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
To implement new FA criterion per below
Objections must now be based on one of the rules listed in the criterion
There has been a lot of recent talk about changing the procedure for the Featured Articles, especially considering the differences in quality in some of them. After discussion in the IRC channel, a number of Wookieepedians have agreed upon a revised set of guidelines and policies for creating and maintaining Featured Articles. Please vote on them and tell us of your opinions.
…not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc)
…have a succinct proper lead that can be used for the front page featured box
…have a reasonable amount of red links; use common sense
…have a complete, detailed biography if it's a character article
…not have been previously featured
…must be completely referenced with <ref> tags for all available material and sources.
Our proposal would add the following guidelines:
…all quotes and images must be sourced
…quotes must be provided on the article; a leading quote at the beginning is required. Only one quote would be allowed at the beginning of each section at max, although quotes may be placed in the middle of the article.
…no more than 3 redlinks will be allowed on a Featured Article This would replace item number 8 on the existing rules
… Significant information from all available sources/appearances must be provided to classify as 'complete coverage' This would clarify items 1 and 9 on the existing rules
… A personality and traits section must be on all character nominations
… A reasonable number of images of good quality must appear on the article if said images are available.
… Behind the scenes material must be properly referenced.
As long as we change it so that it only needs images if there are some available and that it's possible to have more than one quote in a section, because sometimes it looks good with more than one. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This was needed long ago. .... 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a length requirement would actually be a good idea, perhaps a minimum of 1000 words, because otherwise even quite small articles could qualify for FA. If the objection system becomes more specific, I think there does need to be an objection that says this is just "notable" enough. Most current FAs are well over this word limit although some are close (Drovian: ~1600, Ebenn: ~1200). To illustrate my point, an article like Cha'a fits all the above criteria (except the intro), yet I don't think it should qualify as an FA. It just isn't worthy of being featured.
And to clarify the requirement for sourcing images, I think it should specifically require use of the Template:Information to qualify as sourced. --Eyrezer 09:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto with the template. Talking about the length...if it's not long enough for FA, but just as complete, that's what GA should be for. —Xwing328(Talk) 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that a lead-in quote should be absolutely required. Favored, definitely, but one shouldn't be forced if it isn't good. However, this isn't a big enough deal for me to vote against. -- Ozzel 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you agreeing with me about the need for a length requirement XWing? I can't tell. I also agree with Ozzel about lead quotes. For characters they should be no problem, but from my experience with species articles, there is not always a suitable intro quote. --Eyrezer 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
For a word count, we would need to determine what is included in that. Would it just be text, or do image captions, quotes, headings, lists, Apperances, Sources, or See also count as well? For Imperial Navy, that alone is about a thousand words. That said, almost all of our current FAs easily overtake the 1,000 word limit, except for the following: counting only the main text, Galactic Republic Chancery election, 32 BBY has 1,313 words in the actual text, Rokur Gepta has 1,493, Ebenn Q3 Baobab has 1,045, and Drovian has 1,393. So yeah, a thousand word limit could be a good idea, and wouldn't affect most articles. Although checking now, there are some relatively short nominated articles: Valenthyne Farfalla at 810 words (not including footnotes), Kaan at 1,443, and Universal Day of the Jedi at 384 -LtNOWIS 10:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, Universal Day of the Jedi will not be FA. At least, not this time. .... 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Objections, to avoid pointless objections such as "length" and "lack of exposure", would be clarified and condensed under the following guideline:
Your objection to a Featured Article nomination should reflect one of the rules listed above (preferably by number). Any objections that do not reflect the rules may be struck at the discretion of the Inquisitorius.
Past Featured Articles can sometimes fall behind in quality. We mean to allow FAs to be stripped of their status, by the Inquisitorius. The past FA notice on the talk page would not be removed, and the gold FA "era tag" star would be replaced by a gray star indicating a past Featured Article that has fallen into disrepair. Decisions on FA status removal would be decided by the Inquisitorius.
