people to keep working. On a separate note, this can help straighten out some of the stub mess, since not all of those are truly stubs. —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• I can honestly see and agree with the points both for and against. And neither is really winning out over the other, so I'm remaining neutral. - JMAS 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• I like the idea. It's just the name I don't like. What about calling it something else like, Starter, Non-stub, or other? -Fnlayson 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely open to name suggestions as well, since I just based it off of FA and GA. Due to the feedback given here so far, maybe intead a GA revamp is in order, alongside the FA revamp. As Silly Dan said above, this should already be covered by GA, yet it's not. The main reason is that short articles such as Hoth (comic) almost automatically get oppose votes just based on length/lack of content, despite no additional content or expansion being possible. So if this fails, I suggest we 1) remove the prose requirement that should only be necessary for it to be an "awesome" featured article (of course, it must remain grammatically correct), and 2) make it clear that "complete" articles, even if only 4 words long, have just as much of a chance of making it to GA status as a longer article such as Winter. If it becomes necessary to enforce that, just recruit a few more Inquisitors to strike or deal with such useless and/or unfounded objections. —Xwing328^(Talk) 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)