Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Fair-use audio excerpts in FACs and FARCs

The debates here and here may be of interest in relation to the interpretation and enforcement of Criterion 3. Tony 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal- Accessibility and Importance need to be prominent leads to a FA.

I think the FA 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is an example of an article that needed a bit more work before it is promoted to FA status. I think that one of the missing pieces here would be accessibility. I know this will be a technical article, but as a FA, I think this needs to say in the intro why it is important and, if it can't say what it is in a brief summary, then at least tell what you need to know to understand it. I think that Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible should be something that is included in any part of the FA review.

I have no problem with a Mathamatics article being a FA. I think they are at least as worthy as a Bulbasaur. I would like to suggest that the importance of the topic be asserted in the intro so that someone going there from the Main Page would see first the summary of what it is and then the summary of why it matters.

I have seen several articles which I think miss out on making the importance of the subject and the accessibility of the article prominent features of the FA review. Any comments? Slavlin 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are assuming that the topic is important, which perhaps is not the case. I think the introduction makes clear the things that are interesting about the topic, specifically that it has a bit of history behind it, and that it is an example of paradoxical and unintuitive mathematics. On the whole I would say that the article is at a good level of accessibility; with only an awareness of infinite series, you can basically fully grasp the lead, and even without that background the first few headings of the article ought to make some sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If a topic is not important in some way, why do we have a Wikipedia article about it? This article is confusing to me and I minored in Physics, going as far as multivariable calc and linear algebra, but it is still difficult to understand why anyone would care about the topic. The same is true of many articles, in my opinion. That is why I would like to see this as something that is considered in the FA criteria. I think this is definately a good article, but I still think that it needs to be more accessible to have it as the "this is what Wikipedia is about" which the FA represents. Slavlin 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FAs should not have to be accessible to everyone, or useful, or vitally "important", whatever that means. These might be valid points in deciding which ones to feature on the main page, but that's not decided here. Personally, I found this article interesting, and learnt quite a bit from it. Of course there are others I don't care about. I guess part of the art of choosing the main page FAs is to provide enough diversity among the topics that most readers will occasionally find something of interest. -- Avenue 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A topic doesn't have to be important to warrant a Wikipedia article, at least under our current policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have apparently used the wrong words. Where I said Important, what I meant is notable. I still think that articles need to be accessible to the general user. But that can be something as simple as the summary at the top. What I am suggesting is that the accessibility and notability of the topic be demonstrated in the intro as part of the FA criteria. Is there any reason you can suggest not to have this as a criteria other than "don't wannna"? Slavlin 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the article, and I've been paying attention to what people say about it throughout both Wikipedia and the rest of the Internet, so I hope my perspective here will help.

First of all, the series is notable simply by virtue of the fact that it gets nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as Hardy, Saichev, and Weidlich. It helps that one of these is a respected primary source, namely Euler. It also helps that the series gets a ton of passing mentions. You may judge that the series does not deserve its notability, but then you're making a judgement on how human inquiry should be done and not how Wikipedia should report on it.

Even though I think that article topics don't need to be important (in the more-than-notable sense), I have stuff to say about that too. If you have a physics background with linear algebra, you've probably seen Fourier series. This means that there's an excellent chance that you've seen Abel summation without realizing it; see the reference to Davis at the end of the article for how. Abel and Borel summation are essential to modern physics, which deals with divergent series all the time, and I for one think that examples like 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · are essential to understanding such methods.

There are at least two reasons why I wouldn't say so in the article:

1. WP:NPOV. Who am I to tell you that you should read up on 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · to better understand modern mathematics and physics? I can't attribute that opinion to anyone you should care about.
2. WP:NOR. 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is an example of a divergent series. Examples are important for understanding general concepts. Divergent series have important practical applications. These statements are not controversial and could easily be attributed. That doesn't mean we can combine them to claim that 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · has practical applications, or that understanding it will lead to a better understanding of the way mathematics is used. Such derived statements would need specific evidence or at least an attribution, and we have neither. Here's another application of NOR: I have seen the series used several times as the prototypical example of a series that isn't Cesaro summable but is still easy to sum by any other method. Can I combine those observations to claim that the series is an important or widespread example? Can I claim that this role is why you should care about the series? Not so much.

On to accessibility. The closest the article comes to explaining what's "really going on" is in Stability and linearity: "A generalized definition of the 'sum' of a divergent series is called a summation method or summability method, which sums some subset of all possible series. There are many different methods (some of which are described below) which are characterized by the properties that they share with ordinary summation." This is just a couple of sentences. One could explain the situation a lot better by writing a whole section, but then you'd have to duplicate that section across every article dealing with divergent series. Duplication of information is bad for lots of reasons. Oh sure, you could make sure to mention the series by name within the explanation, and then do a find-and-replace for other articles, but that's cheating. It also opens doors you don't want to open: then we can have suspiciously similar articles on every divergent series under the sun.

We avoid duplication by placing information where it belongs, in this case in the article titled Divergent series. Perhaps the latter article doesn't explain the philosophy of divergent series very well either, but it already says a lot more than 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · should.

The upshot of my explanations for 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is that we generally shouldn't add FA criteria that many articles won't be able to meet without stretching policy and damaging the encyclopedia as a whole. The current criteria encourage fundamental good practices that all articles should be able to implement without conflict. Melchoir 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well written -> professionally written

I think this wording change is extremely necessary. Not only does it underscore 1a, it also helps distinguish GA 1a from FA 1a (since I got complaints for adding "'reasonably' well written" during my GA criteria revision last week). — Deckiller 09:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the green light? — Deckiller 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that "professional/ly" will appear twice? Once in the intro and once in 1a? Tony 09:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but at least there will be emphasis. — Deckiller 09:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Professionally written" suggests that you must be a professional to write an FA, which is, of course, not required. I would be okay with saying that prose should be of a professional standard. —Celithemis 10:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than the repetition (which might irritate readers), why not remove "even brilliant"? Celithemis, many of us aspire to a professional standard of writing, in many walks of life. I think it's a reasonable epithet, given the fierce competition out there on the Internet. Can't aim for less. Tony 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with the phrase "professional standard"; it's a good expression of the standard that I think should apply to FACs. Professionally written means something different. —Celithemis 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

—Celithemis's distinction is vital, and I would agree to that wording change, but not the other. –Outriggr § 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So, "Well written means the prose is of a professional standard"? — Deckiller 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From your last comment, it seems you intend to remove "compelling" from the criteria, which did not seem to be the case when you started this discussion. Is that correct? Pagrashtak 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to suggest anything to make well written clearly mean a professional standard. Several people have commented that "compelling" should stay; another idea of how to word it? — Deckiller 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tony suggests just removing "even brilliant", and I'd agree with that. We can just continue to emphasize "professional" standards in FAC reviews. — Deckiller 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That would leave "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling", which is not true. An article can be engaging without meeting the level of writing quality expected for a featured article. I would prefer "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling and of a professional standard", or something similar. 1(a) should cover both the "technical" (professional standard/brilliant) and "artistic" (compelling) aspects of good prose. Pagrashtak 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with "even brilliant"? But I rather like "engaging" rather than "compelling".

How about "'Well written' means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tony 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if we could cut the "brilliant" out (since exceeding the standard, as "'even' brilliant" applies, is not necessary to mention on the rubric). — Deckiller 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with removing "even brilliant", would be fine with either engaging or compelling. Pagrashtak 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The "even" makes it so that "brilliant" isn't really a requirement, so I'd like to keep it. It's a nice nod to our "brilliant prose" days, and it's not hurting anything. — Amcaja (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Added the change; kept "brilliant" because we didn't come to an agreement to remove it. — Deckiller 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd remove the "brilliant" piece, it doesn't fit all that well with the rest of the sentence. Tim Vickers 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like the substitution of "compelling" with "engaging", which is weaker. I like Pagrahstak's "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling and of a professional standard". Tony 01:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed criteria

All too often, even featured articles use technical terms to excess. Obviously, the basic terms of the field should be used, however, particularly in more general articles, they ought to be briefly explained at first use. As it is, all too often we get articles that think that a wikilink absolves them of all responsibility to write layman-accessible text. Many such articles require the reading of dozens of other articles just to get through a few paragraphs, and if they wikilink to each other, the reader is screwed.

A general rule might be "All terms not in general use should be explained at first occurrance, not just wikilinked, except where a technical term is substantially more basic and better known than the subject of the article itself." Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

An article like that would violate Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions, part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and thus fail criterion 2. There's no need to add a specific criterion just for this. Pagrashtak 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Point. It alright if I just make that explicit, since it's a particularly common failing in science articles? (See, for example, DNA or Big Bang, featured articles I put up for review for being unreadable in just that respect.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at {{Style}} and see how many different pages of stylistic guidelines we have. If we went down this road, criterion 2 would be excessively large. It's best to just say "It complies with the manual of style" and leave it at that. Pagrashtak 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure why it should be different in this respect for FAs. This issue is the same for all WP articles. Tony 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Article length criteria

Is there a maximum to article length. I tried splitting an article I was working on into subarticles and then compressed the text in the main article but was reverted to take the 89kb article to 111kb. The reverter said they reverted to try and get the article to featured-article length. I thought that it was a bit too long for FA. I would like confirmation. Traing 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't been officially set but it keeps coming up and needs discussing. The focus criterion (4) is meant to handle this. Marskell 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We also need a minimum. Something isn't right about 15 KB articles becoming featured. — Deckiller 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The slender ones make me feel very awkward when they pass. They rarely do justice to the requirement that FAs are "among WP's best work". But who's got a good idea as to how to frame such a guideline? Tony 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps 15-60 KB of prose? — Deckiller 11:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Something needs to be done. An FA with 3KB prose is outlandish. Deckiller, are you speaking of prose or readable prose? We can't measure by only prose size, because that counts references, so well-referenced articles are hit. 60KB of readable prose is too high; WP:LENGTH has long said that reader attention tops out around 50KB of readable prose. I'd recommend a range of 10 15–50KB of readable prose (calculated easiy with Dr pda's page size script). As to how to frame it, I believe that somewhere way back in this page history, it used to be suggested that GA was appropriate for the shorter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Readable prose, obviously :) — Deckiller 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I really hesitate to put down a specific number. Like all other featured criteria, any requirements should be qualitative and flexible to accommodate that truly outstanding 14.5KB article. It seems to me that 1(b) (comprehensive) is a fairly good minimum already. If there is a very short article that still meets 1(b), it might be an indication that the article should be merged with another. At that point, I believe one could object under criterion 4 (unnecessary detail). If neither of these quite fit, one could object that the article does not comply with Wikipedia:Summary style and thus fails 2 (Manual of Style). Pagrashtak 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pagrashtak, this discussion arises precisely because that has failed in the past, because there was no specific guideline. We've had articles with 85KB of readable prose (!!!!!!) pass FAC (and above, you've got an example of one with 500 words — a fifth-graders term paper), without using Summary Style, and over Objections. Many of us have long discussed the need to review and consider formalizing the length issue. Of course, a guideline is still a guideline, and a truly exceptional short article could still pass based on IAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pagrashtak, relying on "comprehensive" is clearly not working. At the moment, it's theoretically possible to break up an excellent article into its components to score a number FAs instead of just one. FAs need to be substantial, I think, to be showcases of WP's best work. There might be exceptions, so we need to think carefully of what they might be, and frame a new criterion around this. Something like "Nominations that are at the extremes of this recommended range, or that fall outside it, must demonstrate ...." Tony 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) PS To keep this debate rolling, does anyone have examples of FAs that are outside the range and that are (1) acceptable, and (2) unacceptable? Tony 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so I understand, is the current situation not working because reviewers are not objecting when they should be due to lack of an explicit criterion to make the requirement obvious? Pagrashtak 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Different situations for long and short. On short, we can't object because we have no guideline that allows objection based on too short — the only criteria is comprehensive, and short articles can be comprehensive. On too long, many of us do object, and are shouted down or overridden. And, yes, often no one is checking. On too long, we can ask for better use of Summary Style or conforming to WP:LENGTH, but recently have been ignored. The question is whether we need to formalize either too long or too short, or both. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand; I'm inclined to believe an additional criterion could be useful, then. I still recommend that numerical restrictions should be avoided, however. Pagrashtak 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, very carefully worded to allow for exceptions. What do you think of Tony's first suggestion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I'm still opposed to using numbers to define this. We require articles to have references, complemented by inline citations. I think it's pretty safe to say that a FAC with only four inline citations would almost certainly not pass, but we still wouldn't want a "no fewer than five citations" requirement. That's not the best example, but I hope it illustrates my concept. None of our criteria are hammered down to a purely objective statement, and I want to keep them that way. Thought should have to be exercised at every step, even though that seems to be an increasingly rare resource (the commenters here an obvious exception, of course). Pagrashtak 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose any such criterion for a minimum length (indeed, any criterion designed simply to exclude otherwise flawless articles). It's unfortunate, Tony, that you believe short articles do not display Wikipedia's best work, but it is not at all clear why that is true. My opposition would be tempered if you promise never again to oppose an article for redundant prose or other excess verbiage: if this criterion is added, there will indeed be a good reason for padding the word count at the expense of readability. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list for perusal and discussion

To my knowledge, these are the only ultra-long FAs. Six out of 1382 = .4 % — I can't find the most recent list of ultra-long articles, but this is all that showed up last time I perused it.