Voted against this before, and will again. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not they are not up to current standards doesn't take away the fact the they were once featured. Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not taking away the fact that it was once featured. The FA tag on the talk page will still be there, and the yellow star in the corner will be replaced with a gray one. All removal of FA status does is signify that the article is no longer up to par. If people want to keep an article at FA status, they should work hard to keep it up to date. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We did have a vote on re-featuring featured articles once: someone refresh my memory on what the result was? I don't recall if it was "no, don't" or "no consensus." —Silly Dan(talk)
Perhaps it could simply be reviewed to get its purple star back as opposed to gray. Havac 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Havoc. It should be restored to its former status, rather than refeatured on the front page. --Eyrezer 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
But what about those that have been wildly expanded since their first FA nomination? Shouldn't those be able to be "re-nominated"? I'm just bringing this up because of some old FAs that have fallen into disrepair, often due to expansion, etc., that now never have a chance to be renominated with the new information. JorrelFraajic 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I like this better than some of the earlier proposals - it allows for the fact that things can drop below FA quality and fixes that, but it acknowledges the accomplishment and doesn't take that away. And there should be an impetus to keep up FAs. - Lord Hydronium 02:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Much mention has been made about the Inquisitorius in this CT thread. Well, the best was saved for last. The Inquisitorius is a re-vamping of the current Peer review system. Composed of 7 trustworthy users (4 administrators and 3 users), the Inquisitorius would review every FA nomination. All FA noms would have to be approved by a quorum of at least 4 members, with no objections from an Inquisitor.Inquisitors would have the power to mark objections as "addressed", thereby nullifying the objection, on the Featured Article nomination page, provided the objection has been addressed and the original objector has been absent for at least a week after an "objection addressed" comment is left on the FA nom page, but only with a quorum of at least 5 Inquisitors approving the removal of the objection, and none opposed. Finally, Inquisitors would have the power to strip an article of FA status, but only with unanimous approval of all 7 Inquistors.
An Inquisitor who is overly confrontational, argumentative, absent, or is otherwise unable to fulfill the duties of Inquisitor would be voted for removal by the other Inquisitors (including members at large), with at least 7 members voting to remove.
On a final note, there would be two Inquisitors-at-large who could fill in for Inquisitors who are unavailable over periods of more than a few days. An Inquisitor planning to be absent would merely need to inform that Inquisitor-at-large and the other Inquisitors on their page of the vacation, in order to maintain the quorums needed.
This will necessitate the creation of Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius, which will be used to aid this body in their work. (Preview of possible page here, but don't worry, we're not going before our horse to market.)
This promotes elitism on a site that's meant to be run by democracy. Having a group of people who are essentially "better" and "more trusted" than anyone else just seems like a bad idea to me. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Wookieepedia is not a democracy. It is a Mofference. Havac 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Per Jaymach. Besides, I don't like that 6 of the 9 nominees are admins.–SentryTalk 07:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Breathes and Ataru got adminship BECAUSE of their devotion to FA, and XWing328 is very active over at GA. Why punish them for it because the community decided they become admins? It shouldn't matter...people can still care about the quality of FAs, admin status or not. It just seems that right now, it's mainly a small portion of admins and and a select few dedicated users that DO seem to care about FA quality. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh, I am in no way attempting to punish anyone. I personally don't get involved in the FA nomination process and I respect the users who do. I am opposed to the concept of formally subdividing the wiki community into cliques. In essence, this policy will divide the community into two distinct camps: a small cabal of users who are "trusted" enough to be involved in the FA process and everyone else. I don't think such an arrangement makes any sense within a wiki that is supposed to be based on consensus.–SentryTalk 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
But the divide occurs only in a minor, possibly currently defunct area of Wookieepedia. It's designed to speed up things, not divide them. And cliques inevitably emerge from any community. Ours would just have a name. You yourself are part of a named clique: Admins. .... 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you've left, this might not help much, but I don't think the idea is that these people are trusted more, it's just that they've shown aptitude in a particular area. Think of this as a WookieeProject with a perk or two. That's all it really is. I bet if I placed a WookieeProject:Featured Articles up for voting, there would not be much opposition. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I say we need two admins. That doesn't mean the rest are all users, just that we need a minimum of two admins. There could still be four admins and three users, or two admins and five users. Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
See, the proposed current setup has 4 admins and three users. The other two (who happen to be admins) are backups for when one or more of the regulars are unavailable. —Unsigned comment byStarNeptune (talk • contribs).
