Misplaced Pages

I took it as a compliment - thanks! Now my secret agenda to get non-notable bands to FA can proceed ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>° 20:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off; now we'll all be scrutinizing those :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Curiously my wife sometimes asks me the same question. I've had to ask her to wear a silly hat when she's telling a funny story, so that I know not to take her seriously. Sometimes she forgets though, and I explode with rage. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just had a vision of Homer Simpson running at a ruined barbecue pit with an umbrella, after he beat it screaming "Why must I fail at every attempt at masonry???" That was awesome, Mal. Even if you're not laughing, you're making me laugh. Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Go review some boats and stop goofing around! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To get back on the serious side, Auntieruth, I deliberately don't read the summaries - posted by either reviewers or nominators. Sometimes a reviewer will support with a big "BUT..." that actually backs up a point another reviewer made in opposing. It's not just the declaration alone that's considered, but what is written along with it, and it's better for me to read through those myself to determine how to weight it. There's also the possibility that reviewers will change a declaration, but not change the summary. I don't even keep notes for myself from week to week - I read through each of the "close" FACs all over again. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Same take on the summaries as Karanacs; they don't always tell the full story, and reading through the full FAC before promotion is key-- but the problem for me is that I may miss mid-sentence bolds on my first pass through (eyesight). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

did anything get changed?

• Hey, very recently there was extended discussion about making changes to FAC nom processes... did anything get changed? Thanks • Ling.Nut 04:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ling.Nut, FYI the FAC instruction text is kept on the template {{FAC-instructions}}; I have it on my watchlist and I can confirm there have been a few changes recently. Here are the changes since 30 January. PL290 (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Older" section vs. urgents

I've added an "Older nominations" section to the FAC page, per the discussion above. I placed it to include everything in the urgent FACs template, which I think would be a good way to use it. I suggest that we abandon the urgents template, and change the FAC instructions template to say "Please consider reviewing one of the candidates in the "Older nominations" section first. We would also need to change the instructions that pop up when you edit WP:FAC since those refer to the urgents template too. I assume that the delegates would need to be the one to move this section heading since they are the ones that decide what is urgent, but if the task can be done by FAC regulars in the future that would be better. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mildly surprised. I thought we were going to reverse the order, oldest at the top. After all, that proposal got 10 supports and 2 opposes, which is arguably consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer oldest at the top.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Karanacs and others, but from my viewpoint, this is As Good As It Gets, and I don't see how oldest noms at top will help. By the time articles fall to the bottom of the page, we usually know what we're looking/waiting for, and have read throught the FAC before, so I can quickly look at those to see where they stand, if they can be moved one way or the other, and then I can go back to begin to sort through the newer FACs. My concern would be, who is going to maintain the split? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't implement this when I made the other RfC-based changes, partly because I don't like the idea, but mostly because it's a pain in the neck to do and will require a little thought in changing some of the instruction wording. I agree with Wehwalt that the change arguably has consensus; if someone else does it I won't object, though I might grumble.

Re the split: who maintains the urgents list? If whoever did that doesn't want to do this I think it could be done by the FAC regulars instead. Mike Christie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to hear from Karanacs, and we need to balance delegate need with reviewer/nom needs, but having just read through, this is the best thing since sliced bread from my perspective. I could quickly see what was done, what is needed, reviews are really picking up (thanks to all), and now I can more quickly settle in to read those that may be promotable. Old noms at the top won't do, for me at least, as much as this does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The other thing I like about it is that maintaining it only involves moving one line-- the break between old and new. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I found this very helpful today while I pr/ar. I will be curious to see if it makes any difference in reviewer habits - and reviewers, please feel free to give feedback on whether you like/dislike the new addition. Karanacs (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about the one-at-a-time rule

Hey all, sorry if this isn't the right place to raise this, but I had a question about the rule that an editor can only have one FAC out at a time. Currently, I have an FAC out and under review. There is another article that I have worked on with another nominator in the past, and when it is listed, we would both be co-nominators. If two people are listed as nominators, could we list that article on FAC, despite my having one out already? Or would that FAC with two co-nominators count as the one FAC allowed for both of us? Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Did we ever resolve this issue? See Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive43#A concern... for the relevant discussion. Awadewit (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup partly led to the backlog, and sometimes brings very unprepared articles to FAC; we should avoid having multiple noms up, with different co-nominators, merely to get around the problems caused and the reason for discussing one nom at a time. At the same time, there are some nominators, with co-noms, who bring well-prepared articles to FAC, and can handle more than one at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is "An editor is allowed to nominate only one article". To include conoms in the restriction it could say: "An editor is allowed to nominate (or conominate) only one article at a time". If we want to allow a conom as well, it could say: "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, they may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them." A suggestion was made that we count the limit as one, but it should apply to the person who actually creates the nomination page -- if someone still supports that idea then perhaps they could suggest wording.

Of those options I prefer the first, myself, perhaps with a rider for delegate discretion (e.g. for editors who have a track record of bringing well-prepared articles successfully through FAC). Mike Christie (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your final point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No comments for a couple of days. If there are no further objections I propose to change the FAC instructions to the wording "An editor is allowed to nominate (or conominate) only one article at a time." I am not certain that this is the consensus version, though I think it probably is, based on the earlier discussion. If there is significant disagreement we can discuss the merits of the options above. I don't think it's acceptable to leave it as it stands, since it is clearly ambiguous with regard to conoms. Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the intent here, and I don't necessarily disagree with it but, for instance, Ealdgyth has sometimes been kind enough to reward my feeble efforts at fixing her tortured prose by conominating me, even though I'm not in a position to respond to any of the queries raised during the FAC. So why should I be prevented from nominating an article I do know something about in the meantime? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If only because you characterize Ealdgyth's prose as "tortured"? Poor Ealdgyth. Now I'm off to be unhelpful elsewhere. --Moni3 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I need him to switch the spellings over to the "wrong" ones... poor Brits, still thinking a "u" is needed in "favor"... To be serious, I'll just stop co-nomming, removing some of the collaborativeness of the project. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

... which is exactly my concern. On the one hand we have some editors screaming about "ownership", yet when credit is given to others for their contributions they're hindered by it. Sorry for calling your prose "tortured" btw Ealdgyth, I was just employing a literary device. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, now, I know I'm a bit too fond of that that word for common usage, and my comma usage is... Besides, I knew you were kidding. If this was paper and ink, you'd probably only cover half the prose of my articles with little red squiggles... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about if we make it "An editor is allowed to nominate (or conominate) only one article at a time, unless given leave by a delegate?" That would allow an out. Also, Ealdgyth, I'm not sure why you'd stop conominating -- can you explain? Surely the incentive here is the other way around -- if two noms were allowed if one were a conom, then some editors might be tempted to recruit a conominator to get around the rule. But with the proposed wording, there is no reason not to conom every candidate, unless it's with an editor who is a frequent nominator at FAC and might hence have an active nomination. Is that the issue?

(Post ec): Malleus, is credit synonymous with a listing at WP:WBFAN? Credit can (and perhaps should) be given in the nomination by the nominator to those who helped bring the article along. That's not forbidden by this rule. And if anyone would like to have the WBFAN listing subsequently credited to them, it's easy enough to edit the files that WBFAN draws from and add a name that should be credited. That's been done many times to add credit for featured stars to people who helped with articles but didn't get nomination credits. Mike Christie (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I conom Malleus (who indeed is a frequent nominator on his own) because he's done most of the prose polish on my articles, and if I get a question on THAT I'll be deferring to him (and have often in the past). I wouldn't expect him to put off an article he's worked on on his own just because I've co-nommed him, so to avoid making his work wait, I just will abuse him a bit more and not co-nom him but still depend on him to answer prose polish queries. I usually only do the co-nom when he's had more than normal work to get my (self-admitted!) tortured prose up to standard. (Such as the soon to be nom'd Thomas of Bayeux) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Mike, I couldn't give a monkey's arse about BFAN, and I'm not even sure I've ever looked at it. I've almost certainly turned down more offers of conoms than I've (almost always reluctantly) accepted, and there's more than one FA out there I haven't ever had credit for that wouldn't be an FA without the work I put into it, sometimes even more than the nominators themselves. If I ruled the world I'd delete BFAN as childish nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't see a problem. No fewer articles will be nominated, no one who cares will be deprived of a WBFAN listing, and no one will be prevented from helping FA candidates get promoted. Mike Christie (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. If Ealdgyth, for instance, is kind enough to conominate me for one of her bishops, then I'm not able to nominate one of my witch articles or whatever until that's done. What I don't care about is BFAN. Each of knows what we've done, or failed to do, doesn't need a list to tell us. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess I see that. But what would be the difference to you, if instead of conominating Ealdgyth simply credited you on the nomination as a contributor who might help with the FAC? Mike Christie (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't broken-hearted, but that just seems like an unecessary contortion to get around a rule. Surely the point of nominators/conominators is that they have both significantly worked on the article and are prepared to try and deal with at least some of the issues that may arise during the FAC? It's a shame in my mind that this is mixed up with the BFAN issue, which I really couldn't care less about. Nominators/conominators, for me, show who's standing behind the article at FAC. Who cares what happens once the FAC is over? I felt very guilty about accepting a conomination for Samuel Johnson, for instance, because I'd added almost nothing in terms of content. But would it have been ready for FAC without my help? Perhaps not. At history of timekeeping devices's FAC I probably did more work than any one of the nominators, but that's not credited to me, and there's no reason why it should be. In essence I don't see the nomination issue as "I wrote this article", I see it more as "I'm bringing this article I've worked on with others and I'll do the best I can to deal with any issues that crop up during this FAC". And like Ealdgyth, if I know that another editor has invested significant time and effort in an article I want him or her to be there during the nomination. Even if they aren't, I guess I think that conominators give an easy idea of an article's likely pedigree. Like another whacky article from those two clowns Parrot of Doom and Malleus. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion about this, Awadewit, SandyGeorgia and I supported the "no conoms" version; Nev1 and Ealdgyth were opposed, and now Malleus is opposed too. This is not consensus for that version. I think unless others chime in to support the "no conoms" version, the wording should be relaxed to the least restrictive form: "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, they may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them". Let's wait and see what others have to say about the options and see if there's a consensus for one version or the other. Mike Christie (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I supported the "no co-noms" version? I was very busy then, and must have been asleep at the wheel, if I did that. I may have left an incomplete or incorrect impression. I don't want co-noms used to advance Wikicup noms of unprepared articles that sap reviewer time and should be peer-reviewed and are being rushed through to advance the award culture, but absolutely, some delegate discretion is needed to allow situations from editors who collaborate to put forward well-prepared FACs. The instructions should somehow account for that, to allow delegate discretion, while the possibility of removing ill-prepared noms and multiple co-noms merely to get around the rules to advance WikiCup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what you said that made me think you supported it, in reply to a comment about gaming the system by adding conoms: "Yes, it's very open to gaming, but that can be addressed via delegate discretion (we don't want to see co-noms added merely to avoid the "one nom at a time" issue)". (Findable in the discussion linked above.) So it does look like the less restrictive version is the right wording, unless we hear from others that support the "no conoms" version. Mike Christie (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been too busy lately to follow all of this, but I trust y'all to get it right. We don't want to disallow, for example, the Malleus/Ealdgyth scenario, where they often work together, present well-prepared FACs, and both work hard at FAC to reduce the backlog (hence can't be labeled as part of the backlog problem). We do want to avoid WikiCup noms sticking on several co-noms to put forward an ill-prepared FAC, that will sap reviewer time, haven't been otherwise well-reviewed (e.g.; peer review), by editors who rarely review other FACs, and are being rushed to advance the award culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a thought about tying co-nomming to reviewing. When HunterKahn posted his question, I looked to see if he had any other reviews - he had only one at the time (an article he had previously reviewed at GA) and I thought to myself "this is precisely what we are trying to avoid - nominators piling on FA noms without reviewing" (sorry, Hunter, that is what I thought). I know there is aversion to requiring reviews, but it does seem to me that if one wants to have multiple articles at FAC (for whatever reason), one should give back to the FAC system somehow. Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a proposed change to the instructions to take into account the comments above. The current instructions say:

"An editor is allowed to nominate only one article. While the nomination is still active, that editor shall not nominate another article. If the article is promoted, the same editor may nominate another article immediately. If the article is archived, and not promoted, the nominator may not nominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions."

