• 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 http://img171.[That shack with the images that I can't link to because of the filter].us/img171/9430/completecomprehensiveap.png. 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. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 15:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • Here's an example of what an era icon using the Cresh symbol would look like. Consider this, too: using a "C" would create a situation where only one out of three icons used alphabetical characters. --Imperialles 15:52, 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)
    • I like it. Would it be a circle or a disc? Meaning, would the center be hollow? I would think disc, with center filled in. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 15:52, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • A solid one would work better. We don't want it to be confusing by looking like an "O". NAYAYEN:TALK 15:53, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • Here is a possible combination of the solid circle idea for CA and FCA. An alternative to the red sector in the FCA icon could be a simple cross or a break line over the circle. I'm fairly sure that the scaling isn't right, they're just suggestions at this stage. NAYAYEN:TALK 19:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • img15.[that shack with the images].us/img15/7/comp2j.png - Cresh, circle and plus/minus versions. I'm thinking something with a circle would be a good idea. -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:41, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • I like the circle/broken circle personally. --Eyrezer 12:03, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • What about just like a plus sign? It fits with the star and the tick mark (check mark). I personally think that they should be consistent.—Darthtyler (Talk) 04:14, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • Good idea. I think a plus sign could work. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 20:48, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, and when it is a former Comprehensive article it can be a minus! Unsigned comment by BLAT (talk • contribs).
        • I just noticed someone already suggested that. But yes, the plus sign is consistent with the other "academic" icons of the star and tick marks.—Darthtyler (Talk) 17:50, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Minimum word count[]

