Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations



This page is for the nomination of "comprehensive articles". For a list of "comprehensive articles", see Category:Wookieepedia comprehensive articles.


 * Comprehensive article nominations history
 * Comprehensive article nominations archiving checklist

What is a "comprehensive article?"

A "comprehensive article" is an article that contains all information regarding the topic. Often, "comprehensive articles" cannot reach Featured or Good Article status due to their limited content. This process is intended to recognize articles that contain all relevant canon information, yet are still under the 250 word limit required for a Good Article. The purpose of this is twofold&mdash;firstly, to help users distinguish what is a stub, and what is merely a short article with no further relevant material to be added, and, more importantly, to highlight for the reader when they are reading something that has been judged definitely "comprehensive"&mdash;that is, a guarantee to the reader that whatever they are reading contains the sum total of all available content.

Nominations and promotions of the Comprehensive article process are overseen by a collective of users known as the "EduCorps," which is made up of the Inquisitorius, the AgriCorps, and various other experienced users who are considered qualified to adequately judge the nominated material.

Lucasfilm Ltd. and its many licensees continue to expand the Star Wars universe. Since new information might become available, it may be necessary to revoke a "comprehensive article's" status. A forum will be used to nominate articles that have fallen out-of-date. Members of the EduCorps will then post a warning template on that page, and a grace period of one week will be instituted in which the article can be improved. If there is a significant amount of new information, it is likely that once updated, the article will become eligible for Good article status, and thereby ineligible for Comprehensive article status.

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must&hellip;


 * 1) &hellip;be well-written and detailed.
 * 2) &hellip;be unbiased, non-point of view.
 * 3) &hellip;be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
 * 4) &hellip;follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia. This is, of course, within reason. If a topic only has a very limited degree of content that cannot be divided up into the relevant article sections, it is not required that it follow the Layout Guide precisely. This is to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
 * 5) &hellip;following the review process, be stable, i.e., does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
 * 6) &hellip;not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
 * 7) &hellip;have no redlinks.
 * 8) &hellip;have all relevant canon information presented.
 * 9) &hellip;be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Sourcing for more information. While this is not required for an article possessing a singular source, it is encouraged, as it provides both uniformity and a good infrastructure should the topic be referenced in any future materials.
 * 10) &hellip;have all quotes and images sourced.
 * 11) &hellip;provide at least one relevant quote on the article if available.
 * 12) &hellip;include a "Behind the scenes" section for in-universe articles.
 * 13) &hellip;counting the introduction, the article body, and "Behind the scenes" material, must not exceed 250 words in length (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Any articles exceeding the limit should be taken to the Good article nominations page for consideration.
 * 14) &hellip;if the nominated article reaches 200 words or greater, the nominator must either provide an intro or draft an intro and provide a link to the revision in the nomination, showing that the intro does not elevate the article over 250 words. Exceptions can be made for articles wherein the majority of the text is in the "Behind the scenes" section.

How to nominate:


 * 1) First, nominate an article you find is worthy of comprehensive status, putting it at the bottom of the list below. Nominated articles must meet all thirteen requirements stated above.
 * 2) Add CAnom at the top of the article you are nominating.
 * 3) Be sure to place sign in the "Nominated by" line when the nomination is posted for voting.
 * 4) Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article in accordance with the established rules.
 * 5) Nominators and supporters will adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. Objectors may also make alterations&mdash;if there is any reason for contention on a given point, it should be settled in a civil manner in the nomination field itself.
 * 6) Users may not vote on their own articles.
 * 7) There is no limit to the amount of nominations a given user can submit at any given time.

How to vote:


 * 1) Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
 * 2) Afterward, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
 * 3) *If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
 * 4) As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
 * 5) There are several ways in which an article can receive the required number of votes. Within a 48-hour period of nomination, only EduCorps votes will count towards the total, although anyone may choose to vote in that window. If two members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window, and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the template 48 hours after the initial nomination.  The talk page will also be tagged with the CA template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If one EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, three regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with just two EduCorps votes.
 * 6) Once a nomination is successful, it will be placed on the Comprehensive article list. Instructions on how to archive nominations, successful or otherwise, can be found here. Anyone can archive a nomination&mdash;just make sure it has the correct number of votes, has been nominated for at least a week (or 48 hours if there are two EC votes), and that there are absolutely no outstanding objections. If you are not sure how to do this, just ask, and someone will likely be more than willing to help you. Also, if you think you can slip one past us, think again&mdash;someone is always watching you.

