| Revision as of 11:26, 18 September 2007 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions: Thank you for proving my point so effectively.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:41, 7 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,667 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|WT:FA?}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" style="background: #F9F9F9" | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |- | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |align="center" | ''']<br />Archives''' | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 500K | |||
| ---- | |||
| |counter = 10 | |||
| |- | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | style="font-size: 90%" | | |||
| |algo = old(56d) | |||
| *] | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article criteria/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| *] (size discussion) | |||
| }} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |} | |||
| {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Fair-use audio excerpts in FACs and FARCs == | |||
| == Lead Length == | |||
| The debates ] and ] may be of interest in relation to the interpretation and enforcement of Criterion 3. ] 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Currently, ] says 250 to 400 words for most FA's. But these are just suggestions. Some articles also have considerably higher word counts for their leads. An example would be ], although its FAR was a long time ago. I wonder if we could get a more precise guideline similar to ]. Something like a table? Recommended: 250-400. Ok:400s. Acceptable:500s. Above 600:should be trimmed? ] (]) 20:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal- Accessibility and Importance need to be prominent leads to a FA. == | |||
| :If you check that MOS talk page, you'll find a substantial discussion on that topic from not so long ago. FWIW, the size guideline is also rather controversial, as guidelines go. ] (]) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd certainly oppose adding anything. Imo many leads are too short (but some too long), & FA ones should on the whole tend to the long end of ranges. I thought the lead of ] (now withdrawn) too short, which the nom disagreed with. ] (]) 22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|Johnbod}}, maybe many leads are too short because the current wording ("Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words") is too restrictive? I checked ], which went through a recent FAR. It has 575 words. So I'm guessing 500's are ok, depending on the topic. I am also asking because I recently changed the lead in ]. ] (]) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I meant leads in general. "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words" may well be true, but unfortunately these days "Most featured articles" are on micro-topics where a short lead is justified, if not unavoidable. ] (]) 03:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let me ask a different way. If an article has a lead with a word count in 500s, would that cause an unsuccessful FAR by itself? ] (]) 11:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The 250-400 words mentioned by ] is plainly descriptive rather than a recommendation, let alone a prescription; I don't get paid the coordinator big bucks to make these decisions, but I cannot see how not fitting that guideline would be considered a valid reason to oppose promotion or to delist an existing FA. ] (]) 13:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Great, thanks! ] (]) 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion in ] == | |||
| I think the FA ] is an example of an article that needed a bit more work before it is promoted to FA status. I think that one of the missing pieces here would be accessibility. I know this will be a technical article, but as a FA, I think this needs to say in the intro why it is important and, if it can't say what it is in a brief summary, then at least tell what you need to know to understand it. I think that ] should be something that is included in any part of the FA review. | |||
| Note that there is a proposal in Village pump regarding the consistency requirement for short and long inline citations: This would concern FA criteria 2c. ] (]) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have no problem with a Mathamatics article being a FA. I think they are at least as worthy as a ]. I would like to suggest that the importance of the topic be asserted in the intro so that someone going there from the Main Page would see first the summary of what it is and then the summary of why it matters. | |||
| == Maintenance == | |||
| I have seen several articles which I think miss out on making the importance of the subject and the accessibility of the article prominent features of the FA review. Any comments? ] 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *You are assuming that the topic is important, which perhaps is not the case. I think the introduction makes clear the things that are ''interesting'' about the topic, specifically that it has a bit of history behind it, and that it is an example of paradoxical and unintuitive mathematics. On the whole I would say that the article is at a good level of accessibility; with only an awareness of infinite series, you can basically fully grasp the lead, and even without that background the first few headings of the article ought to make some sense. ] ] 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. Is there a place in the instructions to add, "FAC nominators are expected to continuously maintain articles they nominated"? I just read that yesterday at ], about 15 years after the fact. Pardon me if I missed it. -] (]) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If a topic is not important in some way, why do we have a Misplaced Pages article about it? This article is confusing to me and I minored in Physics, going as far as multivariable calc and linear algebra, but it is still difficult to understand why anyone would care about the topic. The same is true of many articles, in my opinion. That is why I would like to see this as something that is considered in the FA criteria. I think this is definately a good article, but I still think that it needs to be more accessible to have it as the "this is what Misplaced Pages is about" which the FA represents. ] 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no such instruction because there is no such requirement for an article to ''become'' featured. However, an editor won't get a second star at FASA for "saving" an FA that they previously got promoted and then ignored, which what that statement at ] is trying to communicate. If you don't like the way it is worded, a discussion at ] would be more appropriate. --] (]) 00:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::FAs should not have to be accessible to everyone, or useful, or vitally "important", whatever that means. These might be valid points in deciding which ones to feature on the main page, but that's not decided here. Personally, I found this article interesting, and learnt quite a bit from it. Of course there are others I don't care about. I guess part of the art of choosing the main page FAs is to provide enough diversity among the topics that most readers will occasionally find something of interest. -- ] 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::A topic doesn't have to be important to warrant a Misplaced Pages article, at least under our current policies. ] ] 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Capitalization of source titles == | |||
| :::: I have apparently used the wrong words. Where I said Important, what I meant is ]. I still think that articles need to be ] to the general user. But that can be something as simple as the summary at the top. What I am suggesting is that the accessibility and notability of the topic be demonstrated in the intro as part of the FA criteria. Is there any reason you can suggest not to have this as a criteria other than "don't wannna"? ] 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Does "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required." require that all citations use the same capitalization style when the sources don't use the same capitalization convention? Question came up at ] ] (]) 07:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I wrote the article, and I've been paying attention to what people say about it throughout both Misplaced Pages and the rest of the Internet, so I hope my perspective here will help. | |||
| :] says that titles of works should be given in titlecase, but with the exception that {{tq|] permits the use of pre-defined, off-Misplaced Pages citation styles within Misplaced Pages, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style consistently used in an article.}} My reading of this is that either all article titles should be in sentence case, or none should: we don't mix-and-match depending on how they are presented at the source. ] (]) 08:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that this allows us to follow subject-specific citation and bibliography styles. For example, in mathematics, the vast majority of journals use sentence case for article titles mentioned in the bibliography (and title case for journal titles). Some publishers (like the AMS) also tend to use sentence case for book titles in the bibliography, while others use title case for book titles. This is independent of the question how the source itself formats its title (unless it is in a foreign language; many foreign languages do not have a concept of title case, and usually formatting as in the source is best). The FAC criteria ask us to be internally consistent; personally, I think these MoS/consistency aspects get too much attention at FAC at the cost of actual fact/source checking (we should care far more whether an article contains one incorrect statement than a hundred incorrect dashes). —] (]) 09:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|personally, I think these MoS/consistency aspects get too much attention at FAC at the cost of actual fact/source checking}} I don't disagree with this! The problem is that it is easy to nitpick fine details of the Manual of Style (there are a {{em|lot}} of fiddly little rules to remember, and it doesn't require any subject-specific expertise) whereas unless you happen to have significant knowledge of the field already, it is very difficult to make substantive points about content – generally anyone bringing an article to FAC is more expert on that topic than any of the FAC reviewers! | |||
| :::But regardless of that, I think we agree on what the rules as currently written actually say? In which case, in the linked discussion SchroCat is in the right, and in the extreme case it would technically be valid (if silly) to oppose promotion while this is not "fixed". ] (]) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Generally, I agree with Kusma here: if an article establishes a consistent style (for example, that book titles are capitalised, and article/chapter titles are not), that's fine. It's preferable if they're following a particular named citation style, but I don't think we should police too firmly whether something is indeed the Loughborough University Arts Faculty house style (or whatever). As SchroCat says in the linked discussion, it is however not fine to simply follow what another source does -- ] is the overarching principle here, I think: in stylistic matters, we adjust the formatting to match our MoS, not whichever house style an individual publication happened to use. As such, I think Caecilius is right that an article would be in error to have, for example, some articles capitalised and others uncapitalised on the grounds that that is how the publication did it (I'd note as well that lots of older articles are often printed with titles in all-caps, and that's ''definitely'' not a good move!). As Kusma says, though, foreign-language sources are a different thing, and here the MoS already tells us to follow that language's norms. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Citations for individually authored chapters in edited books == | |||
| First of all, the series is notable simply by virtue of the fact that it gets nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as Hardy, Saichev, and Weidlich. It helps that one of these is a respected primary source, namely Euler. It also helps that the series gets a ton of passing mentions. You may judge that the series does not ''deserve'' its notability, but then you're making a judgement on how human inquiry should be done and not how Misplaced Pages should report on it. | |||
| Are citing individual chapter authors in edited books a requirement? Or is it optional? I have thought citing the entire edited book is acceptable , but that might not be the case ? I also asked this in ] (]) 17:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Even though I think that article topics don't need to be important (in the more-than-notable sense), I have stuff to say about that too. If you have a physics background with linear algebra, you've probably seen Fourier series. This means that there's an excellent chance that you've seen Abel summation without realizing it; see the reference to Davis at the end of the article for how. Abel and Borel summation are essential to modern physics, which deals with divergent series all the time, and I for one think that examples like 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · are essential to understanding such methods. | |||
| There are at least two reasons why I wouldn't say so in the article: | |||
| #]. Who am I to tell you that you should read up on 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · to better understand modern mathematics and physics? I can't attribute that opinion to anyone you should care about. | |||
| #]. 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is an example of a divergent series. Examples are important for understanding general concepts. Divergent series have important practical applications. These statements are not controversial and could easily be attributed. That doesn't mean we can combine them to claim that 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · has practical applications, or that understanding it will lead to a better understanding of the way mathematics is used. Such derived statements would need specific evidence or at least an attribution, and we have neither. Here's another application of NOR: I have seen the series used several times as the prototypical example of a series that isn't Cesaro summable but is still easy to sum by any other method. Can I combine those observations to claim that the series is an important or widespread example? Can I claim that this role is why you should care about the series? Not so much. | |||
| On to accessibility. The closest the article comes to explaining what's "really going on" is in Stability and linearity: "A generalized definition of the 'sum' of a divergent series is called a summation method or summability method, which sums some subset of all possible series. There are many different methods (some of which are described below) which are characterized by the properties that they share with ordinary summation." This is just a couple of sentences. One ''could'' explain the situation a lot better by writing a whole section, but then you'd have to duplicate that section across every article dealing with divergent series. Duplication of information is bad for lots of reasons. Oh sure, you could make sure to mention the series by name within the explanation, and then do a find-and-replace for other articles, but that's cheating. It also opens doors you don't want to open: then we can have suspiciously similar articles on every divergent series under the sun. | |||
| We avoid duplication by placing information where it belongs, in this case in the article titled ]. Perhaps the latter article doesn't explain the philosophy of divergent series very well either, but it already says a lot more than ] should. | |||
| The upshot of my explanations for 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is that we generally shouldn't add FA criteria that many articles won't be able to meet without stretching policy and damaging the encyclopedia as a whole. The current criteria encourage fundamental good practices that all articles should be able to implement without conflict. ] 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Well written -> professionally written== | |||
| I think this wording change is extremely necessary. Not only does it underscore 1a, it also helps distinguish GA 1a from FA 1a (since I got complaints for adding "'reasonably' well written" during my GA criteria revision last week). — ''']]''' 09:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have the green light? — ''']]''' 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does that mean that "professional/ly" will appear twice? Once in the intro and once in 1a? ] 09:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::True, but at least there will be emphasis. — ''']]''' 09:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"Professionally written" suggests that you must be a professional to write an FA, which is, of course, not required. I would be okay with saying that prose should be ''of a professional standard''. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>]]</b></i></font> 10:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rather than the repetition (which might irritate readers), why not remove "even brilliant"? Celithemis, many of us aspire to a professional standard of writing, in many walks of life. I think it's a reasonable epithet, given the fierce competition out there on the Internet. Can't aim for less. ] 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no problem at all with the phrase "professional standard"; it's a good expression of the standard that I think should apply to FACs. ''Professionally written'' means something different. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>]]</b></i></font> 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>]]</b></i></font>'s distinction is vital, and I would agree to that wording change, but not the other. –] ] 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So, "Well written means the prose is of a professional standard"? — ''']]''' 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: From your last comment, it seems you intend to remove "compelling" from the criteria, which did not seem to be the case when you started this discussion. Is that correct? '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well, I'm trying to suggest anything to make well written clearly mean a professional standard. Several people have commented that "compelling" should stay; another idea of how to word it? — ''']]''' 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Tony suggests just removing "even brilliant", and I'd agree with that. We can just continue to emphasize "professional" standards in FAC reviews. — ''']]''' 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That would leave "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling", which is not true. An article can be engaging without meeting the level of writing quality expected for a featured article. I would prefer "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling and of a professional standard", or something similar. 1(a) should cover both the "technical" (professional standard/brilliant) and "artistic" (compelling) aspects of good prose. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is wrong with "even brilliant"? But I rather like "engaging" rather than "compelling". | |||