I'm a proponent of requiring some kind of minimum word count that would easily be reached if the article is deserving of this status recognition in the first place. There are countless little articles about subjects that receive the barest of mentions in sources that would be nothing more than, for example, "Bobulous was a Wookiee who lived during the Clone Wars." Behind the scenes "Bobulous was first mentioned briefly in the 1956 novel Bobulous." A twenty-word, two-sentence article is not deserving of any kind of status, IMO. CAN standards should require some kind of substance to the article, which something like this does not have. Anyone can see from the previous example just how remarkably easy it is to even get 20 words in the shortest of articles, so I don't think making a minimum word count of, say, 35 or even 50 words is out of the question. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:37, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • That raises a good point but if you were to put something like a 50 word limit on (not that difficult to reach) then you actually leave a tiny gap between a non-eligible article and a GA, only 50-249 words. Given that articles only eligible for GAs currently can stand at 250-999 words, this seems like a small gap. NAYAYEN:TALK 20:46, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • The maximum gap would only be 1-250 words anyway, which is tiny to begin with. So I don't think the hypothetical 50-250 gap makes much of a difference.Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:49, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree with having a minimum word count of any kind. I think that the point of this whole idea was to be able to tell readers that "this article is correct and fully comprehensive", no matter how short that article is. With a minimum word count, "Bobulous" (using Tope's example) would never be able to achieve any kind of status, and thus a reader who looks at that article would likely assume it was a stub, not knowing it is already fully comprehensive. We need to be able to tell the reader that "that article" is complete, regardless of what article it is, and that's impossible with a minimum word count of any kind. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 21:01, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. The reader would be able to tell the difference between a complete article and one that is not by our standard practice of adding the "Stub" template, and all of its many variations, to articles, which tells the reader this article is, in fact, incomplete and can be expanded. And that is the whole point of what I'm trying to say, that articles that are as short as Bobulous don't deserve to reach any kind of status. Wookieepedia should be highlighting the best articles we have to offer. Not non-expandable stubs, if you will. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:15, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • Again, I respectfully disagree. How does the reader know whether the article is indeed complete or if it is simply missing the stub tag? I contend that even without the stub tag, most readers that look at a 20-word article will likely assume that there's more information available that that little tiny bit unless we have some way of marking even the shortest articles as "comprehensive". —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 21:44, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • That's a pretty shortsighted rationale. The fact that someone neglected to add a stub template to an article at some point is justification why we need to highlight 20-word articles as something special? That makes no sense. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
          • I've got to side with Master Jonathan here. I think the point of this project is the conveyance of the message, "This article is as complete as we can make it." To me, that isn't something special, it's a note to our users that they are getting the sum total of the information available. In other words, I don't think we should treat CA as some sort of award; it's a sign that the article is as it should be, and nothing more. That should apply to 20-word articles as much as to 200-word ones. ~ SavageBob 00:30, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • From what I was made to understand, the whole point of this proposed CA system is to make it so that every article on the Wook has an attainable, reachable milestone. I like the idea that every article on this site would thus have the ability to achieve a quality status, because, as far as I'm concerned, the more high-quality articles on the site we have, the better. That being said, I don't know that I'd necessarily be against instituting a 35 (or possibly 50) word count minimum, simply because it really wouldn't be all that difficult to get an article to that length, especially if you were to include a BTS. And when you get right down to it, if an article really contains so little information it can't even reach 35 or 50 words, then it's not really going to make much a difference in its quality whether it goes through this process or not. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to discourage the idea that this in fact any kind of real status for an article to reach. We wouldn't have a randomizer on the main page, we wouldn't allow the creation of an analogous user box (except custom ones, which I'm sure would crop up), and the name itself is distinctly unflattering and dry. Basically, this isn't a status, it's just a rubber stamp saying "we've done all we can to this," and a minimum word limit defeats the purpose, since the idea is to provide the potential for at least one stamp to be placed on every single article we have. We won't be highlighting these articles at all. It's just going to be a very boring, very utilitarian list. Thefourdotelipsis 23:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • If that is the case, I fail to see the need for this separate level of articles. As I've said in IRC before, it's our job to make sure every article is comprehensive. We don't need a special system to vote on an article to make it comprehensive. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 23:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • But then why do we even need the Good article process, then? It's our job to make sure every article is comprehensive, and well written, so basically the same logic applies to that whole process as well, since we don't highlight them on the main page. Thefourdotelipsis 23:44, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
          • Good articles contain a significant amount of information compiled, for the most part, from multiple sources. Comprehensive articles would only have one source containing a small amount of information, or multiple sources repeating the same information (as Good articles can easily be made out of articles with even a medium amount of info from a single source). That being said, I see no need to nominate such an article and wait for people to officially declare it to be "comprehensive" if it already contains all the information on it. (I'm still of the opinion that even comprehensive articles can reach GA eligibility with some additional work.) And regardless of what you say, Fourdot, creating a whole new nomination system is applying status to these articles, even with the absence of a randomizer on the main page. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 00:02, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
            • I agree that it is going to be considered some degree of status, due to its very nature, but I'm hoping that we can deglamorize it as much as is humanly possible. The fact of the matter is, we might know that a given article is comprehensive and be done with it without the nomination and the stamp and all that, but the reader, we have to assume, does not. This is just extra good will towards the reader, really, and I'm hoping that will remain the focus. And there's also the proposed method for GCs to bypass the nominations process completely, which would further deglamorize the whole shebang, but it's a little bit more difficult to trial that idea under the current circumstances. Thefourdotelipsis 00:11, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


From my experience of writing my own "Complete articles", I find they often look best with no table of contents. I find that despite there being little text, with Appearance, BTS, Notes and references, and External links sections, even the smallest articles can end up with a TOC without it really being necessary or useful to navigate the short page with. I suggest nominators try adding __NOTOC__ to see if it looks better for their particular article. --Eyrezer 09:12, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Good idea, especially since on the smallest of resolutions, 250 words is pretty much going to fit on your whole screen at once. Thefourdotelipsis 09:21, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I also like the idea because if there was a TOC then the article and the TOC would have probably have the same information due to the small size of the article. This would make a TOC it redundant and useless. kitfisto1000 04:57, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I made a mistake on my previous entry, please distegaurd it. I still like the idea of no TOC. If the article would only have a few items on the TOC and everything can be seen without scolling then a TOC is not needed. (Kitfisto1000 22:14, June 3, 2010 (UTC))
  • Already tried this, and it looked much better than a tiny slab of text crammed in between an infobox and a TOC. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 23:12, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree to an extent, as TOC boxes are hidable, at least on pages I've looked at. Maybe different wikias run a little different, but on a page I created, a TOC didn't appear until the content exceeded the capacity of the frame without scroll bars. If they're standard here regardless of content size, then I DO agree, but I like the hidable TOC, because I use TOC sometimes when I'm looking for specific information.--Anonyhm 14:02, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