All nominations will be considered idle and are subject to instantaneous removal by EduCorps members if objections are not addressed, or at least not answered, after a period of 1 week.

An Examination and Exploration of a Most Dangerous and Resilient Organism

 * Nominated by:  Holocron Greatholocron.jpg (Complain) 11:09, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: WP:NSW.

(2 ECs/2 Users/4 Total)
Support
 * 1) A riviting monograph, this. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 20:14, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Darth Morrt 12:31, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:34, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ~  Savage  B Aliens_Logo.png B ~ 02:35, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Object Comments
 * 1) Rubedo
 * 2) * Was the title italicized in the book? The titles of acadrmic papers are supposed to have quotes around them instead. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:59, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **No, no it was not. The original author put the italics there, and I left them. And then removed them.  Holocron Greatholocron.jpg (Complain) 01:07, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ***ENGL&101 FTW. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 20:14, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Jujiggum
 * 6) * Are you certain the essay's genre was biology? Or is that your own assumption based on the fact that it included information about orbalisks? Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:17, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) **I suppose it's an assumption. Given that the entire essay is about orbalisks, which are parasites, wouldn't parasitology be appropriate?  Holocron Greatholocron.jpg (Complain) 03:49, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) ***Yeah, I guess specifying parasitology would be a better fit. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 15:19, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) ****Done.  Holocron Greatholocron.jpg (Complain) 22:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Morrt
 * 11) * If the source provides more information, you should expand the removing procedure and the general information of the obralisk. Darth Morrt 11:48, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) **It doesn't do this though. You don't actually get to read the report, instead you read about Zannah and her triumph at finding the removing procedure, which is mostly a set up for the next plot point.  Holocron Greatholocron.jpg (Complain) 12:24, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) ***Ok.
 * 14) Bob
 * 15) * Can you reword the first sentence so it's clear that the orbalisk is the parasite and that the paper isn't about a parasite that preys on the orbalisk? ~ SavageBob ~ Talk ~ 13:03, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) **Done.  Holocron Greatholocron.jpg (Complain) 22:23, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Imperators II
 * 18) * Shouldn't the title be simply italicized (like this one) instead of being in quotation marks?
 * 19) **It was, originally. See NaruHina's comment above for an explanation.
 * 20) * So the info Zannah obtains is really never brought up later in the novel? (I'm just asking because I can't check the source at the moment, sorry)  Imperators II (Talk) 22:26, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) **She threatens Darovit with death if he doesn't use it (whatever it is) to heal Bane, but eventually the orbalisks are electrocuted to death anyway, so you never see the method described in the article. The paper's mostly a plot point to let Zannah meet Darovit and give her a reason to keep him around for a while.  Holocron  Greatholocron.jpg (Complain) 07:00, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Clone Wars Painting (clone trooper)

 * Nominated by:  OLIOSTER  (talk) 09:59, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: *insert slightly humorous comment about paintings here*

