| abstract | - It's not just because it's my article - I want to see either objection or support for Sio Bibble. You cannot abstain an Inq vote. .... 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
* I beg to differ. It's been done in the past, it's done right now and it'll be done in the future. There are what- a dozen of Inq? There aren't a dozen different sigs on every page. 128.194.66.61 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
* No, but that's because once 5 votes are offered, there's no point. But we're appointed to review these things. You can't just go, "Nah, don't like that one" .... 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 4dot, reading the Inq page, I'm not seeing where it forbides any on of you from abstaining from a vote. Can you link to that rule? --School of Thrawn 101 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
* It's not a rule, it's the whole basic idea of the Inquisitorius. We are appointed to vote. It's. Our. Job. .... 02:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
* I'm just going to repeat the title of this page: Do your damn job. There are not 12 active Inqs here, and it is a pain. There are currently 4 articles waiting for a final vote. --Eyrezer 04:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Here, here. ;-) It shouldn't be this hard to get articles up to the queue. Atarumaster88 File:Jedi Order.svg (Talk page) 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* It has become a test of endurance! ;) --Eyrezer 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
* The Inquisitorius does seem to have slowed down somewhat. I think real life has been keeping some members away. Of course we'd have have one more active member if Ataru hadn't quit since he's still voting on FA noms anyway. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC) .
* -P Atarumaster88 File:Jedi Order.svg (Talk page) 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
* All the Inq. pages of the old FAs that were de-featured don't have the final result on them, so I have to hunt through the meeting logs. You guys didn't update all the talk pages and era stars on the articles that were removed. And for some reason I can't explain, I'm doing your bloody job. To quote Fourdot from WC 1: "I hate all of you." Atarumaster88 File:Jedi Order.svg (Talk page) 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
* Yeah, it has slowed down a lot. I nominated 501st a month ago, and only two people (in the Inq) have supported it. The Inq members have not been very involved lately. It's annoying. Chack Jadson 14:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
* I'm on vacation and there's a year-long queue. There's no crisis. Come fall and I'll be back in the swing of it. Havac 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
* Even if new featured articles won't be on the talk page for months, it's nice for users to have their quality articles recognized as featured. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
* I agree completely with Silly Dan on this point. The way I see it, it is less about being on the front page as the FA title itself. --Eyrezer 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* Yeah, I think the FA star is more important than being on the front page and it'd certainly be nice to get things approved as quickly as possible rather than keep people waiting after they put a lot of work in. I'm trying to keep everybody motivated but I haven't quite got the hang of Force Choke yet. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* Per GT, Eyrezer, and others. The front page is nice and all, but it's the FA star that makes writing worth it. Greyman(Paratus) 13:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* Lol Green Tentacle. And I agree too. Chack Jadson 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* I know you guys are busy, but four months on the FAN page and only two Inqs even looking at Klivian is pretty ridiculous. It's long, I know, and it requires an investment of time, but no more time than the twenty other short articles each of you has Inqed in the past four months. I understand long noms take a while, but it's one thing to have an Inq look at it, and get a bunch of objections that are slowly resolved, and then have another Inq look at it, and have that take a while to resolve, but it's another thing entirely to have a nomination sit for three an a half months with not a single person even looking at it and get only two votes in four months while noms that have been up for far less time get that many votes in a week or two. I don't even want to count how many other noms have passed while Klivian never even got a look. And it's not just me; Kopecz has been up for four months too, with only one person Inqing him for the first three months, and no votes for those three months. Then we've got two Tommy noms that are also four months old that have gotten like two people to look at each in four months despite not being long at all. A FAN page with four noms that go back four months with barely anyone even looking at them should not be acceptable. New noms should not be getting passed in two weeks while old ones get completely ignored. I know it's easier to just look at new short noms that get put up. But the Inquisitorius needs some priorities, and it needs to be willing to step up and just do it and acknowledge that it's not avoiding work by just Inqing a dozen different articles instead. I know you've got lives. If it takes you two months to Inq your way through the whole thing, fine. I never said these things have to move fast. But Inqs need to get on them and get started before they Inq new stuff. It needs to be first come, first served, not last come first served, or else these things are never going to get passed. Havac 22:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
