Forum:CT Archive/Let's get rid of the FA quote requirement

...and I'll tell you why. One word:

Kallidahin.

Now, I mean no offense to Farl. He did what he could. The thing is, our FA requirements implicitly require us to have a quote on everything. Whether it makes sense or not, whether they're any good or not. Heck, there's nothing actually in the requirement that says there even needs to be a quote for one to be required. Rule 13 is very clear:

An article must provide at least one quote on the article.

But I think it's pretty clear from Kallidahin why such a requirement can be detrimental. To meet the requirement, Farl had to find something someone said, even if it has only the most tangential connection to the subject. Like I said, I'm not saying this as a criticism of his work, but as a sign of what the rules are forcing him, and every other FA writer, to do.

An FA is supposed to be one of the best articles on the Wook. What rule 13 is saying is that an article cannot be one of our best without cribbing a certain number of words from an official source. Does anybody think that's a fair requirement? Does an article get a boost in quality when quote marks get placed somewhere in it? Does anybody honestly think Kallidahin would be a worse article if none of those quotes were there? Once, we required images in the infobox. But when it grew clear that for some things, that was a detrimental requirement that was simply blocking perfectly fine articles from being FA by a totally arbitrary standard, we dropped it. We made images only needed when they exist and they're of good quality. Quality is another issue there. Right now, if a character says anything, including simply "Hello," this needs to be the lead quote. Does anyone think that improves articles?

If anybody feels there's a reason we should require quotes, I'd like to hear, but for now, I don't see it. We're not adding anything to these articles by making them have quotes come hell or high water. We are, in fact, making some of them downright silly with the proliferation of off-topic quotes. Once upon a time, when we were still figuring what it meant for an article to be an FA, this may have served a good guideline to set people on a certain course. But like the image requirement did a while ago, it's become outdated. It's simply an obstacle where none is needed. We don't need to steal LFL's words to make our articles good, so let's get rid of this requirement and judge FAs by our words in it, not someone else's.

Discussion

 * Currently, we only have "keep" and "remove" as options. I don't think either is good.  Like images, they *should* be in our articles when they exist and are of sufficient quality to improve the article, but shouldn't be shoehorned in where they don't belong.  Thus, I think a rewording of Rule 13 is in order.  Perhaps something along the lines of "provide a leading quote at the beginning of the article if a suitable and relevant in-universe quote exists. Additional blocked quotes may be added to introduce individual sections or subsections of the article, limited to one per section or subsection."  Thoughts? jSarek 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove requirement 13

 * 1) Lord Hydronium 07:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)