(1 ECs/2 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) Kilson 01:34, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:22, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 22:01, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Object Comments
 * 1) I guess the gender of the spacer isn't specified, but "it was rewarded to a spacer after they killed [..]" just can't be correct.  Imperators II (Talk) 22:09, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *When gender is unspecified, "they" can actually be singular or plural.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:42, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **Wow, didn't know that.  Imperators II (Talk) 22:47, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I believe this painting is also given out if you complete Farnsworth's quest. You need to check this and if so, put the info into the article. Kilson 22:41, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) *Ah yes, forgot about that one. Added.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 01:33, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) **K good. By the way, I put up Farnsworth to go along with your now. Kilson 01:34, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I'd link clone and trooper&mdash;separately of course, since you link them together in the body&mdash;in the BTS section, and I'm not sure "Clone" should be capitalized in that instance. Aside from that, a very nice article.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 02:55, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) *Done.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 03:09, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) **Excellent; I'd just fix the redirects now (since you moved the other painting); Clone Wars painting (Grievous) to Clone Wars Painting (Grievous) and clone to clone (sorry, should have specified there).&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:17, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) ***Done.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 03:20, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) ****Yet another nice article on the GFFA's artwork.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:21, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Toprawa:
 * 13) * Is there any specific reason why "Painting" and "Clone trooper" are capitalized in the article title? Might we just move it to "Clone Wars painting (clone trooper)"? Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:02, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) **As noted in the Bts, its called "Clone Wars Painting" in the game, so its canon capitalization. As for the Clone trooper, I thought this was proper for terms in parenthesis.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 22:40, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob
 * Does Galaxies indicate that it's Phase I armor? If not, you'll need to cite a source for that distinction (any will do). ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 02:50, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, and I did not add this. Could you suggest a source?  OLIOSTER  (talk) 12:30, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is borderline duck test, but I would be more comfortable with a source, I think, because the clone armors are so close in appearance to one another. It doesn't matter what, just any source that identifies armor that looks like this as Phase I armor. Clones aren't my thing, so I don't know one off hand, sorry. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 15:53, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * All referenced up now.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 21:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Clone Wars Painting (Grievous)

 * Nominated by:  OLIOSTER  (talk) 09:59, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: *ditto*

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) Nice little article.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:17, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The Mona Lisa of the Seps. ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 15:52, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Object Comments
 * 1) The same objection as in the clone trooper painting article.  Imperators II (Talk) 22:11, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Axinal
 * If the painting is named "Clone Wars Painting"&mdash;note the capital P&mdash;in the game, should the article name not also capitalize the P? The same applies to the clone trooper painting above, actually. This could just be a judgment call, and I'm open to different opinions on that.
 * I suppose that makes sense, will move.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 03:09, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, nice work.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:01, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Grievous identified in Galaxies? If not, you'll need to cite something to support that it's him. (It is, but the game may not say so.) ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 02:53, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not specifically say it is Grievous. What source would you suggest?  OLIOSTER  (talk) 12:32, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second though, this is duck test. Never mind! ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 15:52, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) *Heya. Does the player character kill one rancor, or several? I wasn't sure which word to change in "killed a ferocious rancors." Menkooroo 15:09, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) **Just one. Changed  OLIOSTER  (talk) 16:13, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified Bith Jedi (13 ABY)

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 07:12, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Another unidentified member of the New Jedi Order

(2 ECs/3 Users/5 Total)
Support Object Comments
 * 1) ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 03:01, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 23:04, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Darth Morrt 09:42, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:34, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  OLIOSTER  (talk) 22:36, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) *Even though the first two sentences of the BTS are kind of self-sourcing, would you mind sourcing them to PoT so it's clear that the Jedi Eclipse cite is not meant for those sentences as well? Thanks.
 * 3) *Nice article.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 18:41, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) **Okay. --Eyrezer 11:27, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

BlasTech Gikosphere

 * Nominated by: NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:04, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Pfff. And you thought I was done with Limmie.

(0 ECs/2 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) Always support soccer articles.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:16, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Darth Morrt 09:51, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments
 * I'm still looking for someone who has read 501st: Imperial Commando and remembers the part where they talk about Limmie. Don't worry. This can be completely confidential. Please. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:04, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, Naru. What do you want to know?  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:14, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to know what it says on the Match Master's role in play. The book may use the word "referee", but it is the same thing. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:17, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * It says pretty much the things witch the real referee does. He gives offside, has to two assistants and decides if it's a goal. The referee in this game is Parja Bralor. Hope that helps. Just contact me if you need more.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 16:27, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Soft percussion drum

 * Nominated by: NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:37, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: I hate the snare drum. I hate it with a passion.

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments

Base nose flute

 * Nominated by: NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:37, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Flutes sound purdy.

