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. Thefourdotelipsis 14:14, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
And what about removal of Complete article status? As you said, there's no knowing what's going to be referenced next. So how do we deal with articles that are no longer complete, or that suddenly get enough information to qualify for GA or FA? Preferably in an easy, swift and non-IRC way, of course. --Imperialles 13:15, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would think that this could be trusted to the Inq or the ACs in much the same manner as certain promotions would be. We seem to be... fairly on the ball when it comes to noticing when things are cropping up in new material, if not necessarily updating it, so I think we would be fairly aware of it. Perhaps a forum could be set up on the Inq page where people can post Complete articles they've noticed are out of date, and then there will be a grace period of about a week, and if it's not amended to the satisfaction of the Inqs then two of them have it removed, through on-Wook forums and talk pages. No need for it to clutter Inqmoots and the like, since it would be in too much of a state of flux, I'm thinking. Thefourdotelipsis 13:19, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that change is evil and will eat me. Also, I just don't see the need. Also also, if this is ever implemented it's going to be a lot of work. Decry me all you want, but there's my six cents.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:39, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I'd just point out that this wouldn't necessarily mean any additional work for a given Inq if they so choose. The system would potentially be able to run purely on layman votes, and laymen could issue the promotions, and the only need for Inq or AC involvement would be for the removal of a CA, as Imp mentions, which would be rare, since it would require a given topic to be mentioned in a new source. And most of these will be fairly obscure, if there's less than 250 words worth of content on them. I agree with you that there isn't particularly a need for this. It just might be a nice added comfort for the reader, perhaps. Thefourdotelipsis 13:47, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. WP:AS has proven that it can work on some level, and having a third tier of "Completed Articles" would be quite neat. While this voting process may be able to be completed on purely "layman votes", there is the possibility of adding a third specialist "User vote" in line with the ACs and Inqs. Not a new body, per se, but say if the new CA is from WP:AS, then a trusted member of WP:AS could use a new template to sign off on it in place of an Inq or AC. This would not be a new panel, but it would be recognising the "experts" in that particular area who would generally be more aware of the subject matter than the rest of us. We have WookieeProjects for most of the main areas, and these projects are where most completed articles should realistically come from as the members of the project seek to expand the articles under their project umbrella. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 13:59, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I would say that I am Hall and Oates to this idea; leaning slightly more toward the Hall than the Oates. In all actuality, I like this idea a lot, because I like everything that has anything to do with ensuring more high-quality articles. Personally, the only change I would prefer to make to the proposed system above is the voting process. I would like to see that Inq/AC votes are required (at least one, preferrably two) with a requirement of maybe 4 or 5 overall votes&mdash;or just 3 if they all come from AC/Inqs. Or&mdash;and this would be even more to my liking&mdash;I would like to see us instate a third, new review panel, specifically for reviewing these "Complete Article" noms. So there's my two cents: I definitely like the idea of this third-tier quality article, and I would prefer that we instate a new review panel for it. Any thoughts? Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 20:43, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * EduCorps? --Imperialles 20:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * EduCorps sounds good to me. Is anyone really against adding a new review panel (supposing that this motion, when it's eventually put forth, passes)? If so, any particular reasons? Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 21:28, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is one other thing I might change. I would say that the articles must still adhere to the LG, but only if applicable. If they do not have enough information, they are exempt, but I've seen plenty of articles out there under 250 words that should still have a couple small sections. And on that note, I would support requiring a BTS as well. It takes very little effort to put at least something in the BTS, even if it's just "So and so first appeared in this source." Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 23:12, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I only mention making "Behind the scenes" optional because it is quite redundant in a lot of cases, but I'm not opposed to requiring it for uniformity. And yes, articles would be adherent to the layout guide I would say, but not if you've got an "intro" that is three sentences long, and then three sections, a sentence long each, just repeating the same immediate info. I trust users enough to know when the LG would be applicable, and when it would be thudderingly redundant. As for an extra review panel, perhaps. It sort of creates the clutter that I would have been hoping to avoid with it, and requiring at least one Inq vote makes it an obligation... if TBTB would be willing to have to have that extra burden I wouldn't mind all that much, but personally I think that with less than 250 words, we can police accordingly, and since there's less to screw up, laymen can be trusted to some degree. I think we can trust a sampling of six or seven users. If it became a problem, we could probably quickly vote to change the rules to require Inq involvement, and if it was a clear problem, I think a change would be embraced. If there were to be a review panel, I'd want its membership to be voted upon by the community as a whole, however, and not be another extension of the Inquisitorius. As for Cav's idea, I like it a lot. I think that could really speed up the process, and I think that the WookieeProjects have developed to such a stage that they've each got a really strong user core. Obviously this would only apply to the most prevalent WookieeProjects, like Aliens, TCW, whatever. NEGTC doesn't apply. :P I think that WookieeProject eligibility might be something that the Inq could decide internally... I don't know how people feel about this. As I say, I'm open to most anything, really. Thefourdotelipsis 23:27, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea; it would definitely encourage people to make limited content articles complete. I also like Cav's idea for the WookieeProject representatives "signing" off on an article. However, I still think some sort of management would be useful in terms of dealing with outstanding objections, inactive noms, removing articles no longer up to standard, etc. Maybe something like a small group who can just sign off on an article after it has X amount of supports, like Cav's suggestion with the WookieeProject members. It could probably be made up of one or two members of each major WookieeProject, and if an article did not fall within the scope of any one project any of them could sign off on it. I'm sure just asking for one user of the group to sign off on a < 250 word nom wouldn't be too much of a burden. Possibly an Inq or AC could also sign off if they choose too or something. I guess it could end up a new review panel, but maybe a less formal one. Just throwing ideas around :P. Grunny  ( talk ) 00:59, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for it, per Cav's "expert" idea. Perhaps that could be the basis for the formation of the "EduCorps," if it is to be. This seems to be a relatively small job that I'm certain at least 1 inq, 1 ac, and members of the WookieeProjects wouldn't mind taking on. A small but varied and casual panel of reviewers could do the job for such small articles. Some kind of CAN (hehe) page management is necessary, however. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 01:15, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * RE Grunny: I was thinking that the Inqs and ACs would also have the power to do that, but I think it would be ideal if the WP-specific reviewers could do that to pertinent nominations as well. Perhaps instead of an actual organization there could just be a list of reviewers with Inq or AC-level power on the CAN page, without actually being a part of the organization, people who are obviously familiar with the rules and have done a lot of reviewing in the past or currently but have no obligation to either group. Thefourdotelipsis 01:23, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * What if we had the WookieeProject Heads form up that list/organization to begin with? And then the ACs/Inqs could either (a) automatically have that "sign-off" power, (b) volunteer to join this list of users/organization/whatever it ends up being, (c) have to be voted in by community consensus, or (d) have no "sign-off power" at all, and keep the "CAN" management to trusted Project members/Heads only. I dunno, just trying to get some more ideas circulating. Also, how would we decide which users of a WookieeProject were particularly "knowledgable?" Would we just use community consensus? Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:38, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we create a master list that is all of the Inqs/ACs/WookieeProject heads. The WP leaders can then add whoever from their own project they think would be suitable, autonomously. The Inqs and ACs can add whoever they want to this list autonomously as well. Then, we could have another forum, perhaps, where people who don't fit into any category and haven't been selected autonomously can put themselves (or maybe others) up for recommendation, and then anyone on the list could either sign off on them or raise a grievance. These people who nominate themselves or others could also cite reviews they've done in the past, preferably on the FAN/GAN pages. Thefourdotelipsis 01:44, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:50, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems for the most part the heads are Inq/ACs, with one exception (unless I missed a relevant project). Grunny  ( talk ) 02:02, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * So they are. Well, then, it's mostly a moot point. :P Thefourdotelipsis 02:09, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but there could still be other project members who could be appointed, i.e. WP:AS has SavageBob and Farl available and so forth. Grunny  ( talk ) 02:48, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, to start a new tangent a