Comment to nominator Should Ecjmartin, Good Olfactory, and Surv1v4l1st be co-nominators, considering they were significant contributors to the list? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of the FL directors I would say that is up to you. I don't know what qualifies as a "significant contributor" and if they are "co-nominators". If I had to decide, I would say that Ecjmartin probably. I would say "no" to Good Olfactory and Surv1v4l1st. Ecjmartin has done more edits then anyone but me since August of 2009. I would call him a "significant contributor". Good Olfactory has alot of articles on his plate, so he comes and goes and most his edit have to do with correcting major POV and vandalism edits, not with content (not that he never dose content edits). He's always been my "go to guy" with LDS pages when I'm not sure if something violates NPOV. I believe Surv1v4l1st edits started in response to our Peer Review for FL status, he has been helping alot to get the times The Rambling Man addressed. Additionally these two have contributed less then 5% of the edit. However, again, as FL directors I would say that is up to you, since I don't even know what that changes.--ARTEST4ECHOtalk 20:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Ecjmartin as a co-nominator; feel free to list the other two as such if you wish. As to what it changes: nominator credit at WP:WBFLN (not a huge deal, but still good to get it right), and as a director, I need to know who all is significantly involved in the article so I can distinguish who is an "independent" and who isn't. Of course, said editors were helpful in disclosing their involvement, but all the same I appreciate your clarification on the matter. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info. I nominated this list because I found this information very interesting for personal reasons (Family history, religious, etc). I wanted to get this list up to FL quality, so I had no idea that WP:WBFLN existed. That being said, I agree that Ecjmartin should be a co-nominator. However, since I had no idea that those who nominated FL article that got promoted were on any kind of list, I think this kind of changed things a little regarding Surv1v4l1st (not that Good Olfactory isn’t a great editor. I trust his input far above any other editor) I’m not so sure what to call Surv1v4l1st anymore, so your input would be appreciated.
At the time the article was nominated, I would not have called him a co-nominator, but the more I think about it under "the who should get credit or it" idea, the more I would call him a “Co-nominator after the fact”, like an "accessory after the fact". After the process started and he posted his support, he jumped in and really helped to find ways to fix all the difficult items that The Rambling Man discussed. Items that weren’t just grammar type errors. I think without his help the article would probably never have even had a chance to pass the FL nomination process (not that it has yet), so I think that if the article dose get FL status, he deserves to be recognized for his improvements. However on the other side, at the time of his “Support” he was genially supporting the nomination as an independent person, if this makes since. Therefore, again, I leave the choice to you, as FL director, as to if Surv1v4l1st should be listed as a "co-nominator"--ARTEST4ECHOtalk 12:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed Surv1v4l1st as a co-nominator, and will take into account his "independence" when the nomination is closed. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