| ::How about "'Well written' means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."? -- ] ] 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds good to me. ] 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd prefer it if we could cut the "brilliant" out (since exceeding the standard, as "'even' brilliant" applies, is not necessary to mention on the rubric). — ''']]''' 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agree with removing "even brilliant", would be fine with either engaging or compelling. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The "even" makes it so that "brilliant" isn't really a requirement, so I'd like to keep it. It's a nice nod to our "brilliant prose" days, and it's not hurting anything. — ] (]) 04:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Added the change; kept "brilliant" because we didn't come to an agreement to remove it. — ''']]''' 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'd remove the "brilliant" piece, it doesn't fit all that well with the rest of the sentence. ] 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't like the substitution of "compelling" with "engaging", which is weaker. I like Pagrahstak's "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling and of a professional standard". ] 01:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed criteria == | |||
| All too often, even featured articles use technical terms to excess. Obviously, the basic terms of the field should be used, however, particularly in more general articles, they ought to be briefly explained at first use. As it is, all too often we get articles that think that a wikilink absolves them of all responsibility to write layman-accessible text. Many such articles require the reading of dozens of other articles just to get through a few paragraphs, and if they wikilink to each other, the reader is screwed. | |||
| A general rule might be "All terms not in general use should be explained at first occurrance, not just wikilinked, except where a technical term is substantially more basic and better known than the subject of the article itself." ] <sup>]</sup> 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :An article like that would violate ], part of the ], and thus fail criterion 2. There's no need to add a specific criterion just for this. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm. Point. It alright if I just make that explicit, since it's a particularly common failing in science articles? (See, for example, ] or ], featured articles I put up for review for being unreadable in just that respect.) ] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Take a look at {{]}} and see how many different pages of stylistic guidelines we have. If we went down this road, criterion 2 would be excessively large. It's best to just say "It complies with the manual of style" and leave it at that. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unsure why it should be different in this respect for FAs. This issue is the same for all WP articles. ] 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Article length criteria == | |||
| Is there a maximum to article length. I tried splitting an article I was working on into subarticles and then compressed the text in the main article but was reverted to take the 89kb article to 111kb. The reverter said they reverted to try and get the article to featured-article length. I thought that it was a bit too long for FA. I would like confirmation. ] 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This hasn't been officially set but it keeps coming up and needs discussing. The focus criterion (4) is meant to handle this. ] 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We also need a minimum. Something isn't right about 15 KB articles becoming featured. — ''']]''' 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. The slender ones make me feel very awkward when they pass. They rarely do justice to the requirement that FAs are "among WP's best work". But who's got a good idea as to how to frame such a guideline? ] 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps 15-60 KB of prose? — ''']]''' 11:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes! Something needs to be done. ] is outlandish. Deckiller, are you speaking of prose or readable prose? We can't measure by only prose size, because that counts references, so well-referenced articles are hit. 60KB of readable prose is too high; ] has long said that reader attention tops out around 50KB of readable prose. I'd recommend a range of <s>10</s> 15–50KB of readable prose (calculated easiy with Dr pda's page size script). As to how to frame it, I believe that somewhere way back in this page history, it used to be suggested that GA was appropriate for the shorter articles. ] (]) 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Readable prose, obviously :) — ''']]''' 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I really hesitate to put down a specific number. Like all other featured criteria, any requirements should be qualitative and flexible to accommodate that truly outstanding 14.5KB article. It seems to me that 1(b) (comprehensive) is a fairly good minimum already. If there is a very short article that still meets 1(b), it might be an indication that the article should be merged with another. At that point, I believe one could object under criterion 4 (unnecessary detail). If neither of these quite fit, one could object that the article does not comply with ] and thus fails 2 (Manual of Style). '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pagrashtak, this discussion arises precisely because that has failed in the past, because there was no specific guideline. We've had articles with 85KB of readable prose (!!!!!!) pass FAC (and above, you've got an example of one with 500 words — a fifth-graders term paper), without using Summary Style, and over Objections. Many of us have long discussed the need to review and consider formalizing the length issue. Of course, a guideline is still a guideline, and a truly exceptional short article could still pass based on IAR. ] (]) 12:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pagrashtak, relying on "comprehensive" is clearly not working. At the moment, it's theoretically possible to break up an excellent article into its components to score a number FAs instead of just one. FAs need to be substantial, I think, to be showcases of WP's best work. There might be exceptions, so we need to think carefully of what they might be, and frame a new criterion around this. Something like "Nominations that are at the extremes of this recommended range, or that fall outside it, must demonstrate ...." ] 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) PS To keep this debate rolling, does anyone have examples of FAs that are outside the range and that are (1) acceptable, and (2) unacceptable? ] 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just so I understand, is the current situation not working because reviewers are not objecting when they should be due to lack of an explicit criterion to make the requirement obvious? '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Different situations for long and short. On short, we can't object because we have no guideline that allows objection based on too short — the only criteria is comprehensive, and short articles can be comprehensive. On too long, many of us do object, and are shouted down or overridden. And, yes, often no one is checking. On too long, we can ask for better use of ] or conforming to ], but recently have been ignored. The question is whether we need to formalize either too long or too short, or both. ] (]) 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand; I'm inclined to believe an additional criterion could be useful, then. I still recommend that numerical restrictions should be avoided, however. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Or, very carefully worded to allow for exceptions. What do you think of Tony's first suggestion? ] (]) 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Right now, I'm still opposed to using numbers to define this. We require articles to have references, complemented by inline citations. I think it's pretty safe to say that a FAC with only four inline citations would almost certainly not pass, but we still wouldn't want a "no fewer than five citations" requirement. That's not the best example, but I hope it illustrates my concept. None of our criteria are hammered down to a purely objective statement, and I want to keep them that way. Thought should have to be exercised at every step, even though that seems to be an increasingly rare resource (the commenters here an obvious exception, of course). '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would oppose any such criterion for a minimum length (indeed, any criterion designed simply to exclude otherwise flawless articles). It's unfortunate, Tony, that you believe short articles do not display Misplaced Pages's best work, but it is not at all clear why that is true. My opposition would be tempered if you promise never again to oppose an article for redundant prose or other excess verbiage: if this criterion is added, there will indeed be a good reason for padding the word count at the expense of readability. ] ] 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Here's a list for perusal and discussion=== | |||
| To my knowledge, these are the only ultra-long FAs. Six out of 1382 = .4 % — I can't find the most recent list of ultra-long articles, but this is all that showed up last time I perused it. | |||
| *] — 95KB overall, 63KB prose, 10KB refs | |||
| *] — 106 overall, 78 prose, 2 refs | |||
| *] 121 overall, 74 prose, 20 refs | |||
| *] — 107 overall, 81 prose, 11 refs | |||
| *] — 119 overall, 60 prose, 24 refs | |||
| *] — 112 overall, 63 prose, 20 refs | |||
| ] (]) 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Several could clearly make better use of Summary Style (e.g.; at least Schizophrenia, Byzantime Empire). Also note Dr pda doesn't pick up listy prose, so Sound film had to be calculated manually. ] (]) 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think B-Movie is a good threshold; anything longer is excessive. — ''']]''' 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think we can generalize based on ], because ] is shorter than B movie but VERY definitely not making appropriate use of Summary style. IMO, 50KB should trigger serious review. If we set the threshhold at the precedent established by B movie (wrongly, IMO, but everyone knows how I feel about that :-) we're going to have nothing to enforce. ] (]) 13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, if your concern is B movie, Tony's proposed wording works, since it ''theoretically'' (even if I disagree :-) "demonstrated" something about its size by passing FAR. ] (]) 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As a side note, ] as originally envisioned by WorldTraveller was meant to recognize short articles of excellent quality that didn't have enough meat for FA. After a lengthy discussion between he and I, he actually created ] (note his first edit summary) with a cut-and-paste from GA. Alas, it's received 9 edits in a year. It could be revived to accomodate the low end of this debate (e.g., the coin article). ] 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::By whatever means, we need to get back to something that recognizes that a 500-word term paper shouldn't be an FA. I know we want *more* FAs, but that's not the way to highlight Wiki's best work. Heck, I wrote ] in a couple of hours when a disastrous, incomplete, and inaccurate version came through LoCE; it's 17KB prose (2600 words), probably the best info on the net now on the topic, says everything there is to say on the topic, and I'd never consider it remotely FA-eligible. ] (]) 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Based on my own example, I switched my recommendation above to a lower limit of 15KB. Does anyone have examples of the shortest FAs ? ] (]) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Found this list in archives — will come back and add Dr pda data: | |||
| * ] — 7KB prose (1279 words) | |||
| *] — 10KB prose (1763 words) | |||
| *'']'' — 7KB prose (1135 words) | |||
| *] — 5KB prose (792 words) | |||
| ] (]) 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ouch. Diary of a Camper's plot section is way too short. It should be at least 3-4 paragraphs. — ''']]''' 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, never mind; it's a 100 second film clip... — ''']]''' 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Looking at this list above, I'm back to thinking 10KB prose should be a lower limit, because the Frog article is worthy. With all due respect to Titoxd and the Hurricane, Wiki isn't short on hurricane FAs. Austin Nichols and the Camper article don't convince me. Guess I should polish up Intrusive thoughts and sumbit it. ] (]) 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :But wait. Before having a lower cut-off, we need to decide on a way to recognize these articles other than a regular FAC. We want to encourage polished post-stubs just like polished long articles. ]. I suggested it to Raul a year ago and still think it's a good idea. ] 17:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thoughts ?? GimmeBot, {{t1|ArticleHistory}}, and a whole 'nother category to track. Gimmetrow will have ideas. ] (]) 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In practice, I suspect it'll just mean that editors will try to fluff up their articles with extra text so that they pass over the cutoff to get into the "real" featured articles. While absurdly short articles may be unsuited as FAs for various reasons, we shouldn't start penalizing tightly written prose because of that. ] 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Out of curiosity, ] is an article with a mere 13KB of prose; do people feel it's insufficiently long? ] 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not if it is comprehensive. I don't see we have a need for a lower cut-off. No, a 500-word essay that you knocked off in an hour isn't likely to be FA-worthy, but, in my mind, a short article that collects every scrap of data that there is on a subject and combines it into an interesting read is more FA worthy than 50K on a "straightforward" subject regurgitated, with a hint of rewording, from a mass of freely available sources. Getting the scraps for a 2K article can mean a lot of work (for example, I'm finding it much harder to build comprehensive articles for three short subjects I'm working on now than for the four longer FAs I turned out last quarter) I expect we'd get a lot more people reading some FAs if there were a decent amount of short articles in the mix. I might look at ] if I had five minutes to spare rather than read five minutes worth of some 80K behemoth. If an article meets the criteria then it should be considered, and criteria 1.b and 4 cover very short articles in the same way they cover long articles. (On a side note, I think I'd personally stop participating in the FA process if there was a lower limit, we simply don't need 50K on everything and I don't look forward to the padding of what would otherwise be examples of "our very best work" to push them over an arbitrary limit). ]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yomangani has summed up how I feel rather well, and I second his opinion. If short articles are comprehensive in that they collect all the available info on the given topic, then I feel criterion 1. b. is satisfied. ] 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thirded. ] is quite an extreme case, but I suspect that there really is nothing more to say (although, having seen it, I wonder if an article like ] would pass...) -- ] ] 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've objected to the ] nom on the grounds of comprehensiveness (amongst other things). In practice there aren't many subjects that can be covered well in a very short article, but that doesn't mean there aren't any (and the coin can probably cover everything in 6K of prose rather than 3K). ]] 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sounds like that's that :-) But ya'll didn't say how you feel about including an upper limit in the criteria. ] (]) 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think we should impose size limits, in part because it creates yet another hurdle for people to negotiate (and there's a strong sense out there that the FA process has become too hurdles-esque), and in part because articles should be as long as they need to be, which is a matter of editorial judgment. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I invite perusal of these ] to see if there are articles that should have had these "hurdles" lowered so they could be considered among Wiki's finest work. I can't see why these alleged "hurdles" are a bad thing, considering some of the quality that is now coming through FAC due to the backlog at GAC and PR. On the other hand, it's easy to point out articles that have passed FAC that should have had some "hurdles" put up by more consistent reviews, reviewers, and application of standards. ] (]) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good writing and researching shouldn't be about ticking a check list, and offering a list of FACs doesn't help, because it doesn't include the articles people haven't nominated because of the hurdles perception. I have two myself that I would otherwise have nominated by now, but the thought of being scolded for not using citation templates (or whatever hurdles would be focused on) makes me weary, so I haven't. High standards are good, so long as they're not petty. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think I read almost every FAC, and if any reviewer (incorrectly) requests cite templates (which rarely happens), they are quickly reminded they aren't required (and that many of us don't like them). Now, when editors are using them — and using them incorrectly — or when sources aren't formatted at all by any method, that's another story. Further, there is a checklist for FACs: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and so on. Someone has to check it. ] (]) 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I had the template thing happen to me, which is why I mentioned it, but there are other examples. ] lately had some objection or opposing comment based on MoS stuff. I forget the details, but it was something that had nothing to do with the quality of the piece. Anyway, the point is it would be good not to add anything else. Perhaps you could say "X is likely to be too short, and when you start heading toward Y, you better be sure that the content is all relevant," but without introducing actual limits. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: But the template thing is ''clearly'' not valid, and Raul can ignore it. If we impose some limits, I agree the wording should be as you mention (and as Tony suggested); that is not hard and fast, but at least some mention that size matters (ahem). ] (]) 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The MoS enforcement is probably justified under the current featured article criteria. I do think that it is pursued here with a vigilance that ignores the reality of the MoS, which is that 99% of editors ignore 99% of its advice 99% of the time. "Fixing" these issues, I find, tends not to improve the article in any discernible way, but at the same time it takes so little effort that you might as well do it. ] ] 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And if you don't do it, along come ten more FACs that say, "well so-and-so didn't, so I don't have to." ] (2) is not less of a criterion than any other, and FAs set an example for other editors. If FAs don't get the MOS right, why should we even have an MOS ? ] (]) 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Good question. The MoS is widely ignored because it's edited by too many people and is unstable, so no one can be expected to know what's in it, and often what's there is wrong or idiosyncratic or impossible to understand. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Perhaps the problem is that we consider the MoS as a block, when in reality it is a mixture: some important standards that have been produced with a great deal of input, and some not-so-important standards that are the product of a handful of editors who worked in peace mostly because nobody else cared. Distinguishing between the two is basically impossible without delving into the talk pages and histories. ] ] 06:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've not seen this phenomenon; do you have an example? The MOS problems I most often see at FAC are standard and stable MOS items, AFAIK. ] (]) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only problem I see with not having a fixed upper limit is it opens up the opportunity for claims along the lines of "the criteria don't explicitly forbid it, therefore objecting on size it isn't a valid objection, so unless you have another objection I demand my 800K of prose is passed". I don't think any of the super long articles got through without a hard time in that area though, did they? ]] 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Only two (from the list of six above) were challenged at FAC: ], and ] (both by you-know-who :-) Others grew after FAC. ] (]) 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the problem is less "hurdles" in general and more hurdles of the sort that are arbitrary rather than thoughtful. In my view, requiring articles to be comprehensive and to abide by ] keeps them to an appropriate length without imposing one-size-fits-all numerical standards on a very diverse collection of articles. Certainly at the low end, to say that an article is comprehensive but at the same time needs more content makes little sense. ] ] 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Viewing it as a problem affecting less than half of one percent of FAs, maybe it doesn't make sense to impose another "hurdle" on a problem that isn't widespread. On the other hand, in the arguments and this editor claims that it's OK to riddle an article with extremely excessive inline citations (had as many as six per clause, now down to three or four) simply because there's no "rule" ("hurdle") which says he can't. We get exactly the same argument on article size. Of course, if more reviewers were actually "checking the list" (reviewing the criteria other than 1a), maybe less of these issues would be slipping through. ] (]) 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well, the old 32k rule-of-thumb limit always seemed to me to produce articles of a nice, readable size, but it does often require a quart to be squeezed into a pint pot. Anything more than, say, twice as long as that is getting too long, IMHO, and probably ought to be broken down into daughter articles. The ] / ] / ] series shows how it can be done. But I don't think we need a hard-and-fast limit. -- ] ] 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A good usage of Summary Style to break up a long article. Back to Tony's suggestion, "Nominations that are at the extremes of this recommended range, or that fall outside it, must demonstrate ...." ... How's this ? | |||
