This is the talk page for the page "Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


Right, let's get crackin'.

  • First of all, how often should this be updated? Weekly? Biweekly? Monthly? Randomly?
  • Second, we should clarify the selection process. I, for one, want something like the one used in the Improvement drive.
  • Third, some sort of archive for winners should be created (perhaps in the style of Star Wars:Improvement drive/History). --Imp 19:46, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we could cycle them through every two weeks. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:34, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well... Edit

This page showed inactivity, so I decided to be bold and bolster it a bit by presenting one possible solution. The only thing that needs to be determined is how often featured articles will be updated. Uncyclopedia uses 3 days, but Star Wars doesn't have that much material to change them so often. I'd say a week, like the Improvement Drive.

As you may notice, the nominations are previous ID winners, just to have something for a start. This isn't really necessary. - Sikon 15:47, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote for every other Sunday. MarcK 08:58, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

zOMG akbar is teh sweet

That guy on the front pageEdit

  • I was under the impression that he had only eight valid votes? Xilentshadow900 13:51, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, eight, like Clone trooper. However, the last vote for him was made ealier than for Clone trooper, and an anonymous vote, which usually doesn't count, was counted because of the uncertainty. - Sikon [Talk] 14:32, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Figured thats what happened. Well, clone trooper is up next... Xilentshadow900 16:43, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll be glad when the week is over. Though the reasons to feature the article were sound and I'm not disputing them, it still galls me to see StuporShadow prominently displayed on our main page. jSarek 23:27, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • I think the summary of his article is too positive. Would it be too grievous a violation of NPOV to work the words "liar" and "douchebag" into it? —Darth Culator (talk) 23:36, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
            • It will be a NPOV violation, as well as non-encyclopedic. I think it is pretty obvious from the article that SS is nothing but a liar, despised by the vast majority of the community. - Sikon [Talk] 14:08, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but that would be considered vandalism...even if it is accurate. -- SFH 23:40, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • It's only vandalism if someone chooses to call it that and revert it, you know . . . ;-) jSarek 00:26, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing Supershadow's ugly mug on our front page makes me a sad panda. :( StarNeptune 00:31, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • It's only for a week. Weep not, dear panda, for in seven short days the cause of our pain shall be alleviated. jSarek 00:52, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Come on, that smug, self-satisfied look is a CLASSIC! QuentinGeorge 07:12, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes! "scoring 24/7!" ;) --beeurd 20:05, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Previously Featured ArticlesEdit

  • I noticed that there was a section listing the articles that were previously featured earlier, but now it's gone. Should I put it back, or was it removed for a reason? AngelQueen 00:37, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Edit

It seems to me after looking at several of these articles, some are being a little too quick to nominate something to be featured. I feel that some of these need a little more work than they have. Adamwankenobi 03:01, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed - some people are nominating articles because they like the subject, though the article itself still needs work. — Silly Dan 03:47, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, there is another option besides Supporting or not voting - if an article isn't up to snuff, vote "Oppose." jSarek 04:19, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I also think that an article shouldn't be a featured nomination and an IDRIVE nomination at the same time. The featured are for articles that truly shine, IDRIVE's are ones that are in need of help. -- SFH 04:48, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Elimination Edit

How exactly do we get rid of unworthy nominations? Is it just like VFD where someone eventually decides a consensus has been reached one way or the other and acts accordingly? --MarcK [talk] 10:35, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Move Edit

Move this to Wookieepedia:Featured article candidates and Wookieepedia:Featured article/History to Wookieepedia:Featured articles? --SparqMan 06:25, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Um...why exactly was everything deleted? -- SFH 04:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • We've officially converted to the new objection system, so I've gotten rid of all nominations made during the old "majority rules" system. Feel free to re-nominate anything you nominated/voted for last time. --MarcK [talk] 04:14, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Can it be nominated again? Edit

I was wondering if it is possible to nominate an article to be a main page featured article once it has already been one before? Specifically I am referring to the Boba Fett page. A lot of additions have been made since it was a featured article. Is this just a one time thing or can it be nominated more than once?--DannyBoy7783 09:58, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I realize that with the vast number of article here it would probably be a good idea to give other articles a chance to be nominated first before going to a second time around for existing FA but I was curious what the policy here would be.--DannyBoy7783 10:01, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe there should be a Consensus Track on this. Problem is, if we have previous featureds eligible again after, say 6 months, it would probably be the same articles being featured over and over again. I can see Palpatine being re-nominiated as soon as it was reeligible, and although it's a great article, do we really need to feature it every 6 months? Especially if there are other articles out there worthy enough to shine. StarNeptune 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I think if enough changes are made to it between when it was featured and now then it is worth at least a nomination. I like the 6 month rule. --DannyBoy7783 06:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Format Edit

