Forum:CT Archive/Comprehensive articles

Stemming from this, we have undergone a trial run for the proposal for Comprehensive articles, a new initiative intended to create a minor tier of article milestone, intended to inform out readers when a topic that has under 250 words of content is indeed as comprehensive as it can possibly be. The trial has been a success, I think, moving in a relatively streamlined fashion that has both seen a lot of participation, without the page being clogged to death. People seem to have understood, and a lot of the kinks have been worked out on the talk page. If anyone is curious as to what the actual rules of the process are, I would advise them to look at the now-locked page of the trial run, since it might just get cluttered if they're all posted here again.

Basically, this CT will be a compound of several smaller CTs. The first will be to decide whether or not the process as a whole is implemented. Then there will be several ancillary CTs to decide some of the specifics. Some of these will pertain to CAN rules&mdash;in the event of no consensus being reached on them, and the absence of an actual policy to revert to, I would suggest that the trial page in its current state represent the status quo, although obviously that is up to the discretion of the closing administrator.

Comprensive articles process
This vote is to decide whether or not the comprehensive article process, as demonstrated by the trial page, is to be implemented.

Support

 * 1) I've made my arguments pretty clear in the original CT: I think this will be an invaluable tool for telling our readers what is "comprehensive" and what is not. It's a remarkably painless process, it allows more timid or unsure writers to have a punt without all the sturm und drang of other processes, and it's as unobtrusive as it could possibly be. I think that the rules have been very clear to most writers, we've seen a lot of participation, and basically I think we've seen that this can and does work, plain and simple. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Fourdot. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Definitely. It's already seen improvement in 50 articles that would otherwise not have received much attention. --Eyrezer 02:30, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) This has been kicking around for too long. It works great and should stay. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Imperialles 04:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) -- 1358  (Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Grey Cadre
This vote is to decide whether or not the Grey Cadre user group will be initiated. To sum up, the Grey Cadre is a collection of all Inquisitors and ACs, as well as any other users potentially judged by members of either the Inq or the ACs to be fit to provide a "qualified" review on a CAN. This is not an analogue to either the INQ or the AC&mdash;rather, it is a list of users who can provide GC votes on CANs, which are the equivalent of three user votes. There are also several other different rules pertaining to GCs, which are outlined on the trial page. Furthermore, GCs are able to strike answered objections that have been untouched for a week.

