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 was: No consensus, Featured Article Nomination voting will remain as is.Atarumaster88(Talk page) 16:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ever since the decision to not count nominator FAN votes, the FAN page has steadily built up as the process has slowed down. (It's up to 45 at the moment, which I think may be a record.)
In the mean time, votes from regular folks like myself still don't count for anything.
So, I propose this: Let's say we still require a minimum of 4 Inq votes (while 5 Inq votes will still work as usual). But now we make either 2 or 3 regular votes count in place of that last Inq vote, and we count the nominator vote (whether they are an Inq or not) as a regular vote. Kills two lantern birds with one Zandor Rocker, if you will.
Now, I proposed to the Inquisitorious something similar a while back, but that didn't involve nominator votes, which I think evens it out this time and makes it a much better idea. But back then, and when I've brought up counting regular votes again other times, the biggest concern seems to be a possible decrease in the quality of FAs. However, like I say, I think doing it like this will balance everything out. On the FAN page right now, 29 of the 45 noms are from Inqs, meaning we're essentially requiring 6 Inq votes, not 5. (And that's obviously not working out.) By doing this, we'll still more likely than not get at least 5 Inqs looking over everything, and if not, we'll still be getting at least 4, plus at least 2 or 3 other users. And for those afraid of n00bs giving popularity votes, remember that the single issue voter policy would become applicable here again if this goes through.
So like I say, this just about getting everyone involved, and in doing so not only helping the process run more smoothly but perhaps bringing out new future Inquisitors.
I'm not gonna start a vote just yet because, if there's support for this, we need to decide if it'll be 2 votes or 3 votes (or however many) to require. Remember, though, that 5 Inq votes would still pass a nom regardless. -- Ozzel 04:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a similar idea way back when - to require 5 Inq votes and 1 additional vote, but the nominator's vote counts. So, for instance, I would need 5 Inq votes on Dooku plus my nom vote, but Ataru would need 4 Inq votes for Wraith Squadron and an additional vote that could be an Inq or a user for Wraith Squadron. I think the majority of Inq noms are obscure crap few users read, so I doubt it would turn into a popularity contest. Yrfeloran 04:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
What we need is more members of the Inquisitorious, because the process itself isn't broken. What really needs to be done is that people need to put aside their differences and allow more willing, able and active people into the Inq. That will solve the problem.--Goodwood(Alliance Intelligence) 04:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, Ozzel. This is the counterpart to the giant queue problem we had a long time ago, and we need to do something. This idea strikes me as good as any, particularly for encouraging non-Inqs to participate in the process and see who's good material for Inqage. Goodwood: Finding new Inq members isn't just a matter of quantity on the FAN page, it's a matter of good judgment and quality of reviewing. If we see people like that, we're perfectly happy to vote them in. But I don't think we're dealing with an issue that throwing more Inqs at will solve here; there are a lot as it is, and we still have 45 noms. I think Oz is right in reshaping the strategy, not just increasing numbers. - Lord Hydronium 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll consider the proposal, Ozzel. Yrf: Hey, that obscurecrap is going to be on the front page! Show some respect. :-P Atarumaster88(Talk page) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To add an average schmoe perspective... I'm all for the new voting system. I've been wanting to get a lil more involved with reviewing FANs and GANs, but was hesitant as that always seemed like something that the average user couldn't really participate in. I was never really sure on what the policy was regarding that. Trak NarRamble on 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad nauseum, and I'll continue to reiterate the same reasoning why I strongly oppose this. The reason we designate someone as an Inquisitor is because we trust them to give a quality review of a nomination - the Inq review. Why should we compromise our standards and quality by diminishing the power of the Inq vote to let User:Random's vote count for something on par with an Inq vote? Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong agreement with Toprawa. Check the recent Inq meeting logs. If we want more participation—and I think we all do—the answer is to PROMOTE MORE INQS ferchrissakes. That way, unsuitable or hasty promotions can be reversed without allowing the onset of "My Friend Thinks It's Featurable" Syndrome. And in response to Hydro, the best way to encourage participation will be to illustrate to the community that we are not loath to promote new Inqs. Gonk(Gonk!) 12:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Topwara's comment: I understand that you are very content with the way things are, and that you're very concerned that any changes would be a threat to quality. However, based on your comments, I get the impression that you didn't fully read what I proposed. (If I'm mistaken, I do apologize.) But Trak's comment reinforces what I've been saying: the FAN page is plain uninviting, and I'm afraid of that not being seen as a bad thing. But I'm also a bit bothered by your disregard for "random users", such as myself... and such as Inqs like yourself were not too long ago. For better or worse, such "random users" have as much say as anyone else in most aspects of this site, from what quotes we put on the main page, to which articles we should delete, to the nomination of