Forum:CT Archive/FA reform proposal

It has become evident that something needs to be done with the current FA system. Certain individuals continue to nominate articles that technically fulfill the FA requirements, but are believed by a considerable fraction of users not to be the best Wookieepedia has to offer - which is what FAs are supposed to be.

Also, the existing system was not designed with such level of activity in mind. We risk overflowing the weekly queue.

This is a crisis. And when a crisis occurs, we must act swiftly.

On IRC, has made a suggestion to separate two processes: nominating an article for featured status and nominating a featured article to be highlighted on the main page. He says he has diagrams.

Other possible proposals: requiring GA status prior to nominating an FA, or shortening the rotation cycle. proposes a half-weekly cycle, or 3.5 days per article.

Let the discussion begin. - Sikon 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I wondered how FAs could jump from no status to FA. Having all FAs have to go through GA seems like it's reasonable and sensible. Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right there. Darth Maddolis 12:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I heartily endorse this event or product. Krusty the Clown (Talk) 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem. To me, it seems that the problems people have with the current FA system boil down to: 1) "Silly" articles get featured on the main page, and 2) some of the articles are too short. In light of this, I propose the following: Split the FA system in two; one page for nominating articles for Featured status, and one for nominating Featured articles to appear on the main page. Additionally, instate a rule that makes sure no FAs can be under 1000 words, and a rule that requires articles to be GAs prior to being nominated for FA. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 12:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Imp here has it nailed here. This is how it should be. - JMAS 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only issue I sense with specializing two FAs is that the FA process might slow to a trickle and maybe even stop. I know we have a queue already that is 3 months long, but after that, then what? Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect it won't be an issue, Jorrel. We want LOTS of Good Articles, and we already have many (and will get more). I also support Imp's notion of a separate Main Page Article concept, though I think the prerequisites would need to be voted on (IMO they shouldn't be much stricter than what we've been doing, or else it'd seem that we're excluding certain topics *cough*Burl*ahem*). So, to sum up, I'm in favor of GA -> FA -> MPA. Let's make a cheer out of it! "GA, FA, MPA!"  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, explained, it makes sense. I wasn't criticizing the plan, just bringing it up for any concerned users. Maybe even Imp's diagrams would aid the thought process :-P Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about, it has to maintain GA status for a 2 weeks, then it can be nominated for FA status, and after maintaining FA status for another 2 weeks, then it can be queued for MPFA (Main Page Featured Article) status. - JMAS 13:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, JMAS, but if the articles are silly to begin with, and make it to FA, they'll stay there for two weeks anyway. I like Imp's idea. Darth Maddolis 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm split over this proposal. I don't like the idea of splitting the FA page, and so I disagree with that. On the other hand, I like the idea of a 1000 word limit and making FAs go through GA first. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly is a point of view, Darth Maddolis. Some would say all that is Star Wars is silly.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting the FA page, but Support length limit for FA noms and having them go through GA status first. Saying that some article are worthy to be put on the front page and others aren't kind of defeats the purpose of FA, does it not? They are called "FEATURED" articles, not "Some are featured, while the rest are stuffed in a dark corner" articles.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support putting them through GA first, Strong Oppose 3.5 days and two kinds of FAs. I think it's pretty good as is. Just for frame of reference, can someone give me a previous FA that was less than 1000 words? Chack Jadson 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there aren't any. A good thing, if you ask me. Some have been close, but not under. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support length limit and GA review, so very opposed to the separate main page idea. Why does it matter if somebody thinks an article is "silly"? - Lord Hydronium 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support minimum length limit and Support GA to FA flow. -Fnlayson 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing two sorts of FAs&hellip; think of it more like QOTD&mdash;it's just a place to nominate your favorite featured articles for showcasing on the main page. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting the FA page is going to result in the community deciding what is "cool enough" so to speak, to be put on the front page. FA should not be like QotD, and hopefully it won't become that way. Terrible idea I believe. Per StarNeptune. Oppose changing the GA into a gateway for FA. That's not what it was created to be, and will serve to cement the idea that not everything can be an GA, which I strongly disagree with. Support a length limit for FA. I want FAs to be at least 1000 words, at least then we can be sure that they will represent articles that actually have some information, instead of basically one or two facts stated multiple ways.
 * To answer Chack's question, sans image, quotes, header, and source and ref characters, there are a few articles that have been under 1000 words, but if we do institute that policy, we'll probably have to decide what constitutes part of the word count. Cull Tremayne 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose to everything, on second thought. I'm just not a fan, and I think we're running alright at the moment. And I don't really think that some of the FA's under 1000 words are unsuitable in the traditional sense. Granted, I wrote most of them, but I'm not sure that length = quality. I don't like the set limit, I think we should just use good common sense with the length limit. .  .  .  .  21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support, for several reasons. Actually, I wasn't gonna bother with this, but this thread seems like the place for it - I've long wondered whether section-based requirements, Behind the Scenes being an obvious example but also Personality & Traits, make sense - if something has worthwhile info for a BtS section, than all well and good, but it's very possible that the opposite could be true. Requiring a FA to have one strictly for the sake of, well, whatever you'd call it, seems unnecessary. As for Personality & Traits, my personal feeling on the matter is that a good character article would include all the relevant personality info as part of the biography. Making a separate section might be necessary for some people, but again, strong cases can be made against them being necessary all the time. Should I add a vote to the end of the page, perhaps? CooperTFN 05:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An additional vote can always be added. I know what you're saying, but I think having a section on P&T, even if it is redundant seems fine. Cull Tremayne 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal Vote
There are a number of issues here relevant to FA.