Support

 * 1) Basically, I think this is a good thing, if we keep it remarkably simple. If it's kept as simply a list, rather than a formal review panel, there's no feeling of real obligation for the Inqs and ACs, who have a lot of other work to do on the FAN and GAN pages, which are genuinely more important processes. Basically, as it expands, the way I look at it is "these are people we are trusting to give qualified reviews on something under 250 words." Of course, things can go wrong in under 250 words, but I really think that this will be a good way of streamlining the process. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought this worked pretty well in the trial run. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Good idea, will hopefully reduce the factionalist tendency of other similar groups. Of course, ideally I'd prefer not having any sort of review group at all, but this is a step in the right direction. --Imperialles 04:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) *With the changes, as well. --Imperialles 05:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) -- 1358  (Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) New group, new people. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) *I'm not entirely sure why, but I feel like fleshing my objection out a bit more. Why, exactly, are the AC and the Inq automatically the GC? Who proposed that and who supported it? This is a brand new, separate review body and it deserves a new set of reviewers to sit on it's initial board. As it stands, the Inq are 90% of the AC already, in fact only a single GC isn't an Inq yet, and while I'm sure that monopoly will change on the whole for the GC later, there's noting stopping it from going the way of the AC and simply becoming this way again later. I'd support certain members of the Inq and AC in an advisory role similar to that of the original AC Inqs, but if it's going to be this way there's no way I could back this organization, especially considering most of the names listed never edited the CAN page during the trial and Cylka has been completely inactive during the month. The GC needs to start from scratch, IMO. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 06:59, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) **That's because this is not a new review panel. It will not operate the same way as the Inq and AC, and it is not an analogue to those organizations. It is merely a list of people who are trusted to provide qualified reviews on articles over 250 words in length, therefore, by extension, they are considered qualified to review articles under 250 words in length. They are not a separate organization&mdash;they are a list, and nothing more. All of the Inqs and ACs are there because it was designed to not be an obligation where their votes were required, merely, the idea was to have users who could, if they so chose, speed up the voting process. We're not forming a new review panel though, because we simply don't need it. I must stress that this is just a list of users whose opinions are considered "expert."' Thefourdotelipsis 07:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) ***It's certainly being treated as one. In fact, it's explicitly called such on this very page by Toprawa ("We have a nice theme going with the "Inquisitorius" and the "AgriCorps," and the name of this formal reviewing body should stay with this Wookieepedia lineage that we have firmly established for ourselves.") ("Allow me to say also that if we're going to have a formal reviewing panel and voting process in the first place, let's justify their existence by requiring at least one vote from these people for the nomination to pass.") though I absolutely cede his opinion is not that of the Inq or AC. It's clear that this is intentioned to be just a list of good reviewers and such a thing would be incomplete without any Inq or AC members, but if there is are even a few who believe contrariwise, there is no telling where it could lead to in the future, as evidenced by the whole nomination limitation debacle. I'm sorry if that sounds conspiracy-ish, but my problem is that they were put on the list automatically, without recourse from the Wook body. Each should be put up for nomination when/if CA passes. If (as the case will likely be) the names all remain, that's fine by me. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 07:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I have three primary objection points:
 * 6) *There's one element of the CAN voting panel rules that sticks out like a sore thumb: Additionally, members of the Gray Cadre can bypass the nomination process. Not including the writer of the article, two Gray Cadre members can sign off on an article's talk page in unison, and those articles will also be instantaneously promoted. This action can only be initiated by someone on the approved Gray Cadre list, and is performed internally. Regular users must go through the nomination process. This is absurd. There's really no advantage to doing this except relieving unnecessarily impatient whiners of having to wait 48 hours for their nomination to pass otherwise. I don't care if your article is 250 words or 2500 words. No one should be exempt from the formal reviewing and voting process. I don't care if you're an Inq or if you've written 500 articles. No one deserves this kind of special treatment. The beauty of the FAN and GAN voting process is that you can't go get your two best friends on the site to railroad your article through, like this convenient little loophole allows. You're required to actually get reviews from a fairly good cross-section of the userbase, some of whom probably aren't necessarily your friends, so they're not just going to sign off on your project for you.
 * 7) *Moreover, the minimum nomination period of 48 hours is far too short, and it too easily enables people to, again, railroad their crap through. This was discussed on the talk page to evidently no real end. I would support a full week to actually give people who don't stalk the site 23 hours a day an opportunity to review noms, though I would accept five days as a less-stringent alternative.
 * 8) *What about self-voting on noms, especially for panel members? Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't found anywhere that really specifically addresses this. The only place that comes close is in the preceding quoted text: Not including the writer of the article, two Gray Cadre members can sign off on an article's talk page in unison... What about nominations in general? Self-user votes need to be explicitly barred, as is the case on FAN and GAN.
 * 9) **If and when these items are addressed to my satisfaction, I'll be glad to vote support. But not before. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) ***To the first point, that was meant to have been axed from the proposal, as it has been now. To the third point, this has now been established on the trial page clearly, and will be considered a part of the rules. To the second point, however, I maintain that the 48 hour minimum is only for the Grey Cadre&mdash;and, supposedly, these individuals are trusted implicitly in the quality of their reviews. The shortness of the time is reflective of the fact that these are 250 words or less. I am confident that with two GC reviews, and the absolute plethora of Inquisitors there currently are, there will be an upholding of quality, while a fairly rapid speed is maintained to make sure that the process is as smooth as possible. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in the trial period, where articles with two GC votes have indeed been adequately reviewed. If Inqs can't find a spare 5-10 minutes to look over less than 250 words in the course of a week, that's their problem. And frankly, considering the rather tepid involvement of the vast majority of the Inquisitorius during the trial period, I see no reason for the process to be slowed down further, since the organization's enthusiasm for the initiative, by and large, is clearly nil. Thefourdotelipsis 05:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
I'd like to have 4dot clarify two things for me here. Firstly, am I to understand that simply being the leader of a prominent WookieeProject no longer automatically qualifies you for voting privileges, that we're voting here on the initial master list of voters, seen here? Also, can you please specify exactly what you mean by There are also several other different rules pertaining to GCs, which are outlined on the trial page., please? Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * To the first, yes, since anyone can just make a WookieeProject and would then be considered a GC, so that's no longer a part of the deal. As for the current list, well, it's just the Inqs and ACs really, and Trayus was added by an Inq, although I've now removed him from the list so he can be added in a more formal way afterward, if this does indeed pass. As for the other rules pertaining to the GCs, those refer to the way in which the GC votes function on nominations, which is established in the rules on the trial page. Thefourdotelipsis 04:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