administrators, and even major policy decisions. But when it comes to the FA process, you give the impression that anyone who is not an Inquisitor is not only not trustworthy, but destructive to the process. As I've always understood it, the role of the Inquisitorious is to be quality control for FA nominations, not to be the process itself. In the words of founding father Fourdot: "It's designed to speed up things, not divide them." I'm afraid that the Inquisitorious, at least your version of it, is slowing things down and is dividing people. Look, if anyone honestly thinks I'm out to make our FAs less good than they are now, then they must be coocoo for Cocoa Puffs. I just want to help the process run smoothly and see the Inquisitorious fill the role it was designed for. -- Ozzel 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You're putting quite a few words in the mouths of this issue's detractors. No one said you're "out to" do anything; quite a few of us just think that the result would indeed be a reduction in the overall quality of featured articles. And I don't think we can equate the modern Inquisitorius with "the role it was designed for," as the Inq grew and changed quite a bit before ending up at our current system. It continues to change. But one thing that, time and again, has not changed since it was established is the matter of how many Inqvotes are required for an article to pass review. It's no effort on our, or anyone else's, part to be "divisive" or make the FAN page "uninviting." And as anyone can see, plenty of new users come to the FAN page, get involved, and eventually become Inqs, or are at least considered for the appointment. Nothing is exactly crippled or broken here, and I'd appreciate if we can step away from that hyperbole and concentrate on tweaking the system for maximum efficiency. And in my opinion as well as that of several others, this just isn't the right course for that. Graestan(Talk) 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has only recently become an Inq but has been involved in the FA process (both nominating, and to a lesser extent reviewing) for many months, I like seeing non-Inqs or non-regulars on the FA page -- and, while I can't speak for anyone else, I would be extremely surprised to discover any Inqs who think the contrary. I like it when non-Inqs leave feedback on my noms, and I wish more regular users did participate. I didn't dismiss this idea outright and I've thought about it a lot since you first mentioned it, Ozzel, but I just don't think this is the best way to get more people involved, for reasons already stated here. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Grae: I could be wrong, but I believe Inqs were telling me yesterday that the number of votes required had indeed changed at least once. Anyway, you're right; it has certainly evolved, but I never got the impression that the intent had changed. But "tweaking the system for maximum efficiency" is half the reason I'm suggesting this, the other half being to give everyone a chance to help. Acky: I appreciate your considering it, and that's all I ask from anyone else. I just ask that they set aside the attachment to the way things have been in recent months and try to look at the big picture. Consider what's best for everyone. If you still think the current way is ideal, then okay, but if you have ideas for improvement, then let's talk about it. -- Ozzel 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The five-vote system has been in place for well over a year now. The only significant change to voting, based on Inquisitors' abuse of their votes on their own noms, was removal of self-votes. Below, I've listed two things, which answer your two points. The Inq slowness is, in my opinion, based 100% on laziness of current Inqs and not enough current Inqs. Therefore, the Inquisitorius internally can work on these issues. I think that nominations are looking pretty good for new members, actually—the wiki has seen some new talent from other wikis as well as a few up-and-comers from our own that would make decent additions. As far as regular users' involvement, I think anyone could look at the page and see that plenty of regular users to take part, and in some cases, actually review and vote on articles before the Inqs even get to them. As well, I'd be more than open to requiring two or three additional votes from non-Inquisitors, and I don't think that would slow the system down past where the Inq inactivity has it, currently. Graestan(Talk) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I do have one or two ideas, nothing too innovative, that I might try and implement in the next few days. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 00:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I made a small change to the FAN page which will hopefully encourage regular users to participate more. As I said, nothing too drastic or innovative, but something nonetheless. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh, don't really see a reason for this. The regular user's power is in the review and objection, should he decide to do something with that. Sadly, it seems that in the past, a vast majority of regular users on the FAN page do not take this opportunity, simply voting upon an article after reading through—and that, in my opinion, is what separates them from Inqs and Inqs-to-be. If someone can sit down and look at the article critically and objectively, leaving a review with objections or contacting the nominator in IRC if need be, that person deserves more than a regular user's vote, and in most circumstances is given the Inqvote soon thereafter. As far as how slowly the nominations are moving off the page currently—check the dates. It's been a lot busier lately in terms of writers on the site. Last year was similar, believe it or not. Speaking as an Inq that actually gets down to reading at least one article per week, I can say with certainty that if the rest of the body did the same, we wouldn't be looking at such a long list of nominations. But that's an internal matter, really. Graestan(Talk) 04:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Per my comments above. We designate users as Inquisitors because of their proven responsibility to review a nomination. Random users coming to the FAN page to vote on their favorite KOTOR character isn't a responsible review. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Per them. How about we discuss this at the Inq meeting and let everyone here know what we came up with? Chack Jadson(Talk) 11:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