Can we shift each article title from a level 3 header to a level 2? They really run into each other in a confusion of text. --SparqMan 00:27, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Votes Edit

Can we vote twice or only mods can? --Razzy1319 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • All registered users can vote as often as they like (so long as we only vote once per article, and don't vote for any articles with a cleanup tag.) — Silly Dan 12:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So, how do we do this again? Edit

We choose on sundays, Gilad was somehow chosen, what, 3 days ago with only 7 votes? I'm confused --Razzy1319 05:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There's no set number of votes or anything. Basically, once a clear consensus is reached that the article's featured, then it's added to the queue. --MarcK [talk] 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Criterion for FA Edit

We need something like this. --UVnet 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Erm, did you not see the "An article must..." list near the top of the page? --MarcK [talk] 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition to FA criteria Edit

I think we should add something like this:

10. ...have a Behind the Scenes section.

or even

10. ...have a decent/detailed/whatever Behind the Scenes section.

What say you? --UVnet 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the problem is sometimes quite excellent articles really have no BTS info. Perhaps instead the requirement should be 10. A well rounded article, which means it would need a BTS if it had BTS data--Erl 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fleshed out leads Edit

Lately, the FA leads have been meager and the copy placed in the template unhelpful. Each article should have at least two paragraphs with roughly 200-250 words that sum up the entirety of the topic and its relevance, and those same words should be what appears on the front of the page. For example, see Wikipedia's feature of Joan of Arc: article and feature text. Does this seem like a reasonable requirement? --SparqMan 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It does to me. - Breathesgelatin 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. So what are we going to do about it? --UVnet 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

how do we suggest an article Edit

im new so i just dont know

  • There are instructions on the page on how to suggest an article. However, you do have to have a user account to do so. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions Edit

I have a few suggestions.

  • How about (like wikipedia) articles will now have a limited time as a candidate, meaning that if it does not meet the requirements within a certain time limit it will be taken off the candidacy page (and 4 months is not what I'm talking about!).
  • How about individual pages for each FAC (also a-la-wikipedia).
  • What about de-featuring article? In my opinion some of the articles with feature status are.... well, lousy. --UVnet 08:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominations Edit

I nominated Adi Gallia but it didn't show up on the nominations list--Master Plo Koon 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Master Plo Koon

Well I nominated "The Force" but that was deleted for some reason. Kalas Grengar 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I was just wondering, should the objections have # numbers instead of * bullet points? I may be wrong but isn't the amount of objections taken away from the amount of for votes? SecondSight 18:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • They should both (support and objections) use the #. Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. There has not been a standard procedure at wookieepedia regarding using # versus *. And the amount of objections is not taken away from the "for" votes. Read the page intro and this will be clear. Only one objection invalidates all the "for" votes and renders an article ineligible for FA. Only when all objections are eliminated and an article has at least 5 votes can it be an FA. - Breathesgelatin 14:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Inability to editEdit

Why can't I edit this page?--Darth Nihilus(Ravager)20px 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Try using your real username instead of a puppet. Weren't you warned against that? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, but what must a newly registered user do in order to edit the FA nom page? Is there a specific number of edits required before one can vote?--Shaelas(Ahto High Court)Czerka Logo 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, merely wait a few days for your account to recognized by the server. Bear in mind though that Forum:CT Archive/Single issue voters may be applicable. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I see. I ask because when I first open an account I automatically assume that it's registered. Do you know how many days it takes for an account to be recognized by the server?--Shaelas(Ahto High Court)Czerka Logo 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Not off the top of my head, but the semi-protection recognizes accounts formed after a couple days to prevent vandals from creating accounts and immediately being able to mess with semi-protected pages. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearing out inactive nomsEdit