Not sure about the present format, though if the idea goes through I have no objection to the particular users listed taking on this additional responsbility/status. —Silly Dan(talk) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Though whether an article is featured means little to me, and thus I don't care much about the criteria for featured articles, creating a cabal (of which there is none) is troubling to me, per Jaymach. jSarek 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm all for benevolent dictatorship, but frankly I don't trust the masses to select a reasonable group of 7. With a solid set of requirements and objections, this group isn't needed. — SparqManTalk 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. This seems like too much. Let the admins handle this instead. They're the only dictators we need. ;) Yes, that was a joke. <becomes a "helpless" Palpatine> Please... don't kill me... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice, but we wouldn't have any power over the site really. It's just a quality buffer. The community still has the final say. Cull Tremayne 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but having this group is limiting the powers of the community, and only certain non-admins have been invited into this. Not only is this limiting the community's powers for FAs, it's also telling non-Inquisitorius members that they have to follow their decision. I don't care if the people nominated have been very active in the FA. I don't even care that they'd probably do a good job. I just see this idea as unfair. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"Oh...there's a big surprise!" —Gilbert Gottfried
FA needs a shot in the arm. This is it. .... 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jack, how is this "limiting the community's powers for FAs"? The Inquisitorius doesn't tell them to do anything, it's just to keep articles from being "bum rushed" to FA when they're not at a high enough standard. It also helps FA move along so that users can't just make objections and then leave, keeping anyone from fulfilling those complaints. Cull Tremayne 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing objections because the issue has been address and/or the user isn't around = limiting the community's FA powers. No one, I repeat, no one, should be allowed to just remove another person's vote. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And another thing: Why must only people who participate a lot on the FA nominations be invited to be a member of this Inquisitorius? That's not exactly fair to those who don't participate regularly on the FA nominations. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, not participating in FA is generally a sign that you're not particularly interested in FA. So if you're going to pick a group of people to supervise the FA process, you generally want people who are committed to it. And as for limiting the community's power, I hardly think it's a major infringement to strike objections that anyone can see have been addressed when the person hasn't been around to strike it. In fact, it allows the community to be more empowered because it prevents one person from holding up an FA against the will of many more people by not striking a fixed objection. Otherwise, I could just throw an objection onto every single FA article saying that some image needs sourcing or whatever, refuse to strike it once the image is sourced, and nothing could ever become an FA. Havac 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's called asking people if they'd like to be in this Inquisitorius. Just because you don't contribute to the FA nominations regularly doesn't mean a) you're not good for the job, b) you will never contribute to them, or c) you shouldn't be asked to participate more. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If someone who had some measure of skill and/or potential for the job, I would have no problems letting someone else in- they could have my spot for a couple of weeks to test things out. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is always supposed to be 7 active at one time- it's a nice odd number, with no chance for ties. The members-at-large are there to fill in for anyone who is unavailable. I personally have no one in mind for nomination at the moment. I just didn't want to preclude the possibility of adding new people if there more good candidates arise. I personally don't like the idea of the overall number of active and at-large Inquisitors rising above 12, but that's just me. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, but I don't think limiting the chance of being in the Inquisitorius is fair at all. At least give one non-regular FA nomination contributer a position in the Inquisitorius. That would show it's not limited. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 11:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