To add an average user's perspective on this, I like the idea. I myself have stuck with reviewing the GAN because it seems like it means more there. This would help fix that problem while still only passing quality FAs. You wouldn't have to worry about an article being passed because of popularity because it still needs four Inq reviews. And no matter how many people vote for their favorite KOTOR character, if it doesn't have those four responsible reviews it won't matter. And although its true that adding more Inqs would help the articles pass faster - won't adding the whole community do that even more so? Aqua Unasi 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the whole mentality of wanting nominations to pass quickly is that we are quick to forget the very purpose of the Inq, which in my opinion has made the site vastly more professional and impressive than it was previously. This purpose is to ensure the quality of the featured articles that appear on the Main Page. The reason that five Inqvotes have worked so well for over a year now, despite repeated attempts to change the system, is that each of the five reviewing Inquisitors brings something different to the table. For instance, Imperialles catches images which aren't up to par, something which I only dabble in, while my main strength is in making sure that the article is easy for readers to understand as they go through it. Darth Culator has a look at formatting and spelling errors, while Eyrezer can frequently come up with information that needs to be added or sources that need to be checked. The Inq is a team, a team of experts, and I feel that cutting off a leg on each nomination will only result in overall article quality suffering. I've stated in the past that I was in favor of requiring additional votes from regular users for nominations to pass—something that would not likely slow the system down much. I also feel that loosening the "requirements" on new Inqs and expanding the user base of the Inquisitorius to include any candidates that show they are capable of producing objective reviews would speed the system back up considerably—the fresh Inqs tend to review the most, as I've seen so far. As well, encouraging the handful of current Inquisitors that simply don't review enough to step up and give us an obligatory once-a-week-or-so review would help quite a bit. Graestan(Talk) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought it over, considered our current situation, but I'm still not sure I like this idea. Many of my colleagues and I in the Inquisitorius are opposed to this measure because it inevitably will lead to a lower standard of quality; unavoidably so. I wish this was something that every newcomer could approach and dive right into without any experience; QOTD is a great thing because virtually anyone with 50 edits and the knowledge to type four tildes can do so. However, that is simply not the case with FAN. It needs to be hard; it needs to be elitist in the articles we pass. This shouldn't be a shock: we're dealing with an elite group of articles, no? So while anyone can participate, and that's how it should be and keep being, I think it should be clear that our priorities are with article quality and not "including everyone". It's a nice idea in principle and should some refinement that concedes less to that idea come along in the future, I may change my stance, but for now, I'd rather have a 45-nom FAN page all summer than this proposal. The defense rests. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 01:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your sentiment, but... "it inevitably will lead to a lower standard of quality; unavoidably so". I'm not sure how you can really definitely say that. If the Inq suddenly starts working at full efficiency again, the regular vote would never have a chance to come into play. And if it did, you'd still have four Inqs, likely a fifth in the nominator, and a few other users. I think that's more than a fair tradeoff, but even in the worst case scenario, I don't see how it could be anything but a high-quality article—four Inquisitors wouldn't have approved it otherwise. -- Ozzel 02:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
That is, of course, operating under the assumption that each Inq has brought the fullness of their abilities into play with each and every read/review/vote. And as far as "full efficiency" goes—this is full efficiency, what's happening now, in terms of the Inq's past performance. We just added two new Inqs tonight, at least one of whom is an extremely prolific author and editor, so that should at least help a little with the "greater than average" efficiency I'd personally like to shoot for. This five-vote system has worked, and for over a year now. Stressing that each nominated article gets five peer reviews from people who are proven to know what they're talking about says a lot about the finished product. Changing that number to four really does take a chunk out of quality assurance, if not the quality itself. And, as many here have said, the FAN really is open to everyone to participate—it's only the articles themselves that are restrained in any way. And certainly, if you look at the FAN page this very instant, you'll see reviews, votes, and objections from non-Inq users who don't let the article requirements discourage them from taking part in this elite segment of the site. Graestan(Talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.