The policy on this is that we delete inactive noms after a month. I'm not clear, though, on when a "month" of "inactivity" has passed. A month after the nomination, when the objections have still not been addressed by anyone? A month after the last vote? After the last edit to the particular nomination's subsection? There are a few articles nominated right now that I don't think are being actively worked on by anyone to solve the objections. The objections are longstanding, there has been no move to solve the objections (or in some cases the objections are addressed but the original objector has not responded to the resolution), but people keep voting to support. It seems to be a stalement since the article cannot be featured with objections, yet the continual support votes technically keep the nomination active. Any thoughts? Should I clear out only the nominations that are most clearly failing (eg, the ones which are "most" inactive and have many unaddressed objections)? Or should I do a more drastic cleanup? - breathesgelatinTalk 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Just looking for a little clarification here. Does the number 3 requirement ( sourced with all available sources and appearances) also allude to all the images being sourced (proper tags, where the images are from, etc.)? If not, could this possibly be placed in the requirements, because it's lacking in a lot of articles. Cull Tremayne 23:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Indeed it does, at least in practice in the past. Many articles have had that used against them. I don't think it would be changing anything significant to clarify that in the requirements. - breathesgelatinTalk 04:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


It seems we could adopt Wikipedia's grading scheme of colors for our articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes please! .... 07:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I plan to propose. Articles would be graded through Wookieepedia:Peer review, where they would recieve a rating from "Stub" to "A-class", "A-class" being equivalent to current Good articles. The best articles on Wookieepedia would be called "Good articles", and go through a strict review at WP:GA. Featured articles (only meaning the article was featured on the main page at some point) would be nominated from the pool of Good articles. Good article status may be stripped through a special page, the Peer review grading may be changed by putting an article up for re-review on the Peer review page. --Imp 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I think we can do away with Good Articles. Unlike Wikipedia, we barely have enough quality articles to feature as it is. We could easily go straight from A to FA. Havac 19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
        • You're missing the point. GAs would be the absolute best articles we have, similar to the current Featured Articles except through much tougher criteria. From the pool of these good articles we'd choose what to display on the main page. --Imp 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, my point is that all GAs would end up being FAs due to our rather limited pool of quality articles, so is it worth it to create what would essentially be a duplicate grade? That said, I'm perfectly willing to accept both FA and GA grades. Havac 20:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see. FA would mean jack, it would simply mean that the article, at some point, was featured on the main page. GA would be the mark of utmost quality. --Imp 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Ok, here's a slight fix to that. Not Good Articles but Great Articles, the best we can do! The Featured Article will only be one of those Great Articles per week as a showcase of what we've pulled off. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, that was the idea. I like the "Great article" name, too. =) We would need some way to strip Great articles of their status though. --Imp 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


When will the process revamp be implemented, and should we hold off making more noms (FA and GA) until then? Havac 22:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • When someone takes the time to write one. Guess I'll do it this weekend, then. --Imp 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Front page intro Edit

I was just taking a read through the Featured Article queue, and most of the article intros that are slated to be used on the front page are in need of serious work. They fail to provide a good overview of the topic and contain a few jumbled sentences that don't fit together well. More careful attention must be paid to this introduction paragraphs before they are placed in the queue. — SparqMan Talk 06:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. Some of those (including the Force article on the front page now) are pretty bad. I'm willing to work on it, but I need a consensus. ~~ Commander Jorrel Fraajic Communications Relay ~~ 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I reverted your edits. If you are going to make changes to the intros, you need to also change the article's pages. They are supposed to match. That was the major reason we started requiring expanded, more detailed introductions. I hadn't read this post at the time I reverted the edits, but feel free to go work on the articles. Although, I do think that some of your changes removed helpful information that should be in the article introductions. - breathesgelatinTalk 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof that there's something wrong with the FA process. Edit

The article on Palpatine is about to lose its FA status, but Jar Jar freakin' Binks is the current FA. 'Nuff said. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • FA status is based on quality, not content. -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you would like Palpatine to keep his Featured Article status, I encourage you to visit his review page and help out with fixing it. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 06:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Mate, don't diss my Binks article. .... 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • He was not insulting the actual article, 4dot, but the content of the article. I think. tzzA 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That's his problem for not comprehending what an FA is. .... 00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
            • No, I get what an FA is (I've had a lot of head injuries, but I'm no "Lenny"... yet), and I'm not saying the article isn't well-constructed (I've looked at it, 4dot, and yes, you do good work) but... there's just something wrong about a world where Palpatine's article wouldn't be as well put together as freakin' Jar Jar's. I know there's a hell of a lot more material to sort through in His Majesty's case, but somehow, the whole thing still seems as wrong as a 500-lb. guy in a thong. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
              • So you're just complaining about an injustice?--Herbsewell 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Requirements for FA Edit

I would think that it would be logical for a FA to have correct grammar.I'm looking at you, Comma-less Skywalker. Does this not make sense? tzzA 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That falls under "well-written". - Lord Hydronium 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The point being that an article is not FA material if its grammar is incorrect. I can find at least 10 places where a comma needs to go, and at least 1 run-on sentence-in the intro. Grammar is good, peoples. tzzA 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough...Edit

