| Revision as of 15:06, 9 December 2006 editGurch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers109,955 edits Out of date← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:36, 20 October 2013 edit undoSporkBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,244,917 editsm Orphan per TFD outcome | ||
| (149 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{tl|ELAC site map}} | |||
| ==Archives== | ==Archives== | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | |||
| ==Origin of project== | |||
| This project essentially developed from various talk page discussions, such as , , , and at the , and particularly at ] a discussion now archived above. --] 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==ELAC userbox== | ==ELAC userbox== | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| <div style="clear: both"></div> | <div style="clear: both"></div> | ||
| <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> | <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> | ||
| {{User WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee}} | {{tl|User WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee}} | ||
| <div style="clear: both"></div> | <div style="clear: both"></div> | ||
| ==Successful projects== | |||
| ==ELAC issues list== | |||
| *] - <s>167kb (50 pgs)</s> - Done: 8kb (2-3 pages) @ 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (was achieved be removing a huge amount of work of one contributor as "looks copyvio", not by a member of this project) | |||
| Aside from those listed on the ''']''', here are few issues or concerns users have reported to us: | |||
| *] - <s>262kb (135 pgs)</s> - Done: below 32kb (8 pages) @ 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===GABA A receptor=== | |||
| *] - 167kb | |||
| :Note: I wish we could prove it, but this one has clear copyvio problems. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We'll have to look into this; it looks like last month this article was only two page long (click ) Thanks: --] 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It looks like ] did a (45pgs) on Nov 29. There was also a by ] on Nov 12. I suggest we revert back to (the original three page version). Any objections? Including myself, User:Patstuart, and the two people on ], there seems to be a consensus to revert the paste. I will tag that article for now and post a note to User:Dr inkfish. Thanks: --] 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :At this point, being that this project is young, and from the consensus of the archived and related talk pages, there is not yet a final uniformly agreed upon decision in regards to these few and unlikely types of junctures. If a page of editors strongly resists committee attempts to improve the size of the article, I would suggest that these articles go into a special ELAC category list in which further discussion would entail as to what would be the best direction to follow. This will have to be a learn-as-we-go process. If a committee team faces severe resistance, it would be a good idea to retreat on that particular article, for a time, until a better plan or more consensus is formulated. --] 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::One possibility would be to start with the longest item (a list) and break it up. Then the next and so on. This group would gain experience, face smaller resistance with lists, and by the time you got to non-lists, the argument that "this is the longest on wikipedia" would carry considerable weight. ] 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, this is a good idea. , there are about 700 articles over 85kb, 80 over 150kb, and 17 over 200kb with the longest being ] at 256kb. I would suggest that as a present reasonable goal, we work to get all lists below 150kb and all articles below 85kb. This should keep us busy for a while. Any comments? --] 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| What do you mean "list namespace", like a page showing the list of all the lists at Misplaced Pages? --] 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Category namespace = <tt>Category:blah</tt>, template namespace = <tt>Templah:blah</tt>, list namespace = <tt>List:blah</tt>. Or more succinctly, ]. --] 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Difference in approaches == | |||
| In some articles, the contributors seem to want to cut them down. My example is ], which seems to want to prune itself. In other articles, the people seem hostile. So should I add Bush to the list? -]<sup>]|]</sup> 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, this is a good I idea, add it to the ''']'''; however, we will need more team members before we tackle the Bush article. As I recall, it is the most edited (or viewed?) article in Misplaced Pages. In general, I would suggest that any article in the Top 700 longest article group (aside from lists) is fair game for committee action. I would suggest that the ELAC focus should be on cutting rather than pruning. Once an article is cut up, people can separate per topic of interest and prune away on those separated side articles. The “pruning effect”, however, usually subsides once article division is achieved, where afterwards the “growth effect” takes over again. --] 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This group's efforts will be seen as a threat if it '''deletes''' content; therefor I recommend that regardless of what may be eventually deleted, this group solely concern itself with breaking up big articles into smaller articles and leave deleting to efforts outside this group's charter. ] 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (WAS 4.250) | |||
| :::Yes, of course. I’ve done my fair share of page breakups, and we always make it very clear that nothing gets deleted during the process, i.e. except for trivial duplicate words or sentences, little grammar details, continuity flow necessities, etc. The main problem is not with the potential for losing material, but rather with the loss of the bonding “effect” of having everything one page and similarly all the editors on one talk page. Some editors, for example, may have just spent the last three months building up an article with material and references, etc., and by no stretch of anyone’s imagination do they want do see their special article broken up into pieces. The real issue is getting all of the regular editors to come to an agreement or understanding that this is just one article out of 1.5 million plus total article and that it needs to be broken up for the sake of the reader and for the sake of having a uniform encyclopedia. --] 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The "long article vote" template. == | |||
