Forum:SH Archive/FAN/GAN subpage discussion

Note: This discussion was moved from Forum:CT Archive/Tweaking the FAN/GAN pages as it had moved too far off of the original topic. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 21:15, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I've often wondered if setting up the FAN and GAN pages as forums (like we've done with the Trash compactor) would be a good idea. That way, each nomination would get its own page, and it would be easy to see which had been recently updated. When a nom passes, there wouldn't need to be a copy/paste of the successful nom into a new page, just a page move and possibly a template change. I haven't given it enough thought to think of any possible downsides or decide if it was an idea worth pursuing, though. jSarek 23:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That actually sounds like a much better idea to me and, aside from the benefits JSarek mentioned, it would allow me to edit the FAN page from my phone, something I can't do practically because of the page's KB size. —Tommy 9281 23:38, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't had any experience with them personally, but as a note, nomination sub-pages have been experimented with before on the GAN, but were eventually decided to be discontinued. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 23:40, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, both the ACs and the Inqs have had this discussion and have deemed such an implementation to be supremely ineffective&mdash;test runs have proved that they get nominations looked at even less than they already are.  CC7567  (talk) 23:44, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but after looking through the logs of those meetings, it appears the primary reason for rejecting subpages was "out of sight, out of mind". A solution to that might be to put all nominations on their own subpages (I'm talking the whole thing from the article name header to the end of the comments section, not just the objections as was trialed on GAN) from the beginning, and then transclude each subpage on the main FAN or GAN page. The FAN and GAN pages would look similar, if not exactly identical, to before, but the wikitext of the page would look [ something like this], and clicking section edit links would edit the transcluded page as seen here. This would keep all noms visible in one place but make editing easier. It would also allow extra section headers on subpages to break up big noms (possibly even a separate section for each objector if necessary), while the size of the TOC on the main page can be controlled with TOClimit. Would this be an idea worth considering, or am I way out in left field here? &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:59, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm comprehending this incorrectly, but if one nomination subpage yields no results, I fail to see why multiple ones would.  CC7567  (talk) 01:02, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I saw when this was trialed on GAN is that the objections were moved to a subpage, and then linked to from the main page. Most likely, what happened was that people browsed the GAN page for an article to review but ignored the ones on subpages that they couldn't immediately see in favor of the ones still on the main page that they could see. I was actively reviewing GANs at that time, and I know that was the case with me. With this idea, after putting noms on subpages, those pages are then rather than linked . The result is that the noms are not "out of sight/out of mind"; they are displayed on the main page in full exactly as they are now, but via transcluding subpages rather than 200+ KB of text on the main page. Not that I like to cite Wikipedia, but their AFD log pages show a good example of what I'm talking about. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 01:20, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. In order for a real trial to be done, everything would need to be converted. This might be impractical, but that would be the best say to do it. Also, I've always felt that the reason it wasn't don was general laziness anyway. That said, there is one inherent problem that I've acknowledged before: keeping a count updated on the main FAN/GAN page of the appropriate votes. If only subpages are updated, it becomes a difficult task knowing how many votes a nom has, unless there is some line of code that can relay that information via template, html, or javascript. But, Jonathan's idea, if it works, would be an excellent idea to remedy this. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote counts would not be an issue, as they would be transcluded from the subpage along with the rest of the nom, and as long as the counts remain headers, they will appear in the TOC of the main page. Also, so far I've only given a Wikipedia page and a rough idea in my userspace as examples; tomorrow I'll put a better example using an abridged version of the GAN page in my userspace. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:38, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understood this sub-page system correctly we have been using it in Finnish Jedipedia something like a year now and it works quite well for us. There isn't that many FA/GA noms than here (for obvious reasons, it being so much smaller) but sub-pages make things easier if there is a one particular nom you want to read about.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 09:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I read it, another advantage of Jonathan's solution would be that watching would be easier. You only watch the noms that you're interested in (probably your own ones and where you objected) and your watchlist doesn't get cluttered with other nominations.  Pranay Sobusk  ~  Talk  15:17, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be correct. I actually overlooked that one earlier. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 15:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Subpage demonstration