  • 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).) —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 14:03, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • We already have a system for such an occurrence—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 — 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. —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)
      • I would suggest that if a CA is later expanded over 250 words and is promptly nominated for GA or FA (or tagged with {{Inuse}} in the case that the author has too many GA nomination at that time), it can retain its CA status for the duration of the GA/FA nomination. This would allow the article to have some sort of status at all times. CAs would still be subject to removal if not promptly nominated or tagged as a pending nomination for a higher status or if that nomination fails. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 20:53, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed, although I generally dislike the practice of "reserving" articles with the inuse tag. We'll be able to set up that caveat if the process is accepted. Thefourdotelipsis 23:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
          • If a {{CAremove}} template was created for the same reason as the {{FAcleanup}} or {{Gacleanup}} ones exist, a parameter akin to nom=y on the Inuse template could serve a similiar function to show "This article will have it's CA status removed if not nominated for FA/GA" or whatever the wording would be where a CA is pushed over the 250 word limit. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:37, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I honestly see no reason that just because a CA is bumped over 250 words it should stop being a CA. If a GA gets expanded to over 1,000 words, it doesn't stop being a GA; the only thing that happens is that it is now eligible for FA status. I don't see any reason to treat this any differently; if a CA gets over 250 words, it's eligible to be taken to GA status, but otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it just staying as a CA. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:43, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • We could also find a way to work around that, although generally they should be taken straight to the GAN page once they've reached that limit. Thing is, there's the maximum word limit to stop people from nominating just anything, and to prevent as much overlap as possible, but I'm sure we can make sure articles with too much content aren't stripped of their status, or anything. Thefourdotelipsis 23:50, June 1, 2010 (UTC)


I noticed Harbin-re was sourced in the "intro". Okay, so it's still sort of the body, since the article has no other sections, except for a BTS. But should we make sourcing required in the case of articles with only an intro and no further body (unless they have just one source, in which case it would be optional)? I think that would be a good idea, for these smaller articles, to ensure accuracy. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:07, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • It's not technically an intro if the section makes up the entirety of the article body. As such, it should be sourced in accordance with Wookieepedia:Sourcing. Which I think is a good thing. --Imperialles 17:21, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, I wasn't sure how we treated that situation, but that makes sense. I agree, definitely a good thing. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:23, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Time requirement for a successful nom[]