• B movie — 95KB overall, 63KB prose, 10KB refs
• Byzantine Empire — 106 overall, 78 prose, 2 refs
• Campaign history of the Roman military 121 overall, 74 prose, 20 refs
• Ketuanan Melayu — 107 overall, 81 prose, 11 refs
• Schizophrenia — 119 overall, 60 prose, 24 refs
• Sound film — 112 overall, 63 prose, 20 refs

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Several could clearly make better use of Summary Style (e.g.; at least Schizophrenia, Byzantime Empire). Also note Dr pda doesn't pick up listy prose, so Sound film had to be calculated manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think B-Movie is a good threshold; anything longer is excessive. — Deckiller 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can generalize based on B movie, because Schizophrenia is shorter than B movie but VERY definitely not making appropriate use of Summary style. IMO, 50KB should trigger serious review. If we set the threshhold at the precedent established by B movie (wrongly, IMO, but everyone knows how I feel about that :-) we're going to have nothing to enforce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if your concern is B movie, Tony's proposed wording works, since it theoretically (even if I disagree :-) "demonstrated" something about its size by passing FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, WP:GA as originally envisioned by WorldTraveller was meant to recognize short articles of excellent quality that didn't have enough meat for FA. After a lengthy discussion between he and I, he actually created Wikipedia:Excellent short articles (note his first edit summary) with a cut-and-paste from GA. Alas, it's received 9 edits in a year. It could be revived to accomodate the low end of this debate (e.g., the coin article). Marskell 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By whatever means, we need to get back to something that recognizes that a 500-word term paper shouldn't be an FA. I know we want *more* FAs, but that's not the way to highlight Wiki's best work. Heck, I wrote Intrusive thoughts in a couple of hours when a disastrous, incomplete, and inaccurate version came through LoCE; it's 17KB prose (2600 words), probably the best info on the net now on the topic, says everything there is to say on the topic, and I'd never consider it remotely FA-eligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on my own example, I switched my recommendation above to a lower limit of 15KB. Does anyone have examples of the shortest FAs ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Found this list in archives — will come back and add Dr pda data:

• Austin Nichols — 7KB prose (1279 words)
• Australian Green Tree Frog — 10KB prose (1763 words)
• Diary of a Camper — 7KB prose (1135 words)
• Hurricane Irene (2005) — 5KB prose (792 words)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Diary of a Camper's plot section is way too short. It should be at least 3-4 paragraphs. — Deckiller 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind; it's a 100 second film clip... — Deckiller 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this list above, I'm back to thinking 10KB prose should be a lower limit, because the Frog article is worthy. With all due respect to Titoxd and the Hurricane, Wiki isn't short on hurricane FAs. Austin Nichols and the Camper article don't convince me. Guess I should polish up Intrusive thoughts and sumbit it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But wait. Before having a lower cut-off, we need to decide on a way to recognize these articles other than a regular FAC. We want to encourage polished post-stubs just like polished long articles. Wikipedia:Featured short articles. I suggested it to Raul a year ago and still think it's a good idea. Marskell 17:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts ?? GimmeBot, {{ArticleHistory}}, and a whole 'nother category to track. Gimmetrow will have ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In practice, I suspect it'll just mean that editors will try to fluff up their articles with extra text so that they pass over the cutoff to get into the "real" featured articles. While absurdly short articles may be unsuited as FAs for various reasons, we shouldn't start penalizing tightly written prose because of that. Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, here is an article with a mere 13KB of prose; do people feel it's insufficiently long? Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not if it is comprehensive. I don't see we have a need for a lower cut-off. No, a 500-word essay that you knocked off in an hour isn't likely to be FA-worthy, but, in my mind, a short article that collects every scrap of data that there is on a subject and combines it into an interesting read is more FA worthy than 50K on a "straightforward" subject regurgitated, with a hint of rewording, from a mass of freely available sources. Getting the scraps for a 2K article can mean a lot of work (for example, I'm finding it much harder to build comprehensive articles for three short subjects I'm working on now than for the four longer FAs I turned out last quarter) I expect we'd get a lot more people reading some FAs if there were a decent amount of short articles in the mix. I might look at Hurricane Irene (2005) if I had five minutes to spare rather than read five minutes worth of some 80K behemoth. If an article meets the criteria then it should be considered, and criteria 1.b and 4 cover very short articles in the same way they cover long articles. (On a side note, I think I'd personally stop participating in the FA process if there was a lower limit, we simply don't need 50K on everything and I don't look forward to the padding of what would otherwise be examples of "our very best work" to push them over an arbitrary limit). Yomangani^talk 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yomangani has summed up how I feel rather well, and I second his opinion. If short articles are comprehensive in that they collect all the available info on the given topic, then I feel criterion 1. b. is satisfied. LuciferMorgan 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. 1974 aluminum cent is quite an extreme case, but I suspect that there really is nothing more to say (although, having seen it, I wonder if an article like Corinthian bronze would pass...) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've objected to the 1974 aluminum cent nom on the grounds of comprehensiveness (amongst other things). In practice there aren't many subjects that can be covered well in a very short article, but that doesn't mean there aren't any (and the coin can probably cover everything in 6K of prose rather than 3K). Yomangani^talk 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like that's that :-) But ya'll didn't say how you feel about including an upper limit in the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should impose size limits, in part because it creates yet another hurdle for people to negotiate (and there's a strong sense out there that the FA process has become too hurdles-esque), and in part because articles should be as long as they need to be, which is a matter of editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I invite perusal of these 58 archived FACs from April to see if there are articles that should have had these "hurdles" lowered so they could be considered among Wiki's finest work. I can't see why these alleged "hurdles" are a bad thing, considering some of the quality that is now coming through FAC due to the backlog at GAC and PR. On the other hand, it's easy to point out articles that have passed FAC that should have had some "hurdles" put up by more consistent reviews, reviewers, and application of standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good writing and researching shouldn't be about ticking a check list, and offering a list of FACs doesn't help, because it doesn't include the articles people haven't nominated because of the hurdles perception. I have two myself that I would otherwise have nominated by now, but the thought of being scolded for not using citation templates (or whatever hurdles would be focused on) makes me weary, so I haven't. High standards are good, so long as they're not petty. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I read almost every FAC, and if any reviewer (incorrectly) requests cite templates (which rarely happens), they are quickly reminded they aren't required (and that many of us don't like them). Now, when editors are using them — and using them incorrectly — or when sources aren't formatted at all by any method, that's another story. Further, there is a checklist for FACs: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and so on. Someone has to check it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I had the template thing happen to me, which is why I mentioned it, but there are other examples. Jerusalem lately had some objection or opposing comment based on MoS stuff. I forget the details, but it was something that had nothing to do with the quality of the piece. Anyway, the point is it would be good not to add anything else. Perhaps you could say "X is likely to be too short, and when you start heading toward Y, you better be sure that the content is all relevant," but without introducing actual limits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

But the template thing is clearly not valid, and Raul can ignore it. If we impose some limits, I agree the wording should be as you mention (and as Tony suggested); that is not hard and fast, but at least some mention that size matters (ahem). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The MoS enforcement is probably justified under the current featured article criteria. I do think that it is pursued here with a vigilance that ignores the reality of the MoS, which is that 99% of editors ignore 99% of its advice 99% of the time. "Fixing" these issues, I find, tends not to improve the article in any discernible way, but at the same time it takes so little effort that you might as well do it. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And if you don't do it, along come ten more FACs that say, "well so-and-so didn't, so I don't have to." WP:MOS (2) is not less of a criterion than any other, and FAs set an example for other editors. If FAs don't get the MOS right, why should we even have an MOS ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The MoS is widely ignored because it's edited by too many people and is unstable, so no one can be expected to know what's in it, and often what's there is wrong or idiosyncratic or impossible to understand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that we consider the MoS as a block, when in reality it is a mixture: some important standards that have been produced with a great deal of input, and some not-so-important standards that are the product of a handful of editors who worked in peace mostly because nobody else cared. Distinguishing between the two is basically impossible without delving into the talk pages and histories. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen this phenomenon; do you have an example? The MOS problems I most often see at FAC are standard and stable MOS items, AFAIK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see with not having a fixed upper limit is it opens up the opportunity for claims along the lines of "the criteria don't explicitly forbid it, therefore objecting on size it isn't a valid objection, so unless you have another objection I demand my 800K of prose is passed". I don't think any of the super long articles got through without a hard time in that area though, did they? Yomangani^talk 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Only two (from the list of six above) were challenged at FAC: Campaign history of the Roman military, and Ketuanan Melayu (both by you-know-who :-) Others grew after FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is less "hurdles" in general and more hurdles of the sort that are arbitrary rather than thoughtful. In my view, requiring articles to be comprehensive and to abide by Wikipedia:Summary style keeps them to an appropriate length without imposing one-size-fits-all numerical standards on a very diverse collection of articles. Certainly at the low end, to say that an article is comprehensive but at the same time needs more content makes little sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Viewing it as a problem affecting less than half of one percent of FAs, maybe it doesn't make sense to impose another "hurdle" on a problem that isn't widespread. On the other hand, in the arguments here and continuing here, this editor claims that it's OK to riddle an article with extremely excessive inline citations (had as many as six per clause, now down to three or four) simply because there's no "rule" ("hurdle") which says he can't. We get exactly the same argument on article size. Of course, if more reviewers were actually "checking the list" (reviewing the criteria other than 1a), maybe less of these issues would be slipping through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the old 32k rule-of-thumb limit always seemed to me to produce articles of a nice, readable size, but it does often require a quart to be squeezed into a pint pot. Anything more than, say, twice as long as that is getting too long, IMHO, and probably ought to be broken down into daughter articles. The saffron / history of saffron / trade and usage of saffron series shows how it can be done. But I don't think we need a hard-and-fast limit. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A good usage of Summary Style to break up a long article. Back to Tony's suggestion, "Nominations that are at the extremes of this recommended range, or that fall outside it, must demonstrate ...." ... How's this ?

