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 require a behind the scenes section in good articles. There was no consensus on a hard limit for number of redlinks.Green Tentacle(Talk) 14:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
As Wookieepedia's AgriCorps continues to grow, the status and quality of the site's Good articles continues to improve. The GAN page is currently witnessing an influx of new, talented writers and reviewers the likes of which the site hasn't seen in some time, if ever. As Wookieepedia's Good articles continue to cement a good name for themselves, far gone from the day one user quite accurately declared the GAN page to be a "used car dealership," the quality of the site likewise improves.
In the name of continued growth and quality, I propose two minor amendments to the current GAN rules. The first concerns the inclusion of "Behind the scenes" sections to articles. Currently, it is the GAN rule that all Good article nominations are to adhere to Wookieepedia's Manual of style, which includes a BTS section as a required section within an article. This proposed rule will simply serve to reinforce that which is already required and, indeed, practiced: a GAN must "...include a "Behind the scenes" section." Secondly, this CT proposes to set a limit for the maximum number of redlinks found within a Good article. Currently, rule 8 specifies that a Good article must "not be tagged due to an excessive number of redlinks." However, an "excessive number" is open to interpretation and has, on more than one occasion, become the subject of debate. Neither the rule nor the redlink template specifies what an "excessive number" is. Therefore, I propose amending the rule to read, similar to the current FAN ruling: "...have no more than 3 redlinks for articles less than 1,000 words and no more than 5 redlinks for articles more than 1,000 words, and none in the introduction, infobox, or any templates."
For ease of voting, these two topics will be organized into two separate votes below. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's already de facto required, a new rule is unnecessary. Against forced sectioning. - Lord Hydronium 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Hydronium. I'm completely in favor of the Bts, but you don't need a new rule and can already enforce it as is. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's often come up with users nominating for the first time that they're unaware it needs a BtS. Time is then wasted with someone making an objection, nominator asking where this rule is stated, objector informing him or her, nominator adding BtS and informing objector, objector striking. This would eliminate that - it's not essential but I don't see any downside bar adding an extra line to the FA requirements. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 00:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Three redlinks in 250 words is actually quite a few. And you'd be surprised how easy it is to fix a lot of these redlinks—often single-source articles of a sentence or two. Graestan(Talk) 03:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it should be noted that the redlink vote is split almost perfectly between those users who are most active on the GAN page, who have the most participation in writing, reviewing, and promotion of GANs, including each of the currently active AC members, and those who have virtually no presence on the GAN page whatsoever. While I will always respect someone's choice to disagree, I cannot understand how someone who has no vested involvement in something could feel compelled enough to prevent the progress that is clearly being asked for by those who are involved. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)