Requirements?
I think there should be requirements for FAC, such as no stub, been around for a certain time, etc. Anyone agree or disagree? ht14 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the no stub requirement, but not with the been around for a certain time requirement as sometimes articles are very good, but have only been around for a short while. Turtwig A Contributions Talk 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Not a stub" should be fairly obvious, as well as "no incomplete/cleanup" tags". Maybe I'll write it down, but I really shouldn't have to... It's just common sense. --electAbuzzzz 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, so it is. But as for the time requirement, I think it's best to add this. One, most articles can be edited for improvement. I say most to ignore disambigs. Maybe not time then... maybe edit requirement... I'm not sure. ht14 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think any codified requirements are needed. If it looks good, feel free to nominate it. If it actually is FA-worthy then it will pass the test with no trouble at all. If not, we should hopefully establish a list of improvements to be made. —darklordtrom 23:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Should there at least be a no stub or incomplete article rule as someone nominated an incomplete article. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't
{{Merge}}also be there? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)- The thing is, the merge template is merely suggesting discussion on the subject, it does not necessarily means something's wrong with the articles. The templates I listed all clearly point out specific issues with the article. We will never feature an article that has the merge or move templates without first addressing that issue and reach a decision on the said merge or move. --electAbuzzzz 15:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't
- Should there at least be a no stub or incomplete article rule as someone nominated an incomplete article. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think any codified requirements are needed. If it looks good, feel free to nominate it. If it actually is FA-worthy then it will pass the test with no trouble at all. If not, we should hopefully establish a list of improvements to be made. —darklordtrom 23:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, so it is. But as for the time requirement, I think it's best to add this. One, most articles can be edited for improvement. I say most to ignore disambigs. Maybe not time then... maybe edit requirement... I'm not sure. ht14 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Not a stub" should be fairly obvious, as well as "no incomplete/cleanup" tags". Maybe I'll write it down, but I really shouldn't have to... It's just common sense. --electAbuzzzz 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Final request then. I think there should be a limit of how many FAC's are being requested per month/every two months/etc. This may get out of hand and everyone will start picking random articles to be possible FACs. ht14 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. CuboneKing 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- See, the problem with that is that we never had a problem with the number of articles. CK, both articles you mentioned were the first ones nominated in their month, so such a limit wouldn't have solved it. I don't want to limit FACs, I just need people to think about what they're nominating. --electAbuzzzz 08:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. CuboneKing 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)