| I don't see how this is going to work. The only way I can see to implement it, barring changes in thesoftware, would be to link up a pageview counter. Unfortunately, all pageview counters I can find are copyrighted, and the only ones that have any sort of license for use without payment require putting up ads for the site as part of the agreement. I tried to see if I could get anything by tweaking around with the HTML code for forms, but I'm not sure how much of it Mediawiki handles, and I'd need developer access at the least to set it up properly, anyway. I've done a bit with JavaScript, but I don't think it has enough functionality for full GUI stuff, and there's still the problem of actually storing the results, which I can't do. So someone's going to have to think up another plan, unless I missed something. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Amarkov, I really don’t know how to do it myself either, but I sure where there’s a will there’s a way. With almost 3 million registered Wikipedians, I’m sure that someone around here knows how to do it. My plan is to find someone who knows how; although it may talk some time. I’ve left a message on Jimbo’s talk page; hopefully he’ll have some input for us. In the mean time, do you know of anyone might be able to do the coding, i.e. possibly something like they do at ]? --] 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hm, ] didn't occur to me. Regardless, I still think there are going to be technical impossibilities. If I actually had a working, public domain pageview counter to start with, I could probably get it to work, but I don't, and I'm not sure there are any. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's a good idea, if we could set up a visitor statistics counter for both the YES and NO pages of each long article we decide to poll, then we could have a crude vote counting method. We'll have to dig around for a counting program. Can you do it with something like ? --] 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not that I can see. That gives the graph of overall activity, which, although interesting, isn't what we want. Just a public domain hit counter, that shows like "XXXX views", is the only way I can see to do anything easily. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| We'll have to work on this week-by-week. One thing to note, is that we have to code the vote counter so that the random overzealous user isn't aloud to submit multi-votes, which thus skews the poll. I've set up many online voting polls, such as one, and I've seen this happen where one person will submit 20-30 votes in one sitting. --] 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I urge sensible people to prod this page. Best, <font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What the heck are you talking about? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can only say this is the most logical project that came to be lately. The articles on WP are too long and for one to read a 50kb+ article it is impossible to remember more than 10% of what you read in one sitting let alone skipping parts that are just pure prose and no pictures. We need this, I don't know how it will be percieved but anyway, it will have its use in the future. ] 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you Lincher, I agree with you. It looks like Ghirlandajo won't be contributing to the project? He has a bunch of 180kb+ archived talk pages; maybe he likes long articles as well? --] 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I see this page is an exercise in trolling. Please stop chit-chatting and start writing articles. That's what we are all here for. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again, what are you talking about? ]<sup>]|]</sup> 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==looking at the longest== | |||
| Looking at the longest, they are are not really that long, but they are large--usually from incorporating tables, which add greatly to the KB count. If this were 3 years ago, I'd suggest table-free versions for slow web browsers. But this is not quite as necessary now, and we should find some way of distinguishing them so they don't show up on our lists if no work is appropriate.] 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Also, a lot of the longest articles are lists some of which I think would be less useful if they were split up. For instance I think ] could benefit with being broken up into smaller articles whereas ] (a featured list) is best left alone. ] 12:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Update== | |||
| == Treading carefullly == | |||
| We’ll that was ''']'''! The ELAC project is less than ten days old, it started on 12/10/06, and we have already had such a fun bunch of arguments. Two people have suggested that someone delete this project (which is why I added the new header shown above, i.e. to save the third person the trouble of starting a discussion), we have had three project pages voted out by deletion, and one template deleted. I sure am glad that I ''']''' my time for all this fun. That last round of derogative attacks, for everyone to note, came from predominately the ] editors, after I posted a suggestive on the FA project talk pages about how many featured articles are getting too long, such as 107kb FA article. I pulled us out of all articles, for the moment, so that we can have time to recalibrate, and to see if more people join us, and to gather more user data as to which articles people are complaining about the most. --] 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sadi, about the , and yet you have deleted wording added to the Project page here, and re-added inaccurate statements about Featured articles. Featured articles aren't longer because they're featured. *Referenced* articles have higher overall than prose size because they are *cited*. This project could be very useful in dealing with the truly long articles, if you would listen to the message the community clearly sent abuot the