...there's no rule saying that the article will have to contain information that's sufficiently relevant to Star Wars. KEJ 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. Thank you for pointing that out in such a civilized fashion, instead of expanding borderline relevant articles to a thousand words and pushing them onto the FA queue. We could use more like you. ^_^ Unsigned comment by Enochf (talk • contribs).
    • That was quite civilized, eh? KEJ 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, trying to inform people and tell them something interesting is so damn barbaric. .... 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Hey, if people want articles of more notability with Star Wars, the "edit" button on Han Solo, Anakin Skywalker, and R2-D2 is waiting. No need to get testy or anything. There's no reason why articles that meet the requirements and policies can't be featured, however obscure they are. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Notability? I was talking about relevance. KEJ 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Relevance? How do you define that? Personally I thought the whole Burl Ives thing was a hoot - even if I wasn't around for it.<vbg>--Goodwood 12:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I find that critereon 10 is a tad vague. It says that an article cannot be featured twice on the main page. Does this also mean that former FAs which again meet all the qualifications cannot be featured (not neccesarily on the Main Page) again? Rodtheanimegod4ever 04:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. They can be given the status of featured, just not a second main page run. .... 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you support a nominated topic??? Edit

Help me! --DassJennir 12:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The only thing you have to do is click "edit" and put your signature under "support". --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It wont LET us edit. Lord of Whatever? (???)
    • If you are a new user, just wait a couple days, and you will be able to. Sadly, we have had to lock this page from editing by new and unregistered users to avoid IPs from voting. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Normal users' support Edit

  • Just curious, but is there any real point in voting for a nom if you aren't an Inq? The only thing required for the article to be queued is 5 Inq supports and no objections, as far as I can see. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Our objections count, Hobbes, which is a big difference. If I hadn't fixed what you pointed out on Crado, it wouldn't have become a Featured Article. Also, it's good for users to be involved and show their support for the FAN process. The Inq likes the idea of people besides themselves caring about article quality. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed, per Graestan. The Inqs are in no way infallible, and we encourage non-Inq users to read through FAN's and post objections which will help the article's improvement. Also, even if an article has 10 Inq support votes for it, but it still has even 1 objection from a normal user, that FAN will not become an FA until that, and hence all, objections are satisfied and/or compromised upon. :) Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I think Hobbes raises a valid point though. In the past I've wondered about a requirement for a certain number of "normal" users' votes. Like it needs 5 Inq votes, and 5 other votes. This would strike a balance between popularity and quality. We have similar requirements for admin noms. --Eyrezer 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Graestan and Greyman are indeed correct, and that's generally what I try to do, since I write fairly slow. But I was asking about normal supports. Personally, I don't mind the current system, but I see noms the way those for Jango Fett and K'Kruhk were, with all those normal supports, and wonder, what's the point of all that if the votes don't matter? It seems a little pointless, I guess. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I can see the point about non-Inq supports but I wouldn't want to slow the process further by increasing the number of votes needed. Personally, I do like to see non-Inq supports as it shows that people are taking an interest and enjoying the articles. And like others have said, non-Inq objections are worth just as much as Inq ones and there are plenty of articles where people have spotted things that the Inquisitors have missed. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I agree. With the objections made by Inqs and non-Inqs alike, FAN isn't quick, so more votes isn't really necessary. I was just making sure I hadn't missed something about the voting, since it seemed purposeless. But having people enjoy the articles is good too, and it is good for them to express their support. That's basically all I wanted to know. Thanks for the input, everyone. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 14:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually quit voting in support of FAs because of this, as I thought it was pretty pointless as well. I figured if I had a complaint I'd vote against it, but otherwise why bother. Last time I voted for one I remember thinking, not that it matters... So I just quit doing it. But I do see the point that FA writers would like to see as much support for their article as they can get, so I guess that's good enough reason to do it.--Livingston (The Force will be with you. Always.) 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question Edit

Hey what kind of page is this and what is this page? Why it is here?(Eagle Eye 370 02:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

  • It's pretty much what it says it is: a page to nominate articles that you think represent the best Wookieepedia has to offer. It's all on the page, really. -- Ozzel 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You should try reading things before asking questions about them. Wookieepedia is not here to cater to the lazy or the learning disabled. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't rush things Edit

