In pondering the issues of non-Inquisitorius participation in the FAN process, I've come to realize that the FAN page itself is not really presenting the functions it actually serves in a format that makes sense.

In short: It's not really about voting in the way people think it is. And we can fix that without a CT, and possibly even without significant arguments.

FANs have to "pass review by the Inquisitorius review panel." The form this review takes was distilled over the course of the Inq's evolution into requiring five Inquisitor votes on a nomination. But where there's voting, people feel the need to participate, even if it means nothing. (Save your comments about American democracy for IRC.)

But what if we move the Inq voting to its own sequestered part of each nomination? Instead of the current format, a featured article nomination would look like this:

ExampleEdit

TitleEdit

Nominated by: Darth CulatorEdit

Nomination date: 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC). Earliest queueable date: 01:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC).

SupportEdit

1. It doesn't suck. -- Non-Inq Guy 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ObjectionsEdit

1. It sucks. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
   • It doesn't suck. You suck. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• Why does it suck? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Inquisitorius reviewEdit

1. It doesn't suck. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2. It doesn't suck. -- This guy 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3. It doesn't suck. -- That guy 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
4. It doesn't suck. -- The other guy 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
5. It doesn't suck. -- The Dude 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
6. It doesn't suck. -- Redundant guy 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to talkingEdit

See? It removes the confusion that leads to meaningless votes and brings the various parts of the page back to their actual function. Thoughts? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DiscussEdit

• I'm all for this. Good cents makes Greyman rich...er...or something similar. Happy. Yes. Good sense makes Greyman happy. Greyman ^(Talk) 01:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Doesn't normal user voting play a part in telling if someone is a suitable Inq candidate? Also, doesn't this drive new users away when we want more new users on the FAN page? -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 01:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as non-Inqs can still nominate, comment, and object, this change can't hurt, and will help to clarify things. —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I would argue that it would make it more difficult what normal users—potential Inqs—are reviewing articles properly and know when to support. It's not all about the objections. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Well, we could always keep the voting sections, but still sequester the Inq section and rearrange the format to de-emphasize them. The thing is, nothing on the FAN page mandates popular voting, and the latest attempt to require it got voted down. I'm just trying to work what's here now. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What if we put general support in with comments, perhaps as "Comments and general support" or something to that effect? Is that too minimal? Master Aban Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 02:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If fairness, this does make sense for the way things are. But I'm not a fan of the way things are. I'm with Acky; I fail to see how this invites new people into the process. -- Ozzel 03:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So, are we eliminating the FAN page, because it's essentially being moved here? Or I am misunderstanding it? Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 11:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Chack, this is a prototype form of how we'll be re-organizing the FAN page, should we reach consensus. A planning board, if you will. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 05:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I did misunderstand that. Not sure how, but I thought it meant literally just merging the FAN page and the Inq page...I don't know how to explain it, except to say that I get it now. I guess I'd support this then. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with Ozzel. Non-inq voting should be maintained as part of the "form." If nothing else, it communicates "here's some other folks who have read it and wanted to express their opinion, even though they're aware their opinion has no numerical effect on the outcome." Taking it out says "We don't care about your opinion." Gonk ^(Gonk!) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • So, why don't we just rename the Inquisitorius review part to "Support" or something else? I was under the impression that's what was going to happen eventually anyways. Greyman ^(Talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• OK, so if we're keeping public support as part of the layout, can we still rearrange it to emphasize objections as the most important part of the process? How does it look now? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Like I said, I was under the impression this would be added anyways. Greyman ^(Talk) 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. • I like elements of this proposal. I like it for the sake of appearance: separating Inq votes from non-Inq votes. I understand the "importance" of putting Objections first, but I always kind of thought that for aesthetic purposes of politeness we list "Support" first, though the loss of etiquette wouldn't necessarily kill me. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is the "Inq Review" just a section for Inq support? Do objections from all users (both Inq and non-Inq) go under objections? Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, and yes, as I read it. And I like the improvements, Culator. Looks good. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Final refinementsEdit

• I've just added one more element, a "nomination date"/"earliest queueable date" section (to help prevent premature enqueueulation). I also moved support back above objections to see how people feel about it that way, and added instructions in HTML comments to help inexperienced participants. This should be the final version unless there's more support for having the public support section below objections. Comments? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I like it. It looks better with support first, in my opinion. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• While I can't find any fault in this and I can see its in the interest of effectiveness, I don't really think it's all that necessary. It just makes things a little more complicated. I don't really mind, though; I'll get used to it in a day or two. :-) -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 20:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)