Wookieepedia talk:Improvement drive

Clarity

 * Please do us all a favour: When you vote, update the vote count in the subhead at the same time. If you're feeling generous, check to see if you've put it over the "stays until" margin and update that line too, if needed.

I have to admit: I don't have a clue what this paragraph is trying to say. 1) How is it decided how many votes are needed? Are we counting up or down? 2) What is the "stays until" margin? – Aidje talk 22:17, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm confused too. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:25, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * An artifact from a previous version of the improvement drive. I'll reword it. --Imp 22:29, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's what I've gathered:


 * An article needs two votes per week to stay on the list.
 * Every Sunday, the article with the most votes is selected for improvement.
 * Something like Nominated August 2, 2005; needs 2 votes by August 9, 2005 basically means it hasn't yet reached its goal of 2 votes, and if it doesn't by August 9th it will be eliminated. So, the current state for Luke Skywalker is Nominated August 2, 2005; needs 6 votes by August 23, 2005, which means it was nominated on August 2nd and needs another 2 votes to fill the criterion for the third week of voting. In other words, if an article doesn't reach the amount of votes stated by the date stated, it's off the list.
 * Please do us all a favour: When you vote, update the vote count in the subhead at the same time. If you're feeling generous, check to see if you've put it over the "stays until" margin and update that line too, if needed. This was copied from Wikipedia so the first sentence, since we don't seem to be using the "Luke Skywalker (6 votes, stays until August 23)" format for titles, is useless. The second sentence means, if you've put in that second vote needed for the particular week, increase the "stays until" date by a week. MarcK 22:30, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah, I removed the sentence altogether. I'll put in a new one describing the points outlined above when I decide how to phrase it. --Imp 22:35, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks MarcK and Imp; it makes much more sense now. – Aidje talk 22:36, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Any table wiz
Could anyone create Star Wars:Improvement drive/History in the style of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/History? Tables tend to hate me. --Imp 16:36, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Great work, Mark! --Imp 09:01, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Luke Skywalker
Interesting the Luke Skywalker article seems to have waned with the project. I was hoping to see a more active group of contributors take to the project, as well as a greater increase in the quality and quantity of the article's contents. --SparqMan 00:33, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're still too small for this to work? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:49, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems so, sadly... In my opinion, if someone goes first and contributes a major edit, others will feel more inspired. --Imp 01:56, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Vote?
Uhm, guys, I'm pretty new here and I have a simple question: How do you vote? --Inmobilus 17:59, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply type " #~ " under the Support column, and it will produce your name and time, like so:


 * 1) MarcK 04:01, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

A tie

 * It would appear we have another one. Obviously we can't have 4 improvement drive articles at one time, so what do we do? MarcK 04:25, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Ick, a four-way tie! -- Riffsyphon1024 04:38, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I just voted for GCW, so we can avoid a tie for now. :) QuentinGeorge 06:12, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Not ready

 * After thinking about it a great deal, I don't think Wookieepedia is quite ready for an improvement drive. I think in, say, 6 months or so, when we've got more contributors and such, we might be able to try it again, but for the moment it doesn't seem like it's doing much good (only myself and Davin Rayce contributed to Galactic Civil War this past week). So I move for putting the SW:ID on hiatus until February or March, when, judging by our current rate, we'll have nearly 25,000 articles and over 200 contributors, and we'll be more mature of a wiki for this to happen. MarcK 17:57, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got to echo this. After reviewing the pre- and post-work articles that have been selected for IDRIVE, the results are minimal. A few additions, some copy work, but few substantial additions. There is no flurry of activity by the community. If half as much energy was put into the work on the selected articles as was on the nomination and voting that goes on beforehand, we'd have some nice work. I agree with MarcK that we aren't at the right place yet, or that the mechanism needs to be changed (perhaps to include a list of what work is required before it begins).--SparqMan 07:52, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could make the improvement drive vote biweekly rather than weekly, to give more time to fix articles? Or, rather than select one article and change it every week, we could make it a list of every article with x votes, and have them left on the list until x+1 people agree it's been improved?  (I noticed significant improvement to Mon Calamari while it was just one of many nominated articles). Or, we could just keep renominating articles if a week passes and they still need work.  &mdash; Silly Dan  02:35, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Another tie
This time between C-3PO and Mace Windu. However, I chose Windu because he collected 6 votes in a shorter period of time; also, his final vote was cast 4 minutes earlier than for C-3PO :). However, I'm not quite sure about that decision. - Sikon [ Talk ] 07:37, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a sensible way to break ties to me, if any of the admins want to codify it into a standard procedure. &mdash; Silly Dan  22:00, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Bah! CooperTFN 08:08, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Comments?
I an new here. I have noted that History of the Jedi Order is the only Nomination which don't have any Comments. Any special reasons. King2006 05:35, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Comments aren't necessary in these sort of votes, but they are helpful if you want someone else to vote your way. &mdash; Silly Dan  02:55, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Re-nomination
Does a certain amount of time have to pass before an article can get re-nominated? -- SFH 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. --Imp 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tie
We currently seem to have a tie between Mallatobuck and Sith. I would vote putting Mallatobuck up instead of Sith this week, as Mallatobuck is clearly the one in more need of help, but also because it got it's tenth vote before Sith did. -- SFH 17:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash;Mirlen 18:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image for Banner
I think that since a lot of the other images for various banners on here are screencaps from the movie, that this should be one too, instead of what looks like a stormtrooper shoveling bantha poo-doo or whatever. I think it should be the pic of when Han is up in the bowels of the MF fixing something. There are probably many good shots of him doing that in all three OT movies. Also, another good choice could be when Chewie had the arc welder in his hand and he was welding something on the MF at the HOTH base, and I think he had a welder's visor on. Just a thought.--Bruce the Bith 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Perhaps the nominations could be reordered by number of votes? It wouldn't take much effort, just a little copying and pasting, and would make the page more harmonious and easier to use. And if your vote tipped the count, you could copy and paste the article in question to the appropriate space.--Erl 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We have enough trouble getting people to update the vote requirements under the section header. --MarcK [talk] 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as of today I've appointed myself the official rankings checker. I just updated the rankings and I'll try to do it at least once a day... probably more since I am a loser with way too much time on my hands--Breathesgelatin 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Standings list