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * Just one: "In 3 ABY, some were incorporated into a Turan band that performed in a casino in a tibanna mining colony on the planet of Bespin called Cloud City." This sentence kind of rambles on, and could be split up or shortened.  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 00:53, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Electric harp

 * Nominated by: NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:37, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: I play the electric triangle.

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments

Wind Dancer

 * Nominated by: ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 16:28, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Hold me closer, Wind Dancer...

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Toprawa
 * 2) *By my count, the article is currently at 240 words. Per the recently established Mofference rule (CAN Rule 14), this article should make an effort to have a dedicated intro. Considering the article is only ten words away from GAN 250, I honestly don't see how, with the intro expansion and a little sectioning, this can't end up being a proper GAN. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:17, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **I thought those numbers didn't count BTS word count. Not so? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 18:47, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I don't believe that's so. The BTS counts the same as it always would. The only exception is articles where the BTS is the majority of the text, and the IU portion of the article is like seven words or something. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:50, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Special thanks to for tracking down where these guys were first mentioned! ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 16:28, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Rule 14 currently states: "…if the nominated article reaches 200 words or greater, the nominator must either provide an intro or draft an intro and provide a link to the revision in the nomination, showing that the intro does not elevate the article over 250 words. Exceptions can be made for articles wherein the majority of the text is in the "Behind the scenes" section." without any specifics on the IU to BTS word count ratio that would make an exception possible. Perhaps this needs to be more concretely stated? Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 18:54, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but that's not really the issue here. I'm to understand that Bob is under the misconception that the BTS is somehow not meant to be included in the 200 word count for when the intro clause comes into effect, which was never part of the rule. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:57, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. But I can also see how Bob would think that the BTS exception applies here. As it is currently written, it sounds as though when more than fifty percent of the article's total word count comes from the BTS, then you can exclude the BTS from the total and decide whether or not an intro is needed based solely on the remaining word count. I get what your both saying, is what I'm trying to say, which probably means that that new rule needs to be amended for clarity to avoid these situations. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 19:02, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is to say, I'm not challenging the validity of your objection, just using it as an example as to why this is an issue. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 19:03, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but that's not what Bob said. Interpreting his comment literally, he's questioning whether the BTS counts at all toward the total word count, which it most certainly does. To respond to your specific issue, hypothetically speaking, I agree the wording is somewhat ambiguous. But if we were to hypothetically make an issue out of it here, I would point out that the rule says if the majority of the text is in the BTS. At best, we're at an approximate 1-1 ratio here, so that really wouldn't qualify. If you care to go back into the Mofference log, the spirit of the rule was if the BTS took up almost the entire article, and the IU portion of the article was, to use my example above once more, something like seven words long. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:07, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what your saying. I wasn't at the Mofference, I'm just saying that the spirit you noted isn't really present in the wording of the rule. Again, not questioning your objection&mdash;I just misinterpreted Bob's objection to your objection. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 19:13, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * To respond to the above: Yeah, I was misinterpreting the clause to mean that BTS could be ignored in establishing the 200-word cutoff. However, it does state that a majority of the text being BTS can allow an article to ignore the 200-word clause, and that's what I had in mind. As Tope notes, this one is about half and half. I think it's silly to give a lead to an article on a species for which we know about two things (a homeworld and that they were graceful), but I'll knock something up and see what you all think. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 19:44, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else we need to take into account: The GAN rules currently include this provision (Rule 7): "…have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This is essential in articles over 1000 words but may not be appropriate on articles with limited content." This doesn't work if we require limited-content articles such as this one to have a lead and push themselves over 250 words. Do we need a SH on this? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 21:16, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I get 232 words without the lead, 266 with it; see here. But the lead in this case, I would argue, is mostly useless, and Rule 7 of the GAN should apply, which bonks the nom back down here. I honestly have no preference whether this thing ends up being a CA or a GA; I just don't want to force words into the article to meet arbitrary benchmarks when I don't think they are helpful. How do we adjudicate such matters? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 21:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's 107 words of description and 125 of BTS in the non-lead version. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 21:27, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you didn't have a preference in the matter, I suspect you wouldn't be looking for loopholes and policy contradictions to manipulate the rule wording in your favor. You know as well as anyone that the CAN rule was established at the Mofference as a compromise to move articles like this, which are 200 words or more and can support an intro, to the GAN, whether you personally supported the rule or not. The GAN rule you're attempting to validate is entirely subjective, and it does not automatically "bonk the nom back down" to CAN. The CAN rule, however, does invalidate this nomination for this specific nomination page now that the intro elevates the article past 250 words. If you want to argue about GAN rules, please bring the nomination there, where the discussion may continue in a more appropriate setting. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:42, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't presume what my motivations may be; I seriously don't care whether this ends up at CAN or GAN, so there is no "my favor" to be had here. What I do care about is whether we are forcing extra words on something that doesn't need them. My word counts above are merely so that we have all the facts; I am not trying to prove Toprawa wrong or invalidate rules. Now, if we can all assume good faith here for a moment, I would like to know whether we should continue to discuss this here, or if SH is called for. I am not ready to nominate this article to GAN because I do not think it is long enough. Adding the lead makes it long enough, but it does not improve the article in my opinion, so I would rather not add it. Where would be the appropriate place to discuss this (civilly) and on neutral ground? ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 22:07, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * See, that's where the problem arises, Bob. You choose what rules and policies you wish to follow according to your preferences and opinions. You didn't support this specific measure when it passed at the Mofference, and now that it's actually applying to you, you're chafing under it and finding every window of opportunity to not adhere to it. The rule states simply that if an article is over 200 words, the nominator must then draft an intro showing whether the intro elevates the article to 250 words, and if it does, the 250-word limit (Rule 13) then invalidates the nomination for the CAN page. And that's where we're at right now, but you would rather refuse to acknowledge the rule and filibuster the situation until you hopefully find a resolution that suits your preferences. I might respectfully point out that WP:POINT actually includes a provision for this type of thing, stating that users should not "push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong" when they don't agree with something, which is formally considered a site disruption. If you're looking for the appropriate place to discuss this nomination, it's the GAN page, where this nomination should be now, per the existing CAN rule. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:21, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I might respectfully point out that WP:NPA says, "Comment on content, not the contributor." I have been trying to keep this discussion civil; I'm not sure why it has become a personal exegesis on my supposed failings. I see that as the measure is currently worded, it does seem that any intro that brings an article over the magical threshold of 250 words boots it into GAN territory, so I'll take it there, where I'll argue that the article is not large enough to support an intro. ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 23:19, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * No debate is complete without the customary NPA accusation, right? If you think I have infringed upon any one of the stated examples of what constitutes a personal attack, Bob, go ahead and write me up. I stand by every single statement I have made here in this discussion. Because the fact of the matter is, this situation is about how you, the contributor, are responding, or in this case not responding, to this rule. It's taken us to this point for you to finally begrudgingly acknowledge that the rule does in fact state exactly what we both know it's said since its adoption. It becomes a "personal exegesis on your supposed failings" because you doggedly and deliberately refuse to adhere to a site rule because you don't personally want to follow it, to the point that it becomes a disruption. You were there when the rule was crafted, and you know very well that this was intended to be a compromise between the "CAN people" and the "GAN people," to put it that way, to establish some common ground for when to take an article to GAN. But it stops being a compromise when people refuse to do exactly that and instead keep arguing over the same old things that this rule attempted to put to bed. Other people came to the negotiating table to put these petty differences behind us. Maybe it's time for you to do the same, Bob. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:09, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * How does one write someone up? Because I do find your behavior here a violation of NPA. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 01:34, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry; not the appropriate place to continue this discussion. My apologies. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 01:51, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I still believe there is ambiguity about how Rule 14 here works with Rule 7 at the GAN, I've started a SH thread here. This is an attempt to figure out how these rules work together, and I hope no one takes it as me being combative or polemical. I simply want to iron out how GAN and CAN can work together in cases of borderline articles like this. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 23:38, April 11, 2011 (UTC)