4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Nominations that fall outside the recommended prose size range are discouraged and must demonstrate appropriate usage of summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is for only those at the big end of the spectrum, not for the aluminium cent ones? I presume that the current wording of Criterion 4 is not strong enough to allow objections on the basis that summary style is not used in parts or the whole of the nomination. (It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).) Perhaps reviewers haven't used this Criterion explicitly for this purpose. I'm wondering how nominators will "demonstrate appropriate usage of summary style" when challenged; they'll just say "It's all in summary style—go away", won't they? The onus will still be on us to say where and why it's not in summary style. So I'm unsure that the new version would change anything in practice. Tony 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seems like consensus is that the shorter ones are OK (if compehensive); can you suggest any wording that would discourage 70KB of prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've looked at Wikipedia:Article size, which is all too vague. No matter how I try, I can't find a way of changing the criterion in a way that is practicable and acceptable to all. I don't see why citing Criterion 4 and the following armory of statements at WP:Summary style isn't enough to force the issue:
• "information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article"
• "generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover its topic and that the extra reading time is justified".
• "The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects."
• "Articles larger than 30 KB (those that trigger page size warning) may be getting too long to efficiently cover their topic. This likelihood increases with larger size and it is very rare for an article 50% larger than this [45 KB] to still efficiently cover its topic."
• "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines".

It's up to individual FA reviewers and their colleagues to form an opinion of where the limit lies beyond which they start to object; that might be better than cementing it in black-letter law (which might upset the 30/45 KB guideliners). Tony 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

section break

I didn't know I would trigger such a long discussion...:)...I've been working on Sino-Indian War, where I summarized the 111kb article to 89kb by creating articles Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute and Events leading to the Sino-Indian War while just keeping a summarized version on the actual page. I was reverted and User:Yuje explained that he did not support me because I supposedly "deleted huge sections of information that despite what he said, did not restore anywhere else" and said the he is "trying to improve it by extended it and giving the historical background leading up to the war, to make it a feature-length article". Which made me think whether there should be a limit to feature-length articles, particularly because the article hardly has any pictures and still takes time to load (depending on your browser speed). I believe the maximum for an article should be 70kb because we could allow them to go over the 64kb mark slightly. The minimum should be 15kb, some topics are simply not worthy to make it to the main page because there is not much information related to their topics. Those are my view's and could someone clarify to Yuje on Talk:Sino-Indian War because he seems to be of the view that I am deleting all this information without restoring them anywhere else. For example, he says "He editted the article in a completely POVed manner, editting out selectively, and he deleted huge sections of information that despite what he said, did not restore anywhere else". Traing 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Traing, it's helpful in discussions of article size to specify overall size, or readable prose. Also, you don't indicate if you used summary style to move the content to daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Accepted reference styles

This matter was brought up in the recent (and successful) nomination of Conatus. This article, as I originally sourced it, used Harvard referencing, not the more typical ref/note method. I believed that this, while not the standard, would be acceptable in an FAC because of the endorsement of this method on various pages, including the "guideline" WP:CITE. According to this page, the three accepted methods of citing sources are: Embedded HTML links, Harvard referencing and Footnotes. In my experience, however, only the last is truly acceptable for a modern FA: during the Conatus's FAC, there was overwhelming support for a conversion to Footnotes style. I say that if FAs must realistically use Footnotes, the list of criteria should specify that; or if Harvard style is decidedly OK, that should be said directly. WP:CITE may be a good guideline (I don't know if it is) for most articles, but it is not a good guideline for FAs right now. -- Rmrfstar 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard is entirely acceptable. If an article employs Harvard style properly, objections on the basis of reference style are invalid. It is unfortunate that people are not aware these objections are invalid, and therefore sometimes do unnecessary work. Of course, whatever style you use should be implemented in an appropriate manner. I can't answer for whether this article used Harvard correctly when it was first nominated. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not everyone thinks so... if we find here that it is... we should say this explicitly in the FACR. -- Rmrfstar 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe embedded links are considered acceptable by any FAC regulars who care about reference style. It should be removed from our guidelines, if you ask me. Pagrashtak 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC criteria already state that cite.php is preferred when footnotes are used. Embedded links are fine for other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, well embedded links aren't fine for FACs, as Pagrashtak says. This should be said explicitly. -- Rmrfstar 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view if someone wants to use embedded links properly then that would be fine. The personal views of reviewers here shouldn't trump the community guideline. Embedded links are rather tedious to use properly, however, and are doubly annoying if you intend to use print sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory coughs up this version, which is hard to plough through with all those inlines. By the way, that article can't decide if hyphens or endashes are used on date ranges, and if endashes are or aren't surrounded by spaces. That kind of sloppiness shouldn't get through FAC. A read of WP:DASH might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the argument: Harvard style is annoying. I'll fix the issues with the dashes. -- Rmrfstar 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC and FAR/C urgents boxes

FACs needing feedback view •
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark	Review now
Rudolf Vrba	Review now
Michael Tritter	Review now
Middle Ages	Review now
Emmy Noether	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

Will reviewers kindly note that these boxes are regularly updated for problematic nominations and for those that are hanging around for too long with too few comments. Transcluding them on your user page and/or at the top of your talk page would be a great way to generate more interest in these processes, especially by reviewers who manage to visit only occasionally.

All you do is to key in {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} and {{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}}. Tony 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New version of Featured Sound Criteria

I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria to be implemented after a week or so of debate, if consensus can be achieved. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. Tony 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Focus / Proportion

In my opnion, Featured Articles should be structured with section sizes being appropriate to that which would actually interest readers. This may not make sense, so here's a hypothetical example:

Stairway to Heaven is an FAC. It meets all of the criteria, and is lengthy and well-structured. It includes information about the backwards lyrics. However, the largest sections are:

• Recording: Explains, in detail, all of the instruments, tracks, and recording equipment used in making the song.
• Exclusion from Guitar Hero: Provides rationale and reactions to the fact that the song is not included in either of the Guitar Hero games.
• Concert Variations: Lists venues at which the song was played and any differences between those performances and the recorded version.

That would certainly be a comprehensive article. However, if the volume of non-notable and uninteresting material vastly outweighs the pertinent information, I would say the article is too unfocused or misproportioned to be an FA.

The problem with having focus as in the FA criteria is that it is subjective. An editor who really doesn't want an article to pass FAC could easily say "This article doesn't stay focused on the pertinent information." The easiest way to apply this objectively would be to ask "What would the average reader want to know about this topic?" Whatever the answer to that is should be the focus of the article.

This wouldn't necessarily have to be its own criterion, nor would it have to be strictly enforced. It could fall under well-written and would really only be actionable in extreme cases. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Layout

Two editors are editing WP:LAYOUT to state that Wiki "sister" links should be added to the lead rather than the See also or External links at the end of the article. I believe this will clutter the lead, resulting in ugly articles, and external content (even interwiki) belongs at the end. Other opinions ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just realized it's actually three editors, who have strikingly similar prose and syntax. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, sure -- the link at top right of United States Constitution isn't particularly ugly and makes a lot of sense -- but generally no. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about that one either :-) Can you imagine if all the WikiSister links were added at the top of articles? Yuk. It's bad precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion taken to Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#InterWiki_links_never_be_External_links.. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Phase out Harvard style

I think the discussion above finished prematurely... May I re-word the criteria to recommend only footnotes for the sake of standardization and readability? -- Rmrfstar 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No: some of our established FAs use it and they can't be frozen out of the criteria; it's acceptable academically and it isn't our business to reject it; some people genuinely hate footnotes. Marskell 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If articles are going to be "opposed" because they use use Harvard style, it should not be recommended. -- Rmrfstar 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Any such opposition is invalid, as stated above. We can hardly stop people from opposing on that basis (it is a wiki) but we ignore them when they do. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia's policies suddenly prescriptive? Conatus's recenct FAC garnered no actual "oppose"s because of its initial Harvard style; but the fact that the consensus was that it was inferior to footnotes brought about its reformatting. I wish that something would be done to prevent this from occurring (again) to a user who has read the guidelines. The criterium in question may waste many more hours of time in the future if it is not made more specific and descriptive. -- Rmrfstar 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The criteria already point to WP:CITE for formatting guidance, and that page makes it very clear that Harvard style is acceptable. I'm not sure what more can be done in this regard. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to use a single consistent style of referencing, and the <ref> ones are certainly the most convenient for the reader. Atropos 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"certainly the most convenient" - by what measures? I am aware of a substantial number of people who prefer to use and read citations in the Harvard style. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck enforcing that consistency across the nearly 2 million en articles. There is a very good reason the guidelines allow inconsistency. We will not be changing that. Raul654 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I was talking about the 1431 featured articles. Atropos 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an MA in Econ. and am working on a PhD in Linguistics... and to the best of my recollection, all I've ever seen is Harvard... it's what the social sciences tend to use.. I think the Anthro. folks use the same... that's a whole lotta journals & a whole lotta Wikipedia editors... so... Ling.Nut 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image criteria

Hello. I've noticed that several featured articles use non-animated images stored in the GIF format. This is not recommended because images like these are often better represented in the PNG format. The PNG format is completely lossless, often compresses better, and supports full alpha-channel transparency. The templates {{BadGIF}} and {{ShouldBePNG}} exist to help us identify and resolve this problem by doing a fairly simple conversion from GIF to PNG. The PNG crusade bot can do this conversion with little human intervention.

Would it be OK if another criteria was added, requiring that GIF images be converted to PNG unless there is a good reason not to? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a triviality. I do not see it as necessary. Raul654 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we may be able to save a significant amount of bandwidth that way because of all the times features articles are viewed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Both gif and png use fairly good compression algorithms. The size difference between a thumbnailed gif and png is trivial. Raul654 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If this can easily be done with a semi-automated bot why not just run through the new featured articles at the end of the month (there are only about 60)? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical content

How about setting up some technical content FA process? A lot of technical content can't be boiled down to the same level as a Celebrity biography, or an article about the flag of Peru, and that appears to be a criteria imposed by reviewers for getting technical articles through the FA process. Just wondering... SqlPac 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but the current FA criteria do not in principle disallow technical articles. However, no one can stop commenters from broad "this is too technical" objections, and I hope those objections are given no more weight than any other unsubstantiated comment. What a sad encyclopedia this would be if a dense subject could not become an FA, while Pokemon can. The key is to give every reader a basic overview of the subject in the lead of the article. As long as you've done that, consider the objections nullified—no pun intended. My suggestion for your Null (SQL) would be to provide more of an overview of the article in the lead. Take a look at the recently passed Equipartition theorem for your inspiration and precedent. For most of us readers, its lead is our only hope. –Outriggr § 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We just narrowed down the intro and put a lot of the content in the new History subsection :) LOL. I'll definitely check out the Equipartition theorem article, and see what we can apply from there to the Null (SQL) article. While the FA criteria might not explicitly disallow technical articles, a quick run-through of the current crop of FA articles shows that biographies and national flag articles have a much greater chance of achieving FA status. And after the initial comments on the FA review for Null (SQL), it seems that the reason might be that (as one reviewer stated) technical articles need to be "dumbed-down" to make the cut. I think that's a pretty sad commentary about the articles used to "represent the best content on Wikipedia," or at least about the process for selecting them. SqlPac 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that looking through the current crop tells you a lot about the chances of different articles; it says more about the interests of the projects and individuals who are particularly geared up to produce numerous FAs. e.g. the hurricanes project and whatever group is bringing all the Final Fantasy games to featured status. Can you point to any technical articles that you feel were unreasonably failed? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, how about the Null (SQL) article?? Here's a quick rundown:

• Article is reviewed, changes are made as necessary, and it is promoted to GA status
• Article is nominated for FA status
• Most of reviewers' objections are fixed immediately
• Questions concerning clarification of some objections, and how to best fix them, are posed to reviewers
• Other reviewers post information that contradicts some of the reviewers' objections, including the dumbing-down comment
• Reviewers who objected fail to answer any questions or post any further information
• Article is promoted to FA status
• Article is immediately recommended to FAR
• Bureaucrats who recommended article to FAR, and who support it are asked to provide information concerning what needs to be fixed in the article. Multiple times.
• One person responds, and his few recommendations are implemented immediately
• Others respond by saying they are not using FAR to judge the article by its content, but rather to enforce a technicality
• No further guidance is provided, presumably because none of the reviewers in the "Featured Article Review" actually "reviewed" the article
• The article is slated to be moved to FAC-Failed
• Contributor on article decides it's not worth dealing with the bureaucratic nightmare and cuts down on his contributions considerably