* With all due respect, if you want to nominate a really long article or loads from similar sources or articles on concepts some Inqs don't feel are deserving of articles or for whatever reason, then you're going to have to put up with newer noms getting read first sometimes. I can understand the opinion that the Klivian thing's unacceptable, but it's sort of bound to happen sometimes to certain noms, given that Inqing is very much a pick-and-choose occupation, as you know yourself. Addressing the Inq as a whole isn't going to really solve that, even if this does mean people will pay attention to Klivian. I'm not sure what the deal is with the other Tommy noms but with Kopecz there was a sole objection there for over three weeks and then subsequently a pile of objections from one Inq there for a good while—that's why people didn't review it. Trying to give the Inq some priorities is just an exercise in futility; if you want Klivian or whatever read, be proactive and ask specific Inqs to read it or make use of !Inqsignal. There are Inqs regularly Inqing, and I'm sure many would be happy for you to steer them in a certain direction. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
* Yeah, I absolutely understand that people don't want to Inq every subject that comes up. But I think everyone needs a reminder that they're not actually saving themselves any work by Inqing five 20KB articles instead of setting aside the same time to Inq one 100KB article, and that if everyone is saying, "Well, someone else will do it," "I'm not that interested in this topic," etc, it's never going to get done and someone is going to have to buckle down and just do it. So I think a general reminder that these articles aren't going to Inq themselves is in order, as well as a general exhortation that it can't always be someone else's job. I'm not saying no one can vote for anything until they've voted for everything that shows up before it, or whatever, just that after four months on the page, no one should need to be individually pleading with Inqs to read their noms. At two weeks, yeah, at one month . . . but after four months, everyone should have noticed that it's still on the page and not going away. Havac 01:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
* I agree. With Havac. To be honest, Inq priority is already laid out, determined by what's been on the page longer. A user should never have to actively ask an Inq to read his or her work. It's our job. It's volunteer work, sure, but it's up to us to get these articles through. It's not exactly fair for a writer to have to keep on checking that page for...well...months. Klivian has been up there for an obscene amount of time, and frankly, disinterest in the source material should never, ever, ever, be an issue. Because this is the job we signed up for. Thefourdotelipsis 02:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
* At risk of turning this discussion ugly, I'd have to say that I sincerely doubt anyone is completely at a loss as to why certain nominations don't get looked at. Graestan(Talk) 04:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
* No doubt. But...are the reasons why actually good reasons? Thefourdotelipsis 05:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
* Per Fourdot and Havac. I know I don't do much on the FAN page (I found this page via recent changes), but this also seems to be occuring on a smaller scale on the GAN page. We have a lot of new noms going through in days, but other, older noms, often by less experienced writers seem to be largely ignored. A large amount of the time, I find that this is because some articles start off well below standard, and reviewers seem to go either "It'll never make it" or "This next nom seems pretty good/well written/shorter, I'll just save myself some time and do this one instead." Eventually, someone does get around to reviewing it. The writer then addresses all these objections and gets one or two votes. But by then, the article is so far up the page that no-one seems to notice until eventually they fail, even though they may have passed if people had simply bothered to take a good look. This is not good practice. It is every article's right to be fairly reviewed, regardless of its current quality and who wrote it. An example of this is the Force Speed GAN. I admit that it started off nowhere near good enough. Me, IFYLOFD and Naru gave some objections, and the article has since become much, much better, obtaining votes from us. But at this rate, I doubt that it will pass, not because it's bad, but simply because it probably won't be looked at considering its current position on the page (and also possibly because it was a 1st attempt by User:Grunny). I also agree that abstaining votes is bad. You can't just say "it's not good enough" and ignore it. Objections are certainly welcome, but how can you possibly not be in support an article if you have nothing against it? I'm not trying to make anything mandatory here—I understand that sometimes circumstances prevent some people from reviewing—but I do believe that they (In particular Inqs and Acs) should try their best to review every article, do so in a non-biased way, and to support the article once all valid objections have been addressed. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 06:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
|