I propose that this be changed to:

"An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, they may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them. If a nominated article is archived, and not promoted, none of the nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions."

I think this removes all ambiguity, but it introduces another change that we haven't discussed: the impact of this rule on the "no nominations for two weeks after a failed nomination" rule. My interpretation is fairly severely: if you are part of a failed nomination, you are covered by the "no nominations for two weeks" rule. I feel that if we're going to have that rule it's the only way for it to be restrictive, as was intended. Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In relation to the number, I don't see the problem with the current wording. An editor can nominate one article at a time. One. 1. I. Un. Uno. Unus. Eins. Ichi. 壹. 한. However, the nominator of another article can credit you. Given that the instructions already require the nominator to either be or have the approval of primary contributors, gaming cannot really be an issue.

I'd like to register my disapproval at the suggestion that some co-noms should be allowed, and others disallowed. But it stands to reason that if you're happy to take the credit for a successful co-nom, you should be prepared to take the consequences of an archived one. If you agree to being named, you are (or should be) agreeing that you consider the article to be FA quality. Furthermore, you are putting it forward as worthy of people giving up their time to check it against our highest standards. I therefore suggest that the two-week rule is brought in for co-nominators, with no limit on how many co-noms you can be named on. Wikicup participant, member of the award culture, both or neither, one would have to assume that any co-nominator subject to that penalty would genuinely believe the article to be ready. WFCforLife (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed "If a nominated article is archived, and not promoted, none of the nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate", because some articles "failed" because too few reviewers turn up. Penalising nominators for this would be a strong incentive for nominators to bring their friends at reviers, etc. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal grants exceptions if too few reviewers comment. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to Template:FAC-instructions as stated above. Despite WFCforLife's comments, I think the current wording is unacceptable; the question of interpretation with regard to conoms has come up a couple of times already, and needs to be unambiguous, though I hate to make the instructions longer. If there are any further changes needed we can continue the discussion but I hope this resolves things for now. Mike Christie (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the clarification on the two-week rule. But I would encourage you to reword the change to reflect the fact that there was no consensus on a strict maximum of two (or at least reverse that particular change until it is established). Malleus is a good example of where an editor could legitimately be credited in several FACs but only a content producer in one. WFCforLife (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To weaken that clause further I think we need to see more comments in agreement with you first -- the current wording is only my best guess at a consensus position, but it didn't draw much opposition. Let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In this thread alone there are four editors concerned about a change explicitly restricting the number of noms: Karanacs, Malleus, Ealdgyth and myself. I'm not in the habit of reverting to reflect my POV, but I really do think there is enough stated opposition for it to be (at least temporarily) reversed. WFCforLife (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that I didn't have a problem with restricting the number of "noms", just with "co-noms" being counted as "noms". I'm fine with the change that Mike introduced. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A two-week wait is surely a small price to pay if it acts as an effective deterrent to submission of unprepared nominations, which has been identified as a regular issue even if only moderate in frequency. If we simply wait till "reviewers have said it's not ready", implicit in that is reviewer time spent on those unprepared nominations. In what way do you see the wheel as broken? PL290 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as broken. It seems like it works fine. I thought we were talking about the nom/conom thing, not waiting 2 weeks after archiving. actually I had a nom archived last summer, for want of reviews, and didn't know that I was supposed to wait 2 weeks. I think I waited one, drummed up some more readers, and nommed again. No one said anything that I recall. If there isn't a problem with having noms or conoms putting up more than one article at a time, why are we discussing this? Or are we dealing with 2 issues? One is that people might put up more than one at a time, and the other than people resurrect an article too quickly from the archive? I noticed Ucucha asking a renom (Brad Pitt article?) if the old issues had been addressed, and it seems more to the point if an article that has been archived once document that those issues are addressed, rather than telling the nominator to wait 2 weeks (and in the intervening time not doing anything). The point is not to wait 2 weeks, but to improve the article, so perhaps the better solution is to require either a peer review or a guild of copy editors review, or something like that before it could be renommed. Or have we discussed this already too? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The two-week rule is a recent change, resulting from the RFC, meant to reduce the backlog. The FAC you're referring to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Smedley Butler/archive2. Ucucha 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, sorry Auntieruth55, I took it you knew that, so I used the past tense, which turns out to have given my question the wrong meaning. My question is, in what way do you see these changes that have just been made (in respect of nom/conom and 2-week wait) as "breaking the wheel"? PL290 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me we're trying to fix something that isn't broken. If there are egregious violations or abuses of the system, then it's probably broken, and should be fixed. If there aren't, then it probably isn't broken. Kumioko's article on Smedley Butler is an example. Kumioko did a bunch of work on the article. He also waited 2 weeks, but if he had finished what he needed to do in less, why wait? The other part of the discussion is the bit about noms and conoms, and having more than one at a time, or not. Has there been a problem with this? In other words, is it a problem? Is the process broken? If it isn't, why are we fussing over it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews...

Quite honestly, I don't have the time to do every FAC anymore, and for a while User:Rafablu88 was picking up the slack, but he's busy in RL also, so someone needs to step up to the plate and pick up the Video game/music/movie FACs for a while. I just do not have the time for that. The current list of ones that are needed is:

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2009 Giro d'Italia/archive2 done by RB88. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Star Trek III: The Search for Spock/archive1
  • Rafablu88 already gave it a clean slate, with the recommendation that other editors mention their stance on a couple of potentially borderline sources when they review. Steve  19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Killswitch Engage/archive2 Done by Auntieruth55. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Kinks/archive2 Done by RB88. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1 DocKino (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/American Beauty (film)/archive1 Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pilot (Parks and Recreation)/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Milbanke Sound Group/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive1 Done by myself. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Rookie (1990 film)/archive2
  • This has been archived. Steve  19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ram Narayan/archive2
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Kala (album)/archive2
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Say Say Say/archive1

Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a stab at the one for Parks and Recreation; feel free to unstrike (destrike?) if it seems inadequate. Ideally, all reviewers should consider sources before they "support"; I'm as guilty as anyone for leaving it up to you; you just seemed so good at it. :-) On the handful of FAC reviews I manage each month, I'll try not to shirk that aspect. All the best, Steve  23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And I had a stab at the one for Ram Narayan. Feedback on the review itself welcome. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so someone's going to be putting a list together for Ealdgyth of all the source review reviews, right? :-D Steve  00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me to be a mistake to expect one editor to go through sourcing, another images, yet another alt text and so on. Any reviewer who supports ought to have looked at the whole package, and flagged any areas of concern for those more expert in a particular area to look more closely at. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this seems closer the way it used to work. As I say, I'm as guilty as anyone for ignoring images when the "experts" have already pitched in with their comments, or even holding off support until I've seen Ealdgyth or Rafablu88 give the sources a clean bill of health. So ... I won't be doing that any more. A support is a support is a support. :-) To remind reviewers, new and experienced, I wonder how easy it would be for all new FAC pages to automatically include an abridged version of WP:WIAFA in the edit notice. Something along the lines of this? Steve  11:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember though that per the instructions (and rightly so, in my opinion), "A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria." This applies as much to, say, prose and comprehensiveness as to media and sources. I think if we were to insist on total coverage of the criteria by all reviewers, that would not achieve anything and would undoubtedly act as a disincentive to editors to participate at all. I thought we were trying to find ways of encouraging greater participation, not ways of putting people off. PL290 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any reviewer is perfectly at liberty to qualify their support in whatever they wish if they feel that's necessary, although to my mind that's not really a support, more of a comment along the lines of "the image licensing looks OK to me, but I haven't checked anything else". My point was to do with the reliance on one or two individuals to check specific aspects of the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Only one still needs review, Kala (album). I did Dragon Quest, so someone might want to take a quick look. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PL290's "we were to insist on total coverage of the criteria by all reviewers, that would not achieve anything" (13:16, 24 February 2010). I suggest a standard set of specialisms, mostly based on current informal ones, e.g. content, prose, images, etc. However, it would have to be adaptable - for example Malleus elsewhere said that country articles are monsters, and I could imagine such reviews having divisions by sheer bulk as well as function such as contents, etc.

In "normal" reviews the coordination would be mostly the job of the delegates. But for complex reviews the specialists may need to check that there have been no undesirable side-effects. --Philcha (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that the two aspects Philcha identifies (having a standard set of specialisms, and the need to coordinate specialist reviews) relate directly to my recent suggestion above which hasn't really provoked much reaction yet. I remain of the opinion that the suggestion may have merit, particularly if it can be implemented in a way that works well visually for reviewers and delegates. PL290 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies

I was just looking through the FA categories to find the biography category, because I'm looking for some of our best bios to show an editor who's currently writing one. And I find we have no bio category. Would it make sense to create one, rather than having bios spread throughout other categories? SlimVirgin 08:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be too large to make sense. Here's the list; there are over 600 FA biographies. Mike Christie (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, best just to leave the bios in their topics. Hopefully the category answers SV's needs.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. What I was looking for was a list of FA bios of women. Maybe I should create a subcat, though practically all my experiences of trying to create categories end with me being chased off by category specialists outraged that I've violated some sacred tenet of their system. :) SlimVirgin 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it's including things like bands, and articles about events, rather than bios. It includes anything that the bio wikiproject puts its tag on basically. It would be nice to have a separate category of pure bios that got to FA, with separate cats for men and women. SlimVirgin 12:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better addressed at WT:FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Brief article summary at candidacy?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I'd like to suggest that nominators of FA are encouraged/required to provide a very brief (one, at most two sentences) summary what the article is about. The reason is, that I often find myself in the situation that I want to do some review, but from the title, it is often hard to guess the topic. However, I tend to be interested in certain topics more than others. Without clicking at each article, I can't know, though. Any thoughts on this? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that would be helpful. SlimVirgin 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

By floating over the link I can read the first paragraph of the lead, enough to know if it is an article in an area for which I would not be a good reviewer. I always want the nominator to include a compelling reason to read the article, such as a personal connection, something thought-provoking for folks who are skimming to find something to review. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(For those who may not know, if you enable My preferences/Gadgets/Navigation popups you'll see the article preview that Moni's talking about.) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moni on this; it's not necessary for the nominator to provide a two or three sentence summary. I'd rather see the nominator include something else in the nomination, such as why they wrote the article, or why it's important, rather than the article says such and such, and I'm nominating it because it has passed 3 other reviews and it's ready....Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

At FLC I scan through the titles. If none interest me, I skim read a few nomination paragraphs, to decide whether there is anything there to motivate me (first time nominator, new format with potential for rollout, previous nom failed solely due to inactivity, quirky and innovative, etc). I don't think anything like that should be required, but if a nomination is engaging it's more likely to attract reviews. WFCforLife (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, is there an agreement that encouraging (not requiring) nominators to give a very brief summary would be a plus? (I also like additional engagement commitments of the nominators, but that's not my main criterion). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it works well enough as it is. Even the brief exchange above has shown that reviewers have different preferences about what they'd like to see there. Leave it up to nominators to put something they think's appropriate for each nomination. PL290 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PL. In my opinion it's to a nominator's advantage to entice me, but I don't think we should formalise it. Besides, it's no longer an "advantage" if everyone does it. ;) WFCforLife (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nominations" versus "Older nominations"

I'm back from the dead after a hellish RL work schedule. First time I've seen the binary structure. Newcomers will wonder what these two categories mean in terms of the way the articles in each are treated. (I don't know myself ... should I go to the older ones first to review? I'm scratching my head.). Could there be a brief explanation in the pre-amble, and perhaps in a one-sentence lead for each major section? Tony (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Newcomers will see this in the preamble. As to adding text to the two sections, I think it would often be missed, since people are likely to navigate directly to articles from the TOC. It's really just a marker in the TOC. PL290 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that, although I did quickscan to find some reference to the issue. Perhaps it should be bolded? Tony (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Extreme change at WP:MOSDASH

It might seem trivial, but the change that three editors have had three goes at trying to force through would render in breach just about all FAC biographical articles, plus many others.