How about an article that's promoted to FA status, and subsequently demoted with no "due process"? No objections noted, no existing objections reaffirmed, no suggestions on what needs to be fixed, no answers to requests for this information, no reviewers actually even reading the article. One would think that actually reading an article would be important during a so-called review, but as was voiced by the lead FAcker during this article's "FARce", all those FAckers weren't interested in the actual article or its content. Does that meet the criteria for reasonableness? For all these FAckers know, the article may be up to FA standards; or it might require some minor tweaks to get it there. These FAckers will never know since the entire review was a FARce. 'Nuff said. Meet the FAckers SqlPac 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see us changing the FA process to accomodate technical articles; however, if someone would like to come up with criteria that apply specifically to technical articles, I'm all ears. Raul654 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a higher ratio of technical content to "State Flag" and "Celebrity Bio" articles identified as "the best content on Wikipedia". Many writers of technical subject matter around here have expressed the opinion that technical material will never reach FA status, so "why even try?" I'm a new member of that camp myself. Considering the vague objections accepted from reviewers (e.g., it won't make FA status if it's not "dumbed down"), it's no wonder technical writers and subject-matter experts are more than willing to tweak their articles up to GA status and stop. And the bureaucratic nightmares that can pop up on a whim? As they say in Jersey, Fuhgettaboutit. SqlPac 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcludability

If it helps, this page is transcludable as {{Wikipedia:Featured article criteria}}; if not, revert my changes :) Gracenotes^T § 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the intro paragraph has also been added; that's fine, although I see many more references to the bulleted points than to the introduction (and the point of transclusion is functionality). Gracenotes^T § 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Necessity of an FAC to have images

Hi all, at the moment we have a rather subjective criterion (3) in determining whether or not images are a prerequisite. After reviewing at Birchington-on-Sea I felt that images would be (a) pretty easy to get and (b) essential for facilitating engagement, I thus decided not to continue reviewing until images were added, which they were.

Now the criterion states: It has images where they are appropriate to the subject,...

I could imagine some obscure theoretical idea maybe not require images but I would have thought just about everything else would need them to make "Wikipedia's best work". Have there been FAs in recent times with no images? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Conatus is a good example of such an "obscure technical idea", and how it can include images, however indirect the connection. But I do think that Conatus could/should have passed had it not those images... because they're not necessary... -- Rmrfstar 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposing new critera for images

• It must include a link to the relevant Wikimedia Commons (perhaps relevant sister projects) page(s) where appropriate. (Not all extant sister page projects may be suitable, e.g. a patchy, poorly written Wikibook or similar).
• All free images and media must be uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia.

We have far too many people ignoring the message to upload free images there, not here. We also have far too few articles linking to commons when there is a valid page to link to. Creating this as a standard for FAs should signal to all articles that this is how things should be done. It will improve Wikipedia articles by providing a link to more images and other media, it will allow editors to browse other possible images to improve the article as they become available (or are moved into the category), will provide better awareness and closer relations with Commons, and it will improve commons in similar fashion, as editors may improve the commons categories/pages, upload images there for use on other projects, and see better utilization of Commons resources.

These are the best of our articles and I think they should demonstrate proper use of this important sister project. Richard001 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the first, there is already enough on sister projects at Wikipedia:Sister_projects, which is part of the manual of style, and thus already included in the second criterion. So no need for that. As to the second issue, I don't think this is important enough, or sufficiently related to the quality of the article, to warrant inclusion. BTW, if you want better relations with Commons then pester the devs to implement the single login. Until then, for basically all English Wikipedia contributors, there are zero visible benefits of adding to Commons and significant inconveniences. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one would object strongly to the second portion of the proposed addition. I'm an admin on MediaWiki.org, and we've had significant problems with Commons deleting images for no reason. There's no need to do that either. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess the tragedy of the commons shall continue... Hopefully they get the single login worked out pretty soon. Richard001 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A year later and I think this should be a mandatory requirement. Commons never deletes images "for no reason", only for copyright violations, no source, no license, etc. And "no SUL" is not a valid reason to oppose this, especially since it may occur soon, but if an editor is willing to work hard at producing a good article, with good free images, they should be willing to spend 5 seconds to create a free account on Commons so the image can exist on Commons, not here. I know, 5 seconds is a lot to ask of someone trying to get a FAC through, but I think we can try. Another reason for this is that FAs are likely to be created in multiple languages, and having the image on Commons allows reuse easily. Further, part of the FAC should be to review the sourcing and license information of all images in the article, which would reduce any problems of the image(s) being deleted at Commons. And I know it's a pain to move the image(s) to Commons, it takes all of 5 seconds with the Commons Helper. Spending 1 minute to move the image and a few edits to improve description, license, sourcing information is such a terrible burden. FAs should be the example by which all articles aspire to. How can we tell people to upload free images to Commons and not here when we don't even require the "best" work to exist there? MECU≈talk 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sections within FAC pages

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Printable version of a FA

Some FA articles (Evolution for example) have scrollable content (References, in Evolution's case) that make the printable version incomplete. In the case of Evolution it is especially noticeable in that only a few of the many many references are in the printable version of the article. Is there any guideline about having a complete printable version in the criteria for a FA? - Bevo 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... that's a *very* interesting point... Raul654 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. What we write is designed to be read on screen as part of a hyperlinked set of webpages. Formatting should be designed to aid our huge web readership, not the tiny minority of people who choose to print out web-pages. TimVickers 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're completely misusing that. If someone wants to be able to print out an article (I can see the article on evolution being very useful to pass out to a high school biology class, for example), the entire article should be there. I've been bold replaced it with {{reflist|3}}; however silly me forgot to write an edit summary, so it may be reverted by someone who prefers it how it was and isn't aware of this discussion. Atropos 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a problem that should have a technical solution; i.e. that the scroll box should be automatically expanded in the 'printable version'?--Pharos 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

File a feature request - http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ Raul654 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's filed as Bug 10239 if anyone cares to look at it or comment there. Also, I'm not really technically inclined so it might be helpful to check that I described it properly.--Pharos 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The devs think this could be better handled in the common.css. I've started a thread requesting someone implement it there. Raul654 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any markup that allows conditional expansion depending on whether or not the current rendering is the printable version of an article? I imagine it would be some sort of If-Then-Else construction. It would be useful for alternative images to the animated ones, for example, as well as for using the simpler rendering of the References list for the printable version. - Bevo 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The more I think of it, the more I think that use of such conditional expansion would be too easy to abuse, so "Nevermind!" . - Bevo 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This desire to print a web-page, although interesting, is not something Wikipedia is designed to achieve. Please read Wiki is not paper, which addresses this point directly. We are not writing a book. We are writing a web- or CD-based set of hyperlinked web pages. TimVickers 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's still highly desirable that we be able to produce decent printable versions. We are not all living in the paperless world yet, and we probably won't be for several decades (especially in certain contexts and parts of the globe).--Pharos 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To address Bevo's original point - I've thought about it some more. There are clearly some things that do not translate into paper - movie and music files linked from articles; animated gifs, etc. So really, the camel is already inside the tent. With that acknowledged, however, I'd prefer that, for something like Evolution, that we not go out of our way to make articles that do not print correctly. Raul654 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This has strayed from what I asked originally. That was, the impact, if any, of an incomplete printable version on the suitability of an article to be a FA. I intend to start a discussion elsewhere that will be more generally on the subject of the situation where it is not possible to produce a complete printable version of an article. Maybe that general discussion needs to play out before any overlap with FA suitability is determined. - Bevo 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What about a sub-page with the full set of references listed in plain text? That would allow them to be printed in full but retain the space advantage for the majority of readers who don't wish to kill trees. TimVickers 04:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That certainly sounds reasonable. I'm trying to figure out where to initiate the general discussion of ideas like that. - Bevo 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not possible to my knowledge with the style of referencing Evolution uses. The references themselves are in the body of the article and won't be included on a seperate page, unless there's some transclusion method. Atropos 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a simple stylesheet issue. If you are going to use scrolling sections, then the stylesheet needs to be set up so that scrolling happens only on screen media. —Celithemis 05:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An alternative is that if people are using this to give to children, we could put in a link to a print-formatted version that was guaranteed to be free of vandalism. Solves two problems at once. TimVickers 15:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bevo, on your original question, there are other problems in the printable version, and I've been "had" by it several times. I like to print out long FACs to read and review when I travel. The seealso and other templates at the tops of sections don't reproduce on the printable versions, so once I stopped reviewing an article and commented that it wasn't comprehensive, not noticing that Summary sytle had been used, as it didn't show on the printable version. There is also a problem with math formulas on the printable version, but I can't remember what the problem was. I've not raised these issues before as I wasn't sure where they might be addressed, but do wish someone knowledgeable would help fix them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Raul654 and Celithemis mentioned above, the printable references issue is a basic stylesheet one. I've proposed a CSS-based solution over at the discussion Raul654 started. --David Iberri (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There also seems to be a problem with a feature of inline links in the text taking you to the highlighted item in some browsers, but not in the version of Apple's Safari that Orangemarlin and myself are using, where the link just takes you to the top of the cites list without scrolling down to the highlighted item. .. dave souza, talk

One more problem: Sometimes text will run into right-aligned images, making it impossible to read (or make out the image). When I copy edit, I prefer paper to digital, so this really gets on my nerves. — Amcaja (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of this new fad and actually nominated the template for deletion. Consensus appears to be against the template so far. See here. Aaron Bowen 05:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

These are popping up everywhere: {{scroll box}} says not to use it in mainspace, and references this TfD result. These boxes not only lose references on the printable version; I believe they also result in a loss of references on mirrors, of which there are many for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many images?

Is it possible for an article to have too many images? We are currently expanding Kushan Empire and a problem is arising in trying to ensure that the layout doesn't have so many images that it crowds out the text. Is there any guideline about this? All the images are relevant one way or the other, and there is no agreement on what can be cut. A WikiFairy has suggested making cuts, but is getting resistance. Can any of you take a look and weigh in on the talk page regarding this? Buddhipriya 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible for an article to have too many images, and yes, that article is a perfect example of one. Raul654 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen excess images in articles appear in an "Gallery of ___ images" article linked in the ==See also== section and populated with the gallery markup framing of the set of images. See Birmingham and Gallery of Birmingham city centre images as one example. - Bevo 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I've always thought this was for Commons, not Wikipedia... Circeus 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a better way to do it. See Bryce Canyon National Park and its link to {{Commons|Bryce Canyon National Park|Bryce Canyon National Park}} - Bevo 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

cites etc.