Not sure where to put this, since it's a combination of a query and a suggestion, but here goes. The "How to vote" section of the instructions is currently self-contradictory with regard to how long an nomination must be on the page before it can be archived as successful. Line 4 essentially says that any article that receives 2 GC votes instantly becomes a CA, and that a nomination must wait 48 hours before it can be passed on the basis of user votes. Line 5, however, states that a nomination must be up for 48 hours before it can pass with 2 GC votes and a full week before it can pass on user votes. Which is correct? I would prefer combining the two and simply saying that the nom must be up for 48 hours, regardless of whether it passes on GC votes alone or with user votes. This allows time for somebody to come in and point out an major error that could very well slip past two GCs that review the article 10 minutes after it's nominated, but avoids forcing it to stay on the page for an unnecessarily long length of time for such short articles. Thoughts? —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 22:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I can go with the two day minimum, although I wouldn't mind seeing something closer to a week. Two GC votes also seems a bit on the low side for me. Xicer9Atgar.svg(Combadge) 22:14, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I would support a week as well, three days at minimum. Regardless of how short these are, they shouldn't be railroaded through. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:17, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Tope and Xicer both; I would be ok with a two or three day minimum, but a week would be good. Also, I don't really like the provision that noms can pass without a single GC vote. I think no matter how many "normal" votes a nom gets, at least one GC vote should be required. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:23, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yes, I didn't notice that contradiction that I'd put up. I just promoted a couple, but the two day minimum would be better. I'll amend that so that there's the 48 hour minimum. Big mistakey. It's a week for user votes, but there has to be a lot of them. The reasoning behind this is to greatly encourage wider participation, and to also remove any obligation for those review panels. Since it's under 250 words, I should think that the general user base can be trusted, but we'll see. Thefourdotelipsis 23:13, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I understand the motivation of encouraging wider participation—and believe me, I love the fact that we're doing that, because it can only have a positive influence on the user base as a whole—but I still think it would be a good idea to have at least 1 GC vote required no matter what. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Jugs. I'd like to see a minimum of one GC vote required on every passed nom regardless of total votes. Grunny (talk) 23:35, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. What we'll do then, is on the 15th or so, we'll amend the rules so that at least one GC vote is required no matter what, and that will carry us through to the end of the trial run. So we'll keep it as is up to then, and then we'll be able to have a bit of contrast and comparison for when the trial run is over. Thefourdotelipsis 23:39, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, it's now the 16th. I should note that even with the current rules that don't require a GC vote, every nom that has passed so far has done so with at least one GC vote. With that in mind, it seems that changing the rules to require a GC vote probably won't have any effect on the process, so we might as well do it. Any further thoughts? —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 15:38, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • As a lowly user with no other accolades, I would hope that the "no big deal" nature of this would not require any "special" votes at all. If requiring one GC vote is what it takes to get the INQ and AG on board, so be it, but I really like the idea that there will be a process on Wookieepedia that doesn't assume that those of us who lack any sort of other status are not up to the task of writing and spotting top content. In other words, let's assume good faith about our editors and assume that they can handle this without some other process to name special reviewers. Perhaps it's a pipe dream (since it's more akin to the Wikipedia culture than the Wookieepedia one), but as a former Wikipedian, I can dream, can't I? ~ SavageBob 15:54, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Time period until CA status is dropped after new source publication[]

I was watching the Wookieepedia:Comprehensive_article_nominations and noticed that in CA nomination process there is two weeks to address/answer to any objections, but after CA status is gained, if new source information has been published/found then only one week is given to update until CA status is dropped.

Is this intended? Tm T 09:17, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is, basically because once an article has its status, it's more important that that is maintained. Furthermore, usually when something appears in something new, it's likely that it will be over 250 words and therefore more elegible for Good Article status. Thefourdotelipsis 09:18, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • That makes sense, good points. Only thing that worries me is that you have more time with old sources you already have than with new sources you possibly don't have, but then CA status should go too I would assume. Tm T 09:30, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Removal of CA status[]

I had an idea for how to handle removing CA status from articles that for some reason no longer meet the criteria. It would be a formalized process called something like Wookieepedia:Removal of Comprehensive article status (WP:RCA). It would work as a sort of reverse version of the current CAN page—articles would be nominated for removal, with reasons listed. The article would then stay up for a week, giving any interested user the opportunity to address the issues presented. At the conclusion of the week, the Removal nomination would be archived. If the issues were resolved, the article would retain its status, but if not, the article would have its status stripped.

This is a self-cleaning and easy to use system that allows us to effectively ensure the current crop of CAs comply with the relevant criteria. The time limit of one week ensures that issues are either resolved quickly, or that CAs that fail the criteria are removed from the pool swiftly. There could be a caveat where if a GC member signs off, an article with resolved issues could be archived early. I'm sure some of you will think a week is too short an amount of time, but consider the informal and quick nature of the CAN procedure—the article can always be re-nominated. Thoughts? --Imperialles 09:21, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. And, yeah, a week is just fine I think, since we're talking about 250 words of content, and the fact that the nomination system should be fairly fluid as it is. Thefourdotelipsis 13:12, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