Apparently, we are going to be forced to jam together the innermost elements in ranges and other disjunctive uses of the en dash:

31 December 1910–11 January 1972 (Is there a one-year range stuck in the middle?)

New York–Boston route (a new one from York in the UK to Boston?)

The style guide and widespread practice have been stable on this matter for years.

The norms are:

31 December 1910 – 11 January 1972

New York – Boston route

While practice out there varies (or is in a mess, even within publishing houses), there is utterly no reason WP should change its practice on the basis of the personal whims of a few editors.

RfC here. Tony (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Practice outside of Misplaced Pages is pretty standard: high-quality academic publishers typically omit the spaces. So, for example, these publishers don't use the weird spacing that Misplaced Pages currently requires in examples like this:

"Franco-German and Japanese – South Korean relations after World War II"

Misplaced Pages practice (as opposed to what the style guide requires) often omits the spaces in cases like this. Anyway, I suppose the proper place to discuss this absolutely vital and pressing issue is at the RfC. Eubulides (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the discussion and my head exploded. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ram Narayan (20 century classical Indian musician)

Since I'm not the nominator, i'm going to put in a plea for the above nomination languishing near the bottom of the FAC noms list. I did the GA review. Hekerui received almost no feedback at the first FAC, and is facing the same situation at the second nom, even though dablinks, external links and alt text have been checked, the image review completed, and a source review has been done. It would be a shame if this dropped off the radar at FAC twice primarily because of a lack of readers. It isn't too long an article... any takers? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Instead of arguing about the alt text below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text in FA images

What's the practice when existing FAs are discovered to have not a jot of alt text for their images? Is it a requirement? Tony (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but when that requirement rolled out before my last FAC nomination, I went back to my previous FAs and added the ALT text. At the same time, I pinged Eubulides for help to make sure that I added was good on one article before I went through the two. I would hope that other editors who are somewhat prolific at FAs have a similar plan in mind. Beyond that, I'm sure that they will be FAR-ed and updated eventually, but I would hope that they are kept up after FACs. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I did the same, 2 days after the discussion about alt text started. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I posted a note about it at the article talk page. I guess I'll return in a few days to see if anyone is going to add the alt text. There are many images. Tony (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that we have about 2,000 FAs that predate the alt text requirement, obviously this will take some time, especially since the nominators may no longer be active in the article (or be active at all). Plainly articles submitted for TFA consideration should have alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am gradually adding alt text to my FA noms that preceded the alt text rule. I've done most, but as Wehwalt says, it will take time. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I only add when asked. User:Zscout370 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since alt text, while useful, is not vital for readers (even those who cannot view the images), I think we should allow a grace period for older FAs; many users are still not even aware that such a featured exists, let alone know how to write it or are aware that it is required in FAs now. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Letting people know on the talk page in question is the best bet here: alt text is rather trivial to add and only takes a few minutes to read the guidelines and figure out what you're supposed to be doing anyhow. FARs for alt text seems... excessive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's common practice. I don't recall seeing any FAR solely for lack of alt text, and I've read all the FARs since the alt text requirement was added. Eubulides (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think including the use of alt texts for images as an FA requirement is silly and can be at odds with other criteria. For example, one of the examples listed at WP:ALT for Mary Bartelme lists "Head and shoulders of a serious and dignified woman in her forties, with dark hair up and in a dress with high lace collar and a cameo at her throat, Edwardian style" as a model description. The words "serious and dignified" are totally subjective and POV, and indicating her age is not really helpful given people age at different rates. Then there's the diagram example: "Carbonated hydroxyapatite enamel crystal is demineralized by acid in plaque and becomes partly dissolved crystal. This in turn is remineralized by fluoride in plaque to become fluoroapatite-like coating on remineralized crystal." That's basically the exact same thing you would read in prose, and thus is no more helpful to visually-impaired editors than whatever could be expressed in the article text. Frankly, nt every visual image can be adequately described in words. I think it's a nice idea to have alt text for images, but to make it a requirement to pass FAC? I don't see the sense in that. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WesleyDodds's "it's a nice idea to have alt text for images, but to make it a requirement to pass FAC?"

• The ALT attribute is suitable for only brief identification, as anything more could often duplicate text in the main content. The LONGDESCR attribute could avoid duplication, by using an internal anchor (e.g. "#LD_img_topic"), but WWC says LONGDESCR is poorly supported by browsers, and AFAIK Mediawiki does not support LONGDESCR.
• The current guideline says alt desc should be a physical description. This has multiple issues, e.g.:
  • It's no use to readers who are blind from birth.
  • Sometimes a physical description is irrelevant as well as a waste of editors' time. E.g. "Lord Nelson, supported by Hardie, is dying on HMS Victory while the English fleet devastated the French" explain the significance of the scene. OTOH a physical description would be e.g. "A man of X age, in the (long description of 1805 UK admiral's uniform) lies dying of a bullet wound (when?) on the deck of a (long description of UK first-rate builder in late 18-cent). A second man, (long description of 1805 UK naval uniform of Hardie's rank), sits and supports the dying man ..."
  • A physical description of a concept looks unlikely to be helpful. E.g. the "crown and stem groups" dgm at Opabinia#Theoretical_significance.
  • Some diagrams summarise of a large part of an article, e.g. Template:Annotated_image/Mollusc_generalized/doc. --Philcha (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are problems with the Alt-text guideline or you feel it shouldn't be a guideline, please discuss that at WT:ALT. This page is for discussing FAC. Colin° 09:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing how it applies to the FA process. Even WP:ALT says alt text is "recommended" but nothing firmer than that, so why should it be mandatory for articles coming through FAC? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It started that way (and that discussion belongs here) but the last two lengthy posts deviated. Please keep this relevant. WT:FAC is not the place for guidelines and policy to be worked out. I don't know what version of WP:ALT you are reading but mine says "Every image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative and does nothing when you click it." It is absolutely firm on that, in as much as any guideline can be. Colin° 11:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And the discussion of whether the WP:ALT guideline should be enforced at FAC at all belongs at WT:FA?. This discussion is about what to do about existing FAs that were promoted prior to the criteria change. Colin° 11:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the "Goal" section, it says "For all these reasons, the Misplaced Pages image use policy recommends alt text for Misplaced Pages images". Also guidelines are simply that: guidelines. Why is it now essential to have alt-text as part of the Featured Article Criteria? I understand that this section started discussing what to do about prior FAs (which itself could also be a discussion carried out at WT:FA?, if you want to get technical), but I've just heard about the alt text requirement and wanted to bring up some points I feel are necessary to consider. as this is the plce where the criteria is put into effect, I feel it's important to examine the points I brought up here, given alt text captions seem prone to OR/POV descriptions or can be pretty redundant to existing prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy recommends guideline. That's all the quote says. The guideline itself mandates alt text. I understand you have points to bring up and I'm in no way trying to suppress those. I'm just saying that this discussion shouldn't be derailed by a discussion that belongs elsewhere. Why should a discussion on whether "alt text captions seem prone to OR/POV descriptions or can be pretty redundant to existing prose" be conducted here and limited to the audience gathered here? Discuss the guideline on the guideline talk page. Advertise that discussion here if you want. Colin° 13:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin, the guideline doesn't mandate ALT test. Guidelines don't mandate anything; they are advisory. But even in its own terms, that guideline only encourages ALT text, as does the MoS (or did when I last looked). SlimVirgin 01:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If editors want to restart the discussion over whether alt text should be part of the FA criteria, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive39 first, where it was discussed extensively. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern isn't necessarily with the guideline itself (although it has its faults). After all, that why we have "Ignore all rules". My concern is that this guideline is one of the few explicitly singled out as necessary for meeting the FA criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get you, but the required vs. recommended thing doesn't work well at FA. Some reviewers intepret "recommended" as required, anyway, and on the other side of the spectrum, nominators translate "recommended" as "not required, so I don't need to follow it". Either way, I can see a lot of unproductive discussion springing from the introduction of a little leeway into the criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying there should be leeway in the criteria. What I'm saying is that alt text for images is a rather odd thing to make a requirement of the featured article critieria. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the alt text requirement at FAC can be viewed in the context of the 2005 change that required inline citation after the Seigenthaler incident. At the time the change was added to WIAFA, more than half of FAs were out of compliance; it took three years to bring those articles to compliance, and it was a slow, deliberate process. FARing articles for alt text-- a guideline-- would be silly, and writing alt text is a form that not all editors have mastered (moi, for example). We can gently ask for it on talk, but making a big to-do over it isn't likely to be productive. An older FA is not going to be defeatured simply because it's lacking alt text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text became a stated requirement in the Featured article criteria since July 2009. I don't see consensus for it being applied retrospectively however and agree with SandyGeorgia in that FARing articles for the alt text --guideline-- would be silly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of alt text I don't know that I have much perspective to add on this, but I would like to point out a few things that may be going overlooked:

• Alt text is mandatory in HTML. There are bugs at bugzilla about HTML validity and any solution there would override any policy on Misplaced Pages to the extent that they will encourage/mandate/generate alt text on any Wikimedia project. It would be better to encourage users to come up with intelligible and useful alt text rather than generate dummy "*"s (as is sometimes done simply to pass validation, but obviously lacking any semantic purpose.) As an added bonus, by demanding alt text on Misplaced Pages, it may serve to popularize alt text elsewhere, making the Web more accessible for everyone.
• Alt text is not just for the blind, but for devices that cannot render images (e.g. Lynx users.) Alt text is used to replace an image when it is not available, irrespective of why it is not available. If—God forbid—there is another loss of files (as has happened before) or if images get corrupted, alt text can be useful in replacing those destroyed files or finding new ones that compliment the article in the same manner.
• Even if the sole purpose of alt text was for the blind, the argument "it doesn't help users born blind" is irrelevant, since it would (ostensibly) help those who were not born blind. The simple fact that it isn't a perfect and complete solution shouldn't stop us from implementing a partial and provisional solution.
• Even if a majority of featured content lacks alt text, that is hardly a reason to remove it as a criterion. For those featured articles which currently lack it, the text can be added and if anyone nominates one of those articles for former featured article status, it can easily be added at that time. For that matter, if someone really wants to solve this problem, it can be done in a week with a handful of editors.