| 4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Nominations that fall outside the ] are discouraged and must demonstrate appropriate usage of ]. | |||
| ] (]) 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is for only those at the big end of the spectrum, not for the aluminium cent ones? I presume that the current wording of Criterion 4 is not strong enough to allow objections on the basis that summary style is not used in parts or the whole of the nomination. (It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).) Perhaps reviewers haven't used this Criterion explicitly for this purpose. I'm wondering how nominators will "demonstrate appropriate usage of summary style" when challenged; they'll just say "It's all in summary style—go away", won't they? The onus will still be on us to say where and why it's ''not'' in summary style. So I'm unsure that the new version would change anything in practice. ] 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, seems like consensus is that the shorter ones are OK (if compehensive); can you suggest any wording that would discourage 70KB of prose? ] (]) 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I've looked at ], which is all too vague. No matter how I try, I can't find a way of changing the criterion in a way that is practicable and acceptable to all. I don't see why citing Criterion 4 and the following armory of statements at ] isn't enough to force the issue: | |||
| *"information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article" | |||
| *"generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover its topic and that the extra reading time is justified". | |||
| *"The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." | |||
| *"Articles larger than 30 KB (those that trigger page size warning) may be getting too long to efficiently cover their topic. This likelihood increases with larger size and it is very rare for an article 50% larger than this to still efficiently cover its topic." | |||
| *"Misplaced Pages articles should heed these guidelines". | |||
| It's up to individual FA reviewers and their colleagues to form an opinion of where the limit lies beyond which they start to object; that might be better than cementing it in black-letter law (which might upset the 30/45 KB guideliners). ] 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === section break === | |||
| I didn't know I would trigger such a long discussion...:)...I've been working on ], where I summarized the 111kb article to 89kb by creating articles ] and ] while just keeping a summarized version on the actual page. I was reverted and ] explained that he did not support me because I supposedly "deleted huge sections of information that despite what he said, did not restore anywhere else" and said the he is "trying to improve it by extended it and giving the historical background leading up to the war, to make it a feature-length article". Which made me think whether there should be a limit to feature-length articles, particularly because the article hardly has any pictures and still takes time to load (depending on your browser speed). I believe the maximum for an article should be 70kb because we could allow them to go over the 64kb mark slightly. The minimum should be 15kb, some topics are simply not worthy to make it to the main page because there is not much information related to their topics. Those are my view's and could someone clarify to Yuje on ] because he seems to be of the view that I am deleting all this information without restoring them anywhere else. For example, he says "He editted the article in a completely POVed manner, editting out selectively, and he deleted huge sections of information that despite what he said, did not restore anywhere else". ] 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Traing, it's helpful in discussions of ] to specify overall size, or readable prose. Also, you don't indicate if you used ] to move the content to daughter articles. ] (]) 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Accepted reference styles == | |||
| This matter was brought up in the recent (and successful) ] of ]. This article, as I originally sourced it, used ], ''not'' the more typical ref/note method. I believed that this, while not the standard, would be acceptable in an FAC because of the endorsement of this method on various pages, including the "guideline" ]. According to this page, the three accepted methods of citing sources are: Embedded HTML links, Harvard referencing ''and'' Footnotes. In my experience, however, only the last is truly acceptable for a modern FA: during the Conatus's FAC, there was overwhelming support for a conversion to Footnotes style. I say that if FAs must realistically use Footnotes, the list of criteria should specify that; or if Harvard style is decidedly OK, ''that'' should be said directly. WP:CITE may be a good guideline (I don't know if it is) for most articles, but it is ''not'' a good guideline for FAs right now. -- ] 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Harvard is entirely acceptable. If an article employs Harvard style properly, objections on the basis of reference style are invalid. It is unfortunate that people are not aware these objections are invalid, and therefore sometimes do unnecessary work. Of course, whatever style you use should be implemented in an appropriate manner. I can't answer for whether this article used Harvard correctly when it was first nominated. ] ] 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately not everyone thinks so... if we find here that it is... we should say this explicitly in the FACR. -- ] 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't believe embedded links are considered acceptable by any FAC regulars who care about reference style. It should be removed from our guidelines, if you ask me. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::FAC criteria already state that cite.php is preferred when footnotes are used. Embedded links are fine for other articles. ] (]) 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yea, well embedded links aren't fine for FACs, as Pagrashtak says. This should be said explicitly. -- ] 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In my view if someone wants to use embedded links properly then that would be fine. The personal views of reviewers here shouldn't trump the community guideline. Embedded links are rather tedious to use properly, however, and are doubly annoying if you intend to use print sources. ] ] 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :ArticleHistory coughs up which is hard to plough through with all those inlines. By the way, that article can't decide if hyphens or endashes are used on date ranges, and if endashes are or aren't surrounded by spaces. That kind of sloppiness shouldn't get through FAC. A read of ] might help. ] (]) 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was the argument: Harvard style is annoying. I'll fix the issues with the dashes. -- ] 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FAC and FAR/C urgents boxes == | |||
| {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} | |||
| {{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}} | |||
| Will reviewers kindly note that these boxes are regularly updated for problematic nominations and for those that are hanging around for too long with too few comments. Transcluding them on your user page and/or at the top of your talk page would be a great way to generate more interest in these processes, especially by reviewers who manage to visit only occasionally. | |||
| All you do is to key in <nowiki>{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} and {{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}}</nowiki>. ] 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New version of Featured Sound Criteria == | |||
| I've proposed ] of ] to be implemented after a week or so of debate, if consensus can be achieved. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. ] 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Focus / Proportion == | |||
| In my opnion, Featured Articles should be structured with section sizes being appropriate to that which would actually interest readers. This may not make sense, so here's a hypothetical example: | |||
| Stairway to Heaven is an FAC. It meets all of the criteria, and is lengthy and well-structured. It includes information about the backwards lyrics. However, the largest sections are: | |||
| * Recording: Explains, in detail, all of the instruments, tracks, and recording equipment used in making the song. | |||
| * Exclusion from Guitar Hero: Provides rationale and reactions to the fact that the song is not included in either of the Guitar Hero games. | |||
| * Concert Variations: Lists venues at which the song was played and any differences between those performances and the recorded version. | |||
| That would certainly be a comprehensive article. However, if the volume of non-notable and uninteresting material vastly outweighs the pertinent information, I would say the article is too ''unfocused'' or ''misproportioned'' to be an FA. | |||
| The problem with having ''focus'' as in the FA criteria is that it is subjective. An editor who really doesn't want an article to pass FAC could easily say "This article doesn't stay focused on the pertinent information." The easiest way to apply this objectively would be to ask "What would the average reader want to know about this topic?" Whatever the answer to that is should be the focus of the article. | |||
| This wouldn't necessarily have to be its own criterion, nor would it have to be strictly enforced. It could fall under ''well-written'' and would really only be actionable in extreme cases. --'''] ] · ]''' 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Layout == | |||
| Two editors are editing ] to state that Wiki "sister" links should be added to the lead rather than the See also or External links at the end of the article. I believe this will clutter the lead, resulting in ugly articles, and external content (even interwiki) belongs at the end. Other opinions ? ] (]) 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just realized it's actually three editors, who have strikingly similar prose and syntax. ] (]) 15:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sometimes, sure -- the link at top right of ] isn't particularly ugly and makes a lot of sense -- but generally no. ] ] 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not crazy about that one either :-) Can you imagine if all the WikiSister links were added at the top of articles? Yuk. It's bad precedent. ] (]) 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Discussion taken to ]. ] ] 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Phase out Harvard style == | |||
| I think the discussion above finished prematurely... May I re-word the criteria to recommend only footnotes for the sake of standardization and readability? -- ] 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No: some of our established FAs use it and they can't be frozen out of the criteria; it's acceptable academically and it isn't our business to reject it; some people genuinely hate footnotes. ] 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If articles are going to be "opposed" because they use use Harvard style, it should not be recommended. -- ] 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Any such opposition is invalid, as stated above. We can hardly stop people from opposing on that basis (it is a wiki) but we ignore them when they do. ] ] 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are Misplaced Pages's policies suddenly ''prescriptive''? ]'s recenct FAC garnered no actual "'''oppose'''"s because of its initial Harvard style; but the fact that the consensus was that it was inferior to footnotes brought about its reformatting. I wish that something would be done to prevent this from occurring (again) to a user who has read the guidelines. The criterium in question may waste many more hours of time in the future if it is not made more specific and ''descriptive''. -- ] 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The criteria already point to ] for formatting guidance, and that page makes it very clear that Harvard style is acceptable. I'm not sure what more can be done in this regard. ] ] 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think that it would be best to use a single consistent style of referencing, and the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> ones are certainly the most convenient for the reader. ] 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"certainly the most convenient" - by what measures? I am aware of a substantial number of people who prefer to use and read citations in the Harvard style. -- ] ] 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good luck enforcing that consistency across the nearly 2 million en articles. There is a very good reason the guidelines allow inconsistency. We will not be changing that. ] 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good thing I was talking about the 1431 ]. ] 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have an MA in Econ. and am working on a PhD in Linguistics... and to the best of my recollection, all I've ever seen is Harvard... it's what the social sciences tend to use.. I think the Anthro. folks use the same... that's a whole lotta journals & a whole lotta Misplaced Pages editors... so... ] 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Image criteria == | |||
| Hello. I've noticed that several featured articles use non-animated images stored in the ] format. This is not recommended because images like these are often better represented in the ] format. The PNG format is completely lossless, often compresses better, and supports full alpha-channel transparency. The templates {{tl|BadGIF}} and {{tl|ShouldBePNG}} exist to help us identify and resolve this problem by doing a fairly simple conversion from GIF to PNG. The ] can do this conversion with little human intervention. | |||
| Would it be OK if another criteria was added, requiring that GIF images be converted to PNG unless there is a good reason not to? —] <sup>(])</sup> 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a triviality. I do not see it as necessary. ] 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, we may be able to save a significant amount of bandwidth that way because of all the times features articles are viewed. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Both gif and png use fairly good compression algorithms. The size difference between a thumbnailed gif and png is trivial. ] 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If this can easily be done with a semi-automated bot why not just run through the new featured articles at the end of the month (there are only about 60)? ] ] 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Technical content == | |||
| How about setting up some technical content FA process? A lot of technical content can't be boiled down to the same level as a Celebrity biography, or an article about the flag of Peru, and that appears to be a criteria imposed by reviewers for getting technical articles through the FA process. Just wondering... ] 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I feel your pain, but the current FA criteria do not in principle disallow technical articles. However, no one can stop commenters from broad "this is too technical" objections, and I hope those objections are given no more weight than any other unsubstantiated comment. What a sad encyclopedia this would be if a dense subject could not become an FA, while Pokemon can. The key is to give every reader a basic overview of the subject in the lead of the article. As long as you've done that, consider the objections nullified—no pun intended. My suggestion for your ] would be to provide more of an overview of the article in the lead. Take a look at the recently passed ] for your inspiration and precedent. For most of us readers, its lead is our only hope. –] ] 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We just narrowed down the intro and put a lot of the content in the new History subsection :) LOL. I'll definitely check out the ] article, and see what we can apply from there to the ] article. While the FA criteria might not explicitly disallow technical articles, a quick run-through of the current crop of FA articles shows that biographies and national flag articles have a much greater chance of achieving FA status. And after the initial comments on the FA review for ], it seems that the reason might be that (as one reviewer stated) technical articles need to be "dumbed-down" to make the cut. I think that's a pretty sad commentary about the articles used to "represent the best content on Misplaced Pages," or at least about the process for selecting them. ] 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think that looking through the current crop tells you a lot about the chances of different articles; it says more about the interests of the projects and individuals who are particularly geared up to produce numerous FAs. e.g. the hurricanes project and whatever group is bringing all the Final Fantasy games to featured status. Can you point to any technical articles that you feel were unreasonably failed? ] ] 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Now that you mention it, how about the ] article?? Here's a quick rundown: | |||
| ::::*Article is reviewed, changes are made as necessary, and it is promoted to GA status | |||
| ::::*Article is nominated for FA status | |||
| ::::*Most of reviewers' objections are fixed immediately | |||
