Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Wind Dancer


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Wind Dancer

 * Nominated by: ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 16:28, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Hold me closer, Wind Dancer...

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Toprawa
 * 2) *By my count, the article is currently at 240 words. Per the recently established Mofference rule (CAN Rule 14), this article should make an effort to have a dedicated intro. Considering the article is only ten words away from GAN 250, I honestly don't see how, with the intro expansion and a little sectioning, this can't end up being a proper GAN. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:17, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **I thought those numbers didn't count BTS word count. Not so? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 18:47, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I don't believe that's so. The BTS counts the same as it always would. The only exception is articles where the BTS is the majority of the text, and the IU portion of the article is like seven words or something. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:50, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Special thanks to for tracking down where these guys were first mentioned! ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 16:28, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Rule 14 currently states: "…if the nominated article reaches 200 words or greater, the nominator must either provide an intro or draft an intro and provide a link to the revision in the nomination, showing that the intro does not elevate the article over 250 words. Exceptions can be made for articles wherein the majority of the text is in the "Behind the scenes" section." without any specifics on the IU to BTS word count ratio that would make an exception possible. Perhaps this needs to be more concretely stated? Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 18:54, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but that's not really the issue here. I'm to understand that Bob is under the misconception that the BTS is somehow not meant to be included in the 200 word count for when the intro clause comes into effect, which was never part of the rule. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:57, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. But I can also see how Bob would think that the BTS exception applies here. As it is currently written, it sounds as though when more than fifty percent of the article's total word count comes from the BTS, then you can exclude the BTS from the total and decide whether or not an intro is needed based solely on the remaining word count. I get what your both saying, is what I'm trying to say, which probably means that that new rule needs to be amended for clarity to avoid these situations. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 19:02, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is to say, I'm not challenging the validity of your objection, just using it as an example as to why this is an issue. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 19:03, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but that's not what Bob said. Interpreting his comment literally, he's questioning whether the BTS counts at all toward the total word count, which it most certainly does. To respond to your specific issue, hypothetically speaking, I agree the wording is somewhat ambiguous. But if we were to hypothetically make an issue out of it here, I would point out that the rule says if the majority of the text is in the BTS. At best, we're at an approximate 1-1 ratio here, so that really wouldn't qualify. If you care to go back into the Mofference log, the spirit of the rule was if the BTS took up almost the entire article, and the IU portion of the article was, to use my example above once more, something like seven words long. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:07, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what your saying. I wasn't at the Mofference, I'm just saying that the spirit you noted isn't really present in the wording of the rule. Again, not questioning your objection&mdash;I just misinterpreted Bob's objection to your objection. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 19:13, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * To respond to the above: Yeah, I was misinterpreting the clause to mean that BTS could be ignored in establishing the 200-word cutoff. However, it does state that a majority of the text being BTS can allow an article to ignore the 200-word clause, and that's what I had in mind. As Tope notes, this one is about half and half. I think it's silly to give a lead to an article on a species for which we know about two things (a homeworld and that they were graceful), but I'll knock something up and see what you all think. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 19:44, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else we need to take into account: The GAN rules currently include this provision (Rule 7): "…have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This is essential in articles over 1000 words but may not be appropriate on articles with limited content." This doesn't work if we require limited-content articles such as this one to have a lead and push themselves over 250 words. Do we need a SH on this? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 21:16, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I get 232 words without the lead, 266 with it; see here. But the lead in this case, I would argue, is mostly useless, and Rule 7 of the GAN should apply, which bonks the nom back down here. I honestly have no preference whether this thing ends up being a CA or a GA; I just don't want to force words into the article to meet arbitrary benchmarks when I don't think they are helpful. How do we adjudicate such matters? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 21:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's 107 words of description and 125 of BTS in the non-lead version. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 21:27, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you didn't have a preference in the matter, I suspect you wouldn't be looking for loopholes and policy contradictions to manipulate the rule wording in your favor. You know as well as anyone that the CAN rule was established at the Mofference as a compromise to move articles like this, which are 200 words or more and can support an intro, to the GAN, whether you personally supported the rule or not. The GAN rule you're attempting to validate is entirely subjective, and it does not automatically "bonk the nom back down" to CAN. The CAN rule, however, does invalidate this nomination for this specific nomination page now that the intro elevates the article past 250 words. If you want to argue about GAN rules, please bring the nomination there, where the discussion may continue in a more appropriate setting. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:42, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't presume what my motivations may be; I seriously don't care whether this ends up at CAN or GAN, so there is no "my favor" to be had here. What I do care about is whether we are forcing extra words on something that doesn't need them. My word counts above are merely so that we have all the facts; I am not trying to prove Toprawa wrong or invalidate rules. Now, if we can all assume good faith here for a moment, I would like to know whether we should continue to discuss this here, or if SH is called for. I am not ready to nominate this article to GAN because I do not think it is long enough. Adding the lead makes it long enough, but it does not improve the article in my opinion, so I would rather not add it. Where would be the appropriate place to discuss this (civilly) and on neutral ground? ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 22:07, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * See, that's where the problem arises, Bob. You choose what rules and policies you wish to follow according to your preferences and opinions. You didn't support this specific measure when it passed at the Mofference, and now that it's actually applying to you, you're chafing under it and finding every window of opportunity to not adhere to it. The rule states simply that if an article is over 200 words, the nominator must then draft an intro showing whether the intro elevates the article to 250 words, and if it does, the 250-word limit (Rule 13) then invalidates the nomination for the CAN page. And that's where we're at right now, but you would rather refuse to acknowledge the rule and filibuster the situation until you hopefully find a resolution that suits your preferences. I might respectfully point out that WP:POINT actually includes a provision for this type of thing, stating that users should not "push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong" when they don't agree with something, which is formally considered a site disruption. If you're looking for the appropriate place to discuss this nomination, it's the GAN page, where this nomination should be now, per the existing CAN rule. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:21, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I might respectfully point out that WP:NPA says, "Comment on content, not the contributor." I have been trying to keep this discussion civil; I'm not sure why it has become a personal exegesis on my supposed failings. I see that as the measure is currently worded, it does seem that any intro that brings an article over the magical threshold of 250 words boots it into GAN territory, so I'll take it there, where I'll argue that the article is not large enough to support an intro. ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 23:19, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * No debate is complete without the customary NPA accusation, right? If you think I have infringed upon any one of the stated examples of what constitutes a personal attack, Bob, go ahead and write me up. I stand by every single statement I have made here in this discussion. Because the fact of the matter is, this situation is about how you, the contributor, are responding, or in this case not responding, to this rule. It's taken us to this point for you to finally begrudgingly acknowledge that the rule does in fact state exactly what we both know it's said since its adoption. It becomes a "personal exegesis on your supposed failings" because you doggedly and deliberately refuse to adhere to a site rule because you don't personally want to follow it, to the point that it becomes a disruption. You were there when the rule was crafted, and you know very well that this was intended to be a compromise between the "CAN people" and the "GAN people," to put it that way, to establish some common ground for when to take an article to GAN. But it stops being a compromise when people refuse to do exactly that and instead keep arguing over the same old things that this rule attempted to put to bed. Other people came to the negotiating table to put these petty differences behind us. Maybe it's time for you to do the same, Bob. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:09, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * How does one write someone up? Because I do find your behavior here a violation of NPA. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 01:34, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry; not the appropriate place to continue this discussion. My apologies. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 01:51, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I still believe there is ambiguity about how Rule 14 here works with Rule 7 at the GAN, I've started a SH thread here. This is an attempt to figure out how these rules work together, and I hope no one takes it as me being combative or polemical. I simply want to iron out how GAN and CAN can work together in cases of borderline articles like this. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 23:38, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like the issues at play here are any closer to resolution (seems a CT or SH will need to play out first), so I think I'll go ahead and fail this nomination due to the uncertainty. It will see the light of day again, either here or at GAN, but for now, there's no need to keep it cluttering up the page while somewhat related discussions occur behind the scenes. :) ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 16:46, April 17, 2011 (UTC)