I'm sorry it's taken so long to get this up. Between the spammer messing with the data and the Thanksgiving holiday, I haven't been able to deal with it until now.

A full summary of the results, with shiny graphs, can be found here—I think, anyway. If you can't view it, let me know and I'll figure something out. In a nutshell, though, the top results are, out of 44 responses:

1. Sue and Stu Pages
Of the existing Sue and Stu articles, should we keep all, some, or none?

- Keep some Sue and Stu pages! Sues are a dime a dozen; only the most unique or impactful ones need articles to themselves. (23 votes, 52%)

2. Author Pages
Are they useful, or just mean?

- Keep some author pages! Some of them are a big enough deal to deserve an article, as long as we treat them fairly. (25, 57%)

3. Author Names
Is listing author names on wiki pages (including but not limited to the various badfic lists and Sue pages) a good idea?

- Yeah, I don't think it hurts anyone, and giving credit is important. (20, 45%)

4. Stubs
Is it ever okay to delete very short articles? (Note that this doesn't include just-for-fun articles that are intentionally short and silly.)

- Stubs of any kind should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Some should be expanded, some should be merged, some should be deleted altogether. (32, 73%)

5. Redlinks
Is it ever okay to remove links that don't go anywhere?

- It's sometimes okay to remove a redlink. They look bad, and if they've been there a long time, it's pretty clear no one is going to make a page for them. (35, 80%)

6. Bonus Round!
Bonus question!

- Starfish! (12, 27%)


Most of the real questions got a fairly clear majority result (especially the Stubs and Redlinks questions); however, the leading answer on the Author Names question got less than 50% of the votes, so would anyone like to discuss that further?

Regarding the Sue and Stu pages, I think this result calls for getting together a group to look over these pages and come up with some criteria for what's worth keeping and what isn't. I suggest that members of this group should not have made Sue pages themselves so as to eliminate personal bias, and also that they should be willing to read the missions in question to make the best evaluation and/or improvement(s). (I think we can all agree that not all of the existing pages currently give a good account of their subjects.) So, who volunteers? I've made Sue pages myself, so I'm counting myself out of this one.

It might be a good idea to make a similar group to look over the badfic author pages, too. I think the biggest concern is probably that we're treating badfic authors like people, not punching bags, but it would also be a good idea for anyone who knows about a given author to be involved. Statements ought to be backed up with sources, and it'll be easier for people familiar with the authors to find said sources. Takers?

Finally, I am shocked, shocked, I say, that Starfish won over Hats by two. (Even though I selected Nitwit, myself.)

{; P

~Neshomeh