I just noticed something which I'd like to point out. Just using this as an example: Graestan objected to a template being used in a nom, it was subsequently removed, and he supported. Then 4dot objected to Grae's objection, if you will, asking that the template be added back in. It was, 4dot struck and he supported and the article was queued. It's not a big deal and nobody's acted inappropriately or anything in my opinion, but I think in such cases efforts should be made to discuss it with the original objector who has since supported (Graestan in this case) before it's queued. It may well be that in some cases the original objector would not have supported in such circumstances, and it seems a little unfair to them. We shouldn't just bend to each objector's will in turn even if the objections contradict each other; I think we should discuss things with the relevant parties. Like I said, not a big deal, but something to watch out for. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see 4dot's comment on the matter. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Yah, as I said, I wasn't trying to undermine Graestan or anything, but since I made the template in the first place, I'd like to see it used in exactly the situation it's supposed to be used in, not that I have ownership over it or its use can't change or anything. On a really major issue, I would have gone about that differently, but since it's just a simple template, it's something that can be quickly and easily changed should subsequent discussion deem it necessary. Thefourdotelipsis 05:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • There was one hour and forty minutes between the last vote and the queuing. In the future, should anyone have similar issues with my suggested changes in featured article review, please contact me on my talk page first so I'll know whether or not my vote should be removed and/or discussion of the objections in question can take place. Graestan(Talk) 06:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Right, I agree with Ackbar, and I'll take credit for this blunder. I probably should have picked up on that before queueing it. Also, Grae, would you mind removing that notice on your talk page saying that you're "unavailable" then? Or are you still unavailable? Cull Tremayne 06:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Kudos for taking the blame, Cull, but ultimately I think the responsibility falls on the nominator in these kinds of cases. Obviously it'd be great if the queuer was able to pick up on things like that, but expecting that is too much to ask, in my opinion. I think the onus falls firmly with the nominator, to notify the original objector or to open up discussion between the two nominators (for example, that type of thing's happened to me before and when I'm not of an opinion either way I'd tend to not make any changes second time round and get the second objector to work it out with the first). -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I am in a state of half-involvement, in relation to my usual status. I have a lot going on right now off the site, and people antagonizing the heck out of me on the site isn't helping me, either. The reason the notice is still up is that I haven't made my mind up about returning fully—this is just one of those situations where I felt it was necessary to intervene. I feel that the nominator did know better; hence the warning on his talk page. The last time I caught someone doing this, I blocked him outright—this time I at least gave him the benefit of the doubt, issuing a warning because I believe as an Inquisitor who is supposed to understand the rules and the system, he should know better. Graestan(Talk) 13:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up Edit

I think it is about time that the FA nominations are archived alphabetically since this page is incredibly crowded. I do not know how to preform this action, so could someone else please do so if this suggestion is approved? --Darth shohet 00:56, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

  • Arranging them alphabetically won't change a thing. They are ordered by dates to be prioritized. CC7567 (talk) 02:44, October 30, 2009 (UTC)


There's a strange ref notice at the bottom of the site. What's up with that? Kreivi Wolter 14:15, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Formatting Redux articles Edit

Hopefully this doesn't require another CT just to adjust the formatting, but I would suggest creating a new section, i.e. =Inquisitorius redux articles=, for the group of redux articles. That way it's easier to differentiate between the FANs and the Redux. We could also format that rule regarding Redux votes so that it appears under the Redux section instead of separately at the top of the page. And potentially move over the remaining rules from the leftover Wookieepedia:Inq/Redux page? CC7567 (talk) 06:56, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

  • That seems like the common sense thing to do, now that it's been thought of. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 09:27, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • At Meeting 49, our consensus was to not sub-section the reduxed articles on the FAN page, as it would have the negative effect of isolating them (ctrl+f "putting them in" on the log to check out the discussion). The whole point of putting them on the FAN page was to mingle them with regular FANs so that Inquisitors and non-INQs alike would be forced to pay attention to them, and we felt that sub-sectioning them would defeat that purpose (and also potentially confuse new users). So basically, differentiating regular FANs and Reduxed FAs isn't something we want to do, else the reduxed ones will be as easy to ignore as they were before the CT. Menkooroo (talk) 19:53, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay. I forgot about checking the logs. Thanks for clarifying. CC7567 (talk) 19:55, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
      • No worries; it's not a perfect system and there's definitely room for improvement. It's something we could talk about at the next INQ meeting. Feel free to move around that rule I added at the top or make any other aesthetic changes or anything, but right now, the overall goal is to shove the reduxed noms in everyone's face and say "REVIEW THESE." Menkooroo (talk) 19:59, August 21, 2012 (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.