Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/State of the Wiki Address :)

Certain real-life events may prevent me from paying enough attention to Wookieepedia in the near future. So here's a brief rundown of what I consider important directions of Wookieepedia development, so to speak.

  1. FA: simply put, the current system is vulnerable to a massive flood of "technically good" articles. The trend appears to have slowed down, but we nevertheless need countermeasures — even if it means out-of-the-blue administrative actions.
  2. GA: needs more "advertising". Needs a dedicated maintainer.
  3. Inquisitorius: when these people were holding meetings, we had a sudden burst of IRC activity that was ultimately beneficial for Wookieepedia and the community. I see no major problems with its current setup, but:
    • More activity, damn it! If you don't feel like being an Inquisitor, please resign so we can choose a more active one.
    • The election process should be more transparent, I think. The community, for example, may suggest a pool of good would-be Inquisitors.
  4. ID: no changes are necessary. If there are too few candidates, we simply don't have an ID for that week.
  5. Other media:
    • Don't forget to maintain the Wikia Blogs via MediaWiki:Blog snippet (for FAs, currently).
    • The Wookiee-Cast: I trust Fourdot and the direction in which he is going.
    • We should think about stable versions of articles, in preparation for a possible CD/paper Wookieepedia.

- Sikon 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • About CD/paper Wookieepedias: I can see this being a good thing to hand out at future Wookieepedia tables at conventions, but would there be some legal issue surrounding it? I seem to recall it being brought up before here. Kuralyov 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was discussed here. As for all the other things in Sikon's wishlist, I have no comment. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 19:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: FAs - I thought the *point* was technically good articles. These are examples on "how to do a topic on Wookieepedia right." Content shouldn't be relevant to the decision. jSarek 07:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with number one. I think that Featured Articles are quality articles. That's why, shudder as we may, Mount Sorrow is an FA when Luke Skywalker is not. It's written better and satisfies the requirements. Never mind that Mount Sorrow is among the most arcane of all canon. I agree with the rest, by and large, except for the last two. Stable article takes away the wiki-ness and I don't care for the WC. Atarumaster88 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In preperation for a possible CD/paper Wookieepedia? Where did this come from? If there is going to be a printed version of Wookieepedia, god knows how much paper it'll use. Unit 8311 14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: GAs - I would be happy to help out any way I can. I also know of a few other users who might be interested. Greyman(Paratus) 14:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Seconded, I'm in it for the long haul. --School of Thrawn 101 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's the GA page: Wookieepedia:Good articles. People that want to help can watch it and improve nominations where they can. Any help will be appreciated. -Fnlayson 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I do tend to keep an eye on GA, though currently none of the nominations on the page are successful. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • In regards to the "stable version," Mary Franklin gave Bob Vitas permission to hand out CDs of the CUSWE (though there was a mix-up in communication). So assuming we go through the same process, I doubt there would be any problems with it. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't really fancy relying on exclusive permissions from LFL. Especially given that we're GFDL. What we can do should be available to everybody. - Sikon 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The approval thing is for everything handed out at events such as C4, Star Wars-related or not. That's all I was talking about with the approval process. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Re GA: I think one problem is that currently they go through even with objections. This needs to be cleared up. --Eyrezer 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm only just now getting involved in the GA process, but I know the Venator's objection was stricken after we met the editor's req's. Are you talking about any specifically? --School of Thrawn 101 05:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The current rules are that when an article gets 5 votes it is a GA. Those rules could/should be amended to and no objections. I think in the past Echuu Shen-Jon went through with objections, as one example. I'm just saying the the GA process is currently vulnerable to vote farming, even if in practice, it is not promoted until objections are gone. --Eyrezer 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I thought it was 5 votes and no objections within a week. --School of Thrawn 101 06:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no requirement that it has no objections.--Eyrezer 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Could've sworn somebody told me that in IRC...seemed like a good policy. It's too bad it's not official. --School of Thrawn 101 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Yeah, that'd be me. I thought it was policy, it certainly should be. Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I agree. Since there appears to be a consensus, is there any way to make it policy? Greyman(Paratus) 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I suppose one of us could start up a consensus track. --School of Thrawn 101 12:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Clarification: if it's existing practice de facto, one can just declare it policy and go along with it. That's how it works on Wikipedia anyway. - Sikon 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'll refrain from the simple observation about the status of this particular wiki vs the one that you mentioned. Either way, I'm not concerned with de facto policy. Not having the actual practice in black and white will only create problems for members that are not involved in this conversation or do not get accurate information when they pose the question in IRC. If it's a policy that can conceivably be agreed upon, it should be given that opportunity. --School of Thrawn 101 06:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We just love that phrase "de facto" around here, don't we? Anyway, these are interesting points. Here are my immediate thoughts on them: 1) Bah! 2) Yeah, OK, sounds good. 3) More activity will occur when there are more things to inquisify. 4) ID is all well and good, but I suspect the trend of one-author FAs will continue. 5a) Mount Sorrow on the blog! HA! 5b) The only problem with the Wookiee-cast is that there aren't enough of them. 5c) It's an unstable universe. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.