GC or EC
This is a vote to decide whether the "Grey Cadre" will indeed be called the "Grey Cadre" or the "EduCorps"

Grey Cadre

 * 1) I just prefer this name, since it doesn't sound like an analogue for the "AgriCorps"&mdash;because it's really not meant to be. The core of it is made up of grizzled vets from the review panels, so it kinda fits. It doesn't matter, really, but... hey, WEG reference! Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm indifferent about these names. Per 4Dot though. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:39, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) -- 1358  (Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

EduCorps

 * 1) The definition of "EduCorps" from our own article: The Educational Corps, also known as the EduCorps, was a branch of the Jedi Service Corps that was similar to the Agricultural Corps and the Medical Corps. This group of Jedi Knights consisted of students of the Force who were in training during the days of the Old Republic. Their mission was to provide educational needs to the underprivileged children of the galaxy. If that doesn't spell out exactly what the point of the CAN is, I don't know what does. This is the most appropriate choice. We have a nice theme going with the "Inquisitorius" and the "AgriCorps," and the name of this formal reviewing body should stay with this Wookieepedia lineage that we have firmly established for ourselves. "EduCorps" is significantly appropriate in regards to the FAN and GAN page, it has a nice ring to it, it's funny in the same way that "Inq" and "AC" is for those who actually have the right sense of humor, and it helps reinforce the idea that this is a separate reviewing body and process from the FAN and GAN pages. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:01, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I honestly think that "Grey Cadre" is kinda corny, and that EduCorps is a much more appropriate title. —Tommy 9281 04:09, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Tommy. Grunny  ( talk ) 07:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Ditto.  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

GC voting process
This is a vote to decide whether a formalized GC voting process will be initiated. It will take the form of a standard Forum, in which users can nominate others, or even submit themselves for GC candidacy. Everyone will be able to vote, and like the RFAs, a 2/3rds supermajority of both users and GCs will require for anyone to be added to the GC list.

Support

 * 1) Since this is a fairly minor process, and rather informal, I think it would be good to give users more involvement in the GC element of the process. Since existing Inqs and ACs have to sign off on nominations, it's not as though the list will flood with incompetent individuals. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I actually find myself liking this idea a lot; sounds pretty fair to everybody. I wouldn't mind having it just straight-up internal, but this is not just a new tier of article class, it is also a stepping-stone process for getting new users involved and up to quality; and I can't think of a better way of getting more reviewers involved and up to quality than this. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) IIRC, the original idea was just to have one person nominate someone and then have one or two more people sign off on it and then they were in. This is far and above a more logical way of doing it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:56, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Imperialles 04:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) There Is No Cabal! -- 1358  (Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Grunny  ( talk ) 07:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Stepping stones, people, stepping stones.  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

One GC vote required
This is a vote to decide whether or not at least one Grey Cadre vote will be required on every comprehensive article nomination in order for it to pass.