From the perspective of usability and proper HTML, if featured articles are to be the finest that Misplaced Pages has to offer, then it seems to me that alt text should be included as a criterion. For that matter, it is very simple to add, so it is not going to seriously derail any FA/FL/FT nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Misplaced Pages currently does generate dummy alt text for the purpose of passing validation. For instance, the current Main Page passes validation by including totally useless alt text like "Kathryn Bigelow" for a photograph of Kathryn Bigelow and "French Foreign Legion emblem" for that figure. These are identical to the title of the images and defeats the entire purpose of alt text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the basic questions:

• Is alt text mandatory for new FAs. In other words, will nominations be promoted without alt text.
• If alt text is mandatory for new FAs, must it comply with WP:ALT. In other words, will nominations be promoted if their alt text does not comply with WP:ALT.
• If an older FA is reassessed at FAR, is alt text mandatory for that FA. In other words, will the FA will be delisted if alt text is not added.
• If an older FA is reassessed at FAR and alt text is added, must its alt text comply with WP:ALT. In other words, will FAs at FAR be delisted if their alt text does not comply with WP:ALT. --Philcha (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss any aspect of ALT text without noticing the inherent problems with it. I know people mean well by wanting it but I fear it's just not a good way to spend our time. An example from today: I'm not allowed in ALT text to tell readers who don't have access to images that the image they're missing is of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Instead, I have to talk about a clock tower next to a four-story building. In the ALT text guideline itself, we have an example of describing a woman as in her 40s when she looks considerably older, and there are similar examples everywhere of very subjective judgments being made. You could argue that these things don't matter, but if we believe ALT text is important, then they do. The whole thing is really very confusing and I fear not helpful to anyone, especially not at FAC where nominators already have a lot to think about. So to answer Phil's questions, it shouldn't in my view be mandatory for old FAs; the text shouldn't have to comply with WP:ALT; and in my view it shouldn't be mandatory for new FAs either. SlimVirgin 05:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a noble objective and I'll add it if asked but whether it improves the encyclopedia overall is open to debate. Adding alt text uses up time and levies an opportunity cost. Instead of writing alt text describing a picture, the editor could be writing the body of an article and may be inefficient use of time. It takes up article space which may be a problem for large articles. It could be seen as an additional unnecessary time consuming hoop to jump through that dissuades contribution of volunteers. As noble a goal as it is, it also smacks of political correctness foisted upon editors to compel certain behavior. It simply looks bad for volunteer editors to be judged by a criteria that is not intrinsic to the article writing process by those who can rectify the situation if its that important to them. Finally, it's not clear whether the practice is effective at achieving its aims. Too often the recommended alt text refers back to the text so is redundant. It is reasonable to ask why the caption shouldn't be sufficient? Alt text is currently recommended and encouraging it is great, but if it is cited as a requirement, that is instruction creep. Lambanog (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Captions Captions supplement pictures, giving context to what you are seeing. Alt text takes the place of the picture in the event that it is not displayed or seen. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see #Alt text back to the basics below. Eubulides (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text back to the basics

Replying to several comments above, from different editors:

• "The whole thing is really very confusing" It's a lot less confusing than it's been made out to be. Don't tie yourself into knots. Just use a simple heuristic: pretend you're describing the image over the telephone to someone. Write that down. Then stop. There's no need to make it perfect, any more than a listener would expect you to make it perfect over the phone.
• "I'm not allowed in ALT text to tell readers who don't have access to images that the image they're missing is of Big Ben" No, if you were describing the image over the phone, you could expect the typical listener to know what Big Ben looks like, because it's an iconic image. So it'd be OK to say "Big Ben". As it happens, WP:ALT #Proper names mentions Big Ben as an example of an image whose name is OK to use in alt text, for exactly this reason.
• "You could argue that these things don't matter, but if we believe ALT text is important, then they do." It's important to have alt text. But it's not important that it be perfect. All it has to do is convey the gist of the image.
• "very subjective judgments" The case you mention is not subjective: that photo was published when the woman was 46, and clearly she was in her 40s. It's true that sometimes alt text can rely on subjective judgments. But that's OK: most of Misplaced Pages relies on subjective judgments. Just describe the image and move on. Again, there's no need to be perfect.
• "I fear it's just not a good way to spend our time." "it's not clear whether the practice is effective at achieving its aims." We've had direct feedback from a blind Misplaced Pages editor that alt text is quite useful. And reliable sources say that alt text is important for visually impaired people: for example, a 2008 study of blind access to Misplaced Pages listed lack of alt text as the first obstacle. See Buzzi M, Leporini B. Is Misplaced Pages usable for the blind? In: Proc 2008 W4A. Beijing: 2008. (ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; vol. 317). p. 15–22. doi:10.1145/1368044.1368049.
• "It's no use to readers who are blind from birth." Not true: alt text can be quite useful to readers who are blind from birth. Besides, only a small minority of blind people are blind from birth. Most blindness comes when people are older, due to age-related macular degeneration.
• "It takes up article space which may be a problem for large articles" No, the overhead for large articles is quite small. For example, for Brad Pitt, a large article in FAC that I happen to have reviewed recently, only 1559 out of its 230,769 bytes of HTML are alt text: so the overhead is roughly 0.7%. And this is not counting the image bytes: the alt text for an image is typically a small fraction of the size of the image.
• "Too often the recommended alt text refers back to the text so is redundant." Can you give examples of that? WP:ALT#Repetition says that alt text should not repeat article text. There are a few exceptions where placeholders are the best one can do (see WP:ALT#Placeholders), but they ought to be fairly rare, and are rare in the FACs and FARs that I've observed.
• "why the caption shouldn't be sufficient?" Typically the caption is not sufficient by itself, because the image conveys useful information that's not in the caption; in this case the useful information in the image needs to be conveyed to the visually impaired reader. In the rare case where the caption is sufficient by itself, then neither alt text nor image is needed.
• "it also smacks of political correctness" Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand that comment. I looked at Political correctness and the only mention of this topic is a criticism of 'Terms relating to disability, such as "visually challenged" in place of "blind"'. Is it the use of the term "visually impaired" that is objectionable? But this is a technical term (see Visual impairment), not a political one: "visually impaired" is not a euphemism for "blind". Another question: is it just alt text in particular, or WP:ACCESSIBILITY in general, that "smacks of political correctness"?
• "Back to the basic questions" I've reviewed the alt text of every FAC and FAR for months. Most FACs now have alt text that is just fine, with no comments or work needed. Most FARs are about articles that predate the alt text requirement and therefore lack alt text, but the alt text is the least of these articles' problems. Any FACed or FARred article that has its other problems fixed has its alt text fixed almost as a matter of course, with little extra work needed for the alt text. I don't recall any of those "basic questions" actually coming up in practice: editors are pretty good about adding alt text, and it isn't that much work.

Eubulides (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My big problem with the requirement of image alt-text to meet the FA criteria is the inherent subjectivity it introduces to the articles, when FAs are supposed to maintain a neutral POV. Alt text is intended to describe an image for someone who can't see it, whatever that reason may be. The problem is that seeing an image and describing an image are two very different things. The former is a sensory experience; you can perceive it as it is if you have the faculties. The latter requires communication of something that isn't words into words, a process that introduces a third party that distorts that information in a profound way. It's very OR. Note many of the examples offered by the alt text guidelines are very subjective interpretations. Furthermore they can be pretty useless; Eubulides says one description is suitably because "when the woman was 46, and clearly she was in her 40s", but it isn't because we still don't know what a woman in her 40s looks like, and furthermore there's no set definition of what a person in their 40s is supposed to look like because all people age differently. On the opposite spectrum, you can end up with bland text that is redundant to the caption. Also, I find the comment "alt text can be quite useful to readers who are blind from birth. Besides, only a small minority of blind people are blind from birth" ill-thought-out. If a person is blind from birth, what good is describing something they cannot perceive in a manner they have no reference for? Alss, you say it's useful to them, but then you dismiss them. Either the concerns of users blind-from-birth are worth addressing or they aren't worth addressing at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides, I agree with Wesley about the subjective element. The other problem is that how we're told to do it keeps changing. I've had details removed from ALT text quite inexplicably e.g. a man on a horse walking down a certain street—I wasn't supposed to say what the street sign said. Sometimes it's okay to say Big Ben, but with other well-known things I've been told not to name them.

Anyway, I don't want to give you a hard time, because you do great work. When this last came up, it seemed to me there was a consensus not to mandate it at FAC. I was about to post a more formal poll about it, but I first of all looked at your contribs and saw what a great contributor you are, so I decided to let sleeping dogs lie. Every time I add ALT text to an image now, I am literally doing it only for you, and that's how I justify it to myself. :) But I do hope one day that you'll reconsider. SlimVirgin 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that compliment, SlimVirgin. I appreciate your making it here; it's better than a barnstar! Your street-sign example doesn't sound right: if the image names the street that can be in the alt text. More generally, I'm sure that mistakes are made when writing or reviewing alt text, just as they're made in other parts of Misplaced Pages, but the presence of natural human errors doesn't mean we should abandon alt text. Eubulides (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Subjectivity How is it inherently subjective to describe an image but not a boat or an author? For that matter, couldn't there be a featured article on (e.g.) the Mona Lisa? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, Mona Lisa is a perfect example of subjectivity. The alt-text just says "see adjacent text"; the adjacent text is "The painting is a half-length portrait and depicts a woman whose facial expression is often described as enigmatic. The ambiguity of the sitter's expression, the monumentality of the half-figure composition, and the subtle modeling of forms and atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the painting's continuing fascination." I've highlighted every part of that wording that's a clear violation of NPOV. – iridescent 10:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! After all this time, the enigma is solved: it's just another portrait of a woman with a facial expression. (Does the "iride" part of your signature violate NPOV too? Poor thing, you'll have to be reduced to a mere scent in the cause of policy enforcement) Yomangani 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a little unfair, Yomangani. That text is clearly a violation of WP:TONE, WP:NPOV unless it is attributed to someone, and as it is there could fall under WP:OR. (Then again that article is not featured either) I agree that alt texts should not be a requirement to achieving featured article status. Our encyclopedia should be open to all, but that does not mean every image, tiddle, and taddle, has to be made available. There is a logical limit to things. A blind person, regardless of the alt text, will never be able to appreciate an image unless they can actually view it. The same for users using lynx or browsers settings that block images. I know I am probably going to get yelled at for saying that, but lets be realistic here. (Or do you want to prove the political correctness charge above?) Does an alt text saying, "portrait of a man with glasses looking forward and smiling" or "a sail boat on the horizon with the sun setting" truly convey to a person the details of an image to allow them to appreciate the hues of colour, the attention to detail of a painter, or the sentiment and emotional feeling an image can instill? No. And in most cases a summation of the alt text is in the caption and is easily deducible when paired with the text of the article. Images shouldn't be be going into articles unless their subject is talked about in the article to begin with (WP:IMAGE), and the caption points what is already in the article and should not introduce anything new. Aside from that WP:ALT has clear problems and conflicts with WP:OR, among other policies that need to be reconciled. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages provides audio readings of each article, and that is something that could actually be of significant value to a handicapped reader, but we don't require that. Larger font would also be of use to handicapped readers, perhaps we should insist on a larger default font size on our featured articles? Some readers could be colour blind, perhaps we should insist on point out the colour of things? Some of our disabled readers may not have access to a Screen reader, perhaps we should find an open source version to provide to our readers? Seems to me, Alt text is quite low on the list of useful things we could do to make the wikipedia more accessible to handicapped persons, and to expect it to be included on a featured article, but not other more useful things, is fairly silly. —Charles Edward  13:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "A blind person, regardless of the alt text, will never be able to appreciate an image unless they can actually view it." This comment seems to be based on a misunderstanding of alt text's role. There is no requirement that alt text be an exact representation of its image. All that's needed is to give visually impaired readers the gist. The idea is to be much better than nothing, not to be as good as the image. (Please see WP:ALT#Brevity.)
• "In most cases a summation of the alt text is in the caption" If that were true, we would not need alt text. But that's not alt text's role. On the contrary, WP:ALT#Repetition recommends against the caption summarizing the alt text.
• "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages provides audio readings of each article, and that is something that could actually be of significant value to a handicapped reader, but we don't require that." First, that would be a lot more work. Second, it wouldn't address the problem, as these readings skip over the images.
• "Larger font would also be of use to handicapped readers, perhaps we should insist on a larger default font size on our featured articles?" No, because readers with milder visual impairments can easily use larger font sizes themselves, or screen magnifiers. This is standard practice, and it means that Misplaced Pages editors need not worry about font size issues and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. If there were a similar technology for describing images aloud automatically, then we wouldn't need alt text at all. Unfortunately, no such technology exists.
• "Some readers could be colour blind, perhaps we should insist on point out the colour of things?" We do have guidelines about how to make articles accessible to color-blind readers, yes; see WP:COLOR. When I notice a problem like that in an article I point it out and it's quickly corrected. It's typically less of a problem in practice.
• "Seems to me, Alt text is quite low on the list of useful things we could do to make the wikipedia more accessible to handicapped persons," But as seen in the previous bullets, we're already doing the other things on that list, at least, the ones that would actually help. Also, we have a reliable source that lists alt text first on the list of things to do for visually impaired readers of Misplaced Pages (Buzzi & Leporini 2008, doi:10.1145/1368044.1368049).