1 GC vote required as of nowish[]

  • As of now, one GC vote will be required on each nomination, since it's something that people would like to see, so we're going to take a crack at it for the time being, see how it flies. Or runs. Thefourdotelipsis 13:11, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well if we require 1 GC, then I suggest we can reduce the total number down from 6 to 4 or 5. --Eyrezer 08:40, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • An article with 1 GC vote only requires 3 additional user votes. It's been that way since the start of the trial. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 19:03, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is another way of looking at it :P --Eyrezer 21:34, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that requiring 1 GC vote is really slowing things down. Maybe that is just because I have a fair few noms up there, but I count nine nominations that have 3 user votes and are just waiting for a GC/AC/INQ to do some reviewing. Maybe it is because there is no CAN tab to remind people of its existance, or maybe those people don't want another nominations page to have to look after. I'd be for switching back to requiring more user votes, and no GC votes... --Eyrezer 01:17, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see where that alone is slowing things down, considering that one look at the archive page shows that no nomination so far has passed without a GC vote even before the new rule was implemented. More likely, the slower pace of the page comes from the fact that people got all excited over a new toy at the beginning of the month and swarmed all over the page, but now that that excitement has worn off, things are slowing down. I would hazard a guess that the current pace of the page is likely to be the regular pace if/when this is approved. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg (Jedi Council Chambers) 01:28, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • Possibly. The trial is set to close in two days anyway, so this thing can be sorted out then, if the community chooses to accept the CAN going forward. --Eyrezer 01:31, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • Per MJ basically, people seem to have lost the rush of excitement that was there at first, but all noms basically have had at least one GC vote. Plus if this goes through and there are more GCs added, there'll be even more people able to put the GC vote up. Grunny (talk) 04:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Objection inactivity[]

What's the objection inactivity limit for CANs going to be? NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo.png 09:04, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think a week is reasonable, then it's up to two or more GC members to strike the objection, if it has been answered or resolved. Thefourdotelipsis 09:09, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

CA vs GA[]

If a CAnom is bumped up to say 296 words and is therefore GAnom territory, what happens to the nomination? Is it immediately deleted? Or is there some sort of time period to wait through before deleting it?--BonslywizardTrade Federation.svg(Send a transmission...It's perfectly legal!) 21:33, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


How should the objections on the CAN be formatted? On the GAN and the FAN, we use asterisks (*) only. But on the CAN, I see objections with numbers (#) as well. This sometimes causes a mess. I suggest we use asterisks only, like on the other nomination pages. 1358 (Talk) 10:01, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm all for asterisks only, the numbers in objections just causes confusion with no real purpose. --Tm_T (Talk) 10:34, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm for it too. 1358 (Talk) 10:37, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it would work best if the CAN page was formatted like the GAN and FAN pages, where every nomination is its own individual page. That way your objections would fall under a heading surrounded by five equal signs, and you could asterisk to your heart's content. Menkooroo 11:37, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Notification of nominators[]

I just archived four successful CA noms, the first time I've ever done something like this. Is there a template to use to inform the nominators of the articles passing? I know we do this with GAs and FAs, but I'm unable to find anything for CAs. Thanks! ~ SavageBob 21:56, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Nope, there isn't one. It is actually only done for GAs, not for FAs. --Eyrezer 22:04, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks. I think I did everything correctly, then. :/ ~ SavageBob 22:15, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Archiving error?[]

Hello, it has occurred to me that earlier this month I might have archived some nominations that were one vote short. Should those mistakes be undone now, or can they be let go this time? Hanzo Hasashi 16:44, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Canon articles[]

Do the new canon articles qualify to be considered comprehensive articles if they fit the criteria? For example, I think the article I created for Dantooine could qualify, as it covers everything that has been said about the planet within canon. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:13, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

  • Technically yes, though you should familiarize yourself with the CAN requirements before nominating it. For example, Dantooine (Canon) needs a BtS, and all the redlinks must be created. 501st dogma(talk) 17:21, May 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I will make sure to keep those in mind then before nominating anything. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:24, May 30, 2014 (UTC)