| ::::*Questions concerning clarification of some objections, and how to best fix them, are posed to reviewers | |||
| ::::*Other reviewers post information that contradicts some of the reviewers' objections, including the dumbing-down comment | |||
| ::::*Reviewers who objected fail to answer any questions or post any further information | |||
| ::::*Article is promoted to FA status | |||
| ::::*Article is immediately recommended to FAR | |||
| ::::*Bureaucrats who recommended article to FAR, and who support it are asked to provide information concerning what needs to be fixed in the article. Multiple times. | |||
| ::::*One person responds, and his few recommendations are implemented immediately | |||
| ::::*Others respond by saying they are not using FAR to judge the article by its '''content''', but rather to enforce a '''technicality''' | |||
| ::::*No further guidance is provided, presumably because none of the reviewers in the "Featured Article Review" actually "reviewed" the article | |||
| ::::*The article is slated to be moved to FAC-Failed | |||
| ::::*Contributor on article decides it's not worth dealing with the bureaucratic nightmare and cuts down on his contributions considerably | |||
| ::::How about an article that's promoted to FA status, and subsequently demoted with no "due process"? No objections noted, no existing objections reaffirmed, no suggestions on what needs to be fixed, no answers to requests for this information, no ''reviewers'' actually even ''reading'' the article. One would think that actually ''reading'' an article would be important during a so-called ''review'', but as was voiced by the lead ] during this article's "]", all those FAckers weren't interested in the actual article or its content. Does that meet the criteria for '''reasonableness'''? For all these FAckers know, the article may be up to FA standards; or it might require some minor tweaks to get it there. These FAckers will never know since the entire review was a FARce. 'Nuff said. ''']''' ] 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I don't see us changing the FA process to accomodate technical articles; however, if someone would like to come up with criteria that apply specifically to technical articles, I'm all ears. ] 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be nice to see a higher ratio of technical content to "State Flag" and "Celebrity Bio" articles identified as "the best content on Misplaced Pages". Many writers of technical subject matter around here have expressed the opinion that technical material will never reach FA status, so "why even try?" I'm a new member of that camp myself. Considering the vague objections accepted from reviewers (e.g., it won't make FA status if it's not "dumbed down"), it's no wonder technical writers and subject-matter experts are more than willing to tweak their articles up to GA status and stop. And the bureaucratic nightmares that can pop up on a whim? As they say in Jersey, Fuhgettaboutit. ] 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Transcludability== | |||
| If it helps, this page is ] as <nowiki>{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria}}</nowiki>; if not, revert my changes :) ]<sup>]</sup> § 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, I see that the intro paragraph has also been added; that's fine, although I see many more references to the bulleted points than to the introduction (and the point of transclusion is functionality). ]<sup>]</sup> § 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Necessity of an FAC to have images == | |||
| Hi all, at the moment we have a rather subjective criterion (3) in determining whether or not images are a prerequisite. After ] at ] I felt that images would be (a) pretty easy to get and (b) essential for facilitating engagement, I thus decided not to continue reviewing until images were added, which they were. | |||
| Now the criterion states: ''It has images where they are appropriate to the subject,...'' | |||
| I could imagine some obscure theoretical idea maybe not require images but I would have thought just about everything else would need them to make "Misplaced Pages's best work". Have there been FAs in recent times with no images? cheers, ] | ] | ] 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think ] is a good example of such an "obscure technical idea", and how it ''can'' include images, however indirect the connection. But I do think that ] could/should have passed had it not those images... because they're not necessary... -- ] 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposing new critera for images== | |||
| *It must include a link to the relevant ] (perhaps ''relevant ]'') page(s) where appropriate. (Not all extant sister page projects may be suitable, e.g. a patchy, poorly written Wikibook or similar). | |||
| *All free images and media must be uploaded to Commons, not Misplaced Pages. | |||
| We have far too many people ignoring the message to upload free images there, not here. We also have far too few articles linking to commons when there is a valid page to link to. Creating this as a standard for FAs should signal to all articles that this is how things should be done. It will improve Misplaced Pages articles by providing a link to more images and other media, it will allow editors to browse other possible images to improve the article as they become available (or are moved into the category), will provide better awareness and closer relations with Commons, and it will improve commons in similar fashion, as editors may improve the commons categories/pages, upload images there for use on other projects, and see better utilization of Commons resources. | |||
| These are the best of our articles and I think they should demonstrate proper use of this important sister project. ] 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As for the first, there is already enough on sister projects at ], which is part of the manual of style, and thus already included in the second criterion. So no need for that. As to the second issue, I don't think this is important enough, or sufficiently related to the quality of the article, to warrant inclusion. BTW, if you want better relations with Commons then pester the devs to implement the single login. Until then, for basically all English Misplaced Pages contributors, there are zero visible benefits of adding to Commons and significant inconveniences. ] ] 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I for one would object strongly to the second portion of the proposed addition. I'm an admin on ], and we've had significant problems with Commons deleting images for no reason. There's no need to do that either. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then I guess the ] shall continue... Hopefully they get the single login worked out pretty soon. ] 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sections within FAC pages == | |||
| ''Moved to ]'' | |||
| == Printable version of a FA == | |||
| Some FA articles (] for example) have scrollable content (References, in ]'s case) that make the printable version incomplete. In the case of ] it is especially noticeable in that only a few of the many many references are in the printable version of the article. Is there any guideline about having a complete printable version in the criteria for a FA? - ] 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hrm... that's a *very* interesting point... ] 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ]. What we write is designed to be read on screen as part of a hyperlinked set of webpages. Formatting should be designed to aid our huge web readership, not the tiny minority of people who choose to print out web-pages. ] 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're completely misusing that. If someone wants to be able to print out an article (I can see the article on evolution being very useful to pass out to a high school biology class, for example), the entire article should be there. I've ] replaced it with <nowiki>{{reflist|3}}</nowiki>; however silly me forgot to write an edit summary, so it may be reverted by someone who prefers it how it was and isn't aware of this discussion. ] 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Isn't this a problem that should have a technical solution; i.e. that the scroll box should be automatically expanded in the 'printable version'?--] 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :File a feature request - http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ ] 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, it's filed as if anyone cares to look at it or comment there. Also, I'm not really technically inclined so it might be helpful to check that I described it properly.--] 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The devs think this could be better handled in the common.css. I've ] requesting someone implement it there. ] 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is there any markup that allows conditional expansion depending on whether or not the current rendering is the printable version of an article? I imagine it would be some sort of If-Then-Else construction. It would be useful for alternative images to the animated ones, for example, as well as for using the simpler rendering of the References list for the printable version. - ] 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The more I think of it, the more I think that use of such conditional expansion would be too easy to abuse, so "Nevermind!" . - ] 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This desire to print a web-page, although interesting, is not something Misplaced Pages is designed to achieve. Please read , which addresses this point directly. We are not writing a book. We are writing a web- or CD-based set of hyperlinked web pages. ] 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough, but it's still highly desirable that we be able to produce decent printable versions. We are not all living in the paperless world yet, and we probably won't be for several decades (especially in certain contexts and parts of the globe).--] 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To address Bevo's original point - I've thought about it some more. There are clearly some things that do not translate into paper - movie and music files linked from articles; animated gifs, etc. So really, the camel is already inside the tent. With that acknowledged, however, I'd prefer that, for something like ], that we not go out of our way to make articles that do not print correctly. ] 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This has strayed from what I asked originally. That was, the impact, if any, of an incomplete printable version on the suitability of an article to be a FA. I intend to start a discussion elsewhere that will be more generally on the subject of the situation where it is not possible to produce a complete printable version of an article. Maybe that general discussion needs to play out before any overlap with FA suitability is determined. - ] 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What about a sub-page with the full set of references listed in plain text? That would allow them to be printed in full but retain the space advantage for the majority of readers who don't wish to kill trees. ] 04:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That certainly sounds reasonable. I'm trying to figure out where to initiate the general discussion of ideas like that. - ] 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not possible to my knowledge with the style of referencing Evolution uses. The references themselves are in the body of the article and won't be included on a seperate page, unless there's some transclusion method. ] 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is a simple stylesheet issue. If you are going to use scrolling sections, then the stylesheet needs to be set up so that scrolling happens only on screen media. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>]]</b></i></font> 05:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :An alternative is that if people are using this to give to children, we could put in a link to a print-formatted version that was guaranteed to be free of vandalism. Solves two problems at once. ] 15:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Bevo, on your original question, there are other problems in the printable version, and I've been "had" by it several times. I like to print out long FACs to read and review when I travel. The seealso and other templates at the tops of sections don't reproduce on the printable versions, so once I stopped reviewing an article and commented that it wasn't comprehensive, not noticing that Summary sytle had been used, as it didn't show on the printable version. There is also a problem with math formulas on the printable version, but I can't remember what the problem was. I've not raised these issues before as I wasn't sure where they might be addressed, but do wish someone knowledgeable would help fix them. ] (]) 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Like Raul654 and Celithemis mentioned above, the printable references issue is a basic stylesheet one. I've proposed a CSS-based solution over at ]. --] (]) 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There also seems to be a problem with a feature of inline links in the text taking you to the highlighted item in some browsers, but not in the version of Apple's Safari that Orangemarlin and myself are using, where the link just takes you to the top of the cites list without scrolling down to the highlighted item. .. ], ] | |||
| ::One more problem: Sometimes text will run into right-aligned images, making it impossible to read (or make out the image). When I copy edit, I prefer paper to digital, so this really gets on my nerves. — ] (]) 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm also not a fan of this new fad and actually nominated the template for deletion. Consensus appears to be against the template so far. See ]. ] 05:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| These are popping up everywhere: {{tl|scroll box}} says not to use it in mainspace, and references ]. These boxes not only lose references on the printable version; I believe they also result in a loss of references on mirrors, of which there are many for FAs. ] (]) 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Too many images? == | |||
| Is it possible for an article to have too many images? We are currently expanding ] and a problem is arising in trying to ensure that the layout doesn't have so many images that it crowds out the text. Is there any guideline about this? All the images are relevant one way or the other, and there is no agreement on what can be cut. A WikiFairy has suggested making cuts, but is getting resistance. Can any of you take a look and weigh in on the talk page regarding this? ] 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, it is possible for an article to have too many images, and yes, that article is a perfect example of one. ] 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've seen excess images in articles appear in an "Gallery of ___ images" article linked in the ==See also== section and populated with the gallery markup framing of the set of images. See ] and ] as one example. - ] 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Y'know, I've always thought this was for Commons, not Misplaced Pages... ] 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that would be a better way to do it. See ] and its link to <nowiki>{{Commons|Bryce Canyon National Park|Bryce Canyon National Park}}</nowiki> - ] 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == cites etc. == | |||
| * Does "where appropriate" mean that anti-cite folks have the right to ''remove'' cites they feel (subjectively) are "inappropriate"? | |||
| * Did you mention ]? I just scanned quickly, am kinda busy. | |||
| * Thanks ] 21:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Time for FA to change culture vis-a-vis fair use images == | |||
| Today, I removed 20 fair use images from ] . No, this is not a featured article. However, in trying to further support as to why this was done, I came here to WP:FA to review articles on other musicians, to give examples of how an article ''should'' be using fair use images (if at all). I was rather shocked and dismayed to find a wide number of FAs having decorative use of fair use images. I'll take ] as an example. This article, which attained featured status in April of 2006 and was reviewed to that status on May 1 of this year (form as of that date: ), had and has six fair use images on it. In the ] for featured status, fair use was raised but only with regards to the audio clips. With regards to the images; | |||
| *The very first image ], is a clear candidate for replaceable fair use. This image is a fair use promotional photograph, and is clearly replaceable with a free license version. There's also no fair use rationale for the image's use on this article. | |||
| *The second image, ], has a fair use rationale but not specific to the article, just a generic fair use rationale. Further, the image is not discussed in any respect, but used solely for depiction/identification purposes. | |||
| *The third image, ], has the same fair use rationale problem as ]. It too is not discussed in the article in any way, and is for depiction/identification purposes. | |||
| *The fourth image, ], has no fair use rationale for this article either. The article barely discussed this single cover, noting that it's influenced by The Beatles album ], though this discussion occurs as a caption to the image, not discussed in line with the article, and similar discussion of the influence on the cover occurs on the article for the single, at ], making the fair use here redundant and unnecessary. | |||
| *The fifth image, ] also has no fair use rationale for this article. It too is used for identification purposes only, and this album cover's use here is little different than in a discography, where such covers are being removed all over the project. | |||
| *The sixth image, ], again lacks a fair use rationale for this article. However, in this one and only case the album cover is being used in a way that satisfies our fair use requirements in that it is used to discuss Genesis' unique approach to album cover artwork, and the same significance is not discussed in the album's article. | |||
| This case example is just one case. I could go on for a while here, as I've seen a number of featured articles for which fair use review was done very poorly or not at all. Especially in light of the Foundation's recent resolution on the use of copyrighted works (see ]), the culture here with regards to the support of the use of fair use images, if only by silence in not taking a stronger stance towards review of the use of such images, needs to change to be more in line with the ] of Wikimedia and Misplaced Pages. | |||
| There's a number of us who are fighting fair use over use tooth and nail across a wide variety of articles. See ] for a list of nearly 3000 articles where there are at least ten fair use images, much less the considerably longer list of articles with >4 and <10 (more than twice as long in fact), available at ]. To come here, at FA, to find examples of how it should be done and find rampant overuse undermines this effort and isn't in keeping with our mission here. We've been fighting this fair use overuse and continually become embroiled in debates over it. Time and time again this happens, and each time the reduction of fair use eventually wins out. But, an oft cited argument is "well this is how it's done at XYZ". No one has yet cited featured articles, but it will happen. These should be our finest examples, not examples where our licensing policy is abused. | |||
| I'd also like to note that the 100k FA article goal, while completely unachievable, is readily more achievable by virtue of having less fair use images per article that need to be reviewed. This would make review of such articles less complex. | |||