Eubulides (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I do see the violation of the content policies as quite significant. The NOR policy says that everything in an article must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not attributed. That is, if someone requests a source for "this woman looks as though she's in her 40s," you have to supply one or remove the words. Material is also supposed to be neutral, and neutrally worded, or at least balanced. ALT text violates both these policies, and it necessarily violates NOR, because the descriptions are always those of a Wikipedian. To mandate something at FAC that necessarily violates a core content policy is a little odd. And when you're dealing with ALT text in contentious articles, it becomes a real problem, not just a theoretical one. SlimVirgin 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not significant, only teething problems. The WP:ALT is just a bit messy and requires to be cleaned up. I would recommend anyone concerned enough to get engaged in discussion on WT:ALT. One solution to WP:NOR, which admittedly is like a sedgehammer to crack a nut, would be to simply put the caption text in the alt text - that ends WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues completely, as it would be to the same established standard acceptable for caption text today. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The caption text doesn't describe the image the way we're told ALT text must (a man looking to his left wearing a pink pullover etc). And even if they are only teething problems, the point remains that it violates the core content policies. We don't allow anything else to do that, teething or otherwise. SlimVirgin 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The core content policies take priority over the specifics or implied 'must' of alt text because it is a guideline. I am confident that editors will firstly attempt to keep to core content policies when adding alt text and those with a keen eye, such as yourself, will pick up on anything overlooked during the WP:FAC/WP:FAR processes or before. The alt text being required is still a relatively new thing and as such may take a while to mature. That doesn't mean we should reject or ignore it because it is not perfect, but instead work towards making it a good polished guideline. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid the ALT text has taken priority over the content policies. We now mandate original research in ALT text in featured articles, plus NPOV violations. The only reason this isn't an issue is that very few people, if any, read ALT text, but that's a good argument for not bothering to add it. On the other hand, if people do read it, and it's therefore worth adding, we ought not to be adding it because it's rarely if ever going to be policy-compliant. And so we have ourselves a bit of a conundrum. SlimVirgin 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SV. The alt text is not a guideline for FA. It is a requirement, because proponents made it very clear they wanted alt text included, the price for not doing so would be a failed nomination. A college student doesn't HAVE to do what a professor asks, he can easily drop out of school. It is a requirement. Whether it is a good one or a bad one is not for me to say. I had no notice of the WP:ALT discussions and so took no part in the process.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, a serious transparent debate about the absurdities of ALT being a requirement, and a thorough look into how its application as recommended by Eubulides violates several guidelines and policies. As one to have pointed out some of these problems months ago, I fully endorse the scrutiny: every time this issue was more timidly brought up, it got cut off with a sentimentalist lecture about how one user's POV and OR would actually benefit our visually challenged colleagues and readers. Dahn (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following this WP:NOR/WP:NPOV violation claim at all. I accept the Mona Lisa body text fails as as substitute for Alt text. It has some problems as body text too so let's move on from that example. If one regards the image itself as a primary source, in what way would a faithful literal description of that image become OR? Is this any different from when one uses a book/film/video as the primary source for a plot summary? Or different from when I rephrase my source text to avoid plagiarism -- the way OR is being described here, I'd have to cite a thesaurus for every word change. And the alt-text = caption argument completely misses the point. Colin° 18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on a couple of FAs where the images and their interpretation were the key issues, yet I was required to add my own opinion regarding what those images showed. I avoided the issues by not describing the images in full. Example from Muhammad al-Durrah incident, a highly contentious article about a Palestinian boy who was shot and, it appeared, killed in front of a France 2 cameraman who filmed it. One of the images after his death shows him moving. Some say it is the boy's death throes. People who argue the incident was staged say he is peeking at the camera because he wasn't actually shot. (I had to delete this image because of fair-use problems):

]

I didn't get into how his leg was also raised, and wasn't raised in the scene before it, and how his hand had moved away from his face, and how he seemed to be looking straight ahead i.e. at the camera. That is, I avoided the OR and NPOV issues by not writing the ALT text properly. SlimVirgin 18:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Guessing at a person's age, commenting about their subjective expression, making statements about things in the image that are unverifiable are all problems. Take this as an example. "A sail boat on a sea with the sun setting at the horizon", seemingly straightforward. But what if it a ship at a distance and not a boat? What if it is a lake and not a sea? What if the sun is rising and not setting? Yet how could colorfully describe that setting without including those basic objects? And how could you know with certainty what those basic objects are without a source? If you boiled it down to "a boat on water with the sun in the background" past experience would tell me that it would be shot down as not descriptive enough in a FAC review. Any fanciful or subjective wording should not be included in alt texts as is now being required unless a source is available for it. —Charles Edward  18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the relevant sections of the policies. Our sourcing policy, WP:V, says: "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception ..." (my bold).

Our WP:NOR policy says: "'All material added to articles on Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions" (my bold).

ALT text violates both of these core content policies. SlimVirgin 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the same objection also apply to the caption of the photograph, in fact with greater force?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Captions are subject to the NOR policy just as everything else is. But ALT text has no sourcing. It's intended to be a description of the image as seen by Wikipedians, which is OR by definition. SlimVirgin 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is the primary source. Citing bits of policy doesn't cut it, like lifing "contradictory" pieces out of religious texts. Please can someone tell me how alt-text (done properly) is different from the plot summary in Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, Casino Royale (2006 film), To Kill a Mockingbird or any other similar FA. All of these are sourced (presumably) to the primary text/film/cartoon. It is ridiculous to say I can describe a moving picture but not a stationary one. Colin° 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't do other than to agree; it's an absurd inconsistency. The point of sourcing is that anyone who doubts what's being said can go check for themselves, by watching the movie or reading the book or whatever. It's not a goal in and of itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this from the lead of Thomas R. Marshall: "Head and shoulders of a sixty year old man with a serious expression and many deep wrinkles in his skin. He has a bushy mustache and his hair is parted. He is wearing a high collared shirt and a neck tie." Is he 60, how can we tell, maybe he is 70? Is his expression serious, seems ambiguous? And this one in the body for the image of the statehouse: "A view looking down on a large building made of limestone. It is three stories high with two wings sweeping out from a central atrium with a domed stained glass roof", is the building really made of limestone how do we know? Are we sure it is three stories high, I count four. Are we sure it has a stained glass roof, looks like copper to me? In any case, none of this is referenced in the article and is not made clear by the photo, yet was insisted upon in the FA review, and passed after being entered. —Charles Edward  20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I could pick apart any plot summary in a similar fashion. Colin° 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but are such articles featured? Considering an image to be a primary source in the way a book is is a bit of a stretch here anyway. The closest thing in that policy is "a work of art". I really don't feel that WP:PRIMARY has any application in to this issue. This is blatant Original Research using a non-literary source because what is often being said about an image is subjective. Paraphrasing a document is one thing - guessing about things in an image is entirely another. My primary reason for disagreeing the use of ALT texts is not policy though, and I wrote above, it is that we don't do other more useful things to make our articles handicapped accessible, so why is this required? —Charles Edward  20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)To answer your earlier items. Font sizing is already an option in most modern browsers in the menu as 'tools' - 'zoom', also pressing CTRL and scrolling the mouse wheel back or forward adjusts the font size. Colour blindness can we dealt with through adjusting hue, saturation and brightness, computer sotware or screen overlays. User:Eubulides gives a answer to your why in the 5th point in his start of this subsection, which I link to rather then repeat. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, have you looked at the plot sections of any of our featured articles on TV, film or literature? There's no stretch wrt regarding the image as a primary source. Why should it matter if the source is embedded in our web page or linked at the bottom? Indeed, if we couldn't display the image (because of copyright), we could still describe it in our body text could we not? We describe moving images (films). I agree that some folk here have found difficult image alt-text examples but I could list loads of difficult articles that are jolly hard to do well while following policy. That doesn't stop us trying and surprising ourselves. As for the "other more useful things" argument, that is a logical fallacy. Colin° 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I must also agree with Colin here. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "original research", a misunderstanding whose logic, consistently applied, would prohibit us from articulating any expression at all aside from direct quotations and mathematical/scientific formulae.—DCGeist (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

okay, so we can describe what is in a source, what an expert says about xyz, but we should not describe what is in a picture that is in front of us? While, yes, it is a subjective description, there is also an element of subjectivity in the narrative of what various people have written about xyz subject. While I find alt text a drag to write, isn't there something more important to do than to write pages about why we don't want to do it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) <---off to review an article

The point here, as far I can see, is that the ALT approach is not sustainable, because it is entirely evolving around users' subjectivity - even in the most benign cases, subjectivity is there, which is not the case with all other analogies made above. A plot summary that is subjective can be rephrased to simply say what the plot is about, without guessing; there are works of literary criticism out there that one can use to back further assertions with quotes, there is the book itself to quote verbatim in cases where the event described is subject to interpretation. And, once this is done properly, the resulting plot summary will be the equivalent of a caption, not the equivalent of an alt text. Both caption and summary will say what the image/text has for its subject, not "how" that subject is represented. And even in those cases where it would say how the subject is represented, this can be backed with quotes from secondary sources, preferably attributed.

The case with alt text is that it adds an entire extra layer of subjectivity, that we otherwise strive to avoid by keeping things within reasonable limits (why we cite sources, why we don't do editorial opinion, and so on). In most cases, it does so for absolutely no reason. To quote one example above: simply introducing an image with the caption "SS Whatever in Whichever harbor" does the job of describing the subject; insisting that we *need* to also say, in alt, "the sun is setting, the waves are splashing, the captain is on deck smoking his pipe" - that adds an entire layer of guesses. Guesses of no encyclopedic value value (us seers, we don't understand "SS Whatever" because there are waves splashing), parasitical to the caption, and evidently contrary to explicit wikipedia policies.

This is not in any way comparable to summarizing a source and what it says about x subject - doing that is immediately useful for all readers who approach the subject, and the fact that a description/judgment is attributable to a reliable source reduces the amount of subjective detail from infinite to a manageable number. It is probably always gonna be there in some amount, but other cases don't open the door and say: "Come in. You may be of no actual use to anyone, you may prove yourself impossible to correct, but we will make you a norm."

