This forum discussion has now ended. The outcome of the discussion was: Both proposals were implemented. Please do not edit this page, please discuss on the talk page and if enough interest is generated a new forum will be opened.

Firstly, a quick note that this is a trial for the system we'll be using instead of the next IRC meeting, hopefully will be setup in a week or so.

I would like to propose a change to the nomination procedure for featured articles and good articles. I have two sections to my proposal.

The forum will be live for one week for discussion. Please let me know what you think, and give your support, opposition or just general comments. --_Hunterj ^{Hunterj's Resort} 16:36, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal one - word countEdit

The current policyEdit

An article must...

10. ...be a reasonably long article. Articles that are not long enough might be applicable for good article status instead.

My proposalEdit

I would like this to be changed to a specific word count. This would also allow us to specify an amount for the Good articles as well which I hope will work with my proposal for comprehensive articles.

I've looked at the count for all our FA's and all our GA's and I think a minimum FA word count should be 1000 words and our minimum GA count should be 250 words. However I think there should be note that the FA minimum word count is flexible at the discretion of administrators and community consensus as borderline articles that might have images etc shouldn't be excluded from FA status. My thinking is that the word count does not include page title, image captions, templates (including infoboxes) or sources/references but does include sub headings, appearances, lists, tables, quotes etc. As I don't think it should be a 100% strict rule though I can't see it making a major difference to define the individual criteria - common sense. For example I include lists but for articles that have little content but a huge appearances section the word count should probably not be looked into too much, while an article that is borderline with a category should be put into which ever category suits it best.

Finally by reclassifying some articles may change status. Any that do so would not effect outstanding user awards, and new awards for the new status would also be given out - for example a Courtney Gears GA award would also add the FA award to the users as it would now qualify for FA.

Also we'd have a GA and FA sub page to discuss removing the status or reclassifying articles if needed. Also if this is implemented I will have to remember to check the FA que, and nominated articles! --_Hunterj ^{Hunterj's Resort} 16:36, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• Obviously I am in support of the proposal to a word count. Personally I am obviously happy with the counts suggested above but I'm open to suggestion. _Hunterj ^{Hunterj's Resort} 16:36, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

• Also some stats for you: Average current FA length is 2540. The FA's Starship Phoenix, Oozla and IRIS would fall under GA but Phoenix should remain an FA under the 'exception' rule - especially as it only just misses the count. Average current GA length: 649 words. R&C collection and Courtney Gears would become FA's and Crotchitizer would become a comprehensive article, if the separate policy is passed. --_Hunterj ^{Hunterj's Resort} 16:36, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

• Support. But seeing as how the averages are much higher than the guidelines, they could be bumped up a little, possibly 1500 words minimum for FA and 500 minimum for GA. It depends on whether the average is close to how many words in each article. It would be good idea to raise the word count if the FA articles are mostly 2000-3000 words, but if half are under 1000 and half are over 4000, with the average just being the balance between the two halves, then it wouldn't work out as much. --Haydos271 ^Discussion 04:39, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

• My concern about raising the limit at all is that while the average count may be higher, several articles are only just over the 1000 mark but are, in my opinion too long for GA status. --_Hunterj ^{Hunterj's Resort} 09:53, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

• Support -   Broc  msg  Blog  21:34, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal two - nomination procedureEdit

The current procedureEdit

How to nominate:

5. Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 4 supports and no objections, it will be added the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article" on the first of the month it is to be featured.

How to vote:

4. When an article has +4 votes it will be added to the que. Any reasoned objecting votes count as -1 towards the +4 target and if any administrator objects with a reason then the nomination cannot be added to the que until the problem is resolved.

My proposalEdit

I would like to remove the timescale completely from the procedure and change the votes to a +4 with at least one administrator's vote.

In addition to that I would like to make each administrator's vote count as +2 votes - the reason behind this is that if someone votes against it cannot be passed until the issue is addressed, so I see no issue with allowing the voting system to be slightly fastracked if an administrator has checked the article. Also this will help with any inactivity - even when we are very active the voting can be sporadic. --_Hunterj ^{Hunterj's Resort} 16:36, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• Obviously in support of both changes. --_Hunterj ^{Hunterj's Resort} 16:36, July 14, 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Tigernose • Chat • Edits 16:48, July 14, 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Both of these changes will help the guidelines be more specific as to what would be needed for an article to be featured and will help with the "against" votings tht have no rhyme or reason to them. --Haydos271 ^Discussion 04:39, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
• Support -   Broc  msg  Blog  21:34, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
• I do support completely. Finskamän (talk) 11:55, July 21, 2012 (UTC)