• Does "where appropriate" mean that anti-cite folks have the right to remove cites they feel (subjectively) are "inappropriate"?
• Did you mention Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? I just scanned quickly, am kinda busy.
• Thanks Ling.Nut 21:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Time for FA to change culture vis-a-vis fair use images

Today, I removed 20 fair use images from Robbie Williams [1]. No, this is not a featured article. However, in trying to further support my explanation as to why this was done, I came here to WP:FA to review articles on other musicians, to give examples of how an article should be using fair use images (if at all). I was rather shocked and dismayed to find a wide number of FAs having decorative use of fair use images. I'll take Genesis (band) as an example. This article, which attained featured status in April of 2006 and was reviewed to that status on May 1 of this year (form as of that date: [2]), had and has six fair use images on it. In the review for featured status, fair use was raised but only with regards to the audio clips. With regards to the images;

• The very first image Image:Genesis pressphoto.jpg, is a clear candidate for replaceable fair use. This image is a fair use promotional photograph, and is clearly replaceable with a free license version. There's also no fair use rationale for the image's use on this article.
• The second image, Image:Genesis 1967 lineup.jpg, has a fair use rationale but not specific to the article, just a generic fair use rationale. Further, the image is not discussed in any respect, but used solely for depiction/identification purposes.
• The third image, Image:Genesis Group.jpg, has the same fair use rationale problem as Image:Genesis 1967 lineup.jpg. It too is not discussed in the article in any way, and is for depiction/identification purposes.
• The fourth image, Image:Genesis-Land-of-confusion-single-cover.jpg, has no fair use rationale for this article either. The article barely discussed this single cover, noting that it's influenced by The Beatles album With The Beatles, though this discussion occurs as a caption to the image, not discussed in line with the article, and similar discussion of the influence on the cover occurs on the article for the single, at Land of Confusion, making the fair use here redundant and unnecessary.
• The fifth image, Image:Genesis - Calling All Stations.jpg also has no fair use rationale for this article. It too is used for identification purposes only, and this album cover's use here is little different than in a discography, where such covers are being removed all over the project.
• The sixth image, Image:Foxtrot72.jpg, again lacks a fair use rationale for this article. However, in this one and only case the album cover is being used in a way that satisfies our fair use requirements in that it is used to discuss Genesis' unique approach to album cover artwork, and the same significance is not discussed in the album's article.

This case example is just one case. I could go on for a while here, as I've seen a number of featured articles for which fair use review was done very poorly or not at all. Especially in light of the Foundation's recent resolution on the use of copyrighted works (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy), the culture here with regards to the support of the use of fair use images, if only by silence in not taking a stronger stance towards review of the use of such images, needs to change to be more in line with the m:Mission of Wikimedia and Wikipedia.

There's a number of us who are fighting fair use over use tooth and nail across a wide variety of articles. See User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse for a list of nearly 3000 articles where there are at least ten fair use images, much less the considerably longer list of articles with >4 and <10 (more than twice as long in fact), available at User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse smaller. To come here, at FA, to find examples of how it should be done and find rampant overuse undermines this effort and isn't in keeping with our mission here. We've been fighting this fair use overuse and continually become embroiled in debates over it. Time and time again this happens, and each time the reduction of fair use eventually wins out. But, an oft cited argument is "well this is how it's done at XYZ". No one has yet cited featured articles, but it will happen. These should be our finest examples, not examples where our licensing policy is abused.

I'd also like to note that the 100k FA article goal, while completely unachievable, is readily more achievable by virtue of having less fair use images per article that need to be reviewed. This would make review of such articles less complex. The culture needs to change; those of you conducting reviews of articles for featured status need to be considerably more direct and restrictive in the use of fair use images than is apparently the current case. --Durin 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've conducted a fair use image removal from today's featured article, Slayer. See [3], and Talk:Slayer#Fair_use_image_removal. --Durin 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Durin, if it's that important (and I agree it is), it would be most helpful if someone who does speak Fair Use would begin reviewing FAs as Jkelly previously did. I don't speak Fair Use, every time I try to read up on it I decide it's gibberish to me, and the bottom line in my case is that I almost never support articles for FA because I'm not certain on the images. If one of the Fair Use people would check each FAC (as Jkelly used to do), the rest of us might start picking up on it, while having time to review other items and even support an article for FA every now and then, knowing that it's been cleared for images. As it is, there aren't enough reviewers at FAC. Many of us are aware of the Fair Use issue, but just don't get it. Someone who does get it should begin reviewing for this, since Jkelly no longer does. I have the same complaint about 1c (other reviewers don't check sources for reliability), and asking other reviewers to change their culture and start reviewing sources hasn't mattered a hill of beans. If you want something done, you'll probably have to do it yourself; as long as I'm one of the few reviewers checking sources and MOS, I can't also go figure out Fair Use. Division of labor is a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my bluntness, Durin, but fix it yourself. Reviewing an FAC takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the reviewer, and the last thing we need is some fair use afficianado coming in and barking at us how we're not supporting the "mission". Fair use paranoia/cultism has got to be the worst movement to have sprung up in Wikipedia history. I realize that you feel you're fighting the good fight, but If you want things to change around here, you could always take a greater hand in FAC reviews yourself or get some of your buddies to do so. — Amcaja (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only enforce what the previous two say - start at FA and work downwards. This would not take too long really. The whole point of this thing is building an encyclopedia, so why not work constructively rather than antagonise people already getting stuck into it. Morale seems a bit low among more than a few people and, while the points you make are good ones, the manner you make them does not engender camaraderie.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I would say, start at GA and work upwards. I know many FA people have an attitude of GA is irrelevant etc., but that is simply & demonstrably false. The few FAs I've looked at always go thru GA first....and consider an axiom in computer programming: the earlier you catch an error, the more time/money you save. BUT, having said that, I think I soft–spoken, consensus–building approach is better than a top–down, authoritative tone. Seek out and secure allies amongst the GA troops. Be willing to spend the time on talk discussing it reasonably etc. Ling.Nut 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem at GA is that there's no "them there"; anyone can pass a GA, so you don't know who to talk to. Perhaps, along the same lines, the folks who are into Fair Use should start at WP:PR and work up from there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, yes mentally when I think GA I'm actually thinking of WP:GA/R, which is where most serious work gets done. PR has the same prob as GA & FA — too few reviewers. Ling.Nut 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brian as far as Fair use paranoia/cultism. I am not in a position to discuss other fair use issues, but showing album artwork, when discussing an album in detail, entails fair use, and it does not detract from the sale of the album in any way. I would, however, agree to not using too many. Cricket02 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Ling Nut, I'm sorry to have to reiterate that GA status isn't worth the pixels it's written on. The reason that FA status carries some weight (although it's a continual battle to stop poorly written nominations crashing through the gate) is that it's hard to achieve and involves a rigorous process. That ain't GA.

A word of support for Durin; WP's FU policy goes further than the common and statutory law in the US, because a central plank of its mission is to be freely copiable by anyone in the world. Speaking FU is now a little easier, since the substantial rewriting of the 10 criteria two months ago; they used to be in a right mess. Tony 06:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to several points:

• SandyGeorgia: I've got my own hands full on the fair use issue as it is. If I pick this up, I drop something else. I was hoping to find more support for this effort. Instead, it seems I've drawn the ire of several people here. I guess FA won't support.
• Re: Fair use paranoia/cultism: Yes, the free content movement is a cult as part of the Free Culture movement. Surprisingly, Wikipedia is free content, so I guess that makes all of Wikipedia a cult too. Hmm. I guess that makes WP:FA a sub-cult. Do you guys sacrifice virgins like we do? :) Sorry, but describing this as paranoia/cultism is gravely insulting to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. If you're not interested in supporting free content, but rather would like to see copyrighted works wherever fair use might liberally apply, you're in the wrong place.
• Album work: No, I never said remove fair use album artwork from album articles. But, when an album cover is discussed critically in one article, it's rather pointless to replicate the same information with the fair use album cover over and over again. Fair use is to be for minimal use. Replicating it over and over does not serve this purpose.

To be honest, I'm fairly disappointed at the responses here. I've not been a contributor to FA, but I'd always made the assumption that FA was striving to uphold the highest ideals of Wikipedia. I see now I was in error. If that's antagonistic, so be it. Yesterday, I removed a number of fair use images from that day's featured article, Slayer. One of the images was put back. I should be getting support on this from the people here. Instead, I'm getting told I'm wrong. Ok, I'm wrong. Please use fair use liberally wherever you'd like, and wherever it's not clearly illegal. Don't worry about our m:Mission. It's meaningless tripe. Sigh. --Durin 13:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misread me, Durin; I do support and agree. I just don't understand Fair Use well enough to include it in my review. We need help—I used to rely on Jkelly whenever a Fair Use issue came up :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I could have been clearer. My lack of support comments were not directed towards you. --Durin 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO you should take it for granted that this position will invoke some hostility. Both GA and FA standards require or at least strongly suggest the inclusion of images.. many reviewers interpret this as a firm requirement... and images are sometimes difficult to obtain. Stripping an article of its image(s) will be interpreted as stripping it of its FA/GA status. BTW, I agree with you in principle, but stripping images off the main page was more than a little pointy. Again, this is not an approach that is well–designed for wining friends and influencing people. Ling.Nut 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually do applaud your efforts Durin, and admit I don't know enough about fair use to fairly comment, and apologize for my rudeness. I just think using album covers is harmless, but agree the use should be minimal. Cricket02 13:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. I'm clearly not in the wrong place because I firmly believe in spreading information. Part of effectively spreading information is illustrating that information, and that requires fair use sometimes. The "free content" cultists are taking things too far, and repeatedly quoting Wikipedia's "mission" at me like some robot is just as insulting as anything I've written. But these arguments have been made before, as I'm sure Durin is aware. If there's anything I wish Durin would take away form this, it is that if the fair use cops want FAC to enforce the narrowest interpretation of fair use policies, one of them should get involved in the reviews here. I don't share in the paranoia, and others don't understand the requirements. So give us a hand, and things will change. — Amcaja (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• With an attitude that stands in direct opposition to our m:Mission, where citing our mission is deemed insulting, it would be impossible to change the culture here. I'm sorry you find it insulting. I never would have imagined that citing our mission would be insulting to anyone. --Durin 14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest someone immediately report me for disrupting Wikipedia per User:Ling.Nut's accusation that removing fair use images from Slayer in compliance with our fair use requirements was disruptive. I fully intend on having Wikipedia articles comply with our fair use policies and have no intention to stop unless policy changes to allow liberal fair use. Thus, it's obvious I am a disruptive presence on Wikipedia and must be banned immediately, since I am "more than a little [disruptive]". Save Wikipedia! Stop me now! --Durin 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh chill. No one was accusing you of being a vandal/troll or being disruptive to an extreme degree. I was remarking that your approach may not be the most productive. Let's not get all dramatic... or, let's not be repeatedly dramatic, anyhow... Ling.Nut 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fine. Then stopping making accusations that I am disrupting Wikipedia. I'm not interested in discussing this issue with people that toss around accusations like this. What I did in no way disrupted Wikipedia. It wasn't even necessary to bring up the accusation, and does nothing to further the discussion. --Durin 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin, I apologize for my brusque response to your original post and the subsequent exchanges. I do think your approach to this issue here was patronizing and authoritarian. Had you broached the issue a bit more diplomatically, you might have had a different reception. But that's neither here nor there. I think that the "free-use" movement lost a lot of friends among the FAC regulars when you started opposing fair-use images in the FA blurbs on the main page. When someone works long and hard on an article and finally gets to see it on the main page, it's disheartening to have it illustrated with someting tangentially related or with no image at all. And when we can't illustrate a blurb about an article on a work of art with a picture of that work of art, I think we've gone too far. At any rate, good luck to you. — Amcaja (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in making friends here. I gave up on the social currency system here on Wikipedia some months ago, as it is fatally flawed and impossible to work effectively within. That said, in no way did my original post here make any attempts by me to come off as authoritarian or patronizing, and I strongly oppose such a suggestion. If it came off that way, I apologize as it was extremely far from my intent. My intent was to raise an important issue. People claim, in opposition to that, that I'm insulting because I cite our mission here. I'm absolutely flumoxed by this. If we're not here to accomplish our mission, then what the heck are we here for? Our mission here clearly states that were are after free content. If we can not even agree on the basic precepts in our mission, we have little to talk about and no common ground on which to discuss what little there is. We're obviously working on two entirely different projects. I'm still quite boggled by this. I'd be interested to know what mission the people who are in disagreement with the mission of free content are adhering to. Are you reading something I'm not? --Durin 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't oppose your citing of our mission, I opposed your robot-like and patronizing citing of our mission. You seem to be viewing things as white and black, with "free-use" good and fair use bad. I'm simply saying that there are shades of gray. I agree with you (and the mission) that free content is better than fair-use content, but I also believe that in their zeal to embrace "free use" content, some editors have gone way too far (such as with the FA blurbs on the main page). At any rate, I don't feel like arguing with you any more. We obviously have some common ground, we're just in disagreement over the degree to which fair use should be allowed to be used. — Amcaja (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin, ease up a little. What could have been a collaborative discussion has now become less than pleasant - rather than accept that some were/are offended/nonplussed/whatever by the way you presented your argument, you've escalated. This has been disruptive. There is a vast chasm of difference between giving up on the social currency and the tone adopted above. At least try and be diplomatic. OK let's start again....