Support

 * 1)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Unless you plan on performing a sock-check on voters, I'm in favor of this. SinisterSamurai 01:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I would actually prefer 2 GC votes&mdash;the reason being that I glanced at one nom that had passed with just 1 GC vote, and it had the basic mistake of underlinking; and one of these missing links was essential to the article's topic, too. I don't think that something like that should be able to get by the process so easily, and that's something that the requirement of an extra GC vote could likely prevent. However, I'd be willing to settle for 1 GC, because 1 GC is a far better idea than none. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Oh my God. You might have to wait an extra 48 hours for your article to pass. Tough titty. This makes sure things aren't necessarily being railroaded through. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) *Allow me to say also that if we're going to have a formal reviewing panel and voting process in the first place, let's justify their existence by requiring at least one vote from these people for the nomination to pass. Otherwise the designated CAN voting list is completely unnecessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak support. -- 1358  (Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Grunny  ( talk ) 07:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Completely per Tope.  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I actually don't like this. Basically, I think that anything under 250 words can be trusted to be given a thorough review by six users. At any rate, there is a week grace period for every nomination, in which it would not be able to pass without any GC involvement whatsoever. I think if GC members are concerned that there might be a quality deficit, they've got an entire week to read 250 words. And with the number of Inqs, it shouldn't be a problem to cover all nominations, honestly. I just feel that requiring one GC vote has the potential to bog down the page, much like the FA and GA processes. I also think it is beneficial for the GCs to have no actual obligations to distract them from the FAN and GAN pages, outside of striking neglected objections and removing articles that are below par. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm for no GC vote required. INQs and ACs get pestered enough to review articles and requiring one GC vote is just going to add another task to their duties, when I would prefer they work on reviewing our larger articles. To respond to a point made above, it is not a question of waiting 48 hours. Requiring a GC means it will need to wait as long as it takes to get a GC, not a mere 48 hours. My experience is many GCs aren't particularly intered in the CAN process. --Eyrezer 02:29, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:42, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Imperialles 04:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Creation of a CAN removal process
This vote will decide whether or not we create a formalized CA removal process. This would function as a sort of anti-CAN page&mdash;any CANs in need of an update or that have fallen can be nominated by anyone, and then after a week, if the updates have not been made, the articles will be removed by two GC members. At any rate, if an update does indeed have to be made to a CA, it is likely that in many cases it will push the article over 250 words, and therefore they will no longer fall under the CA rules.


 * Amendment, outlining the way in which the system will function: "Anyone can nominate an article for removal, and must list grievances with said article. A week is then provided for writers to address the grievances, before the article's status is voted upon by members of the GC for a period of five days. If it has at least two remove votes and no more than two votes to keep, it will be removed. If it has more than two votes to keep, the article will be kept." Thefourdotelipsis 02:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) This is obviously needed. It would be much more simple than the FA and GA removal processes in effect, since it would not require IRC meetings and the like, but would rather be a continuous process. It would function in much the same way as the other processes, though, where any user can nominate an article, and the GCs remove it afterward. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Sounds good to me. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I am now satisfied with the amendment. And I don't think this is redundant. These things needs to be spelled out to the "T", or else un-agreed-upon practices have a weaselly way of sneaking themselves into the process. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I like it. Beware the Anti-CAN! NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Imperialles 04:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) -- 1358  (Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The description of this function doesn't spell it out adequately enough for me. Will there be a straight "Support-Oppose" vote for articles nominated for removal? What if someone contends that the article is in fact satisfactory for keeping? How do they go about voicing and possibly opposing removal? Frankly, until these questions are answered and actually included in the function description, I will vote oppose. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:05, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * OK, in answer to Toprawa's questions, I'm curious what form people would like this to take? I was thinking that anyone can nominate them, and there isn't so much a support/oppose system per se as there is a field for grievances to be raised, and for someone to then note whether they have been met or not. I was thinking that two GC votes would be needed to decide either way, whether it stays or goes after a week's time, with it perhaps working in such a way that there has to be +2 GCs either way. How do people feel about this? Ideas? Thefourdotelipsis 02:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why it can't just function in the same way the Inq decides the fate of articles at meetings. There can be a vote for it over the course of, say, no more than five days. It needs two supports and no more than two opposes for removal. People must have the ability to oppose a formal motion that will affect the state of an article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:15, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds fine. So, basically, we run with "Anyone can nominate an article for removal, and must list grievances with said article. A week is then provided for writers to address the grievances, before the article's status is voted upon by members of the GC for a period of five days. If it has at least two remove votes and no more than two votes to keep, it will be removed. If it has more than two votes to keep, the article will be kept." Does that sound fine? Or is there something there that's not quite right? Thefourdotelipsis 02:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfectly fine to me. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

