Forum:SH Archive/Complete Articles, eh?

Yes, that's right... Complete Articles. You know what I'm talking about.

Or maybe you don't.

Basically, I'm sort of toying with or floating the idea of a third article milestone tier, subordinate to both Featured Articles and Good Articles... called Complete Articles. Those delightful chaps on the WookieeProject Aliens hill have a nifty little analogue you can take a butcher's at.

Essentially, this tier would be for anything comprehensive under 250 words in length, and thereby ineligible for either FA or GA status. Why would we do this, you ask? Well, it's rather simple&mdash;this would be a way of informing the reader that what they are reading is absolutely and utterly the extent of canonical information on that given subject, much the same as what we are doing when we put an FA or GA stamp on an article. Think of it as a guarantee to the reader.

It has the added bonus of telling editors when a really short article isn't actually a stub! Cool, huh?

Basically, instituting such a thing would mean that technically, every single article on Wookieepedia would have a reachable milestone, and that a stamp of quality and excellence and awesomeness could potentially be applied to every single article on the site. I for one like that idea.

HOWEVER!

I understand that there would be reservations about such a thing. Which is why I'm using this SH to fire ranging shots. This is an idea that has been floated about in the past, in very different climates and circumstances, and shot down. I figure it's about time it got another go, just to see how people feel on this at this current stage in time.

I understand that some people are going to be adverse to a whole new realm of nommery and reviewery and shennanigans. I understand that some people are going to be adverse to a whole new page to worry about, and I know that some people aren't going to like the prospect of having a potentially massive slew of articles to check over.

But... what I was thinking is that we could really streamline this process, and make it a really snappy sort of operation that isn't going to be as encumbered or slow as the other milestone processes. I feel confident that we can do this without sacrificing quality since reading something that's under 250 words in length isn't really that much of a chore, let's be perfectly honest.

Here's a few ideas, though. Firstly, since some articles will only have a sentence or two worth of content, they will not be beholden to the Layout Guide, although a Behind the scenes section will be encouraged, if not required (or maybe it will be required, I don't know how people would feel about this). The same goes for sourcing in single-source articles, which is the same as always, although personally I feel it should always be encouraged, just so that a nice infrastructure is set up for whenever new content comes sailing in (and in this age of continuity, there's no knowing just what is going to be referenced next).

I'm not overly fussed with requiring that there be no redlinks, but this might be something people feel strongly about... I'll leave the floor open on that one.

Ultimately, though, when it comes to the process, I've got a few ideas... some of them might sound massively offensive... others might not... just calm down, people, whatever the case. This is a thread of woo-sah-ing.

I would think that we would have a rather typical nominations page, much like FAs and GAs. There wouldn't be a specific review panel, however, as this would be ultimately overseen by both the Inqs and the ACs (oh, don't complain, they're going to less than 250 words. C'mon. :P) And their jurisdiction would extend just as far as it does on their own pages, but in the interest of keeping this a speedy and economical process, I was thinking that with a certain number of votes, perhaps an Inq or AC vote would not be required. Now, don't go storming out, just listen. What I was thinking was that there would be a window of perhaps 48 hours where the Inq votes would be required for a complete article nominee to pass, and then beyond that it's up to the users, but I think a sampling of perhaps six or seven layman votes would be required (perhaps less, again, these are just ranging shots). As for the required Inq or AC votes, I'm thinking two.

But here's the really neat (or hugely offensive) part. I was thinking that since the Inq and the ACs are, y'know, the trusted guardians of quality, that they themselves could perhaps circumvent the nominations for their own work or another's work that they've nominated and haven't noticed, and then perhaps two of them could sign off on a talk page template or something without a nomination, and that would qualify as a completed article instantly.

Huh? Huh? Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about either. I'm in my pyjamas and my feet hurt. But basically, these are just a few ideas and suggestions, nothing concrete of course, and I just want to test the water so to speak on how the community at large feels. Are they in or out? Up or down? Forward or back? Hall or Oates?

You tell me.