We already have that person: Darth Culator. But along what lines were you thinking? I mean, say if we invited Adam-Wan Kenobi to join? Would someone like him satisfy your criteria? .... 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Balance out? Several of the admins in this group are admins because of their contributions to FA. Not vice-versa. I don't see what is so distressing about their presence, since, according to Jaymach and friends, they are not a cabal or clique of their own. .... 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And as we all know, There Is No Cabal. Period. So stop talking about it. :p JorrelFraajic 03:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Jack, Hydro has been nominated and has accepted it, so we now have a non-FA regular, non-admin user up for a spot in the main Inquisitorius. Havac 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should give these people too much power.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the weaknesses with the current system addressed without adding a layer of bureaucracy (if possible). Also, if it goes through, I don't think the hard-set ratio is wise. I think it should be a collection of people who have positively contributed to the FA project. Maybe even a rotation of people. WhiteBoy 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. I dunno, it sounds kinda... "un-wiki-like". --Azizlight 07:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll just mention this here: Wikipedia has something similair, but it collapsed, due to the fact that the panelists were rotated, rather than fixed. .... 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
cough* Admins. *cough*. .... 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For everyone who is voting to oppose, I'd just like to point out that the people who are being nom'd for the Inquisitorius have actually been very active in FA noms before. All this would be is to give the people who are highly active in the FA process a little more oversight in making sure that the articles were really worthy of being featured. The main body is fairly balanced (4 admins and 3 members) on purpose. And of course, if any new policy from above (say, removal of FA status), then the Inquisitorius wouldn't have it. That's why there are several votes. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 15:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems the idea here is to make up a sub-group of highly active users to act as a quality-assurance committee, rather than create a sub-cabal of the cabal (which, as you know, doesn't exist.) Since the main criteria is that the users should be active members of the community, maybe we should make the term limited? —Silly Dan(talk) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. Are there enough highly-active dedicated users, or would we have the same fifteen people rotating in and out? More likely the second, IMO. It would just be simpler to let the same people do the same thing all the time. Havac 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with adjusting the Admin to regular User ratio. Perhaps if we rotated out between "examinations" so to speak? In that case, we could have three "squads", with 2 admins and 3 users. Of course, then we'd need to come up with some other users to fill those spots. We only picked those people because they are the most active on GA and FA nominations and care about the quality of articles. They already wield some pretty big influence on the FA and GA pages as it is. Besides, the community will still have to vote for the article to be featured, this is just more of a "quality buffer" if you will. So if we were going to do teams of 2 admins and 3 users, who'd be up to it? We only suggested who we did, because they'll be around. I'd suggest Tinwe, Green Tentacle, and Cutch. Maybe Lord Oblivion and Jaina Solo as well. Cull Tremayne 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. We might be better off just adding a regular-user Inquisitor-at-large. That would balance us reasonably well at 6-4 and add another backup. I just don't see rotation doing any good or making any difference when it's the same people rotating through the whole time. It just throws more bodies into the equation. Havac 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I was just proposing a separate idea for those that are disagreeing. Cull Tremayne 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope I speak for the other prospective Inqs when I say this, but here goes: We would not be a team, or panel, hell-bent on finding what is wrong in Wookieepedia and destroying it. On the contrary, we would simply be trying bump up our standard level of quality on this site. Let's be honest - some of the old FAs have fallen in disrepair. Well, I think that we, as Inqs, would have some obligation to perform some maintenance on these articles. Unless it is a massive amount of prose reconstruction which needs to be done, in which case, we would contact the major contributer(s) and ask them nicely to repair the damage in a certain amount of days, or else the little star in the corner will change colour. That seems to me to be only fair. And I would like to suggest that we put together a list of "Hands" - people who we know are skilled in the ways of the FA, namely writing them, and contact them whenever a heavy amount of maintenance needs to be done on an FA. I know that's more of a burden than a privelige, but then so is this proposed Inquisitor status. There's no special powers that we would get, other than in FA. And if FA wasn't on the main page, I doubt many users would know it exsisted. Indeed, most of you who have objected, don't seem interested, or at least are not involved in the FA process. I'm not saying that discounts your votes or anything, but I'm just pointing out that FA is really not a site-wide thing. It's something used and endorsed by a select group of users, in reality. And having dominion over that is really minor. The job of the Inquisitorius is to give FA (and possibly GA) a shot in the arm; move it along, make it shinier, because at the moment, it's pretty stagnant, and it's as much use as page numbers in a diary, ash trays on motorbikes, tits on bulls. And, I think we could replace Peer Review, because that really does nothing these days. Because no one is obligated to reply, or comment. We would be. You know it makes sense. I'm .... 