User removal from master reviewing list
This vote will decide upon whether there will be a method of removing users from the master reviewing list, or "Grey Cadre" as it has been known throughout the trial period. This would take the form of a forum on the master reviewing list page, and would resemble the removal of user rights system, wherin a user could be nominated for removal, with grievances listed, and then the user base as a whole would vote on their removal. Like the RFRR process, a 2/3rds supermajority would be required from both members of the reviewing list, and standard users.

Support

 * 1) Very important, as per Tope in the general comments section, as there's no accounting for when a given user might take hold of the reins and go nuts, or when the quality of their reviewing might fall dangerously below par. Or any other such worrisome behavior. So naturally, there should be a provision for this. Thefourdotelipsis 03:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) So long as this applies to the Inq and AC as well as those not part of the other panels. Just so if, for whatever reason, they needed to be kicked from this panel, they wouldn't be immune because they were part of a separate entity. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Imperialles 04:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Menkooroo 05:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) -- 1358  (Talk) 06:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  08:18, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Jinzler 08:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

CA icon
FAs and GAs have the star and tick to go in the Eras template and on the nomination pages etc. Long story short, CAs should have an icon for these purposes as well. After discussion on the CAN talk page, the selection was whittled down to three ideas as shown by INAN in this image. The final version would be tidied up a little for site-wide use.  NAYAYEN : TALK 09:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Cresh icons (top set)

 * 1) I like it. It isn't so important, though. -- 1358  (Talk) 09:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Circular icons (middle set)

 * 1)  NAYAYEN : TALK 09:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * See this section of the CAN talk page for the aforementioned discussion and whittling. NAYAYEN : TALK 09:03, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

General comments

 * Any general elements of discussion, or any further mini-CTs you would like to add to this, please discuss here first. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to propose some kind of formal method of removal of people from the master reviewing list. I do not intend this to be a way for myself or anyone to headhunt anyone who is currently or potentially will be on this reviewing list. Nor am I proposing any kind of participation requirements or reviewing quota that people need to meet in order to maintain their voting rights. Not my intentions. But there may arise a situation in the future where someone, through inappropriate or unsatisfactory behavior, is no longer fit to be on the voting panel. Let's face it, it happens. It's happened to admins, it's happened to Inqs, it's happened to ACs. I don't in any way anticipate this happening to anyone specifically, but I feel there needs to be some kind of safety net for us to get out of a bad relationship with someone if they decide to go bat shit insane on us. As it stands, once you're admitted to the reviewing panel, you're pretty much in for life. The administration, the Inq, and the AC all have formal methods of removal. The CAN needs one too. It can be as simple as a forum page discussion/vote, or it can be as complex as a formally-organized IRC meeting. Frankly, I don't care, but this is something that needs to be in place. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is a good point, and we need to have this sort of provision in place. I can start a new voting section if you want, unless you would like to. Thefourdotelipsis 02:49, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to it. Your CT, after all. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything going with icons? I think we had narrowed it down on the talk page to a three variations that people liked. INAN made an example of each variation as shown here (rehosted to wImg to avoid filter). Shall we just go with these and do an infobox image-style vote?  NAYAYEN : TALK 08:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, go right ahead and add the vote to this page. --Imperialles 08:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)