• This is too rich. I raise a serious issue here. I'm then told directly or through inference that I am patronizing, authoritarian, barking at people, being paranoid, being a fair use cultist, antagonizing people, acting in bad faith, violating WP:POINT and more. Then, when I raise protest against this I am told to "ease up". Good grief people look in the mirror. --Durin 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot "acting like a robot." :) — Amcaja (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Crush kill destroy. m:Mission. I get a headache just thinking down to your level. m:Mission. Don't you call me a mindless philosopher, you overweight glob of grease! m:Mission. By your command! m:Mission. If you prick me, do I not... leak? m:Mission. I'll be back!. --Durin 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify

• I think most would agree with your concern about images

• This is a volunteer project so nobody is forced to do anything though in keeping good faith most try to help out where they can

• Thus, having someone who is really familiar with the Fair Use rules keep an eye out would be really helpful rather than dictating edicts from afar. I for one will try to keep an eye on images I review.

there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put a note on a FAC that needed review for Fair use, and Raul promptly promoted it, so I'd like to know if we're wasting our time reviewing images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, that's a question for Raul. In general, No. The process hasn't coalesced enough. What's required is education, I guess, and gathering support for the effort, I guess. Which equals time. I guess. Ling.Nut 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Date format

FAs should conform to to MOS, but if we look at recent FAs, we find that the presentation of dates is often incorrect. American Dating finds its way into many articles that have no link at all to the U.S. (or the small number of other nations where AD is used). WP:DATE gives the established criteria.

Recent FAs include:

• Æthelberht of Kent
• El Al
• History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)
• Rudolph Cartier

A common response is to say, "So what? Just turn on your date preferences and all dates appear in the format you prefer!", but this only applies for users with established accounts, (i.e. editors rather than readers), and given the widespread popularity of WP it is obvious that most users are readers, rather than the relatively limited community of editors. --Jumbo 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While the auto-formatting and linking functions are still the same, despite concerted attempts to get the techs at WM to fix this, I just don't care. I advise all WPians not to link any dates at all, and to choose the formatting they prefer, as long as consistent within an article. Make them fix this issue. Tony 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• And the response of "So what?" is perfectly correct. Even where MOS is both unambiguous and consensus, sometimes the ruling it makes is unimportant. The Manual of Style is a guideline. If you feel this is important, and can get consensus to change it, fine. If not, don't delay a well-written, well-sourced, and accurate article for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anderson, you're still pushing these barely hidden implications that MOS can make it harder to write "a well-written, well-sourced, and accurate article". Fortunately, your and Radiant's sudden change to the wording of the style-guide template (top of MOS) has been removed; this change implied that MOS can can cause "WPians to be clumsy, inaccurate or unclear".

I must ask that you gain proper consensus before continuing this strategy to gradually change key policy wordings concerning MOS, its submanuals, and their status. Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the MOS makes it harder to write a quality article (nor do I think PMA implied it does), but I think there are plenty of changes which MOS mandates that don't make articles any better. This is problematic because the FA criteria are meant to support the general principle that we are Wikipedia's best work; asking people to do work that doesn't make articles better, as you so frequently do, is a waste of time. The person who comes across Wikipedia, finds the information they are looking for, but doesn't come back because the em-dashes don't meet Tony's Approved Style® is the same person who stumbles upon a sack of hundred-dollar bills but doesn't pick it up because the bills are crumpled. I doubt he exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not my custom-designed and owned styles, as you crudely assert: they're in MOS. Gain consensus if you will to change them; until you do, I'll continue to ask FAC nominators to fix the prose and formatting of what they put up as our best work, be they tiny points of detail or more considerable inconsistencies. It's a matter of knitting the project together with a reasonable, balanced amount of stylistic cohesion. Otherwise, people may as well just google the information they want, where there's no standardisation at all. A certain amount of stylistic cohesion makes it easier for our readers, I believe.

You conveniently dodge the issue of whether you support the weakening of the status of MOS.

Your example of em dashes appears to be intended to cast me as petty. I believe that fine (easy-to-read) writing arises from atttention to tiny details. You'd be the first to complain if the film had tiny editing glitches. Good writing is hard to achieve, and I'll continue to put pressure on nominators to attend to small details. I'd appreciate support in doing so rather than belittlement. Tony 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When I ascribe the MOS to you in particular, this is a sarcastic way of saying that the MOS is the work of a tiny minority of people who have through diligent labor created a set of guidelines that the vast majority of the editing base does not find useful and tolerates only because it is so easily and widely ignored. As for stylistic cohesion, I don't really see that cohesion of style across the project is all that desirable. Given the facts that every article is written by a different assortment of people, that there is no meaningful central editorial control, and that readers (mostly directed by search engines) approach us as a loose collection of articles, not as a unified reference work, I don't see any value in it -- no more than one would find in the stylistic coordination of every book in a big library. I don't support weakening MOS generally, but it could be improved by discarding the large part which is trivial. With regard to FAC in particular, since I believe your contributions are a drag on the process I am unable support your efforts, but obviously nothing is stopping your from continuing your work; clearly you are not alone in your views and there is room for many schools of thought. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

By "drag on the process", one might interpret as "dragging up the generally poor standards of writing in FACs", a task in which some of loyal and hard-working reviewers there have had some success over the past year, I believe. I'm not deterred by this kind of spleen venting, and nor should anyone else be. Tony

No, in fact, the quality of FAs has noticeably declined over the past year; whenever FAC concentrates on some minor point, and ignores sourcing, writing, and neutrality, FAs decline to the point of mere adequacy. About 18 months ago, anything could get through FA if it had pretty pictures; then it was having enough footnotes (their content didn't matter); now it's the barely visible difference between hyphens and en-dashes. All these would enhance an otherwise perfect article, and proper citation, in some form, is vital; but at present anything which en-dashes correctly is likely to be promoted, whatever its other flaws, unless they are glaringly obvious.

Tony defended Andrew Saul, which was abominably biased and execrably written. Daniel Webster passed, despite being sourced from Profiles in Courage (I'm not making this up, I regret to say). Augustus just passed, and it's not a bad article, exactly; but it still says things like The longevity of Augustus' reign for length, and the Augustan PoV of its chief author and its chief source still shines through.

Fortunately, FA is ultimately unimportant to Wikipedia. Many editors ignore it altogether; but it could be a useful tool. I just cringe, half the time, when I see the front page, and I'm tired of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is a serious issue. Is there something we can do about this? I suppose starting with educating editors that the MOS isn't all that big a deal might help. >Radiant< 12:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Educating? That's a little condescending, isn't it? Tony 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-contained

I was reading Wikipedia:The perfect article, and I noticed that that page says that Wikipedia articles should be "nearly self-contained", ie. "it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles". Is there a reason why something similar to this is not stated here? Where is the line drawn between explaining something in an article and directing the reader to read another article? Surely the problem lies in not knowing what level to pitch an article at? Carcharoth 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that point may mean ... nothing. And that article isn't what it's cracked up to be. In any case, the criteria here express only additional requirements to those for all WP articles. Tony 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable text size

I'm not aware that the issue of article lenght has been properly discussed here yet, but it has been a reoccuring issue at FAR in the last few months. Want to throw it out for openion from the community. This is the leading thread. Ceoil 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Relative to the 50KB maximum prose size guideline at WP:SIZE, here's some data on extra-large featured articles, for the sake or argument. Dr pda's script sorts out prose from references and images, so does not penalize well-referenced articles:

• B movie (63KB of prose)
• Byzantine Empire (65KB of prose)
• History of Russia (72KB prose)
• Campaign history of the Roman military (74KB of prose)
• Ketuanan Melayu (a whopping 82KB of prose).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think the current criterion is sufficient. First because it correctly gives greater priority to completeness and comprehensiveness than to length. Articles that contain unecessary detail can be shortened under the existing rules; if articles don't contain unecessary detail they probably shouldn't be any shorter. Second, the current guidelines effectively place the burden on reviewers to identify the areas of the article that contain too much detail and require trimming. This is desirable. I am uncomfortable with people being able to object to an article on the basis of a number spit out by a script, without even reading the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc

Dear colleagues

WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured Article candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.

At issue are the new Sections 9–14:

• Non-breaking spaces
• Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods)
• Numbers
• Decimal points
• Percentages
• Units of measurement
• Currencies, and
• Common mathematical symbols

More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Intention to add anti-chaos requirements to the instructions

As suggested on the FA talk page, there's an urgent need to lay down a few simple rules to minimise visual and structural chaos. Unless good counterarguments are put here, on Friday I intend to add the following to what we already have in the instructions ("Do not split a FAC page into subsections").

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

• To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page).
• If you support a nomination, write *'''Support''' ~~~~, followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.
• If you oppose a nomination, write *'''Oppose''' ~~~~, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it.
• Sign your name immediately to the right of this initial word (after one space), as well as after your comments; this makes it easier to keep track of who is declaring what on the page.
• Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves.
• To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' ~~~~ followed by your advice.
• Contributors are asked not to (i) split a FAC page into subsections, (ii) add symbols (such as ticks and crosses) or boxes, or (iii) bold text or strike through it (except for each reviewer's initial word). Rather than striking through a reviewer's comments, nominators should write a plain word such as “Done” or a substantive rejoinder after them.

This allows one sentence to be removed from the lead above; I even trimmed the rest of the "Supporting and opposing" text to pay for the addition (no substantive change in meaning in the rest). And while we're at it, can we get rid of "Object" and make it just "Oppose" (I don't care which, but why clutter the instructions with two terms)? Tony 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

These guidelines are designed to prevent messes like this. Tony 09:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting citations vs. providing citations

Regarding this edit; JooperCoopers, please explain how you are distinguishing between 1) providing inline citations where appropriate—1c, and 2) formatting them correctly when they are provided—2d. Separate issues; one is WP:V, the other is WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Two very distinct points, which I suggest people get clear. Note this was added precisely because of the "why must I use footnotes?" complaints. It makes it clear that Harvard is still fine, and I see no reason to remove it. Marskell 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to remove it - I simply wanted to add the 'where appropriate' modifier - as it stands, 1c tells you to use inline citation where appropriate, but 2 tells you articles must conform to MOS and so it appears to follow that 2d is mandatory, it isn't, it's where appropriate. Sandy saw fit to revert. I don't see why saying 'if footnotes are required - follow MOS' rather than footnotes are required to follow MOS - it's a subtle difference - but important. --Joopercoopers 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read it properly. It's specifically designed to point out that footnotes are not necessary. Marskell 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Following the logic:-

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.........It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes.........(d) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

This implies footnotes are mandatory - you need to modify the sentence to say 'where appropriate' - yes it duplicates 1c, but it needs the duplication.