tone and approach here. The entire article page needs a thorough editing, readjustment, and copyedit for flabby prose as well. Consensus is the way Wiki works: please don't continue adding text to the Project page which is clearly not supported. Further, your comment above about "derogative attacks" from FA editors is just wrong - the problems started on a peer review of Psycho the film, which isn't close to being featured, and *many* FA reviewers - myself included - agree that the article you highlighted is too long. It's not too long because it has 107KB overall: it's too long because it has over 80KB of prose. ] (]) 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Moved message from Sadi Carnot from my talk page to here: ] (]) 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{stop}} Hi, you more than welcome to contribute to the ELAC (or delete the entire project for all I care) but please do not make reverts such that the previous (sourced) contributions I just made get deleted. Changes are fine (as long as they are sourced); otherwise use the talk page to discuss your actions. P.S. I do not want to get into a big argument right now, I'm just doing a little project clean-up and then I will take a break (its the holidays). I pulled all ELAC involvement out of the three articles we were involved in. I am just going give the project a break for a while. Please do not put unsourced suppositions about “text size” only limits in the project page; please only contribute based on the published works of the others, not your own opinion. Also, please be try to be nice. --] 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm doing the nomination right now, and no, it isn't just about the methods stated. I love calling disagreement "derogative attacks". -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't forget the lovely templates like {{Tl|ELAC talk header}} and {{Tl|ELAC site map}} too. ] | ] 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A way to manage that is to add citations and then making well cited sections that can later become a subpage. In doing that we create a better cited article, a longer article (for adding citations will make it longer) and having more concise articles. (Ex : George W. Bush) ] 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::(after edit conflicet) I would like to support the goals of this Project, if they would be correctly re-oriented to a Wiki-like approach, focusing on extra-long prose. It doesn't appear that Sadi Carnot "heard" the message. I will reluctantly vote to remove the Project if there is no adjustment in goals and tone. ] (]) 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Honestly, I think ] could accomplish the actual possible worthy goals (not the exact same as this) without the weirdness. {{Tl|ELAC talk header}} seems to be a bad idea carried out in a fit of anger. ] | ] 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::::They could, except my issue is partly with the goals. Dividing up long articles is fine, as long as you don't assume they should be divided up over objections of the people who edit the page, and make it your goal to divide ''all'' long articles. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Yes indeed, and dividing up all long articles is not the goal of the modular articles project. Sorry if I implied that. ] | ] 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'll look into that project after the holidays, pschemp - it's hard (for me) to work on articles this time of year. ] (]) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment:''' Amarkav, thank you for your "join us", "encourage us", and then "delete us" motto. Excellent! Thanks again everyone, especially Sandy – you are probably one of the kindest editors in Misplaced Pages. Adios: --] 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Out of date == | |||
| :You're not dead yet. You just tried something that didn't work. So what? ] (] <small>•</small> ]) 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::If it had even occured to me that there would be so many stupid conduct standards and goals, I wouldn't have joined. I should have expected that, after seeing you try to recruit admins to block people reverting the committee, but I didn't. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::I'll have it known Sandy is always helpful - it's the derogatory tone of this project that needs to be curbed. This isn't a war! ] 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A lot of the sources cited on this page seem to be rather out-of-date, dating back to 1997/1998 or even earlier. That may not seem like a long time ago, but in Internet terms that is a geological age away from where we are today. For example "the average user still has a 28.8Kbps modem" is nonsense; we should certainly still cater for 56Kbps dial-up speeds but these statements are placing an unnecessary emphasis on download time. I'm not aware of any more recent studies, but I'd be very surprised if the number one complaint of Web users is still the download time of pages. The download time of files, by all means – programs and videos tens of megabytes in size – but not a page of 50Kb or so. I agree that articles should be kept short, absolutely, for reasons of clarity, readability, structure and the ability of average reader to get through the thing, but let's not place too much emphasis on "technical limitations" with ever-decreasing significance – ] 15:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 20 October 2013
{{ELAC site map}}
Archives
ELAC userbox
Once you begin to participate in the project please feel free to paste an ELAC userbox to your user page using the following code:
{{User WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee}} {{User WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee}}
Successful projects
- GABA A receptor -
167kb (50 pgs)- Done: 8kb (2-3 pages) @ 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (was achieved be removing a huge amount of work of one contributor as "looks copyvio", not by a member of this project) - List of states in the Holy Roman Empire -
262kb (135 pgs)- Done: below 32kb (8 pages) @ 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Update