thought occurs to perhaps allay the fears of people who are a bit more skeptical about this proposal. Perhaps we could have a Free 30-day Trial Period with Complimentary Waffle Iron! That is to say, a period where we could just try it out without actually implementing anything. So, we would have the review page and process, but instead of adding any templates to actual articles that pass muster, we would just make a list somewhere, and record the details of each nomination or each signed-off article or whatever. Then, after the trial period is up, we can siddown, see if we liked it, and if we didn't all we would have to do is delete the list and the proposed CAN page, and forget about it. And pretend it never happened, and then when our grandkids ask "Granddad, the other kids in the yard told me about Complete Articles," we can say "They never existed. Like Santa!" Thefourdotelipsis 01:23, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's Complimentary Waffle Iron involved? I'm in. In all seriousness, I think that's a great idea. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:38, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in, up and foward... TK-299  (Click Here) Imperial_Emblem.svg 06:05, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Probably. I like the idea of Complete Articles, I just hope the voting system is streamlined and not too complicated. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 09:59, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I've been thinking about something like this myself. QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 18:33, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. I think it's a pretty good idea, and if we don't like it, the system can be removed. Support. -- 1358  (Talk) 18:36, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about articles regarding unreleased products? Star Wars: The Old Republic isn't out yet, so a lot of topics will be short, but could be flipped to "too-big-for-complete" status any day, and probably very readily after release. Other examples of this might be when a product--say a novel--is yet to be released and mentions someone or something that gets a stub. Until the book is released would that be up for a "complete"? I'd want a solution to this that does not disqualify good or featured articles from being created prior to product release, as that would affect articles like Gormak and Voss (species). &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 19:59, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion on that would be that an article could not be considered complete if there was a reason to believe that it would be rendered incomplete by a release in the foreseeable future. For instance, I would have to argue that Revinal Orzik would be ineligible for complete status, as the only known information about him is extremely limited, and it is known that that information will be greatly expanded upon by TOR. On the other hand, Gormak information is not nearly as limited, and so the article is substantive with information beyond the fact that they appear in the game. The line would be unclear however, as you may be able to tell. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 23:14, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Trayus. If we know&mdash;or at least are fairly certain&mdash;that an article is going to receive more information in the foreseeable future, such as with Revinal Orzik, then it should be ineligible. But if there's no indication that the article's topic is going to be expanded upon in canon anytime soon, then it should be fine. This could very easily be covered under a "stability" rule similar to the FAN/GAN Rule 5. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 23:23, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Since this is intended to be a limited-maintenance process, I'd think that we would disallow anything that we know to be receiving new content in the forseeable future. It shouldn't impinge upon nominating those things for FA or GA, since they're generally watched like a hawk. Thefourdotelipsis 23:49, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm down. —Tommy 9281 00:13, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I proposed this exact thing over 3 years ago: Forum:CT Archive/Complete articles. I am of course still for the system in some form or another. —Xwing328 (Talk) 03:26, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought there was a proposal at some point, but was too lazy to go and check the archives. :P Thefourdotelipsis 03:37, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * While I like the idea more in principle than I did all those years ago (especially now that we have a functional Good Article process that can no longer encompass articles such as these), I'm still getting hung up a bit on the label. No article can ever be "complete"; there will always be ways of improving upon it. Is there something else we can call these that doesn't basically tell a potential editor not to bother with them because there's nothing more to be done? jSarek 04:32, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually diagree with this. Can you please explain with some examples? Ie, look at these articles. Can you give me examples of what more you think could be added to them that is relevant? --Eyrezer 04:43, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may, I think jSarek is saying that as long as Star Wars canon is ongoing, nothing is ever "complete" or "finalized." There's always the potential that something may be expanded in some new source, so in a sense nothing in canon is ever "complete," and so calling something a "Complete article" is misleading. I understand what he is saying, anyway. Perhaps this can simply be explained on whatever parent "Wookieepedia:Complete articles" page would be created to house this project. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:51, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might be a way to go about it. "Comprehensive" might be a better word, too. Thefourdotelipsis 04:52, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comprehensive sounds good. I or one of the other admins can restore the original Complete articles page if you want a framework to start with, or just start a new one with Proposed (maybe at Comprehensive articles instead) for this discussion. —Xwing328 (Talk) 05:00, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has "A-class", which I think is the same sort of concept. - Lord Hydronium 05:01, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tope has it partly right, but even beyond that, to me, "complete" means that there's literally nothing more that can be done to something without damaging its integrity; not only are all the pieces there, but all the pieces are put together in the best, even only, correct configuration. A puzzle, for instance, isn't complete until it is finished and all the pieces are in place, even if you have all the pieces for it in the box.  Even with a small handful of facts, I think there are multiple ways of combining them into an article, and there will almost always be *some* way of writing the article, of arranging those facts, that would be *even better* than the status quo.  I realize I'm being nitpicky here, but I don't want the term we choose to lead potential editors to think "oh, this article is complete, so there's no way that I can improve upon it."  Tope's suggestion to have an explanation on the "Complete articles" page is of course a good idea and probably a given, but I think giving the thing a different name (and Fourdot's "Comprehensive articles" suggestion works fine for me!) will help newer editors, or those who aren't involved enough in the site's bowels to investigate further, understand that these aren't on a pedestal. jSarek 05:17, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm down with trying this out for a while too, and I think Comprehensive Articles is a perfect label. Xicer9 [[Image:atgar.svg|20px]]( Combadge) 05:22, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since people seem to like the idea of a trial run, would anyone be adverse to us just going ahead and doing it, and then bringing to CT after a month of it at work? We wouldn't create a bunch of templates and links just yet, it would purely be the "Complete articles" page and a subpage to list everything that has passed. Actually Xwing, regardless, would you like to restore the page as a subpage of yours, and then we can work on it there before moving it into the Wookieepedia: namespace? Thefourdotelipsis 05:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! See User:Xwing328/CA. Feel free to completely rework any of it, since I imagine the format of WP:GAN and WP:FAN have changed a bit over the years. I just copied from the old proposal and replaced all the completes with comprehensives. —Xwing328 (Talk) 06:14, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * This forum still hasn't really outlined definitively how articles will be voted on and who will be voting on them. Is this purely a populist vote, are certain Inq and/or AC votes required? I'd like to see this explained better before any trial run begins. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:23, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try and outline everything on Xwing's subpage, and then everyone can take a gander at that before we start a trial phase. Thefourdotelipsis 06:28, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a rough draft. How do we feel about this? Thefourdotelipsis 07:45, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think this needs to be flushed out a little more (mainly they stuff about is there a new review body, although you seem to be working on that), and more importantly, CTed before we implement it.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 14:02, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need to find a better name than "Grey Cadre." I was content with EduCorps. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:44, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover, exactly who will be voting on this, and how these people will be selected, is still far too vague, IMO. Any Joe Blow with 50 mainspace edits can create a WookieeProject. With all due respect to some of our more established project heads who obviously don't apply to the following, not everyone who heads up a project deserves to be classified as an "expert" in that field. ...and various other experienced users who are considered qualified to adequately judge the nominated material. Who are these people and how do they achieve this qualification? Are they voted on by certain users? Do they reach this point through certain acts of merit? This needs to be defined explicitly. As Chack said, a proper CT would be appropriate determination for these specifics. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:50, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can get down with this concept. There have been times when people have specifically mentioned looking for articles without a lot of content.SinisterSamurai 16:06, May 20, 2010 (UTC)