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I largely agree with Fourdot on this, with the exception of having an institutionalized "hand" section. I really think that the community will become more involved in FA work rather than less. Inquisitors have little power, an d it takes several of them to do anything drastic. And it creates a quality control on FAs. For
Right now we have 11 candidates, and I already extended an invitation to Lord Hydronium as well. That would push our number up to twelve with five members-at-large. We'd also then be evenly split between admins and users, so if your concern was over too much admin power, that should be rectified. I offered Hydronium a member position, but if he doesn't want it, Jaina Solo is our other option to ensure that we have 3 regular users. Cull Tremayne 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of having a nice "balance of power" but first, I only want people who care, who are going to be here, and who do a good job to have this position. Second, I'm not really sure what is the big deal about having more administrators. I would rather have the people who already work on FA, and if those people are admins, so be it. If there are only 2 admins who care about FA, and 9 regular users, that's fine with me too. I just want the people who care and will work on this issue. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What about extending full Inq status to Jaina? .... 06:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree Ataru. I'm just trying to address some of the objections (there are too many admins, not enough people get a say). I've tried to nominate people who do care, and who are active in getting articles to FA and GA quality. I can't speak for Jaina, but Tinwe and Hydronium (in my opinion) fit that role. I'm not just nominating people just to have more people. I seriously thing these members would bring a little extra to the table. If Hydronium doesn't respond soon, we can bump Jaina's nom up to full member status. I'd still like to wait and see if Hydronium wants to do it though. Cull Tremayne 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Second that CT. And again, isn't it curious how none of the objectors have any degree of involvment with FA... .... 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Though my opinion hasn't changed, I've kept myself completely out of FA affairs until now, so it's not really fair for me to jump in now and tell you how you should be doing things. jSarek 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Our line of thinking was that we wanted people who would be committed to the FA process and who know and understand the qualifications for FA. If someone wrote on my talk page "Hey, I'd like to join because . . x", I would n't automatically say no. As long as they've demonstrated reasonable competence, they'd receive due consideration from me. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows why the conversation has moved sideways slightly, I just reformatted the "Oppose" section so the count works again. Various comments and the Quote template were messing it up. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(Kills) 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So, you say, wow- that's a lot of power over FAs to give these 7 folks. Who gets to control that power? Well, we've picked 7 people (4 admins and 3 users), along with two back-ups, who would be entrusted with this duty. They've been very active on the FA page, and are willing to accept the extra responsibility and hatred that comes with the position. However, we want you to let us know your opinion on these folks. (Note: Don't vote for yourself please, unless you don't want the job)
I thought Breathes was an admin now? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
She is, but we're only nominating her for a placeholder position in the event that one of us is absent. Which is why we haven't identified her status as Admin, rather, just the qualifier of her being a "Member-at-large". .... 07:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Accepted nomination on talk page. We might want to iron out how this vote process will work. How many votes would you need to be "elected" so to speak. Cull Tremayne 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Eyrezer has elected to be a member at large, so maybe Tinwe or Solo could become full Inquisitors in his stead. That would also adress the "more laymen" complaint from some objectors. .... 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
From Tinwe's acceptance of the nomination, I got the feeling that she only wanted a member-at-large spot. I'm addressing the whole, "We need a new full-blown member" concern above. Cull Tremayne 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)