| The culture needs to change; those of you conducting reviews of articles for featured status need to be considerably more direct and restrictive in the use of fair use images than is apparently the current case. --] 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I've conducted a fair use image removal from today's featured article, ]. See , and ]. --] 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Durin, if it's that important (and I agree it is), it would be most helpful if someone who does speak Fair Use would begin reviewing FAs as Jkelly previously did. I don't speak Fair Use, every time I try to read up on it I decide it's gibberish to me, and the bottom line in my case is that I almost never support articles for FA because I'm not certain on the images. If one of the Fair Use people would check each FAC (as Jkelly used to do), the rest of us might start picking up on it, while having time to review other items and even support an article for FA every now and then, knowing that it's been cleared for images. As it is, there aren't enough reviewers at FAC. Many of us are aware of the Fair Use issue, but just don't get it. Someone who does get it should begin reviewing for this, since Jkelly no longer does. I have the same complaint about 1c (other reviewers don't check sources for reliability), and asking other reviewers to change their culture and start reviewing sources hasn't mattered a hill of beans. If you want something done, you'll probably have to do it yourself; as long as I'm one of the few reviewers checking sources and MOS, I can't also go figure out Fair Use. Division of labor is a good thing. ] (]) 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pardon my bluntness, Durin, but fix it yourself. Reviewing an FAC takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the reviewer, and the last thing we need is some fair use afficianado coming in and barking at us how we're not supporting the "mission". Fair use paranoia/cultism has got to be the worst movement to have sprung up in Misplaced Pages history. I realize that you feel you're fighting the good fight, but If you want things to change around here, you could always take a greater hand in FAC reviews yourself or get some of your buddies to do so. — ] (]) 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can only enforce what the previous two say - start at FA and work downwards. This would not take too long really. The whole point of this thing is building an encyclopedia, so why not work constructively rather than antagonise people already getting stuck into it. Morale seems a bit low among more than a few people and, while the points you make are good ones, the manner you make them does not engender camaraderie.cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) I would say, start at GA and work upwards. I know many FA people have an attitude of GA is irrelevant etc., but that is simply & demonstrably false. The few FAs I've looked at '''always''' go thru GA first....and consider an axiom in computer programming: the earlier you catch an error, the more time/money you save. BUT, having said that, I think I soft–spoken, consensus–building approach is better than a top–down, authoritative tone. Seek out and secure allies amongst the GA troops. Be willing to spend the time on talk discussing it reasonably etc. ] 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem at GA is that there's no "them there"; anyone can pass a GA, so you don't know who to talk to. Perhaps, along the same lines, the folks who are into Fair Use should start at ] and work up from there? ] (]) 00:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mmmm, yes mentally when I think GA I'm actually thinking of ], which is where most serious work gets done. PR has the same prob as GA & FA — too few reviewers. ] 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Brian as far as ''Fair use paranoia/cultism''. I am not in a position to discuss other fair use issues, but showing album artwork, when discussing an album in detail, entails fair use, and it does not detract from the sale of the album in any way. I would, however, agree to not using too many. ] 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, Ling Nut, I'm sorry to have to reiterate that GA status isn't worth the pixels it's written on. The reason that FA status carries ''some'' weight (although it's a continual battle to stop poorly written nominations crashing through the gate) is that it's hard to achieve and involves a rigorous process. That ain't GA. | |||
| ::::A word of support for Durin; WP's FU policy goes further than the common and statutory law in the US, because a central plank of its mission is to be freely copiable by anyone in the world. Speaking FU is now a little easier, since the substantial rewriting of the 10 criteria two months ago; they used to be in a right mess. ] 06:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Responding to several points: | |||
| *SandyGeorgia: I've got my own hands full on the fair use issue as it is. If I pick this up, I drop something else. I was hoping to find more support for this effort. Instead, it seems I've drawn the ire of several people here. I guess FA won't support. | |||
| *Re: Fair use paranoia/cultism: Yes, the ] movement is a cult as part of the ]. Surprisingly, Misplaced Pages is ], so I guess that makes all of Misplaced Pages a cult too. Hmm. I guess that makes WP:FA a sub-cult. Do you guys sacrifice virgins like we do? :) Sorry, but describing this as paranoia/cultism is gravely insulting to the entire purpose of Misplaced Pages. If you're not interested in supporting ], but rather would like to see copyrighted works wherever fair use might liberally apply, you're in the wrong place. | |||
| *Album work: No, I never said remove fair use album artwork from album articles. But, when an album cover is discussed critically in one article, it's rather pointless to replicate the same information with the fair use album cover over and over again. Fair use is to be for ''minimal'' use. Replicating it over and over does not serve this purpose. | |||
| To be honest, I'm fairly disappointed at the responses here. I've not been a contributor to FA, but I'd always made the assumption that FA was striving to uphold the highest ideals of Misplaced Pages. I see now I was in error. If that's antagonistic, so be it. Yesterday, I removed a number of fair use images from that day's featured article, ]. One of the images was put back. I should be getting support on this from the people here. Instead, I'm getting told I'm wrong. Ok, I'm wrong. Please use fair use liberally wherever you'd like, and wherever it's not clearly illegal. Don't worry about our ]. It's meaningless tripe. Sigh. --] 13:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please don't misread me, Durin; I do support and agree. I just don't understand Fair Use well enough to include it in my review. We need help—I used to rely on Jkelly whenever a Fair Use issue came up :-) ] (]) 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Ok, I could have been clearer. My lack of support comments were not directed towards you. --] 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::IMO you should take it for granted that this position will invoke some hostility. Both GA and FA standards require or at least strongly suggest the inclusion of images.. many reviewers interpret this as a firm requirement... and images are sometimes difficult to obtain. Stripping an article of its image(s) will be interpreted as stripping it of its FA/GA status. BTW, I agree with you in principle, but stripping images off the main page was more than a little ]. Again, this is not an approach that is well–designed for wining friends and influencing people. ] 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I actually do applaud your efforts Durin, and admit I don't know enough about fair use to fairly comment, and apologize for my rudeness. I just think using album covers is harmless, but agree the use should be minimal. ] 13:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I stand by my comments. I'm clearly not in the wrong place because I firmly believe in spreading information. Part of effectively spreading information is illustrating that information, and that requires fair use sometimes. The "free content" cultists are taking things too far, and repeatedly quoting Misplaced Pages's "mission" at me like some robot is just as insulting as anything I've written. But these arguments have been made before, as I'm sure Durin is aware. If there's anything I wish Durin would take away form this, it is that if the fair use cops want FAC to enforce the narrowest interpretation of fair use policies, one of them should get involved in the reviews here. I don't share in the paranoia, and others don't understand the requirements. So give us a hand, and things will change. — ] (]) 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*With an attitude that stands in direct opposition to our ], where citing our mission is deemed insulting, it would be impossible to change the culture here. I'm sorry you find it insulting. I never would have imagined that citing our mission would be insulting to anyone. --] 14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I '''''strongly''''' suggest someone immediately report me for disrupting Misplaced Pages per ]'s accusation that removing fair use images from ] in compliance with our fair use requirements was disruptive. I fully intend on having Misplaced Pages articles comply with our fair use policies and have no intention to stop unless policy changes to allow liberal fair use. Thus, it's obvious I am a disruptive presence on Misplaced Pages and must be banned immediately, since I am "more than a little <nowiki></nowiki>". Save Misplaced Pages! Stop me now! --] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh chill. No one was accusing you of being a vandal/troll or being disruptive to an extreme degree. I was remarking that your approach may not be the most productive. Let's not get all dramatic... or, let's not be repeatedly dramatic, anyhow... ] 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Fine. Then stopping making accusations that I am disrupting Misplaced Pages. I'm not interested in discussing this issue with people that toss around accusations like this. What I did in no way disrupted Misplaced Pages. It wasn't even necessary to bring up the accusation, and does nothing to further the discussion. --] 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Durin, I apologize for my brusque response to your original post and the subsequent exchanges. I do think your approach to this issue here was patronizing and authoritarian. Had you broached the issue a bit more diplomatically, you might have had a different reception. But that's neither here nor there. I think that the "free-use" movement lost a lot of friends among the FAC regulars when you started opposing fair-use images in the FA blurbs on the main page. When someone works long and hard on an article and finally gets to see it on the main page, it's disheartening to have it illustrated with someting tangentially related or with no image at all. And when we can't illustrate a blurb about an article on a ] with a picture of that work of art, I think we've gone too far. At any rate, good luck to you. — ] (]) 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I'm not interested in making friends here. I gave up on the social currency system here on Misplaced Pages some months ago, as it is fatally flawed and impossible to work effectively within. That said, in no way did my original post here make any attempts by me to come off as authoritarian or patronizing, and I strongly oppose such a suggestion. If it came off that way, I apologize as it was extremely far from my intent. My intent was to raise an important issue. People claim, in opposition to that, that I'm insulting because I cite our mission here. I'm absolutely flumoxed by this. If we're not here to accomplish our mission, then what the heck are we here for? Our mission here clearly states that were are after free content. If we can not even agree on the basic precepts in our mission, we have little to talk about and no common ground on which to discuss what little there is. We're obviously working on two entirely different projects. I'm still quite boggled by this. I'd be interested to know what mission the people who are in disagreement with the mission of free content are adhering to. Are you reading something I'm not? --] 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I didn't oppose your citing of our mission, I opposed your ''robot-like'' and ''patronizing'' citing of our mission. You seem to be viewing things as white and black, with "free-use" good and fair use bad. I'm simply saying that there are shades of gray. I agree with you (and the mission) that free content is better than fair-use content, but I also believe that in their zeal to embrace "free use" content, some editors have gone way too far (such as with the FA blurbs on the main page). At any rate, I don't feel like arguing with you any more. We obviously have some common ground, we're just in disagreement over the degree to which fair use should be allowed to be used. — ] (]) 02:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Durin, ease up a little. What could have been a collaborative discussion has now become less than pleasant - rather than accept that some were/are offended/nonplussed/whatever by the way you presented your argument, you've escalated. This has been disruptive. There is a vast chasm of difference between giving up on the social currency and the tone adopted above. At least try and be diplomatic. OK let's start again.... | |||
| *This is too rich. I raise a serious issue here. I'm then told directly or through inference that I am patronizing, authoritarian, barking at people, being paranoid, being a fair use cultist, antagonizing people, acting in bad faith, violating WP:POINT and more. Then, when I raise protest against this I am told to "ease up". Good grief people look in the mirror. --] 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You forgot "acting like a robot." :) — ] (]) 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*]. ]. ]. ]. ] ]. ] ]. ] ]. ]. --] 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===To clarify=== | |||
| *I think most would agree with your concern about images | |||
| *This is a volunteer project so nobody is ''forced'' to do anything though in keeping good faith most try to help out where they can | |||
| *Thus, having someone who is really familiar with the ''Fair Use'' rules keep an eye out would be ''really'' helpful rather than dictating edicts from afar. I for one will try to keep an eye on images I review. | |||
| there. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I put a note on a FAC that needed review for Fair use, and Raul promptly promoted it, so I'd like to know if we're wasting our time reviewing images. ] (]) 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Specifically, that's a question for Raul. In general, No. The process hasn't coalesced enough. What's required is education, I guess, and gathering support for the effort, I guess. Which equals time. I guess. ] 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Date format == | |||
| FAs should conform to to MOS, but if we look at recent FAs, we find that the presentation of dates is often incorrect. American Dating finds its way into many articles that have no link at all to the U.S. (or the small number of other nations where AD is used). ] gives the established criteria. | |||
| Recent FAs include: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| A common response is to say, "So what? Just turn on your date preferences and all dates appear in the format you prefer!", but this only applies for users with established accounts, (i.e. editors rather than readers), and given the widespread popularity of WP it is obvious that most users are readers, rather than the relatively limited community of editors. --] 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| While the auto-formatting and linking functions are still the same, despite concerted attempts to get the techs at WM to fix this, I just don't care. I advise all WPians not to link any dates at all, and to choose the formatting they prefer, as long as consistent within an article. Make them fix this issue. ] 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *And the response of "So what?" is perfectly correct. Even where MOS is both unambiguous and consensus, sometimes the ruling it makes is ''unimportant''. The Manual of Style is a guideline. If you feel this is important, and can get consensus to change it, fine. If not, don't delay a well-written, well-sourced, and accurate article for it. ] <small>]</small> 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anderson, you're still pushing these barely hidden implications that MOS can make it harder to write "a well-written, well-sourced, and accurate article". Fortunately, your and Radiant's sudden change to the wording of the style-guide template (top of MOS) has been removed; this change implied that MOS can . | |||
| ::I must ask that you gain proper consensus before continuing this strategy to gradually change key policy wordings concerning MOS, its submanuals, and their status. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::I don't think the MOS makes it harder to write a quality article (nor do I think PMA implied it does), but I think there are plenty of changes which MOS mandates that don't make articles any better. This is problematic because the FA criteria are meant to support the general principle that we are Misplaced Pages's best work; asking people to do work that doesn't make articles better, as you so frequently do, is a waste of time. The person who comes across Misplaced Pages, finds the information they are looking for, but doesn't come back because the em-dashes don't meet Tony's Approved Style® is the same person who stumbles upon a sack of hundred-dollar bills but doesn't pick it up because the bills are crumpled. I doubt he exists. ] ] 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They're not ''my'' custom-designed and owned styles, as you crudely assert: they're in MOS. Gain consensus if you will to change them; until you do, I'll continue to ask FAC nominators to fix the prose and formatting of what they put up as our best work, be they tiny points of detail or more considerable inconsistencies. It's a matter of knitting the project together with a ''reasonable'', ''balanced'' amount of stylistic cohesion. Otherwise, people may as well just google the information they want, where there's no standardisation at all. A certain amount of stylistic cohesion makes it easier for our readers, I believe. | |||
| :::::You conveniently dodge the issue of whether you support the weakening of the status of MOS. | |||
| :::::Your example of em dashes appears to be intended to cast me as petty. I believe that fine (easy-to-read) writing arises from atttention to tiny details. You'd be the first to complain if the film had tiny editing glitches. Good writing is hard to achieve, and I'll continue to put pressure on nominators to attend to small details. I'd appreciate support in doing so rather than belittlement. ] 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::When I ascribe the MOS to you in particular, this is a sarcastic way of saying that the MOS is the work of a tiny minority of people who have through diligent labor created a set of guidelines that the vast majority of the editing base does not find useful and tolerates only because it is so easily and widely ignored. As for stylistic cohesion, I don't really see that cohesion of style across the project is all that desirable. Given the facts that every article is written by a different assortment of people, that there is no meaningful central editorial control, and that readers (mostly directed by search engines) approach us as a loose collection of articles, not as a unified reference work, I don't see any value in it -- no more than one would find in the stylistic coordination of every book in a big library. I don't support weakening MOS generally, but it could be improved by discarding the large part which is trivial. With regard to FAC in particular, since I believe your contributions are a drag on the process I am unable support your efforts, but obviously nothing is stopping your from continuing your work; clearly you are not alone in your views and there is room for many schools of thought. ] ] 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::By "drag on the process", one might interpret as "dragging ''up'' the generally poor standards of writing in FACs", a task in which some of loyal and hard-working reviewers there have had some success over the past year, I believe. I'm not deterred by this kind of spleen venting, and nor should anyone else be. ] | |||