Do you see? --Joopercoopers 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of or they are not necessary. Marskell 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(several ecs) Joopers, your wording said citations should be correctly formatted when appropriate; when is it not appropriate to format citations correctly? 2d allows for Harvard, cite.php, whatever, as long as citations are consistently formattted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm still not getting it - sorry marskell - WP:V still says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." of which, Harvard referencing is a style of inline citation - the or is irrelevant - what is relevant is that the logical flow of the instructions I outlined above imply, in its current form, that inline citations are mandatory regardless of the 'challenge' criteria. Sandy your point is a good one, I was after brevity but perhaps a better way of putting it would be "2d - where inline citations are approriate, they should be consistently formatted.....etc." --Joopercoopers 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, "consistently formatted citations" listed under 2-MOS doesn't change the where appropriate intent of 1c. It seems like you want it to clarify, when used, but to me, that's already clear. You're reading more into "consistently formatted citations" then I see in the passage, but now that we're on the same page, perhaps it can be clarified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's easily misconstrued I think and needs the clarification. --Joopercoopers 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how to fix it, but that's because I don't see the problem :-) Compare:

1. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes consistently formatted inline citations,
2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes citations that are consistently formatted,

The second wording would extend beyond 1c, where appropriate, implying that it must include citations. The first wording only says that citations should be consistently formatted, and doesn't touch on when they must be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A false choice Sandy - the "It complies with the MOS" sentence needs to be changed for inline cites to say "Where appropriate, they should comply with MOS" - we can't do this as it stuffs the rest of the items - the solution is deletion of 2d. and an addendum to 1c to say:-

"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where approriate, complemented by inline citations consistently formatted per MOS, using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.) "

--Joopercoopers 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Combining them into one would merge policy and guideline issues (one is when they're needed, the other is how to write them) which to me, would obscure important policy. To me, policy mandates are on a whole 'nother level. How to write a citation is purely MOS; that's why it's listed under 2—MOS. An article with poorly-formatted citations might pass FAC or FAR, particularly if that's the only issue with an article; hopefully, an article that violates policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc) won't. And I still don't follow why you're saying, where appropriate citations should comply with MOS. When should a citation not be correctly and consistently formatted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what you say exposes one of the problems of MOS. It's supposed to be a guideline but WIAFA appears to give it the status of policy when applying for FA - nowhere on WIAFA does it say that items under criteria 1. are more important than items under criteria 2.
If this is the case, merging the sentence makes no difference. If it's not the case - it needs to be explicit on the page. I think if it's guideline it's a guideline and WIAFA shouldn't be used to circumvent that status - FAC needs to concentrate more on well written, reliable and accurate information rather than attempt to impose an increasingly prescriptive style.--Joopercoopers 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. FAs are expected to conform to MOS to attain featured status; that's important, because they're a model for other articles. FAC does focus on well written articles; can you show me any article that has failed *only* because of 2-MOS concerns? Perhaps we can find a way to clarify the wording confusion you've raised, but I hope we don't merge 1c and 2d, as they are distinct issues, and all citations should be correctly formatted. The wording was added because articles with Harvard inlines kept showing up at FAR; the idea is to indicate that consistently formatted citations don't have to be cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's find a way. --Joopercoopers 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still at a loss for how to fix it, probably because I still can't see the problem. 1c says when to cite (per WP:V where appropriate policy) and 2d says how to cite. Your concern is that 2d seems to imply something above and beyond 1c. Would it work if we changed:

• "consistently formatted inline citations," to "consistent formatting of inline citations"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The problems is that the second section is prefaced by "It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects". If inline citations aren't needed in my article, there is no need to comply with the manual of style in the manner prescribed in 2d. --Joopercoopers 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a merge - if you prefer we can establish an explicit link between 1c and 1d - something like "Where inline citations are appropriate (see 1c above) they should comply with the MOS.......etc." --Joopercoopers 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lest you are still in doubt - see this edit as an example of how 2d was being mis-interpreted. --Joopercoopers 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The same reviewer is telling editors to spell out numbers greater than ten, and another reviewer is telling editors that they must use the cite book template to format book references We can't fix every misconception and misunderstanding :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but we should endeavour not to create them if we can help it. --Joopercoopers 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Conforming to MOS

This passage needs to be altered. It ignores the nature of MOS; it's a guideline. It contains portions

• That are consenuss, and mandatory, like WP:MOSDASH. but not very important. Refusing FA status for the difference between an en-dash and a hyphen is silly.
• That are good rules of thumb, applicable to most articles but not all. The failure to recognize this is damaging to MOS, and to the articles to which it is applied like a straightjacket.

  For example, it is good advice, generally useful, to have measurements both in Imperial and metric units; but not for all articles. Abstrusely scientific articles should be SI; articles on galaxies should use light-years or parsecs; articles on maritime law should use miles and nautical miles. (All of these would probably benefit from including the conversion factors, but not at every reference.) This has been changed, to the detriment of MOS, which should simply say, generally have measurements in Imperial and SI units. The exceptions should be intelligible. Any article which had a conversion forced on it here, to the detriment of its writing, has also been injured.

• That are some editor's hobby-horse, foisted in some corner of MOS to compell the rest of Wikipedia to do what he wants. This will not work; most Wikipedians have enough sense to ignore bullying, even with MOS being chanted at them; but it should not keep articles with better writing than MOS would allow out of FA.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I strongly commend the wording, follows MOS

<Says meekly>I suspect that this tirade of pronouncements is referring to me. I find it hard to take seriously. Tony 03:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Only in the one case where he is named; his concentration on minutiæ and proceedure caused him to overlook the weakness of Andrew Saul. If I thought that persuading one editor to abandon FA would save it, I would not be supporting changes of method. The other two examples cited Tony did not review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with PMAnderson on the issue of treating WP:MOS as the guideline it is, and agree with his edit of the criteria. The previous (or has PM been reverted already..?) wording of Featured article criterion 2, "It complies with the manual of style," was a problem IMO, and so is the sometimes extreme use that that criterion has been put to in practice, in FAC reviews. OK, I assume there is, or at least was, consensus for the wording of 2, since I've seen what a lot of discussion has gone into the phrasing of all the FA criteria. But consensus can change. "Follows MOS" in lieu of "complies with MOS," makes sense to me, and so does PMAnderson's analysis above, introducing this thread. (Not PMAnderson's comment just above my head, about Tony's "concentration on minutiæ and proceedure"; I think that's quite unfair.)

Secondly, was there ever consensus—general approval—for the way the MOS criterion is sometimes used in practice, in FAC reviews, to oppose over dots and dashes? Note, I'm not referring to Tony; I've never seen him do that; he opposes over style issues, over the quality of prose, and does us all a favor in doing it. But I've seen people do it. Tony... that wasn't a "tirade," at the head of the thread. I wish you wouldn't dig in and entrench yourself like that. :-( (P.S. Don't you mean "Conforming to MOS," PM? The header is bewildering.) Bishonen | talk 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

P.P.S. It has in fact been reverted. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

It is Tony's position that I am complaining only of him; I am not. "Concentration on minutiae and proceedure on that article" would have been better; but it did not occur to me that it would not be clear. That was this edit, which argues over whether a COI is relevant to FA and ignores Marc Shepard's chief point, that the article is not neutral. This oppose does seem somewhat bizarre, especially since MOS does not appear to discuss the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because there was no "per talk". It was actually a "per myself". The wording can be tweaked, sure. Marskell 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Included "follow" and "Most importantly", in accordance with Bishonen's discussion above. If anyone is going to argue that WP:MOSDASH is as important as a hierarchical system of headers, please do so here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, PM, I already reverted "most importantly" as redundant. The list itself implies it, surely. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

I concur with Bishonen's revert of that edit as redundant. An article may fail to pass FAC because of a faulty lead or overwhelming TOC; I've never seen an otherwise FA-worthy article fail because of dashes or hyphens (to use Pmanderson's example), even though these are things that can be pointed out because they can usually be easily fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The breach of MOS in the persistent use of a single closing digit for page ranges in the notes/references. It can't pass until these are fixed (bold added) seems equally unimportant. I am glad to hear that this sort of thing is uncustomary. (The apparent absence of this from MOS is another issue altogether.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see that Bishonen accidentally saved a version without Sandy's reply. This is what happens, about 1% of the time, when there is an edit conflict and the software doesn't catch it to put up the edit-conflict screen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I saved before Sandy, see the history. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

Short history for a FA?

Is it reasonable to add to the FA criteria that a FA should have a sufficient length (time period) of page history in order to demonstrate stability as currently defined? In other words, should there be a minimum time from an article's creation before which FA status can be awarded? I don't mean an arbitrary cutoff, but just enough time to show many editors have "touched" the article. This is in relation to the FAC for Andrew Saul. Although I don't think that FAC will succeed for other reasons, I think featured articles that have a short history cannot demonstrate they are stable or that they are Wikipedia's best work. TLK^'in 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not as a general rule; Yomangani (talk · contribs) comes to mind as someone who has created and brought articles to featured status in a matter of weeks. I think Bish has also done it, by working largely in a Sandbox. Many editors don't necessarily need to touch an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about creating an article on a particular old magazine that I happen to know a lot about, and was thinking it would be amusing to try to create it and bring it to FAC with as few edits as possible. I hope the results would be acceptable; so I'd agree with Sandy here. Mike Christie (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC itself is the opportunity for many editors to "touch" the article. I don't see the need for additional time. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I should not have suggested somebody cannot create a featured article on their first try, and I have faith someone can. FAC is indeed part of the review of the article, and I kept that in mind in asking the question. But I have yet to see any author write anything that is perfect in any way, however. Other than a self-published source, I have not seen any literary work that has been declared by others to be perfect yet has not been critically reviewed or edited by an independent, uninvolved editor. TLK^'in 11:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully those imperfections will be identified and fixed during the FAC process. If they aren't, they'll be identified when the article is featured on the main page. At any rate, as someone who has written an article in a sandbox and then gotten it featured without much input from others, I'd have to say that some proof of the article's age should not be in the requirements. — Amcaja (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be against any issue with time - the criteria are about article quality. If there are edit wars it will be plainly obvious and other disputes will come up in FAC. I've seen some really good stuff spring up out of nowhere in a matter of days (as above, some editors love sandboxes)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Harvard refs?

"...where inline citations are appropriate (see 1c above), they should be consistently formatted using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing..." I thought that Harvard notes were going to be phased out? Every time I've brought a FA hopeful to FAC, the general consensus has been to swap Harvard notes for foot notes. Is there going to be a change since the consensus already is contrary to the criteria? Spawn Man 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no plans to phase out Harvard referencing. Objections on the basis that footnotes are preferable to them are not regarded as requiring action; whether you convert or not won't affect the passage of the FAC. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You left off the next part—the meta:cite format is recommended—which does not say Harvard refs are phased out. Also, the links to meta:cite have been changed and moved over time, so that link needs to be corrected; it now points to WP:FN when it used to the point to the meta page on cite.php, which has been moved. Some types of articles may render more readable with Harvard refs, but I recall an article coming through here that employed Harvard refs poorly, making the text almost unreadable, and that rendered better in cite.php—that's an example of how the "recommended" may come in to play. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that cite.php is not recommended over Harvard, as you seem to suggest; it is only recommended over other footnote/endnote systems (e.g. ref/note). Christopher Parham (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You can use any citation system available, be it Harvard, Chicago, Cite.php, or a hybrid of any or all of them, as long as you're consistent within an article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KK - It's just that in the passed people have opposed because the citations were in the Harvard style. Spawn Man 09:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a situation where that has been a valid oppose other than the one article (and I'm sorry I can't remember which now) that was so littered with poorly done Harvard refs that it was rendered unreadable (there was practically more text inside parentheses than out). The problem wasn't the Harvard refs, but that the article was just poorly sourced and written and visually hard to get through because of all the text in parens. I believe that article was switched to cite.php, but my memory on that could be wrong. Other than that, I can't recall recently seeing a valid oppose on Harvard refs SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (recently being about a year). Do you have an example we could comment on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was added to make clear that they are not being phased out and that such an objection would be invalid—the next time some suggests as much, point to the criterion and say "nope." Until academics cease using Harvard (which doesn't seem likely) I don't see that we should. Marskell 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