We’ll that was fun! The ELAC project is less than ten days old, it started on 12/10/06, and we have already had such a fun bunch of arguments. Two people have suggested that someone delete this project (which is why I added the new header shown above, i.e. to save the third person the trouble of starting a discussion), we have had three project pages voted out by deletion, and one template deleted. I sure am glad that I volunteered my time for all this fun. That last round of derogative attacks, for everyone to note, came from predominately the FA editors, after I posted a suggestive comment on the FA project talk pages about how many featured articles are getting too long, such as this 107kb FA article. I pulled us out of all articles, for the moment, so that we can have time to recalibrate, and to see if more people join us, and to gather more user data as to which articles people are complaining about the most. --Sadi Carnot 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sadi, the community has overwhelmingly spoken about the tone and tactics of this project, and yet you have deleted wording added to the Project page here, and re-added inaccurate statements about Featured articles. Featured articles aren't longer because they're featured. *Referenced* articles have higher overall than prose size because they are *cited*. This project could be very useful in dealing with the truly long articles, if you would listen to the message the community clearly sent abuot the tone and approach here. The entire article page needs a thorough editing, readjustment, and copyedit for flabby prose as well. Consensus is the way Wiki works: please don't continue adding text to the Project page which is clearly not supported. Further, your comment above about "derogative attacks" from FA editors is just wrong - the problems started on a peer review of Psycho the film, which isn't close to being featured, and *many* FA reviewers - myself included - agree that the article you highlighted is too long. It's not too long because it has 107KB overall: it's too long because it has over 80KB of prose. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Moved message from Sadi Carnot from my talk page to here: Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you more than welcome to contribute to the ELAC (or delete the entire project for all I care) but please do not make reverts such that the previous (sourced) contributions I just made get deleted. Changes are fine (as long as they are sourced); otherwise use the talk page to discuss your actions. P.S. I do not want to get into a big argument right now, I'm just doing a little project clean-up and then I will take a break (its the holidays). I pulled all ELAC involvement out of the three articles we were involved in. I am just going give the project a break for a while. Please do not put unsourced suppositions about “text size” only limits in the project page; please only contribute based on the published works of the others, not your own opinion. Also, please be try to be nice. --Sadi Carnot 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Moved message from Sadi Carnot from my talk page to here: Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm doing the nomination right now, and no, it isn't just about the methods stated. I love calling disagreement "derogative attacks". -Amarkov edits 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget the lovely templates like {{ELAC talk header}} and {{ELAC site map}} too. pschemp | talk 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- (after edit conflicet) I would like to support the goals of this Project, if they would be correctly re-oriented to a Wiki-like approach, focusing on extra-long prose. It doesn't appear that Sadi Carnot "heard" the message. I will reluctantly vote to remove the Project if there is no adjustment in goals and tone. Sandy (Talk) 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Modular Articles could accomplish the actual possible worthy goals (not the exact same as this) without the weirdness. {{ELAC talk header}} seems to be a bad idea carried out in a fit of anger. pschemp | talk 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- They could, except my issue is partly with the goals. Dividing up long articles is fine, as long as you don't assume they should be divided up over objections of the people who edit the page, and make it your goal to divide all long articles. -Amarkov edits 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, and dividing up all long articles is not the goal of the modular articles project. Sorry if I implied that. pschemp | talk 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll look into that project after the holidays, pschemp - it's hard (for me) to work on articles this time of year. Sandy (Talk) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- They could, except my issue is partly with the goals. Dividing up long articles is fine, as long as you don't assume they should be divided up over objections of the people who edit the page, and make it your goal to divide all long articles. -Amarkov edits 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Modular Articles could accomplish the actual possible worthy goals (not the exact same as this) without the weirdness. {{ELAC talk header}} seems to be a bad idea carried out in a fit of anger. pschemp | talk 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm doing the nomination right now, and no, it isn't just about the methods stated. I love calling disagreement "derogative attacks". -Amarkov edits 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Amarkav, thank you for your "join us", "encourage us", and then "delete us" motto. Excellent! Thanks again everyone, especially Sandy – you are probably one of the kindest editors in Misplaced Pages. Adios: --Sadi Carnot 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're not dead yet. You just tried something that didn't work. So what? Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it had even occured to me that there would be so many stupid conduct standards and goals, I wouldn't have joined. I should have expected that, after seeing you try to recruit admins to block people reverting the committee, but I didn't. -Amarkov edits 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll have it known Sandy is always helpful - it's the derogatory tone of this project that needs to be curbed. This isn't a war! LuciferMorgan 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)