| No, in fact, the quality of FAs has noticeably declined over the past year; whenever FAC concentrates on some minor point, and ignores sourcing, writing, and neutrality, FAs decline to the point of mere adequacy. About 18 months ago, anything could get through FA if it had pretty pictures; then it was having enough footnotes (their content didn't matter); now it's the barely visible difference between hyphens and en-dashes. All these would enhance an otherwise perfect article, and proper citation, in some form, is vital; but at present anything which en-dashes correctly is likely to be promoted, whatever its other flaws, unless they are ''glaringly'' obvious. | |||
| Tony defended ], which was abominably biased and execrably written. ] passed, despite being sourced from '']'' (I'm not making this up, I regret to say). ] just passed, and it's not a ''bad'' article, exactly; but it still says things like ''The longevity of Augustus' reign'' for ''length'', and the Augustan PoV of its chief author and its chief source still shines through. | |||
| Fortunately, FA is ultimately unimportant to Misplaced Pages. Many editors it altogether; but it could be a useful tool. I just cringe, half the time, when I see the front page, and I'm tired of it. ] <small>]</small> 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *That is a serious issue. Is there something we can do about this? I suppose starting with educating editors that the MOS isn't all that big a deal might help. ] 12:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Educating? That's a little condescending, isn't it? ] 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Self-contained == | |||
| I was reading ], and I noticed that that page says that Misplaced Pages articles should be "nearly self-contained", ie. '''"it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles"'''. Is there a reason why something similar to this is not stated here? Where is the line drawn between explaining something in an article and directing the reader to read another article? Surely the problem lies in not knowing what level to pitch an article at? ] 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that point may mean ... nothing. And that article isn't what it's cracked up to be. In any case, the criteria here express only ''additional'' requirements to those for all WP articles. ] 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Acceptable text size== | |||
| I'm not aware that the issue of article lenght has been properly discussed here yet, but it has been a reoccuring issue at FAR in the last few months. Want to throw it out for openion from the community. is the leading thread. ] 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Relative to the 50KB maximum prose size guideline at ], here's some data on extra-large featured articles, for the sake or argument. Dr pda's script sorts out ''prose'' from ''references'' and ''images'', so does not penalize well-referenced articles: | |||
| *] (63KB of prose) | |||
| *] (65KB of prose) | |||
| *] (72KB prose) | |||
| *] (74KB of prose) | |||
| *] (a whopping 82KB of prose). | |||
| ] (]) 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think the current criterion is sufficient. First because it correctly gives greater priority to completeness and comprehensiveness than to length. Articles that contain unecessary detail can be shortened under the existing rules; if articles don't contain unecessary detail they probably shouldn't be any shorter. Second, the current guidelines effectively place the burden on reviewers to identify the areas of the article that contain too much detail and require trimming. This is desirable. I am uncomfortable with people being able to object to an article on the basis of a number spit out by a script, without even reading the article. ] ] 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc == | |||
| Dear colleagues | |||
| WP's ] has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured Article candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles. | |||
| At issue are the new Sections 9–14: | |||
| *Non-breaking spaces | |||
| *Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods) | |||
| *Numbers | |||
| *Decimal points | |||
| *Percentages | |||
| *Units of measurement | |||
| *Currencies, and | |||
| *Common mathematical symbols | |||
| More detailed information on these and other topics is at ]. ] 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Intention to add anti-chaos requirements to the instructions == | |||
| As suggested on the FA talk page, there's an urgent need to lay down a few simple rules to minimise visual and structural chaos. Unless good counterarguments are put here, on Friday I intend to add the following to what we already have in the instructions ("Do not split a FAC page into subsections"). | |||
| <blockquote>Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. | |||
| *To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the ''whole'' FAC page). | |||
| *If you support a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Support''' ~~~~</nowiki>, followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this. | |||
| *If you oppose a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Oppose''' ~~~~</nowiki>, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide '''a specific rationale that can be addressed'''. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it. | |||
| *<font color=green>Sign your name immediately to the right of this initial word (after one space), as well as after your comments; this makes it easier to keep track of who is declaring what on the page.</font color> | |||
| *Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <tt><nowiki><s>...</s></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves. | |||
| *To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write <nowiki>*'''Comment''' ~~~~</nowiki> followed by your advice. | |||
| *<font color=green>Contributors are asked not to (i) split a FAC page into subsections, (ii) add symbols (such as ticks and crosses) or boxes, or (iii) bold text or strike through it (except for each reviewer's initial word). Rather than striking through a reviewer's comments, nominators should write a plain word such as “Done” or a substantive rejoinder after them.</font color></blockquote> | |||
| This allows one sentence to be removed from the lead above; I even trimmed the rest of the "Supporting and opposing" text to pay for the addition (no substantive change in meaning in the rest). And while we're at it, can we get rid of "Object" and make it just "Oppose" (I don't care which, but why clutter the instructions with two terms)? ] 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| These guidelines are designed to prevent messes like ]. ] 09:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Formatting citations vs. providing citations == | |||
| Regarding JooperCoopers, please explain how you are distinguishing between 1) providing inline citations ''where appropriate''—1c, and 2) formatting them correctly when they are provided—2d. Separate issues; one is ], the other is ]. ] (]) 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Two very distinct points, which I suggest people get clear. Note this was added precisely because of the "why must I use footnotes?" complaints. It makes it clear that Harvard is still fine, and I see no reason to remove it. ] 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't want to remove it - I simply wanted to add the 'where appropriate' modifier - as it stands, 1c tells you to use inline citation where appropriate, but 2 tells you articles must conform to MOS and so it appears to follow that 2d is mandatory, it isn't, it's where appropriate. Sandy saw fit to revert. I don't see why saying 'if footnotes are required - follow MOS' rather than footnotes are required to follow MOS - it's a subtle difference - but important. --] 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You didn't read it properly. It's specifically designed to point out that footnotes are not necessary. ] 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Following the logic:- | |||
| A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Misplaced Pages articles, it has the following attributes.........It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes.........(d) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.) | |||
| This implies footnotes are mandatory - you need to modify the sentence to say 'where appropriate' - yes it duplicates 1c, but it needs the duplication. | |||
| Do you see? --] 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Because of '''or''' they are not necessary. ] 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (several ecs) Joopers, your wording said citations should be correctly formatted ''when appropriate''; when is it not appropriate to format citations correctly? 2d allows for Harvard, cite.php, whatever, as long as citations are consistently formattted. ] (]) 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No I'm still not getting it - sorry marskell - WP:V still says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." of which, Harvard referencing is a style of inline citation - the ''or'' is irrelevant - what is relevant is that the logical flow of the instructions I outlined above imply, in its current form, that inline citations are mandatory regardless of the 'challenge' criteria. Sandy your point is a good one, I was after brevity but perhaps a better way of putting it would be "2d - where inline citations are approriate, they should be consistently formatted.....etc." --] 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::To me, "consistently formatted citations" listed under 2-MOS doesn't change the ''where appropriate'' intent of 1c. It seems like you want it to clarify, ''when used'', but to me, that's already clear. You're reading more into "consistently formatted citations" then I see in the passage, but now that we're on the same page, perhaps it can be clarified. ] (]) 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's easily misconstrued I think and needs the clarification. --] 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't see how to fix it, but that's because I don't see the problem :-) Compare: | |||
| ::#It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes consistently formatted inline citations, | |||
| ::#It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes citations that are consistently formatted, | |||
| ::The second wording would extend beyond 1c, ''where appropriate'', implying that it must include citations. The first wording only says that citations should be consistently formatted, and doesn't touch on when they must be used. ] (]) 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A false choice Sandy - the "It complies with the MOS" sentence needs to be changed for inline cites to say "Where appropriate, they should comply with MOS" - we can't do this as it stuffs the rest of the items - the solution is deletion of 2d. and an addendum to 1c to say:- | |||
| "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where approriate, complemented by inline citations consistently formatted per MOS, using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.) " | |||
| --] 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Combining them into one would merge policy and guideline issues (one is when they're needed, the other is how to write them) which to me, would obscure important policy. To me, policy mandates are on a whole 'nother level. How to write a citation is purely MOS; that's why it's listed under 2—MOS. An article with poorly-formatted citations might pass FAC or FAR, particularly if that's the only issue with an article; hopefully, an article that violates policy (], ], ], etc) won't. And I still don't follow why you're saying, ''where appropriate'' citations should comply with MOS. When should a citation not be correctly and consistently formatted? ] (]) 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think what you say exposes one of the problems of MOS. It's supposed to be a guideline but WIAFA appears to give it the status of policy when applying for FA - nowhere on WIAFA does it say that items under criteria 1. are more important than items under criteria 2. <br> | |||
| If this is the case, merging the sentence makes no difference. If it's not the case - it needs to be explicit on the page. I think if it's guideline it's a guideline and WIAFA shouldn't be used to circumvent that status - FAC needs to concentrate more on well written, reliable and accurate information rather than attempt to impose an increasingly prescriptive style.--] 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see the problem. FAs are expected to conform to MOS to attain featured status; that's important, because they're a model for other articles. FAC does focus on well written articles; can you show me any article that has failed *only* because of 2-MOS concerns? Perhaps we can find a way to clarify the wording confusion you've raised, but I hope we don't merge 1c and 2d, as they are distinct issues, and all citations should be correctly formatted. The wording was added because articles with Harvard inlines kept showing up at FAR; the idea is to indicate that consistently formatted citations don't have to be cite.php. ] (]) 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK, let's find a way. --] 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm still at a loss for how to fix it, probably because I still can't see the problem. 1c says ''when'' to cite (per ] ''where appropriate'' policy) and 2d says ''how'' to cite. Your concern is that 2d seems to imply something above and beyond 1c. Would it work if we changed: | |||
| :* "consistently formatted inline citations," to "consistent formatting of inline citations"? ] (]) 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problems is that the second section is prefaced by "It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects". If inline citations aren't needed in my article, there is no need to comply with the manual of style in the manner prescribed in 2d. --] 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggested a merge - if you prefer we can establish an explicit link between 1c and 1d - something like "Where inline citations are appropriate (see 1c above) they should comply with the MOS.......etc." --] 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lest you are still in doubt - see as an example of how 2d was being mis-interpreted. --] 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The same reviewer is telling editors to spell out numbers greater than ten, and another reviewer is telling editors that they must use the cite book template to format book references We can't fix every misconception and misunderstanding :-) ] (]) 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::True, but we should endeavour not to create them if we can help it. --] 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Conforming to MOS=== | |||
| This passage needs to be altered. It ignores the nature of MOS; it's a '''guideline'''. It contains portions | |||
| *That are consenuss, and mandatory, like ]. but not very important. Refusing FA status for the difference between an en-dash and a hyphen is silly. | |||
| *That are good rules of thumb, applicable to most articles but not all. The failure to recognize this is damaging to MOS, and to the articles to which it is applied like a straightjacket. | |||
| *:For example, it is good advice, generally useful, to have measurements both in Imperial and metric units; '''but not for all articles'''. Abstrusely scientific articles should be SI; articles on galaxies should use light-years or parsecs; articles on maritime law should use miles and nautical miles. (All of these would probably benefit from including the conversion factors, but not at every reference.) This has been changed, to the detriment of MOS, which should simply say, ''generally have measurements in Imperial and SI units''. The exceptions should be intelligible. Any article which had a conversion forced on it here, to the detriment of its writing, has also been injured. | |||
| *That are some editor's hobby-horse, foisted in some corner of MOS to compell the rest of Misplaced Pages to do what he wants. This will not work; most Wikipedians have enough sense to ignore bullying, even with MOS being chanted at them; but it should not keep articles with better writing than MOS would allow out of FA. | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I strongly commend the wording, ''follows MOS | |||
| :<Says meekly>I suspect that this tirade of pronouncements is referring to me. I find it hard to take seriously. ] 03:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Only in the one case where he is named; his concentration on minutiæ and proceedure caused him to overlook the weakness of ]. If I thought that persuading one editor to abandon FA would save it, I would not be supporting changes of method. The other two examples cited Tony did not review. ] <small>]</small> 17:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm with PMAnderson on the issue of treating WP:MOS as the guideline it is, and agree with his edit of the criteria. The previous (or has PM been reverted already..?) wording of Featured article criterion 2, "It complies with the manual of style," was a problem IMO, and so is the sometimes extreme use that that criterion has been put to in practice, in FAC reviews. OK, I assume there is, or at least ''was'', consensus for the wording of 2, since I've seen what a lot of discussion has gone into the phrasing of all the FA criteria. But consensus can change. "Follows MOS" in lieu of "complies with MOS," makes sense to me, and so does PMAnderson's analysis above, introducing this thread. (''Not'' PMAnderson's comment just above my head, about Tony's "concentration on minutiæ and proceedure"; I think that's quite unfair.) | |||
| :::Secondly, was there ever consensus—general approval—for the way the MOS criterion is sometimes used in practice, in FAC reviews, to oppose over dots and dashes? Note, I'm ''not'' referring to Tony; I've never seen him do that; he opposes over style issues, over the quality of prose, and does us all a favor in doing it. But I've seen people do it. Tony... that wasn't a "tirade," at the head of the thread. I wish you wouldn't dig in and entrench yourself like that. :-( (P.S. Don't you mean "Conforming to MOS," PM? The header is bewildering.) ] | ] 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::::P.P.S. It has in fact been reverted. ] | ] 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :::::It is Tony's position that I am complaining only of him; I am not. "Concentration on minutiae and proceedure on ''that'' article" would have been better; but it did not occur to me that it would not be clear. That was , which argues over whether a COI is relevant to FA and ignores Marc Shepard's chief point, that the article is not neutral. This does seem somewhat bizarre, especially since MOS does not appear to discuss the matter. ] <small>]</small> 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I reverted because there was no "per talk". It was actually a "per myself". The wording can be tweaked, sure. ] 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Included "follow" and "Most importantly", in accordance with Bishonen's discussion above. If anyone is going to argue that ] is as important as a hierarchical system of headers, please do so here. ] <small>]</small> 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, PM, I already reverted "most importantly" as redundant. The list itself implies it, surely. ] | ] 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::I concur with Bishonen's revert of that edit as redundant. An article may fail to pass FAC because of a faulty lead or overwhelming TOC; I've never seen an otherwise FA-worthy article fail because of dashes or hyphens (to use Pmanderson's example), even though these are things that can be pointed out because they can usually be easily fixed. ] (]) 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: (bold added) seems equally unimportant. I am glad to hear that this sort of thing is uncustomary. (The apparent absence of this from MOS is another issue altogether.) ] <small>]</small> 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment:''' I see that Bishonen accidentally saved a version without Sandy's reply. This is what happens, about 1% of the time, when there is an edit conflict ''and the software doesn't catch it'' to put up the edit-conflict screen. ] <small>]</small> 18:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe I saved before Sandy, see the history. ] | ] 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC). | |||