Freeze passage of all FAs until this thread is over
Support
 * To make sure that everything is somewhat standardized, should we freeze promotion of FA noms until this thread ends? We have a queue of articles until September. Any old articles will be reviewed retroactively by the Inquisitorius to make sure they pass muster, that's why it was formed.
 * 1) Comedy maniac option. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) No. God. .  .  .  .  22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Dumb. In the most literal sense. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No.  The future always in motion, it is.  Use criteria when article started FA review. -Fnlayson 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) You took my quote Fnlayson. Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Unnecessary disruption of a process we've finally given inertia to seems counterproductive in every way. jSarek 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Shouldn't be necessary. KEJ 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Bah! -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12)  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) We have the Inquisitorius for this type of thing. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Ozzel 05:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Word Limit
Support
 * Have a word limit of at least one thousand words of prose (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc.) for Featured Article noms
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) -- Will fix the problem (we had a problem?) Yes we had a problem. (you talk to yourself?) Who is this again?
 * 4) Especially since my proposed WP:CA allows short articles to be recognized. 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Also exclude references.-LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Actually, Burl's only 100 short. Nice. .  .  .  .  00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) I support loose enforcement of this rule. In other words, if an article comes in maybe 100-200 short but no one objects, it can be overlooked. Length does not always equal quality.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Ozzel 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) 719 is a much better number.  .  .  .  .  22:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Some articles will be worth featuring at substantially less: and this may simply inspire some of our colleagues, esteemed in other respects though they may be, to strain themselves to add excess verbiage in order to meet an arbitrary word count &mdash; which may result in a poor prose style, an unfortunate excess of speculation, and a myriad of other sins (which, while only minor transgressions of the Wookieepedia mission, are best avoided.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) *That is a concern, but I think it can be covered by the "well-written" rule. As it is, there's pretty much no way an article with only one or two body paragraphs but fine in every other way could be objected to. - Lord Hydronium 07:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) **Lack of sectioning. jSarek 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I was leaning support until I read what Silly Dan had to say.  I'd rather see Featured Articles that were slim on content than ones that were unnecessarily padded to meet the word requirements.  jSarek 07:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Size doesn't matter. KEJ 08:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Bah! -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Arbitrary word limits only cause padding of the article to meet a randomly assigned standard. Not a good idea. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * A word limit of what? .  .  .  .  22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume this is a minimum? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. See the part where it says "at least one thousand words." Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Include intro
Support
 * Should the intro be included in the word count?
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Why the hell not? .  .  .  .  22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Eh. I could probably be convinced otherwise. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Cull. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Sure. Fnlayson 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Why not? Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) If you're setting a minimum length, of course you should. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Bah! -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11)  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) It's part of the article, isn't it? Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Of course. -- Ozzel 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Include Behind the scenes
Support
 * Should Behind the scenes information be included in the word count?
 * 1) If it's prose, yes, because it's an even more legitimate part of the article than the intro. If it's a list, no way. .  .  .  .  22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) With 4dot's prerequisite. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per 4dot. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Per 4dot. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) It's still part of an article. Chack Jadson 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) If you're setting a minimum length, of course you should (though excessively long trivia sections will cause the article to fail some other criterion.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Any actual information should count. jSarek 07:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Bah! -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Per 4dot. Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) It's part of the article; it's part of the word count. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Definitely. -- Ozzel 05:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a bunch of marginal triva could get an article a ways torward the 1000 words. -Fnlayson 00:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Neutral for now. 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Same. Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