 * Is it necessary? It's not that difficult to skim the list and figure out who's leading. If anything we should put the number of votes next to the section header, like so:

New Republic (4 votes)

 * But again, to me it was simple enough as it was. --MarcK [talk] 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was handy in keeping track, and it's straighforward to maintain. I was hoping someone could write up some code, or maybe a template, but no such luck.--Erl 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about code to make anything, but I've been checking it a few times a day to keep the list updated...-Breathesgelatin 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedia needs Improvement in General
All of the articles I've looked at are horrible - There is no separation of Film and Expanded Universe Sources, as with Starwars.com or even the Star Wars Portal on Wikipedia. There are even articles that are just plain fan speculation. (The Keyan Farlander article comes to mind). Worst of all, main characters like Han Solo have quotes that are not even from the Films. There seems to be absolultely no quality control around here.
 * I can't speak for the accuracy of the Farlander article (seeing as how its listed sources are all books and articles I haven't read and a video game I haven't played in years), but we decided quite some time ago that this wiki would contain articles written from a primarily in-universe perspective, and without separating Prequel trilogy, Original trilogy, and Expanded Universe canon. So, your main suggestion for improvement is a no-go at this point, I'm afraid.  Mind you, there are probably still a lot of articles which may have excessive speculation: feel free to take up those discussions on their respective talk pages. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Unifying Film and Expanded Universe is fine and well Dan, but maybe a more potent disclaimer about this on the homepage is in order? And again - from an editorial stand point, it's a travesty to have Han Solo's quote come from some Off-Screen Source. I am a huge fan (some of the EU stuff as well) but looking at Han's Page just made me go HUH?!? It's almost as bad as quoting dialog from a video game. I repectfully urge you to consider enacting some community editorial standards. Right now, this webpage would be more accurately entitled "Star Wars as envisioned by XBOX and Kevin J Anderson".
 * Your attitude needs improvement in general. Just barging in and saying things like "All of the articles I've looked at are horrible" and "There seems to be absolultely no quality control" is just plain rude. We don't need a disclaimer any more than the Essential Guides need stickers on the front that say "Warning: contains Expanded Universe material!" We have a ridiculous number of community editorial standards, and it's just too bad that none of them require us to be stuck-up movie purists like you. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All the same, we could consider changing "a Star Wars encyclopedia that anyone can edit" on the Main Page to "an encylopedia of Star Wars film and Expanded universe material that anyone can edit." We'll be phrasing it as a feature, not a bug, since we like it that way. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's a bug or that there is anything wrong with EU, but its just not what most people would expect. Other Star Wars sites look nothing like this one.
 * I think that's totally unnecessary and possibly harmful. Star Wars is Star Wars, no matter what the anti-EU snobs think. Doing anything even similar to that would just encourage them to push their prejudice a little further, and then a little further, until we realize just a little too late that Wookieepedia has become as crappy as the Databank. If the EUphobic morons want an encyclopedia that distinguishes between film and EU (or excludes the EU entirely, which is what they actually want even if they don't admit it), let them build it themselves. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)