Wookieepedia talk:Comprehensive article nominations

Suggestions

 * OK, if you've got any suggestions for new things you would like to see tried over the course of the trial period, please post them here, and we'll try and give them a sample over the course of the month. Thefourdotelipsis 11:17, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Icon ideas
Some ideas I've had for the icons and which I'd like some feedback on can be seen at. These are just rough ideas made in MS Paint, the finished icons should look a lot better. They were designed with the plan of making a visual metaphor for completeness. My own personal thoughts:
 * Death Stars
 * Pros: Recognisably Star Wars, fits with the theme of the site
 * Cons: The FA and GA icons aren't Star Wars themed, may not scale well, may not be immediately recognisable what the metaphor's supposed to mean


 * Progress bar
 * Pros: A full progress bar appears in computer programs when a task is complete, a partial one when it's not
 * Cons: Looks too much like a battery


 * Circular progress bar
 * Pros: Same idea as the other progress bar, except it doesn't look like a battery
 * Cons: Has a tendency to look like the inside of a lemon instead


 * A/F grades
 * Pros: Fits with the academic theme of the FA star and GA tick
 * Cons: A grade ranks higher than a tick or a star in terms of importance, whereas CAs are supposed to rank lower than FAs and GAs (AFAIK)

There's also the possibility of the cresh symbol, which is used here. Like the Death Stars, it fits the Star Wars theme, but is also not immediately recognisable. I'm not sure which Aurebesh letter would be used for the former CAs either. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 15:28, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the Cresh symbol (Cresh.svg). Former CAs could simply use a grayed out version. --Imperialles 15:37, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd simply prefer a "C", as using cresh would also create a situation where only 1 of 3 symbols are star wars themed. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 15:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about, rather than a segmented circular progress bar, having a simple circle? Circles are only ever complete. For FCAs there could simply be a cross through it like the FGA and FFA icons have.  NAYAYEN : TALK 15:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Queries

 * If you have any queries about any aspect of the Comprehensive article process, or the nature of this trial run, please ask them here. Thefourdotelipsis 11:18, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it is comprehensive?
Let's take an article on a little-known subject, which by the way I understand will be the norm with this: This-Guy you never heard of. Listed sources here: Only Something Guide 9 (1996). Vitas' CUSWE says the same. I check some other sources and I'm reasonably sure he doesn't appear anywhere else, but of course I cannot manually scan each and any book, comic, game, etc to be 100% sure. So, I expand the article and nominate it to Comprehensive or whatever. Success! This-Guy becomes the 5th Comprehensive Article!

Two months later, I suddenly discover a clear mention to This-Guy in Whatever Novel (2003). Oh, I never tought This-Guy could be mentioned in a novel. Nobody at Wookieepedia, or anywhere else, noticed it either. So, what should I/we do? The article is not really comprehensive; and maybe none of us cannot access the Novel to update the article; and we have been listing it as comprehensive for two months. Is it time to eat up our/my pride and admit that I was incorrect? Should we mark the article as "Skippy foolishly believed that this article was comprehensive but he was wrong, wrong, wrong!"?

That has (almost) happened to me before while researching for noms: I suddenly discover there's one more mention I was unaware of, and I cannot check that mention. Notice that, it is good when you discover that you miss a source. It is very bad when you don't discover that unconvenient truth. Due to the nature of the Comprehensive articles, I fear that this situation could be more... frequent. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:51, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true, but the same goes for any Good or Featured article, which we also present as being "comprehensive." Simply put, if we find out that something is in another source down the track, and it can't be updated, we simply remove it of its status. It will be a fairly streamlined process. However, it's very rare that there is a book that no one can get to, and we're starting become more and more aware of these sources progressively. This is a danger, obviously, but the same problem applies to any of the other milestone processes. Thefourdotelipsis 12:04, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * My first random thought is that the name doesn't bother me as much as it did when proposed. Still amuses me that the name of our shortest category has the most syllables, but whatever. I do like the name "gray cadre". As for Skippy's concern, I think a template/tag should be made to address this situation for all three categories. Something like "New content discovered in Source! Please expand this article with new content or risk losing Comprehensive status." This would really be no different than new content being released by LucasArts (which is mentioned in the proposal). And I would assume that any new (or newly discovered) content that extends the article into the next category in terms of length will be evaluated and bumped up into the new category. (Comprehensive (<250) to Good (<1000ish) to Featured (>1000).) &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 14:03, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have a system for such an occurrence&mdash;essentially, the Update tag is used for this, even if the source is an old one. And any article tagged with a warning template, such as that one, would immediately be brought up for review. Thefourdotelipsis 14:10, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping up to GA?
One of fodigg's ideas in the previous section just triggered a response in me. Say we have a Comprehensive article that is suddenly expanded beyond 250 words because it has been updated with new info from recent sources. Should it be automatically promoted to Good article? I, as of me, strongly oppose to that &mdash; albeit the article could be nominated like any other. Should it automatically stop being CA? Well... I suggest so, as it exceeds 250 words now, but this is open to debate. Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:10, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that it would be up for the author handling the original CAN to either "trim the fat" and keep it under 250 or to expand it and replace the CA tag with a GAN tag, creating an entry on the GAN page. Of course, there will be times when there's not enough fat on the article to trim, and it should go directly from CA to GAN. I think it'd be a shame if an article ever just had to drop CA status because nobody wanted to handle its GAN. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 14:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * There would be no automatic promotion. Any user can remove their own nomination on the CAN page, (although make sure to archive it on the assigned subpage!) and take it directly to the GAN program, but there are too many loopholes in an automatic promotion system. This may occasionally mean that an article loses its CA status before being promoted for GA. Now, it's interesting that this has been brought up, because we will have to make some sort of stipulation that an article that is up for CA removal for having too much content can still be nominated for GA at the same time. That's something that we'll hash out if the process is actually implemented. Of course, there will still be a week long grace period for the removal of any CAs anyway. Basically, we'll work out a good transition system that won't be too messy and will be as comfortable as possible, but we would still want a new array of reviews each time an article goes for a new milestone. Thefourdotelipsis 14:39, June 1, 2010 (UTC)