GA prequisite for FA
Support
 * Should all Featured Articles be required to achieve GA status first? Note that this won't apply retroactively: That'd be silly.
 * 1) Yes 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) KEJ 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) School of Thrawn 101 10:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Definately. Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I say it's worth a try. If it does indeed slow down the FA process rather than rejuvenating the GA process, we go back to the old way. But this might save the Inqs some time and hassle, anyway.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) *GA is already slower than FA. GA lacks the Inquisitorius to speed things along. Stuff has been getting done on the FA page, and I can't say the same about GA, with some noms stagnating for months. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) **And I suspect part of the reason people are so hot on FA is because they don't *need* to worry about GA. If this is instituted, and an article is truly good enough for FA, and if enough people recognize that, wouldn't the GA pass pretty quickly?  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) ***I still don't like the idea. GA just doesn't move as fast nor get as much involvement. I don't see a problem with people taking things directly to FA. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes. Also, maybe have the Inquisitorius oversee the GA process. tzzA 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Good God no. .  .  .  .  22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I just don't get it. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. jSarek 07:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Bah! -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I just see it as extra baggage, and could cause a good (no pun intended) candidate to fail, because few people pay attention to it. It's unnecessary I guess. Chack Jadson 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  - breathesgelatin Talk 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Horrible idea. GA is for articles that don't cut it as FA. That's the whole point of it. No need to add another layer of slow-moving bureaucracy. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Ozzel 05:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Maybe not this, but I'd like GA to be brought more into the process to get people interested in it. I'm open to ideas. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * GA provides a stepping stone to get articles up to par, then FA just makes them awesome (hopefully). Plus, WP:CA (if it goes through) would provide a separate system for short articles formerly nominated for GA status, and make this more suitable for an FA prerequisite. 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I said support above, but I'm less sure about this now. On the one hand, it does help weed out the poor FA noms early and brings attention to GA. On the other hand, it's another layer to go through, which makes FA nominating longer and more difficult. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the Inquisitorius keeps poor FA noms weeded out anyway.
 * This might be a good idea, if it weren't for the fact that the GA process is kind of slow-moving as it is. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If an FA candidate meets the standard quality criteria to be an FA, the GA requirement would just unnecessarily slow it down. And if it DOESN'T meet the quality criteria, it's status as a GA is irrelevant.  Either way, this requirement is unhelpful. jSarek 07:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would its status as a GA be irrelevant? Irrelevant to the FA process, perhaps. But are you saying we should get rid of GA altogether? Look, the reason nobody uses it is because there's a bigger brass ring to reach for, and no additional hurdles to jump to get to it (if I may mix my metaphors a bit).  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't cry a single tear if GA was gotten rid of altogether, but I also see it as a place for articles that can't be brought up to FA status for whatever reason (typically, insufficient published details to make a featurable article out of) but still deserve recognition. Good FA rejects going to GA should be the general rule, rather than good GA winners going to FA. jSarek 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, then it is a matter of differing perceptions as to GA's purpose. Perhaps that is the core issue here, then.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Split the FA page
Split the page
 * Per Imperialles, we would split the FA page into noms for main page appearance and noms for Featured Article.
 * 1) Sikon 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 04:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep it the way it is
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I am no longer a fan. .  .  .  .  22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Never a fan. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) For now 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Nein. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Bah! -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Chack Jadson 12:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Changed my mind per StarNeptune, above. It'd make Main Page status into a popularity contest.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Bad idea. We don't have enough quality articles to not put them all on the front page. Havac 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Ozzel 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

What is the point of FA status?
Part of the problem may be that FA status currently does two things: (1) recognizes articles which fit all of our quality requirements, and (2) puts material on our front page to attract more readers and contributors. Is this why we have such an outcry when articles on fan favourites get de-featured, while articles on peripheral topics get approved? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. The problem with the fan-favourites, is that while they are notable and people like them, a closer look of the article usually reveals an article of poor quality. The Inquisitorius isn't out to make all the FAs really obscure, just meet all the FA requirements. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only problem, I think that exsists with FA, is that people don't realise that it's about the quality of the article, and not the quality of the subject. .  .  .  .  03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems as though some editors think that it should be about both. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would direct them to the FA requirements, of which notability is not one. In the past, we've ignored notability objections on the nom page- Bastila Shan and Jar Jar Binks had some IIRC, because they have little to do with the definition of FA. We did have a CT that said FA objections must fall under a rule, it should be listed on the FA page. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah! -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)