| == Short history for a FA? == | |||
| Is it reasonable to add to the FA criteria that a FA should have a sufficient length (time period) of page history in order to demonstrate stability as currently defined? In other words, should there be a minimum time from an article's creation before which FA status can be awarded? I don't mean an arbitrary cutoff, but just enough time to show many editors have "touched" the article. This is in relation to ]. Although I don't think that FAC will succeed for other reasons, I think featured articles that have a short history cannot demonstrate they are stable or that they are Misplaced Pages's best work. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not as a general rule; {{User|Yomangani}} comes to mind as someone who has created and brought articles to featured status in a matter of weeks. I think Bish has also done it, by working largely in a Sandbox. Many editors don't necessarily need to touch an article. ] (]) 05:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been thinking about creating an article on a particular old magazine that I happen to know a lot about, and was thinking it would be amusing to try to create it and bring it to FAC with as few edits as possible. I hope the results would be acceptable; so I'd agree with Sandy here. ] ] 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :FAC itself is the opportunity for many editors to "touch" the article. I don't see the need for additional time. ] ] 14:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I should not have suggested somebody cannot create a featured article on their first try, and I have faith someone can. FAC is indeed part of the review of the article, and I kept that in mind in asking the question. But I have yet to see any author write anything that is perfect in any way, however. Other than a self-published source, I have not seen any literary work that has been declared by others to be perfect yet has not been critically reviewed or edited by an independent, uninvolved editor. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hopefully those imperfections will be identified and fixed during the FAC process. If they aren't, they'll be identified when the article is featured on the main page. At any rate, as someone who has written an article in a sandbox and then gotten it featured without much input from others, I'd have to say that some proof of the article's age should not be in the requirements. — ] (]) 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd be against any issue with time - the criteria are about article quality. If there are edit wars it will be plainly obvious and other disputes will come up in FAC. I've seen some really good stuff spring up out of nowhere in a matter of days (as above, some editors love sandboxes)cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Harvard refs? == | |||
| "''...where inline citations are appropriate (see 1c above), they should be consistently formatted using either footnotes or Harvard referencing...''" I thought that Harvard notes were going to be phased out? Every time I've brought a FA hopeful to FAC, the general consensus has been to swap Harvard notes for foot notes. Is there going to be a change since the consensus already is contrary to the criteria? ] 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There are no plans to phase out Harvard referencing. Objections on the basis that footnotes are preferable to them are not regarded as requiring action; whether you convert or not won't affect the passage of the FAC. ] ] 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You left off the next part—''the meta:cite format is recommended''—which does not say Harvard refs are phased out. Also, the links to have been changed and moved over time, so that link needs to be corrected; it now points to ] when it used to the point to the meta page on cite.php, which has been moved. Some types of articles may render more readable with Harvard refs, but I recall an article coming through here that employed Harvard refs poorly, making the text almost unreadable, and that rendered better in cite.php—that's an example of how the "recommended" may come in to play. ] (]) 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that cite.php is not recommended over Harvard, as you seem to suggest; it is only recommended over other footnote/endnote systems (e.g. ref/note). ] ] 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : You can use any citation system available, be it Harvard, Chicago, Cite.php, or a hybrid of any or all of them, as long as you're consistent within an article. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::KK - It's just that in the passed people have opposed because the citations were in the Harvard style. ] 09:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not aware of a situation where that has been a valid oppose other than the one article (and I'm sorry I can't remember which now) that was so littered with poorly done Harvard refs that it was rendered unreadable (there was practically more text inside parentheses than out). The problem wasn't the Harvard refs, but that the article was just poorly sourced and written and visually hard to get through because of all the text in parens. I believe that article was switched to cite.php, but my memory on that could be wrong. Other than that, I can't recall recently seeing a valid oppose on Harvard refs ] (]) 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (recently being about a year). Do you have an example we could comment on? ] (]) 12:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The sentence was added to make clear that they are not being phased out and that such an objection would be invalid—the next time some suggests as much, point to the criterion and say "nope." Until academics cease using Harvard (which doesn't seem likely) I don't see that we should. ] 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == National points system == | |||
| Can I suggest a national points system? There is obviously a bias in favour of the USA, and more variety could be had if there was a handicap/scoring system for articles concerning those countries who receive many or few articles --] 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A US handicap - lovely! good luck with that. --] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, it's '''not''' a "US handicap", it's a handicap for countries which have had a large percentage of featured articles about them, of which the USA happens to be one. So, it's not "anti-American" before someone jumps on me for that. --] 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Right. So I can write a piece or crap about Lesotho and get it featured because there are so few Lesotho-related articles? No thanks. Equal standards for all, please. — ] (]) 00:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll pass. ] 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it's a good article about Lesotho, then it should be no problem. If it's crap, don't feature it. Obscure US articles are featured on the front page regularly, like those street dogs in San Francisco. There's a whole world out there, and not only do some of us live in other countries and speak other languages, but we're interested in the world, not just one country. By the way, before someone leaps on me for being "anti-American", this is not a uniquely American issue. There is an obvious bias towards Anglophone countries - including the UK. Let's keep it international... If you haven't heard of a major piece of history/writer/actor etc, from wherever, that's a ''good'' thing. --] 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Users' advice on preparing FA candidates == | |||
| New user Dano'Sullivan has just added a page of advice for reviewers that may contain useful stuff, but is wrongly positioned on his talk page, and needs trimming, formatting and rationalising. I'd be happier if people presented links to their drafts here so we could offer advice before they were posted. ] 01:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I took a look at it, and while it has some good ideas, I'm uncomfortable with the general message (evaluating articles on a point system). ] ] 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree (I forgot to mention this in my comments to Dano—there's no explicit justification for numerical quantification, either philosophically or in practical terms). ] 02:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Style == | |||
| Why "Thus, it includes" rather than "including"? ] 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsure about #2 == | |||
| Number 2 currently reads, "It follows the style guidelines and relevant WikiProjects, including:" | |||
| Does this make sense to anyone else? "Follows the relevant WikiProjects"? I don't get it. Was this something else, or worded differently, in the past? Mahalo. --] 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you spell out what's not clear? For example, a relevant WikiProject is ]; is there a missing "guideline" word? ] (]) 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nevermind. I see it used to read, "Complies with..." I still think it's unnecessary. I believe this should just be shortened to read, "It follows the style guidelines, including:" Thoughts? --] 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Aha! That part never made sense to me, I've been meaning to ask about it.. looking with confusion at Wikiprojects like for instance ]—how are you supposed to either follow, or comply with, those? By using their infoboxes..? And how did the projects come by all this authority for FAC? See, WP:MEDMOS isn't a wikiproject, it's a section of the Manual of Style. Perhaps somebody would like to rephrase the criterion to reflect what was intended? ] | ] 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::::Ah. I see the problem (WikiProject vs. Manual of Style). I'm not the best one for re-phrasing though. MEDMOS became part of the Manual of Style by jumping through the hoops to get broad consensus (posting at the Village Pump, every relevant Project, etc.) Compliance in the case of MEDMOS is typically about comprehensiveness in terms of the suggested sections (which help broadly identify missing topics) and naming conventions; I can't recall any other significant objections ever arising because of MEDMOS. Another thing it addresses is those awful lists of "notable" patients. MilHist probably has a Manual of Style section (not sure?). ] (]) 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I too do not see how various WikiProjects got so much "power" in FA criteria, but I suppose it ''could'' be re-worded to read: | |||
| ::::::"It follows the ] of Misplaced Pages and any style guidelines set forth by relevant ], including:" | |||
| :::::But in the end, I think it might be wise to remove this bit. In my brilliant opinion, if a style guideline is good enough for a WikiProject (enough to impose its will over FA criteria), then it should be a submanual of the Manual of Style (like MEDMOS became). Mahalo. --] 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| , it said "A featured article should ... omply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual." -- ] ] 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That's the idea, but if I understand Bishonen's point correctly, it really should be only those Project guidelines that have garnered consensus to become part of the Manual of Style (as MEDMOS did), in which case, the clause is really redundant (to MOS) anyway. Projects can't just set any old standards, not exposed to broad consensus, then tag articles and expect them to comply (recalling the old business about infoboxes on bios). ] (]) 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Check. I've removed it from the criteria. ] | ] 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :::It makes sense to me, but I'm mostly exposed to/familiar with MEDMOS, and don't know who might scream. We'll see what happens. ] (]) 23:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, where we lost the relevant standards. -- ] ] 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How very unfortunate. The reference to WikiProjects in the criteria was mostly symbolic, and hardly ever mentioned explicitly in practice. Its removal will change nothing in terms of how projects actually interact with the FA process, except insofar as serves to indicate the poor regard in which our efforts are held. It is essentially nothing more than a slap to the face—one which, to my knowledge, we have done nothing to deserve. ] 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with Bishonen's removal. ] 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ditto. When I've read that I've always thought of MilHist, Medicine, and Dinos—projects we know are working and would genuinely be good to consult. But we shouldn't defer to the projects in general given how many are dead, or peddling poor advice. ] 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(Edit conflict with Marskell) Kirill, I'm sorry, but I don't see how we can have symbolic criteria. If something's in the criteria, it can be appealed to, and while some WikiProjects represent some of the best of Misplaced Pages, some don't. We don't want to offer, say, ] a free ride on the back of the wide consensus and high respectability of, say, ]. Perhaps ] could create a consensual MILMOS, through the kind of process Sandy describes for MEDMOS above? ] | ] 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :::It's not like we haven't considered the option; it's just that—particularly in the case of MilHist—there are very good reasons why a formal MoS page would actually be counterproductive. Copying some of my comments to Sandy: | |||
| ::::As far as the MoS issue, I think one of the comments on the WP:MEDMOS talk page just about says it all:<blockquote>Hi, this is great! I've always wondered about a guideline page on writing medical wikipedia articles and only recently found this page via Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine...</blockquote> | |||
| ::::The problem with having all the guidelines—and, more importantly, the associated discussions—on an out-of-the way style page is that most editors working on those topics simply aren't going to show up (except to complain). It's difficult enough to keep a crowd gathered on the main WikiProject page; a MoS page is pretty much out of the question. | |||
| ::::Admittedly the MoS approach may seem more reasonable among the medicine editors, as there are still several distinct viable WikiProjects in that area; but for MILHIST, which has spent the last two years ruthlessly absorbing its children and neighbors precisely to ensure that all discussions could be properly centralized, moving a major chunk of them to another page merely to make something "enforceable" isn't really worth it. It might be different if we could simply use a particular portion of the project page, or a transcluded subpage, as the official "MoS", or even if we could redirect the MoS talk page to the project one; but I rather suspect that the sort of people that get up in arms about WikiProjects using the term "manual of style" without having proper permission to do so will kill that idea. | |||
| :::You're essentially asking that we hamstring our own ability to hold discussions properly in order to give any official weight to the results of those discussions. Quite honestly, it doesn't seem like a good exchange. ] 11:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see any reason why a page can't simultaneously be part of MOS and part of MILHIST. Can't MILHIST just leave the pages where they are, but (after appropriate discussion with other editors) tag some pages with the "This page is part of the manual of style" tag? If WikiProjects don't get involved in assessing quality the FA process will be unable to scale past a certain point. I think we should invite more participation from WikiProjects that have demonstrated a commitment to quality. ] ] 12:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The location of the guidelines themselves is fairly irrelevant; what I'm concerned with is the location of the discussions about them. In other words, I'd like to see: | |||
| :::::{| class="wikitable" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Page | |||
| ! Talk page | |||
| |- | |||
| | MoS page (or subpage) | |||
| | Redirect to main project talk page | |||
| |- | |||
| | Main project page | |||
| | Main project talk page (all discussion centralized here) | |||
| |} | |||
| :::::But what is being suggested is: | |||
| :::::{| class="wikitable" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Page | |||
| ! Talk page | |||
| |- | |||
| | MoS page (or subpage) | |||
| | MoS talk page (most discussions occur here) | |||
| |- | |||
| | Main project page | |||
| | Main project talk page (some discussions occur here) | |||
| |} | |||
| :::::Which has the effect of moving any discussion of the putative MoS to a low-visibility, low-traffic page that most military history editors would have no reason to visit. ] 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see no problem with your preferred approach once it is agreed that the scope of the page to which it applies lies in MILHIST. Can you give an example of the sort of page within MILHIST that this approach might apply to? Specific cases might be more helpful than hypothetical discussion. ] ] 12:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The relevant material is essentially the content of ]; we've not yet had the need to move it off the main project page itself, but that would be easy enough to do. ] 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As far as I can see, there would be no harm in hiving these off as a separate page (within the MILHIST namespace) and marking them as a proposed part of MOS. ] ] 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I agree with Mike; there's so much valuable info there, and it would make a good guide as part of MOS for some of the weaker Projects. ] (]) 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Okay, MilHist will try to move forwards on that basis, then; anyone interested in the specifics can see ] for further discussion on our side. ] 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I see nothing wrong with the projects having guidelines separate from yet subordinate to the WP MOS. The projects are after all the subject matter experts in their fields and responsible for a huge percentage of articles that get to FAs.] 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is turning more into a discussion about project style guides and how they fit into the MoS. I'm sure this would have been discussed before? --] 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not aware of it being discussed before, and I also think it's an important discussion to have. On the one hand, we shouldn't discard all the valuable work done by MilHist; on the other hand, we can't allow other, much weaker Projects to be a large determinant in featured status via guidelines they may impose outside of broader Wiki consensus. This needs to be worked out; the strength of the MilHist project and their example of how to do it right are too valuable as a guideline to other Projects to lose. ] (]) 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, then, say something like ''considering the guidelines of the relevant Wikiprojects'''. ] and ] will be considered a lot more seriously than something two editors at WikiProject:Fancruft made up one day; and that's a good thing. ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Hierarchical headings" and "Table of contents" == | |||