In the long run, and if left alone, the alt text "solution", at least as it is formulated now, would prove itself unfeasible and undesirable for anyone, even for those who recommend it. The very reason why we "write pages about why we don't want to do it" is that this was imposed on all of us as the definition of quality, when in fact it is quite obviously not, and as a requirement, when it most often solves no actual problem of accessibility (it actually describes things of no actual importance to anyone). We could perhaps leave this thing take its actual toll on the project by letting it prove its obvious contradictions to almost everyone, which it will do sooner or later, but my guess it wouldn't want to let it run amok because it we care about wikipedia. I for one care about tyrannical, impractical guidelines being fabricated, and about editors being supposed to relinquish their understanding of wikipedia guidelines and their common sense for he sake of some purely sentimentalist claim. Dahn (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud folks. TLDR. It is quite apparent that few here have actually looked at any of our plot summaries in all our FAs. They aren't sourced to published literary criticism; they are nearly 100% sourced to the primary material being described. And saying "done properly, the resulting plot summary will be the equivalent of a caption" just shows a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of each. The caption is "Casino Royale", or whatever. I'll repeat: alt-text == plot summary where one deals with a static image and one with a moving one. Exactly the same policy-based flaws can be found in practically every sentence of a plot summary if one is anal enough to apply the arguments used here. I'm not going to bore you all with an example cause I'm sure you are clever enough to do it yourselves. Please, go read some of our FA plot summaries, wait for the little bell to go ding, and stop trying to find excuses to do something tedious but completely harmless to this project and its values. Colin° 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin, let me summarize it for you: the info in alt text is in most cases irrelevant to any user, blind or non-blind, and does not provide the reader with any objective info (as opposed to leaving some room for objectivity); the analogy with plot summaries for either texts or films is deeply flawed and misleading. Why "deeply flawed", why "misleading"? The answer is in the TLDR part, and I'm not going to bore you with it. Dahn (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the answer wasn't there, just confusion. I can't understand how you say alt text "does not provide the reader with any objective info". I'm not following that at all. I'm not understanding how because the image moves, we can describe it but once it stays still any attempt at description undermines Misplaced Pages. The hyperbole used here makes me think someone has just suggested we drop WP:V because all those citations are a bit bothersome. Please find me an FA plot summary that you feel would pass the scrutiny being applied here to alt text. Colin° 09:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, what do you suggest I do now? if I answer in detail it's TLDR, if I don't you'll keep repeating stuff I already answered to. For "moving images": false analogy. For one, nobody here is claiming that describing images is impossible: for pictures, we do that with captions, that do a good job of describing the what and where, and maybe the how, in a manner that has a long tradition. The goal there is that, provided the caption is properly written, anybody with a modicum of intelligence will in the end understand what the picture is of, not what impression that thing makes on me and you. Without going into the various irregularities that some plot summaries may still feature, even at an FA level, I picked out at random The Beginning of the End (Lost) (never watched it, btw). Do you see, in the plot summary, any subjective adjective other than "twitchy" (which one could consider removing, as it adds nothing). I see assessments of symbolism, narrative intentions, critics' speculations et al. in the sections after the plot section, where they are clearly sourced and attributed. What I do see is in the plot section is the equivalent of a caption adapted to the full length of a TV episode.

Sure, I can some use of alt text in cases such as List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas (as much as I still don't understand what those spatial relations may mean to those users who will still never see them), borderline for List of counties in Florida and such (where the alt text for the leading picture makes observations that border on the inane), I can clearly see it for a diagram or some images comparing text attributes or such. But for the love of me: Lebaudy République (where caption would have served to note that this is the airship in question and affixed, we have an absurd alt text telling us about the orange stamp and some faceless people in the general area; where we already read in the caption "The République's gondola and keel lie in a field at Jussy-le-Chaudrier, 3 September 1909" - the relevant info, we get alt telling us "On the right, an airship's gondoloa and keel lie on the ground on the side; on the left several people stand looking toward the camera." - the one informative bit is merely repeated), St. Peter's Basilica ("A very detailed engraved image of a vast interior. The high roof is arched. The walls and piers which support the roof are richly decorated with moulded cherubim and other sculpture interspersed with floral motifs. Many people are walking in the church. They look tiny compared to the building" - priceless; where caption gives us "St. Peter's Basilica from the River Tiber. The iconic dome dominates the skyline of Rome", which is already saying too much and veering into the inane, we get alt: "A view of Rome on a sunny afternoon looking along the river. A bridge crosses the river and beyond it is a hill on which the grey dome of St Peter's rises above ancient buildings and dark pine trees" - none of which is relevant to the picture, almost all of which is subject to interpretation). And so on. Alt text appears to have been designed to give blind people the "feel" of the picture, based on some optimistic (and ultimately condescending) belief that this can be rendered in universal terms and helps the people in question. The result is people having found a way to evade the rigid requirements of wikipedia by creating some loophole for writing down their essays. Nothing in that is comparable to a simple depiction of what happens in a text or a film, whose very purpose is most often explicit (communicable to a mass audience) and, quite often, its own summary.

(Incidentally, the futility of such exercises is made even more obvious by the fact that editors assume blind people would be helped by a stream of their impressions, but also that they would regard words such as "keel", "gondola", "cherubim", "floral motifs", "pine tree" as irreducible concepts, that when mentioned would appear in the mind of any user...) Dahn (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to insist an image is an acceptable primary source, then you do need to apply the primary source policy to it, which many alt texts are a clear violation of, as has been pointed out here multiple times. To quote WP:OR

"Reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material."

You CANNOT guess at someone's age, you cannot guess at the meaning of their expression, you cannot guess why an action is occurring, you cannot guess at the material or makeup of items in the image in any way. Unless it is plainly obvious, you can't say it. You can't say "Fifty year old man in tweed suit", you can only say "Man in suit". And when you have cut it down to the basic level that is acceptable by policy, it is nearly worthless for the purpose it is intended - to convey a mood and feeling of an image to the extent that someone who cannot view the image can appreciate it. I would also point out, it is fine to use a primary source to establish a plot, as mentioned above. But if you are using a primary source to make subjective statements about the plot, then you are violating policy. It is ok to use an image to write a very basic description of an image, but the extent to which we are going in putting in details is over the line of what is acceptable and conflicts with other policies. WP:ALT is not unworkable, but it is troublesome in its current form and should not be a requirement here until it is workable. I hate to beat a dead horse, but one last time: Unless what the alt text says is 100% obvious and verifiable from the image itself (or a reliable source) it needs to not be there. No guessing. —Charles Edward  13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't describe images with captions, we name them with captions. The caption for a pop star photo tells you nothing about what they look like. The caption for a church tells you what it is called, not what it looks like.

As for the example plot, it might have helped to pick one we had both seen as I'm at a disadvantage compared to the alt-text criticisms. From what little I know about the series and the description here, I'm guessing there are some surreal images with time and place illusions that make it hard to trust your eyes or the sequence of events. The text "but finds that the gun is not loaded because Locke had no intention of killing Jack earlier that day" is I suspect the writer putting 2+2 together which is WP:OR but pretty harmless. The text "is keeping quiet about his time there" probably makes an assumption based on limited data. The text "he lies that he has no knowledge of Ana Lucia" assumes the falsehood (if one can be sure it is false) is a deliberate and malicious act: perhaps he's just forgetful. The text "Jack, who is thinking of growing a beard" probably assumes that because Jack has said he is thinking of growing a beard that he actually is -- how can we know is inner thoughts? The text "which shows us that these flashforwards occur before Jack's flashforwards" makes my head spin but I'm guessing the actual story presentation isn't straightforward, meaning the the plot summary can only be made by guessing/assuming and the show's writers might be playing with us a bit.

Re: lengthly criticism of more alt-text examples, please stop. It isn't helping the discussion. I could do the same for article body text but what would that tell us. Nobody is denying there are pathalogical examples but that shouldn't stop us. Colin° 13:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On the pop star issue: and? How is it helpful that you now know what you're presumably never going to see, in terms another person finds important? So that you what? What is the logical situation in which this becomes relevant information for a blind person? Just so that the blind person would not feel excluded? Then we might as well start describing music for the deaf.

With the little knowledge I have of that series (I don't recall having watched more than 20 min. of a random episode), it appears to me that the statements you place in quotes refer to info which is made explicit in other episodes - it doesn't rely on guesses, just uses info that is explicitly dealt with elsewhere. It is perhaps one more reason why not to have articles on each episode of a series, but mutatis mutandis it's still the same basic idea, and the analogy with alt is still false.

The pathological examples are out there, in FAs, and are perfectly compliant with the pathological examples (your wording) presented as good practice in the alt guideline, top to bottom. They are absurd because the guideline is absurd. One either cuts down the alt to the basic useful info that is/should be already in the caption, and uses alt only in cases where it makes sense (where the blind user will miss out on text or numerical values within the picture, or anywhere else it can be reasonably discerned that he is deprived of concrete info explicitly transmitted by the image); or continues and ends up with this nonsense ("there are people on the ground", "the woman is in her forties", "that baby is way pretty"). And the line between useful and idiotic in this case, for any scenario, is so thin, that it's simply not reasonable to even seriously contemplate this being an applicable guideline or policy. If someone wants to apply it and thinks s/he can apply it, let them at least try on their own and not impose this on the rest of wikipedians who realize the implications of going down that path. Dahn (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at Auntieruth55's reasoning in "While I find alt text a drag to write, isn't there something more important to do than to write pages about why we don't want to do it?" Perhaps there's something more important to do than to write alt text in to FAC nominators. And perhaps alt text should not be a FAC requirement. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text should never have been added to the criteria. It's a half-assed idea for all sorts of reasons. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing this out as well. The lead of WP:ALT states: "The alt text should be concise and should emphasize the image's most important visual aspects: it should summarize the essence of the image rather than describing every detail." We are expecting an editor to make Original Research and using their own opinion to decide what the most important visual aspect it. We are also asking them to capture the "essence" of the image, which is also subjective. Essence also indicates that it is expected that the significance of the image be conveyed. Without a reliable secondary source, all of that is a total violation of WP:OR. You cannot make any of those calls from primary sources alone. This is the essence of the problem with the guideline. —Charles Edward  13:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary. Plot summary. Plot summary. To rephrase what you've just said but for plot summaries (which we allow, sourced 100% to the primary material): We are asking editors to make original research and use their own opinion to decide what the most important plot aspects to cover. We are asking them to capture the "essence" of the story in a fraction of the words/time that the original took, which is subjective. Essence also indicates that it is expected that the significance of the plot be conveyed . Without a reliable secondary source, all of that is a total violation of WP:OR. You cannot make any of those calls from primary sources alone. This is the essence of the problem with plot summaries.

When you guys succeed in removing alt-text from our FA criteria, and no doubt demoting the guideline to an essay, I hope you can hold your heads up if the press write a "Misplaced Pages sticks two fingers up at the blind" article . I'd welcome someone just came out straight with a "I can't be arsed helping disabled readers" than all this silly wikilawyering over something quite harmless. Shameful. </unwatching> Colin° 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Something must be done to help our disabled readers. This is something, therefore it must be done" just doesn't wash I'm afraid. It has never been made clear who precisely the alt text is meant to target, just for starters. It's a half-baked idea forced through half-cocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin, Its not about screwing the blind for me. Its about the reliability and accuracy of what we are presenting our readers. Isn't a blind person equally harmed by unverifiable information? To me, it looks like we are actually hurting the blind by giving them substandard material that wouldn't hold up the scrutiny we employ elsewhere. Its like saying, because you are blind we are not going to not give you the benefit of the enforcement of WP:V on images descriptions. I personally don't want to get rid of WP:ALT, we just need to fix what is broken with it - which is encouraging editors to make guesses about the contents of an image in order to fluff up its alt text. And while WP:ALT remains broken and at odds with our core policies, it should not be an FAC requirement. —Charles Edward  14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the WP:CONSENSUS either is split or opposes making alt text a FAC requirement. I suggest the requirement should be removed. --Philcha (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have never seen why the requirement targetted FAs anyway. If alt text is such a good thing then it should be applied systematically across all of wikipedia's article, not just FAs, and there should be an option to provide default alt text for all images. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The consensus was never there even at the start; the requirement seemed to add itself to the criteria anyway. – iridescent 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone whose dayjob is working with people with disabilities, I am very disappointed and discouraged by parts of this conversation. The internet has the potential to level the playing field for so many people with disabilities, including access to information, communication, leisure, work etc etc. It already does so in many ways. Unfortunately, many web designers still do not give much thought for accessibility issues. Silly but very concrete example: the full range of Skype functions cannot be accessed without using a mouse, which plenty of people can't use, or cannot use easily, for one reason or another.