OK, here is my promised demonstration. I took the first ten noms on GAN, copied then to my userspace, and transitioned the whole thing to the subpage idea. The sample GAN page is here, and list of the individual subpages can be found here. In making the transition, the abridged GAN page went from approx. 184 KB to 7.5 KB, a reduction of approximately 96%. Each subpage now utilizes multiple section headers for ease of editing. The issue that prompted the original proposal for this CT is no longer a problem, as the name of the subpage itself identifies the article in question. TOClimit is used on the main page to control the size of the TOC. Users can browse the main page to pick an article to review, then click on any section edit link to jump directly to the subpage. Any thoughts, suggestions, etc. would be welcome. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 15:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC) This also strikes me as something that could easily be phased in by adding the new noms at the bottom in this way. TO clarify, Jonathan, when you say like the TC, are you meaning like the Forum style list at the bottom of this page? Or are you still meaning that it would appear like it is on this page? I think the latter is better and would be more palatable. The less apparent change, the better :P --Eyrezer 00:14, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it! It solves my concerns, anyways, and it looks like it solves the others too.  I will vote for this, if and when it becomes a choice (or is this now what "Accept Proposal" refers to?) Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith  -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 16:41, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the voting options above only refer to the minor reformatting described at the top of this page. As the subpage idea is totally different, it would probably be handled in a separate CT thread. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 16:48, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * This was tried on the GAN page before, in this very same fashion, and it was rejected after my Darth Nihilus GAN and another that they tried it with were finished. I'd suggest researching why by asking any ACs that were involved and tweaking it accordingly. Overall on this issue I express a strong indifference however. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 19:59, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated above where I initially proposed this idea, I read through the chat logs of the AC and Inq meetings in which the idea was rejected, and it appears that the problem was that people ignored them because they weren't visible on the main page. My proposal fixes that by transcluding the subpages on the main page, rather than linking them as was done in last years trial. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:13, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, now you're starting to encroach on the respective territories of the AgriCorps and Inquisitorius. This is not something for you or this forum to decide. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 20:25, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Tranner, if the community decided to overhaul the pages, they have the right. The FAN and GAN pages are community pages, not just project pages like WP:INQ and WP:AC. That said, this discussion should be elsewhere as it has grown to far away from the parent topic. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 20:37, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may ask: When this sub-page systems was tested did they change all the nominations to sub-pages or only some of them?--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 21:43, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just two nominations, Nihilus and another, as they were getting quite long. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 22:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I don't think that the system was well tested in that vote. We (or rather you Wookieepedians) should give this idea a try. As I already said, we (in Finnish Jedipedia) have been using it ever since we really started voting for the FAs and it works just fine.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 06:16, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, it was kinda badly done. Jonathan has made further improvements to the idea, so it's different to the one we tested anyway. If I'm not mistaken, under this proposal, the GAN page looks almost the same as it did before. All major features, including edit buttons, the TOC, sections, and objections still appear on the page, but the page itself is diminished hugely in size due to the subpages. This saves alot of time for those using IE, and allows noms to be watched both by objectors and nominators.  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 07:43, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always been interested in the idea of subpages, but there were always minor issues here and there. I think Jonathan here has solved a great deal of these problems, and I see only positives from this solution. I don't see why we can't at least give it a go (provided Jonathan does all the grunt work :P) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 10:02, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea of being able to watch noms. Particularly on the FAN page, where they can go untouched for months. Menkooroo 17:07, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm bumping this. I think, given the talk about reforms to make the FAN process go more smoothly and quickly, this needs to be looked at some more and written up for a CT. Menkooroo is right that being able to watch ... err, follow ... a nomination would be helpful in letting both nominators and reviewers know when something has occurred that is worth looking at, speeidng up the process. jSarek 02:37, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read through this thread, I think this is a good idea. It would take some initial adjusting, beyond that, should work great. The FAN page appears largely the same, but with the added ability to Watch your nominations, and ease of archiving once a nom passes or fails. --Eyrezer 09:45, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * How different would it be to nominate an article with the proposed system as opposed to the current one? As far as I understand it, it's just using a similar "template" but on a new page and then transcluding it onto the main nom page.  