| While we're discussing brevity in the criteria, what difference is intended between the two terms above? Isn't a "system of hierarchical headings" the same thing as a table of contents? Combine to: "A heirarchical table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming." ] 09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think there is a big difference between the two, and the change should be reverted. A table of contents is just that... a table that contains a listing of the contents of the article. A "system of hierarchical headings" refers to the actual headings on the sections within an article. For instance I could write an article with 15 level 2 headings, which would make for a very "substantial but not overwhelming" TOC, but wouldn't really be a "system of hierarchical headings". But if I write an article with four level 2 headings, each containing two level 3 headings, some of those containing level 4 headings, each falling under where each should fall (topically), then it would be a "system of hierarchical headings" AND provide a "substantial but not overwhelming" TOC. Mahalo. --] 13:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be honest, I'm unsure why "substantial but not overwhelming" is there in the first place. We let through some mighty small FACs, occasionally with justification. "A system of hierarchical headings" sounds fine to me. ] 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just about as perfect as can be. Since the TOC should really just be an afterthought anyway. We should be using the headings to organize the article, and not base them on how the computer-generated TOC will appear afterwards. The headings are the important part. The TOC, not so much. --] 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's fine too. A more specific way to phrase my initial point is that the headings and the ToC are the same thing—the latter an intra-page transclusion of the former. It didn't really make sense to treat them separately. ] 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah... it used to be just one paragraph, but '']'' decided to split it out and make them distinct. ;-) --] 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Moi? I don't remember that far back, conveniently ... ] 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Substantial but not overwhelming=== | |||
| I think "not overwhelming" is essential. Thirty or forty headlines in a ToC turns off readers, almost always indicates stub sections, and generally suggests poor integration of material and poor prose flow. | |||
| But I agree with above that "substantial" isn't right for smaller articles; you don't have to throw in excess headlines just for the sake of having a large ToC. "Logical and convenient for reader browsing but not overwhelming" or something like that? ] 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah. Makes sense. Although I think the current wording is fine. --] 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Absolutely need "not overwhelming"; an overwhelming TOC is often a sign of poor article organization. ] (]) 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =="Well-written": proposed addition== | |||
| Non-regular or intra-universal words, terms, or concepts specifically related to the article should be explained, or avoided if this would be possible without lowering the quality of the article. For instance, video game or comic book babble should be ignored or explained, specific (e.g. mathematical/chemical/philosophical...) concepts used should be properly introduced, etc. ] 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That's covered under Criterion 2, ]. ] (]) 14:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Just like we have ], I suspect that writing a similar page for FAC will help address the apparent problems with feature discussions (FAC, FLC, FPC, etc). It seems that several pages have been featured while failing to address important problems, or not featured for spurious reasons, such as whether their en-dashes were "properly spaced". Please contribute to the above page, and give comments on its talk page. ] 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please present a single example of a FAC that has failed due to strictly ] issues. I've been asking for a very long time; an example has never been provided and to my knowledge, no such beast exists. That editors who know the topic matter aren't reviewing FACs for ] 1b, 1c or 1d is not a reason to undermine criteria 2 (Manual of Style, referencing your recent move of ] without even discussing the move at the talk page). ] (]) 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If true, so much the better. The first two FAC reviews of ] are pretty depressing, although they don't quite sink to that level. ] would have, if not for Carabineri's last minute comments. But Radiant's proposed page is still a good idea; reviewers should not waste time with such matters when articles have problems with clarity, neutrality, and verifiability. ] <small>]</small> 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And this ignores the real danger; that an article will be promoted, solely because, after a long struggle, all its endashes are in place. ] <small>]</small> 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Radiant - I think this is a good idea as the topic has certainly come up on the talk pages concerning FAC a few times. I think its main benefit is to improve morale and make the whole shebang a more collaborative and happy exercise. As far as your second point, I think it would be diplomatic to back up allegations with examples - luckily there are solutions - FAR for articles promoted which may have needed more work, and renominating for FAC for the opposite. | |||
| ::PS: I'll add some stuff to the page later cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::SlimVirgin has tried (and failed) with this. I believe it was "How to review a featured article candidacy". It's out there somewhere on a failed guideline page (I guess that's BEANS). (And how many pages do we need in Misplaced Pages space anyway?) This will just be another essay that becomes stale. Remember ]? What a bang. What a whimper. If Radiant! would cease the crusade, we might better refocus. ] 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Examples, please, of FACs that have been failed solely because of en dashes. There are, no doubt, examples where the content of FACs is insufficiently reviewed (for comprehensivity and POV, for example), but what has that to do with en dashes? Lack of content review comes down to a paucity of reviewers, an age-old problem that no new page contraining "arguments" is going to fix. Is that paucity the "apparent problem" that forms the initial premise that there are "apparent problems"; this opening slant needs to be exemplified or explicitly justified. ] 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This from the editor who ] an article for purely stylistic points. Worse has probably happened; but this joke of a review, which contains only two substantive points, one made on the last day before closure, is bad enough. | |||
| :::::Radiant, do remember to deprecate the uncivil and pretentious term '''MOS breach'''; it is neither a fortification nor a commandment. ] <small>]</small> 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see that Anderson has turned to utter rudeness. I stand by that point—the en dashes looked ridiculous, and to fix them would have taken two minutes. It would have been a joke of an article, otherwise, giving it a gold star. I don't see why hyphens and dashes are SO difficult; they're basic to good writing, and if you can't get it, or you can't find someone else to review the text who does, you shouldn't be making claims to writing of a professional standard. And Anderson's claim that "MOS breach" is uncivil and pretentious is ... well, hard to see. Either MOS is followed or it's not. An "ignore it as you please" dictum would be self-defeating. ] 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* We're discussing ''articles'' here, not people. Tony, Marskell, can you two at least ''try'' to be civil for a chance? ] 08:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''(indent)'' - hang on, you were the one who started this with your comment about errors in promotions/non-promotions, which has now sidetracked what could have been more productive than what has ensued. As before - please cite your examples and deal with appropriately or strike out your comments.cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. The bee is in your bonnet, Radiant, and you need to justify why we're wasting so much time on this with substantial examples of the problem. As for civility, you've been launching attacks on Tony persistently for weeks. It's been strange and saddening to watch the deterioration in the editing behaviour of a long term contributor and admin. I mean what in God's name possessed you to move a guideline title that's five or six years old? And why are you out there reverting other admins—myself (thrice, I think), Bishonen—and numerous others inbetween without so much as a hello on user talk? This is clearly a ] issue, not just one of "style." ] 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for proving my point so effectively. I ask if you can please be civil, and you respond with more personal attacks. Do we have a policy against moving pages that are five years old? I thought not. If you would just read up on what was happening instead of attacking people who disagree with you, you'd realize that this was discussed extensively on the admin board, and you'd realize that the people you're defending have been downright nasty to many people that disagree with them, for several weeks now. Don't make one-sided remarks. Just because you happen to agree with them on some issue does not excuse their (or your) "deteriorating" behavior. ] 11:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:41, 7 October 2024
Shortcut
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 56 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Lead Length
Currently, Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length says 250 to 400 words for most FA's. But these are just suggestions. Some articles also have considerably higher word counts for their leads. An example would be India, although its FAR was a long time ago. I wonder if we could get a more precise guideline similar to Misplaced Pages:Article_size#Size_guideline. Something like a table? Recommended: 250-400. Ok:400s. Acceptable:500s. Above 600:should be trimmed? Bogazicili (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you check that MOS talk page, you'll find a substantial discussion on that topic from not so long ago. FWIW, the size guideline is also rather controversial, as guidelines go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd certainly oppose adding anything. Imo many leads are too short (but some too long), & FA ones should on the whole tend to the long end of ranges. I thought the lead of Narwhal (now withdrawn) too short, which the nom disagreed with. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:, maybe many leads are too short because the current wording ("Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words") is too restrictive? I checked Earth, which went through a recent FAR. It has 575 words. So I'm guessing 500's are ok, depending on the topic. I am also asking because I recently changed the lead in Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I meant leads in general. "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words" may well be true, but unfortunately these days "Most featured articles" are on micro-topics where a short lead is justified, if not unavoidable. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me ask a different way. If an article has a lead with a word count in 500s, would that cause an unsuccessful FAR by itself? Bogazicili (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The 250-400 words mentioned by MOS:LEADLENGTH is plainly descriptive rather than a recommendation, let alone a prescription; I don't get paid the coordinator big bucks to make these decisions, but I cannot see how not fitting that guideline would be considered a valid reason to oppose promotion or to delist an existing FA. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The 250-400 words mentioned by MOS:LEADLENGTH is plainly descriptive rather than a recommendation, let alone a prescription; I don't get paid the coordinator big bucks to make these decisions, but I cannot see how not fitting that guideline would be considered a valid reason to oppose promotion or to delist an existing FA. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me ask a different way. If an article has a lead with a word count in 500s, would that cause an unsuccessful FAR by itself? Bogazicili (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I meant leads in general. "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words" may well be true, but unfortunately these days "Most featured articles" are on micro-topics where a short lead is justified, if not unavoidable. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:, maybe many leads are too short because the current wording ("Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words") is too restrictive? I checked Earth, which went through a recent FAR. It has 575 words. So I'm guessing 500's are ok, depending on the topic. I am also asking because I recently changed the lead in Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Discussion in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)
Note that there is a proposal in Village pump regarding the consistency requirement for short and long inline citations: This would concern FA criteria 2c. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Maintenance
Hi. Is there a place in the instructions to add, "FAC nominators are expected to continuously maintain articles they nominated"? I just read that yesterday at WP:FASA, about 15 years after the fact. Pardon me if I missed it. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is no such instruction because there is no such requirement for an article to become featured. However, an editor won't get a second star at FASA for "saving" an FA that they previously got promoted and then ignored, which what that statement at WP:FASA is trying to communicate. If you don't like the way it is worded, a discussion at WT:FASA would be more appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Capitalization of source titles
Does "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required." require that all citations use the same capitalization style when the sources don't use the same capitalization convention? Question came up at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:TITLECAPS says that titles of works should be given in titlecase, but with the exception that
WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Misplaced Pages citation styles within Misplaced Pages, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style consistently used in an article.
My reading of this is that either all article titles should be in sentence case, or none should: we don't mix-and-match depending on how they are presented at the source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)- I understand that this allows us to follow subject-specific citation and bibliography styles. For example, in mathematics, the vast majority of journals use sentence case for article titles mentioned in the bibliography (and title case for journal titles). Some publishers (like the AMS) also tend to use sentence case for book titles in the bibliography, while others use title case for book titles. This is independent of the question how the source itself formats its title (unless it is in a foreign language; many foreign languages do not have a concept of title case, and usually formatting as in the source is best). The FAC criteria ask us to be internally consistent; personally, I think these MoS/consistency aspects get too much attention at FAC at the cost of actual fact/source checking (we should care far more whether an article contains one incorrect statement than a hundred incorrect dashes). —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
personally, I think these MoS/consistency aspects get too much attention at FAC at the cost of actual fact/source checking
I don't disagree with this! The problem is that it is easy to nitpick fine details of the Manual of Style (there are a lot of fiddly little rules to remember, and it doesn't require any subject-specific expertise) whereas unless you happen to have significant knowledge of the field already, it is very difficult to make substantive points about content – generally anyone bringing an article to FAC is more expert on that topic than any of the FAC reviewers!- But regardless of that, I think we agree on what the rules as currently written actually say? In which case, in the linked discussion SchroCat is in the right, and in the extreme case it would technically be valid (if silly) to oppose promotion while this is not "fixed". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, I agree with Kusma here: if an article establishes a consistent style (for example, that book titles are capitalised, and article/chapter titles are not), that's fine. It's preferable if they're following a particular named citation style, but I don't think we should police too firmly whether something is indeed the Loughborough University Arts Faculty house style (or whatever). As SchroCat says in the linked discussion, it is however not fine to simply follow what another source does -- MOS:CONFORM is the overarching principle here, I think: in stylistic matters, we adjust the formatting to match our MoS, not whichever house style an individual publication happened to use. As such, I think Caecilius is right that an article would be in error to have, for example, some articles capitalised and others uncapitalised on the grounds that that is how the publication did it (I'd note as well that lots of older articles are often printed with titles in all-caps, and that's definitely not a good move!). As Kusma says, though, foreign-language sources are a different thing, and here the MoS already tells us to follow that language's norms. UndercoverClassicist 11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that this allows us to follow subject-specific citation and bibliography styles. For example, in mathematics, the vast majority of journals use sentence case for article titles mentioned in the bibliography (and title case for journal titles). Some publishers (like the AMS) also tend to use sentence case for book titles in the bibliography, while others use title case for book titles. This is independent of the question how the source itself formats its title (unless it is in a foreign language; many foreign languages do not have a concept of title case, and usually formatting as in the source is best). The FAC criteria ask us to be internally consistent; personally, I think these MoS/consistency aspects get too much attention at FAC at the cost of actual fact/source checking (we should care far more whether an article contains one incorrect statement than a hundred incorrect dashes). —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Citations for individually authored chapters in edited books
Are citing individual chapter authors in edited books a requirement? Or is it optional? I have thought citing the entire edited book is acceptable , but that might not be the case 2.4.2? I also asked this in Citing sources talk page Bogazicili (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)