Alt text for images is mentioned over and over again by experts as a key feature of providing web accessibility for people with disabilities. If WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia anybody can edit and to provide free access to the sum of human knowledge, then surely it should also be a website we all can access, read and benefit from. Yes, it is annoying and difficult at times to add alt text; yes, alt text may include a degree of inevitable subjectivity at times; but yes, our best articles, which is what Featured Articles strive to be, should be our best, and that includes conforming to the best practices for not only homegrown concepts such as sourcing, neutral pov, references etc etc, but also the best practices for making this encyclopedia (and the web in general) truly open to everyone. Just as Malleus suggests, the goal should be that all images in WP should have alt text, just as all images everywhere on the web should have them. Since FAs have long provided models for what should be done with WP articles in terms of excellence, this FA requirement for alt-text is appropriate in demonstrating what in fact all should be doing, all the time. --Slp1 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm noticing in this link you've provided is the recommendation that "alt text should be five words, e.g. dog leaps for a stick". This is certainly not what is being insisted on at the moment (first suggested example at WP:ALT: A Georgian-style terrace house with four floors and an attic. It is red brick, with a slate roof, and the ground floor rendered in imitation of stone and painted white. Each upper floor has four sash windows, divided into small panes. The door, with a canopy over it, occupies the place of the second window from the left on the ground floor.) – iridescent 17:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable about the right length etc of alt-text, though that could and obviously should be discussed, likely elsewhere. (I'll just quickly note however, that the recommendations of the RNIB, the source cited in may have changed from the "5" words thing... this seems to be there latest page, where it talks about "succinct" ). I'm more interested in the principle that our best articles should show off web-design best practices requiring alt-text.--Slp1 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What's very clear from looking at the RNIB guidelibes for alt text is that the way it's being done right now (the pretend you're describing the image to someone via the telephone approach) is completely misguided, and anyone who disagrees is subjected to moral blackmail of the sort we've just seen above. So our best articles are ending up poor examples of how to make wikipedia more accessible, not good examples to be followed. BTW, the RNIB guidelines talk about a maximum of a short sentence, beginning with a keyword. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I now see the info about "a short sentence", though I also note further up that "Complex images" whose "full meaning cannot be adequately described in a short phrase or sentence" may require longer descriptions, handled in a somewhat different way technically. I'm not sure how WP software etc would handle the other options suggested. I would agree that our goal should be for the actual alt text used to be of high quality; though as with the articles themselves, we may not get it right first time. The point is to have the goal. --Slp1 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, according to the "standards" set by Misplaced Pages:Alternative text for images, the following is a good example of alt: "Head and shoulders of a serious and dignified woman in her forties, with dark hair up and in a dress with high lace collar and a cameo at her throat, Edwardian style". So is: "Three-quarter oval portrait of a slender woman aged about 30, garbed in black. Her deep-set eyes gaze solemnly over the viewer's shoulder. Her dark, straight hair is parted in the centre without a fringe, combed over the ears, and pulled back in a low bun." If this is the type of info the alt is supposed to covey, we might as well scratch out all our content policies - someone knows better. (Interestingly, I distinctly recall having pointed out the problems with these standards on the associated talk page many months ago, but my comments either ignored or answered with a circular argument about how it's "useful" and how I wouldn't like being blind myself, etc.). Almost nothing in this info is useful to anyone, and cannot possibly be said to impart knowledge - unless it is knowledge of how some editors still set their watches to Romantic era standards. The rest is or should already be covered by the caption. So, no, the point is not to have the goal: in the presence of a caption, the goal is absurd for most conceivable cases. Dahn (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable, in my view, to discuss what constitutes appropriate alt-text (length, detail etc): consulting with knowledgeable sources such as the RNIB document will help guide us here, and I am quite prepared to believe that some changes should be made to the guidelines/examples. However, determining that having alt-text for images as a goal is "absurd", flies in the face of all the available evidence from those who are in the know about web content accessibility. In both cases, as with researching articles here, we should be deferring to the experts who spend their time studying, working, and writing in this area. --Slp1 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear about this, as it must be fifth time I raised on this page: the option wikipedia already gives, to all its readers, is a caption, and that most often covers the purposes of alt, if alt is to be kept reasonable ("dog leaps for a stick"). The idea of alt is not absurd, but the application of alt as a default in cases where it adds nothing, and where the caption already summarizes all info that is not inane, is quite clearly absurd. I don't have any dispute with "people in the know". I have a dispute with people who misquote them in a situation where such concerns are most likely already addressed by wikipedia's format and proper editing within the limits set by that format. In an overwhelming majority of cases, it's a situation of "if you write a proper caption, you'd already be describing the image as much as it can and should be described". In those cases, adding alt is merely someone's opportunity to rant. Dahn (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, the reason nobody is picking up on your "let use captions instead of alt text" idea is because it is crap. Go read WP:ALT and stop wasting our time. Colin° 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Things to do when running out of arguments: ridicule your opponent, marginalize him by claiming you stand for a community and he's all alone, and grossly misrepresent his position. Rest assured, since you first promised you were not going to follow up on this discussion, I was not counting on your attention or your time to spare. And, in fact, I could have saved some of my time by not reading your comments at all, but for some reason you keep posting them as replies to mine...

For all those users not motivated to misquote me: my argument is not that we should "replace" alt with captions; my argument is that we already have caption which state what the image depicts in the one reasonable way this can be done, a way which is perfectly compatible with what specialists say alt text should be (the "dog leaps for a stick" example). Comparing images with such captions with random images on the net, which as a rule give no verbal clue to blind people as to what they represent, is comparing apples and oranges. Dahn (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

One can't help but wonder why this available evidence wasn't taken into consideration before this half-baked idea was foisted onto the FA criteria. The situation now is that we have a significant number of FAs with alt text that is to all intents and purposes largely useless, does not meet the recommendations of expert bodies like the RNIB, and a few zealots pushing more of the same. A bit of a joke really. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the WP:ALT guideline makes extensive reference to web-accessibility documents from the World Wide Web Consortium, written by big names in the field and widely reffed by others writing on the issues. --Slp1 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(peeking) Wrt the moral blackmail issue, you will find my disgust is aimed at those who had no intention of helping the blind, wanted to remove the requirement for alt-text from our best articles, and perversely applied their intellect to finding ridiculous supposedly-policy-based excuses for not doing something tedious. Now that Slp1 has steered the discussion towards "how can we improve WP:ALT" might I repeat my initial request that this discussion be moved to WT:ALT where it belongs. The "bit of a joke", is that this is now twice that the FAC talk pages have been filled up with a timesink of a discussion when that energy could have been applied to WP:ALT months ago. Alt-text is a web-accessibility-requirement we have shamefully ignored. Let's find ways of adopting it rather than writing nonsense about OR. Colin° 19:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone display a reluctance to help the blind, quite the reverse. I recall wondering why the move to provide alt text wasn't more generally targetted rather than just at FA. The discussion as to whether alt text shoould be part of the FA criteria is quite rightly here. The discussion about what alt text ought to look like obviously ought to be elsewhere, but what's equally obvious is that the alt text now being produced is next to useless and likely helping nobody. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Criterion two is "It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—". The "including the provision of—" reads to me as mere elaboration, not a limitation to the provisions thereafter. WP:ALT is a style guideline. Weren't FAs, then, supposed to follow it even before the requirement was "hard coded" into criterion three? I don't particularly care for WP:ALT, but do the criteria, as worded, not bind us to it by virtue of the community's decision to make it a MOS guideline? Is this then a conversation more appropriate for WP:ALT's talk page? Эlcobbola _talk 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does Эlcobbola. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Have now added a specific caveat to WP:ALT to hopefully overcome the WP:NOR/WP:NPOV issues. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Down the rabbit hole that is OR

Everything aside from straight-up quotation is OR in some way or other, because it requires interpretation. Reorganization of material, selection of details, and paraphrasing involves making choices and interpreting meaning. Different editors will make different choices. The question is how much reorganization, selection, and paraphrase you think constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy or spirit. There is a spectrum - where are you on it? I met someone the other day who thought every article on Misplaced Pages was OR because of these very principles - perhaps we can agree that none of us fall there? Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, I hope not. It's like that guy in college who says everyone's a racist. You, you, and you. None of us can ever get away from it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Awadewit's comment on WP:OR, WP:NPOV runs into "Reorganization of material, selection of details, and paraphrasing involves making choices and interpreting meaning". WP:OR and WP:NPOV are ideals which we can't fully attain, but must always aspire to. --Philcha (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Also:

• The idea that alt text "is blatant Original Research using a non-literary source because what is often being said about an image is subjective." may sound like a serious problem in theory, but in practice it's rarely an issue. When one is summarizing a text source in text, one does the best job one can; if another editor spots a problem with the summary and objects to it, then the two editors can work it out using standard dispute resolution mechanisms. Resolving any such dispute requires editorial judgment that is often inherently subjective. The same is true for summarizing an image in alt text. Disputes about alt text are quite rare in my experience, but I've had them, and their subjective elements are easily resolved in a similar way, by discussing things on the talk page (it's never gone further than that).
• More generally, I'd like to say again that alt text shouldn't be that hard. Please don't spend a lot of time on any particular piece of alt text, worrying about subjectivity and semiotics and whatnot. Just write something down in a minute or two and then move on. Obviously there are exceptional cases (and SlimVirgin's example of Muhammad al-Durrah incident is a good one of an image where the visual description itself is hotly disputed), but these are exceedingly rare in practice.

Eubulides (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I only disagree slightly with that. I agree that problems can be easily fixed on sight, and to a degree everything we do here is in part due to our subjective opinions, but we keep that in check by using reliable sources. I think we really do flirt the line of original research quite a bit with these alt texts. There are lots of acceptable examples out there of how it could be done , but there are lots of unacceptable uses in practice. WP:ALT, the guideline itself, encourages editors to go over the line of what is acceptable. Take the example of the "Gregiorian house", WP:PRIMARY says that you can't make an interpretation that a non-specialist could not determine. If all I have is an image, and I am a non-specialist, I don't know if that house is Gregorian, or Tudor, or Federal, or Edwardian, or Victorian. And the line between some of those is so fine that only a specialist would know. (Look at the example of pharmacophore, there is no way a non-expert would have any idea what that image is about; where's the citation?) In both of those cases, that level of specificity is what the caption is for, where it can also be attributed. Making a specific statement like those two examples without a secondary source is a problem.