NAYAYEN : TALK 15:23, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, what would happen is that FAnom and GAnom would be adjusted to work in the same way as Tc. That is, you would place the tag on the article, then open the redlink in the tag to create the nomination page, which would be prefilled with the "template". The only difference between this and placing an article in the TC would be the extra step of transcluding it on the main FAN/GAN page. I will probably have a proposal ready for the CT by the end of the week. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 17:06, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter is correct; the comparison to the TC only refers to the process of nominating a new article. With regard to phasing it in, that could work, but it would likely take months, due to the already slow nature of those pages. I'd rather someone just put in the hour or two that it would take to convert the whole page over all at once, and if no one else is willing to do that, I'm willing to. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:34, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Implementation
OK. Since the CT for this snowballed, I have gone ahead and converted the GAN page. From here forward, to nominate a new article for GA, place GAnom on the article, save, then follow the instructions in the template. The FAN page has not been converted yet; due to its size, I may have to split it up into two sessions, possibly on different (but consecutive) days. This may mean that the FAN page will contain a combination of nominations directly on the page and transcluded from subpage, which may look a little ugly; I will try to leave it in this state for as little time as reasonably possible. &mdash; Master Jonathan  ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 18:47, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks very good and clean so far. There's only one thing that IMO could be changed: The TOC on the subpages. It looks pretty ugly. Is there any way to hide it without hiding the TOC on the main nominations page? -- 1358  (Talk) 18:53, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think this is a terrible idea now that I'm seeing it implemented. It's remarkably annoying and disjointed that the FAN and GAN pages will now never show up in the Recent changes or our Watchlists as being edited. Instead, we're forced to follow a hundred different subpages just to follow a stream of edits. Had I known this was going to be a major consequence, I would have opposed this proposal. But I suppose that's a moot point now. God help us. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:05, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to agree with Tope on this.  JangFett  (Talk) 19:08, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Tope. On everything.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 19:13, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, nothing looks different on the GAN page. This is all getting a bit too complicated, and doesn't appear to be what I thought I was originally signing up for. Can we perhaps vote to return things to the way they were? I hope this isn't going to happen to the FAN page now as well. —Tommy 9281 19:23, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I voted for it, but I have to say that now that I see it in action, completely per Tope. This is making it more difficult to watch the GAN as a whole; especially with the page not showing up in the RCs. It's much less convenient to have to watch all of the separate subpages, and I'm afraid it will make reviewing etc. a slower, more arduous process, rather than more convenient. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 19:26, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * People just have to follow the reviews they actually need to follow now. There's very few people who need to watch the GAN/FAN for every single review. Even Inqs are only covering a fraction of reviews at any time. - Lord Hydronium 19:27, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's easy for someone to say who only cares about the articles he writes. But for the selfless Inqs who actually work to maintain the FAN page, they prefer to follow each nomination as it progresses. This now becomes a serious challenge. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:28, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just watch the individual pages, then. What's so hard about that? - Lord Hydronium 19:31, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's a major pain in the ass to follow dozens of different pages at a time? How is that easier or more simple than following everything on one centralized page? Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:32, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should simply try it for a span, say two weeks, then vote to change it back if still desired. I'm having some mixed feelings, too, but the proposal did clearly state subpages. Let's give it a chance, then I'll be the first to vote for repeal if it doesn't work. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:29, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the proposal did state subpages. But as I'm admittedly not the technical wizard some others are, I didn't know this is how it would be. The AC tried subpages before on GAN, for example, but it didn't involve completely removing the nominations page from the RCs and Watchlists. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:32, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly per Tope. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 19:34, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it is a recently-passed community consensus, I'm willing to give it a brief try per Fiolli&mdash;one or two weeks, maybe&mdash;but I honestly can't see it working out. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 19:35, May 25, 2010 (UTC)