The most common problem I see in practice is photos of people where we are guessing at their age, using the image and a secondary source to determine about when a photo was taken, which is the very definition of WP:SYNTH - using two sources to arrive at a conclusion not explicitly made by either source. Look at the more complex examples on the ALT page, like the map of moving Canada, it is citing dates and events that would require in line citations elsewhere. Guess to boil my beef down, I think we are being too specific with the alt texts rather than focusing on the real basic elements of the images. I personally use alt text in my articles now, and will continue to do so whether or not this requirement stays or goes. I am just not going to do so with the specificity called for at WP:ALT unless I am actually sure what I am writing is covered by my source. That is the sum for me. I will let the rest of you figure out if you are going to keep it as a requirement; it really has no impact on me one way or the other. I have just been giving my honest opinion :) The ALT guidelines needs more than just a disclaimer about other policies, it needs to be completely redone to discourage the frivolity that is now encouraging. —Charles Edward  21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. I adjusted the alt text for two of the examples along the lines suggested. The pharmacophore example is a trickier matter, though, as WP:ALT#Chemistry notes; but we probably should be taking this part of the discussion off to WT:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This issue needs to be sorted, and quickly

Serious concerns have been raised above about the quality of alt text (OR and so on), and the only FA check seems to be that it's present. To me that's analogous to saying that the article meets 1a, because prose is present. I have so far opposed two FACs because of the mini-essays masquerading as useful alt text, and I'm perfectly prepared to go on doing that unless some sanity prevails here. The present WP:ALT guidelines are misguided, and until they're sorted out I propose that the requirement for alt text, at least in the essay form that seems to have taken root, is dropped from the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well go over to WT:ALT and work through the issues there. I created a talk-page-topic to discuss the length issue three days ago and nobody but Eubulides and Slp1 have responded. If editors here feel strongly that WP:ALT at present is "misguided" then propose that it be demoted from guideline status, advertise the proposal at a central location, and work out a consensus. Misplaced Pages-wide policies and guidelines have no business being discussed in detail here. The RNIB guidelines being currently cited at FAC are probably not 100% appropriate to an encyclopeadia were images tend to be worth describing as opposed to the stock photo and graphic design examples the RNIB used. We currently have the silly situation where external guidelines are being cited in over internal ones. Let's fix the internal guidelines. Colin° 13:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an FA issue because the current alt guidelines have been added to the FA criteria, so it is perfectly proper to discuss it here. I see no evidence that those supporting the present guideline understand the issues, or what needs to be done about them, so little point in further discussion. Further, who is checking the quality of alt text? The only check I see is that it's present, which is far from the checks done on every other aspect of an FA nomination, which is also a subject that needs to be aired here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I do check the quality of alt text, and I believe Eubulides also does. I am uncertain how you could have missed that, given that I have commented on the quality of the alt text of a number of current FACs. Unfortunately for you, my ideas about what constitutes good alt text are apparently not the same as yours. Ucucha 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the quality of the alt text on this nomination? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I did. Ucucha 14:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And what was your opinion? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the FA criteria explicitly mentions WP:ALT, it is still a content guideline that affects all articles on WP, and by implication affects WP's best articles. Your argument could extend to discussing the finer points of WP:OR and WP:V because policy-requirements are part of the criteria. Perhaps we should start a debate on logical quotation marks here? I see no evidence that the lurkers at WT:FAC understand the issues either, but they are jolly good at moaning. There are other people on WP than those who have WP:FAC in their watchlists. Some of them might actually have something useful to add. This is the wrong forum. Colin° 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The addition of a half-baked requirement to the FA criteria is a specific FA issue. I'm not aware that the same problem exists with WP:OR or WP:V, unless you're suggesting they're half-baked as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not that a guideline was explicitly added to the FA criteria. Your problem is that you don't think it should be a guideline. Or do you think it is OK for the plebs to have to put up with it? Colin° 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of a guideline as it happens, just very much against the current one. You make a fair point about "the plebs" though; my view is obviously that nobody should have to put up with it. The issue at FA of course is that perhaps for the first time another editor actually takes the trouble to look at the alt text, which is why I suppose the issue has come to a head here. Getting anything changed here at wikipedia is a task that's way beyond my limited stores of patience though, so I guess I'll just have to keep moaning. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally I agree with MF's critisms of WP:ALT and the imposition of WP:ALT on WP:WIAFA. However I feel that the alt text at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Turf Moor/archive1 is OKish. The real problem at this article is that the pics are depressingly monotonous, so the same applies to the alt - half the pics are a waste of space.

Could someone with better eyes than mine please check the image at File:Jimmy_McIlroy_stand_zoomed.jpg - I suspect the yellow objects are seat covers and read some lettering! --Philcha (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They're definitely people wearing fluorescent jackets. The one on the extreme right is standing up, with his back to the camera. The "writing" is your imagination. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the pictures, in addition to being monotonous, is that they are of a subject that is not easily photographed. To show the stands, the picture has to be taken at a distance, and detail is lost. To show the detail, the scale is lost. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many problems with the alt text, not least of which it tells me that in this picture that I'm being shown a grass pitch. It could be a lake for all I can see from the picture. And what image will a reference to the colour "claret" or "light blue" summon in a blind person's mind? The last image in the article is of exceedingly poor quality, and the associated alt text seems to be a work of unrelated fiction. And that's just for starters. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree colour may often be irrelevant in alt-text, there are three flaws in assuming colour is always irrelevant to a blind person. Firstly, most "blind" people were not blind from birth, so colour may still summon an image. Secondly, colour may carry information (the cheap seats are claret and the light blue ones are for the guests ). Lastly, colour carries cultural meaning (such as pink for girls) that even a blind person knows about. Colin° 17:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There may indeed be occasional reasons to mention colour– blue sky may be one for instance, where that may convey an impression of cloudnessness, even though "clear sky" would probably be preferable– but this isn't one of them. And there are innumerable examples of the alt text providing information that just isn't in the image, as in the example of the map of Chile I gave earlier, or the Tuef Moor picture I linked to above. The point that is repeatedly getting lost is that the alt text is supposed to describe the image succinctly, in a few words, not interpret it, embellish it, or attempt to communicate its every last detail. If the precise detail is significant then it ought to be covered in the body of the article's text anyway. There is no justification for alt text longer than one short sentence, and indeed every reason to avoid it if you consider how it's actually used by screen readers or text-only browsers. The often repeated "pretend you're describing the image to someone at the other end of a telephone" is not at all helpful and has led to the present situation in which alt text has become an unwelcome chore for many but what's worse doesn't even fulfill its stated purpose. Hence in its current crippled form it has no place being part of the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They say a picture tells a thousand words. I find that to properly describe every aspect of the image rather than a one-line sentence that really doesn't provide any information, the reverse is often true as well. I find alt text incredibly difficult to implement, and I have trouble bringing it into the range of one of two sentences. If we can't properly describe an image to a person who cannot see it, or are prevented from doing so by a constant need to reduce the number of words, what is the point of incorporating it? A short and half-assed description is no better than a lack of alt text. I don't see any point in using it if the help it provides is limited at best. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of these issues are covered by the guideline and some are currently being discussed on the guideline talk page. What is certain is that all that is being achieved by an alt-text discussion on WT:FAC is that folk get worked up / let off steam and achieve nothing all at the same time. Colin° 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be rather easy to remove the requirement for alt text from the FA criteria until the various issues surrounding its correct use are resolved, which is what I believe ought to happen now. Then there would be no further need to discuss it here The present alt text offerings are not setting a good example and by no means represent our best work in this area. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't really change much. Criterion 2 says FAs should comply with all style guidelines, and WP:ALT is a style guideline. Ucucha 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Criterion 3 says "brief and useful alt text when feasible". Under the current guidelines it clearly isn't feasible, and so should be dropped until it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it clearly not feasible? Until it is actually established that our current efforts at Alt-Text is actually more damaging than helpful, then the requirement should stay in place. With all due respect, it is unwise to rush to judgment based on semi-informed opinions (and I include myself here) about what "good" alt-text is. Currently efforts are being made to get some external reviews of the guidelines, and if these come back saying that they are totally out to lunch, I will certainly support temporary removal of the requirement until the problems are sorted out. But that's not the case yet, and it may well be that the guideline is in good shape. In the meantime, if significant changes in the alt-text guidelines do take place in the next few weeks, I personally promise to do any required rewriting to the alt-text of FA articles promoted from now until the guideline stabilizes. --Slp1 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, some things are self-evident and do not need expert input. Like the example of the map of Chile I gave earlier, the alt text for which gave the dimensions of Chile, information that was not available in the image or otherwise available to a reader not seeing the alt text. Nevertheless I'd be prepared not to press for the suspension of the alt text requirement in FACs in view of your offer, at least in the short term, pending expert input. I will though continue to insist that alt text is accurate, does not interpret the image, and does not include detail not available to a reader using a conventional browser. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chile example was a good one, and the alt text for that example obviously needed improvement. However, that relatively-minor problem does not support the claim that alt text "clearly isn't feasible". Alt text clearly is feasible in most cases, including that one. There are some exceptions where alt text isn't feasible in the usual sense, and these exceptional cases are already covered in the guideline (see WP:ALT#Placeholders and WP:ALT#Purely decorative images). No doubt the guideline can be improved, and this is being looked into, but there's a big difference between a reasonably routine improvement to the guideline and a sweeping claim that alt text "clearly isn't feasible". Eubulides (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Related proposal at VP that would make this criterion irrelevant

Please see here. Since alt text is a bigger issue than FA criteria, I have posted something at VPT that might make the entire discussion moot. I write this with the obvious caveats that the proposal may be rejected and I cannot unilaterally implement any change to Mediawiki software. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows....

There is a discussion on article protection going on here, which would benefit from some article writers' input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Plea

We really need eyes on the bottom few FAC nominations. A few of these are on their second nomination, with the first having been closed for lack of comments. I would really hate to have to close these again because of a lack of eyes. Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll review one or two in the morning. Graham Colm (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please can people add comments to Hurva Synagogue aswell, thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews... (2)

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive3
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Give It 2 Me/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Parks and Recreation (season 1)/archive2
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Anarchy Online/archive2

Since I handled most of them today... these still need doing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Quotations

It's an essay at the moment, and there's a proposal on the talk page to promote it to guide-line status. It was linked at MOSQUOTE earlier today, although I removed that pending improvements. I've done an initial copy-edit, and have left several inline comments about organisation/repetition. IMO, it needs a few more examples. What do people think? Tony (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Need to avoid duplication with WP:PLAGIARISM, otherwise inconsistencies will appear. --Philcha (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC disruption

User:Fram has three times now reverted me at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/History of logic/archive1.

He also removed my links to the talk page, which means they can't be found when viewing the full WP:FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not notifying me of this discussion... I have not reverted you three times, I have searched a balanced solution three times, and you reverted to your preferred position each time. I was not aware of the problem with removing the talk page links, I would have added them if you just asked, or would not have reverted you if you added those to my last edit (which is the first of your links, your order is a bit strange). You have problems with owning the page, and implicitly defending one position above another. Could you point out, apart from the missing link to the talk page, what is wrong with my neutral, non intrusive last attempt at compromise and minimal disruption, compared to the bolded onesided rant that was there previously? Fram (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down and read your talk page: I quite specifically linked to this discussion on your talk page with my first notice. Please stop politicizing FAC, and take the issue elsewhere; the purpose of FAC is to evaluate articles wrt WP:WIAFA, nothing else. I've also noticed you about 3RR. Reviewers are uninterested in the "rant" you're so concerned about; the focus here is on reviewing articles. Please take your issue elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't tell me to calm down, I am perfectly calm. I am quite amazed at your arguments or lack thereof though. Where have I "politicized" FAC? I have tried to get a one sided off topic notice replaced by a balanced, shorter and less intrusive note. You insist on keeping the rant you claim "reviwers are uninterested in" on the FAC page. You are not behaving in a neutral or reasonable way here, but are imposing your view of what belongs and what doesn't, even if you have no arguments at all for it. You have brought this issue here, don't ask me to take it elsewhere. Fram (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/History of logic/archive1

Please don't move essential parts of a discussion while leaving other, equally off-topic parts alone. You are supporting one POV with those edits. Your continued refusal to change this to a more balanced position is noted, and your silly edit summaries, with a serious overtone of WP:OWNing the page, are quite ridiculous. I have disrupted less than you or Bishonen did (never mind that his rant was bolded, as if it was the most important message on the whole page). Feel free to continue with the promotion of the work of a banned and truly disruptive editor though. Fram (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)