National points system

Can I suggest a national points system? There is obviously a bias in favour of the USA, and more variety could be had if there was a handicap/scoring system for articles concerning those countries who receive many or few articles --MacRusgail 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A US handicap - lovely! good luck with that. --Joopercoopers 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a "US handicap", it's a handicap for countries which have had a large percentage of featured articles about them, of which the USA happens to be one. So, it's not "anti-American" before someone jumps on me for that. --MacRusgail 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. So I can write a piece or crap about Lesotho and get it featured because there are so few Lesotho-related articles? No thanks. Equal standards for all, please. — Amcaja (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll pass. Tony 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a good article about Lesotho, then it should be no problem. If it's crap, don't feature it. Obscure US articles are featured on the front page regularly, like those street dogs in San Francisco. There's a whole world out there, and not only do some of us live in other countries and speak other languages, but we're interested in the world, not just one country. By the way, before someone leaps on me for being "anti-American", this is not a uniquely American issue. There is an obvious bias towards Anglophone countries - including the UK. Let's keep it international... If you haven't heard of a major piece of history/writer/actor etc, from wherever, that's a good thing. --MacRusgail 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Users' advice on preparing FA candidates

New user Dano'Sullivan has just added a page of advice for reviewers that may contain useful stuff, but is wrongly positioned on his talk page, and needs trimming, formatting and rationalising. I'd be happier if people presented links to their drafts here so we could offer advice before they were posted. Tony 01:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and while it has some good ideas, I'm uncomfortable with the general message (evaluating articles on a point system). Christopher Parham (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree (I forgot to mention this in my comments to Dano—there's no explicit justification for numerical quantification, either philosophically or in practical terms). Tony 02:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen the above comments on my points-suggestions for evaluating articles User:Dano'sullivan/How to edit an article. I appreciate what was said but I still think there is a case for such a system, though mine may not be the best one. Many editors of varying experience and knowledge look at articles, and a grading system of some sort would bring some uniformity of approach. There are many considerations to think about when assessing articles and its quite useful to be reminded of them. I know my suggestions are rather long - but assessment is important and takes time. I've picked two featured articles more or less at random and tried to assess them according to my system. One got 34/50 points and the other 25/50. I'd be grateful for further comments.Dano'sullivan (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Style

Why "Thus, it includes" rather than "including"? DrKiernan 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsure about #2

Number 2 currently reads, "It follows the style guidelines and relevant WikiProjects, including:"

Does this make sense to anyone else? "Follows the relevant WikiProjects"? I don't get it. Was this something else, or worded differently, in the past? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you spell out what's not clear? For example, a relevant WikiProject is WP:MEDMOS; is there a missing "guideline" word? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see it used to read, "Complies with..." I still think it's unnecessary. I believe this should just be shortened to read, "It follows the style guidelines, including:" Thoughts? --Ali'i 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! That part never made sense to me, I've been meaning to ask about it.. looking with confusion at Wikiprojects like for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine—how are you supposed to either follow, or comply with, those? By using their infoboxes..? And how did the projects come by all this authority for FAC? See, WP:MEDMOS isn't a wikiproject, it's a section of the Manual of Style. Perhaps somebody would like to rephrase the criterion to reflect what was intended? Bishonen | talk 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC).

Ah. I see the problem (WikiProject vs. Manual of Style). I'm not the best one for re-phrasing though. MEDMOS became part of the Manual of Style by jumping through the hoops to get broad consensus (posting at the Village Pump, every relevant Project, etc.) Compliance in the case of MEDMOS is typically about comprehensiveness in terms of the suggested sections (which help broadly identify missing topics) and naming conventions; I can't recall any other significant objections ever arising because of MEDMOS. Another thing it addresses is those awful lists of "notable" patients. MilHist probably has a Manual of Style section (not sure?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I too do not see how various WikiProjects got so much "power" in FA criteria, but I suppose it could be re-worded to read:

"It follows the general style guidelines of Wikipedia and any style guidelines set forth by relevant WikiProjects, including:"

But in the end, I think it might be wise to remove this bit. In my brilliant opinion, if a style guideline is good enough for a WikiProject (enough to impose its will over FA criteria), then it should be a submanual of the Manual of Style (like MEDMOS became). Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In the beginning, it said "A featured article should ... [c]omply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual." -- !! ?? 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea, but if I understand Bishonen's point correctly, it really should be only those Project guidelines that have garnered consensus to become part of the Manual of Style (as MEDMOS did), in which case, the clause is really redundant (to MOS) anyway. Projects can't just set any old standards, not exposed to broad consensus, then tag articles and expect them to comply (recalling the old business about infoboxes on bios). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Check. I've removed it from the criteria. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC).

It makes sense to me, but I'm mostly exposed to/familiar with MEDMOS, and don't know who might scream. We'll see what happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this where we lost the relevant standards. -- !! ?? 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How very unfortunate. The reference to WikiProjects in the criteria was mostly symbolic, and hardly ever mentioned explicitly in practice. Its removal will change nothing in terms of how projects actually interact with the FA process, except insofar as serves to indicate the poor regard in which our efforts are held. It is essentially nothing more than a slap to the face—one which, to my knowledge, we have done nothing to deserve. Kirill 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bishonen's removal. Tony 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. When I've read that I've always thought of MilHist, Medicine, and Dinos—projects we know are working and would genuinely be good to consult. But we shouldn't defer to the projects in general given how many are dead, or peddling poor advice. Marskell 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Marskell) Kirill, I'm sorry, but I don't see how we can have symbolic criteria. If something's in the criteria, it can be appealed to, and while some WikiProjects represent some of the best of Wikipedia, some don't. We don't want to offer, say, WikiProject Paranormal a free ride on the back of the wide consensus and high respectability of, say, WikiProject Military. Perhaps WPM could create a consensual MILMOS, through the kind of process Sandy describes for MEDMOS above? Bishonen | talk 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

It's not like we haven't considered the option; it's just that—particularly in the case of MilHist—there are very good reasons why a formal MoS page would actually be counterproductive. Copying some of my comments to Sandy:

As far as the MoS issue, I think one of the comments on the WP:MEDMOS talk page just about says it all:

Hi, this is great! I've always wondered about a guideline page on writing medical wikipedia articles and only recently found this page via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine...

The problem with having all the guidelines—and, more importantly, the associated discussions—on an out-of-the way style page is that most editors working on those topics simply aren't going to show up (except to complain). It's difficult enough to keep a crowd gathered on the main WikiProject page; a MoS page is pretty much out of the question.

Admittedly the MoS approach may seem more reasonable among the medicine editors, as there are still several distinct viable WikiProjects in that area; but for MILHIST, which has spent the last two years ruthlessly absorbing its children and neighbors precisely to ensure that all discussions could be properly centralized, moving a major chunk of them to another page merely to make something "enforceable" isn't really worth it. It might be different if we could simply use a particular portion of the project page, or a transcluded subpage, as the official "MoS", or even if we could redirect the MoS talk page to the project one; but I rather suspect that the sort of people that get up in arms about WikiProjects using the term "manual of style" without having proper permission to do so will kill that idea.

You're essentially asking that we hamstring our own ability to hold discussions properly in order to give any official weight to the results of those discussions. Quite honestly, it doesn't seem like a good exchange. Kirill 11:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a page can't simultaneously be part of MOS and part of MILHIST. Can't MILHIST just leave the pages where they are, but (after appropriate discussion with other editors) tag some pages with the "This page is part of the manual of style" tag? If WikiProjects don't get involved in assessing quality the FA process will be unable to scale past a certain point. I think we should invite more participation from WikiProjects that have demonstrated a commitment to quality. Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The location of the guidelines themselves is fairly irrelevant; what I'm concerned with is the location of the discussions about them. In other words, I'd like to see:

Page	Talk page
MoS page (or subpage)	Redirect to main project talk page
Main project page	Main project talk page (all discussion centralized here)

But what is being suggested is:

Page	Talk page
MoS page (or subpage)	MoS talk page (most discussions occur here)
Main project page	Main project talk page (some discussions occur here)

Which has the effect of moving any discussion of the putative MoS to a low-visibility, low-traffic page that most military history editors would have no reason to visit. Kirill 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with your preferred approach once it is agreed that the scope of the page to which it applies lies in MILHIST. Can you give an example of the sort of page within MILHIST that this approach might apply to? Specific cases might be more helpful than hypothetical discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The relevant material is essentially the content of WP:MILHIST#Guidelines; we've not yet had the need to move it off the main project page itself, but that would be easy enough to do. Kirill 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there would be no harm in hiving these off as a separate page (within the MILHIST namespace) and marking them as a proposed part of MOS. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mike; there's so much valuable info there, and it would make a good guide as part of MOS for some of the weaker Projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, MilHist will try to move forwards on that basis, then; anyone interested in the specifics can see WT:MILHIST#Project style guide and MoS for further discussion on our side. Kirill 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the projects having guidelines separate from yet subordinate to the WP MOS. The projects are after all the subject matter experts in their fields and responsible for a huge percentage of articles that get to FAs.Rlevse 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is turning more into a discussion about project style guides and how they fit into the MoS. I'm sure this would have been discussed before? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it being discussed before, and I also think it's an important discussion to have. On the one hand, we shouldn't discard all the valuable work done by MilHist; on the other hand, we can't allow other, much weaker Projects to be a large determinant in featured status via guidelines they may impose outside of broader Wiki consensus. This needs to be worked out; the strength of the MilHist project and their example of how to do it right are too valuable as a guideline to other Projects to lose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, say something like considering the guidelines of the relevant Wikiprojects'. WP:MILHIST and WP:MSM will be considered a lot more seriously than something two editors at WikiProject:Fancruft made up one day; and that's a good thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Just as many of us came to consensus that getting the MilHist guidelines added to the Manual of Style and began to work towards that end, the Manual of Style has come under fire. I don't support singling out any individual WikiProject in WIAFA until this issue is sorted through. I reverted your recent edit as it really muddies the waters (and also elevated Math guidelines to the same level as MilHist, which is questionable at best). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with SandyGeorgia on this. Marginalizing the smaller projects is not the way to go. I have skimmed through a few of the various project style guides— most appear to fall well within the standard MOS, simply codifying the appearance and structure of the articles within their purview. I would suggest: "Articles may be managed by one or more Wikiprojects. These projects may have style guides that should be considered as supplements to the standard Manual of Style." --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

PMA is still inserting the text; widely respected is ill defined and what may be widely respected to one editor may not be to another. I have a very hard time putting the Math Project anywhere near the same plane as MilHist, for example. The agreement we came to a few days ago was that we would respect guidelines that developed broad consensus to formally become part of the Manual of Style (broad as in posting to VillagePump and jumping through all those hoops), and MilHist began to move in that direction. I'm not sure where we are now, since MOS has come under fire in general, but adding vague terminology like "widely respected" will get us into trouble with "actionable" comments, because it's an ill-defined concept. I suggest we move back to the simple issue of what Projects have generated broad, Wiki-wide consensus for their guidelines to become part of MOS, and that MilHist continue working in that direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Under fire", Sandy? The last time I saw language like that about a few tweaks, the subject was Esperanza. Please do remember that nobody has yet proposed to delete WP:MOS; but I would rather consult WP:MILHIST on a battle article than discuss any number of linked years, endashes, or conversion factors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see MILHIST working on making their guidelines part of MOS; I'd like to see more projects get to their level of quality. The approach they're taking seems measured to me, in that it will solicit input both from MILHIST regulars and those who are interested in the overall style guidelines. What concerns me about saying "WikiProjects" in these guidelines, even with qualifications in the phrasing, is that it leaves open the question of which WikiProjects are sufficiently good quality to refer to. I'd be happy with the new phrasing if that question were answered, but it seems easier to do it the other way around: any WikiProject that can get community consensus on the value of their guidelines is surely qualified to write those guidelines, and there's no need to single them out in any way in these criteria. If MILHIST does get their guidelines approved as part of the style guidelines, then we could change the wording to simply note that some projects have guidelines that are part of the manual of style. That would be technically superfluous but might be new information to some readers. Mike Christie (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the same consensus we had several days ago; we don't need to mention any Projects at all, because a Project that has its guidelines included as part of the Manual of Style is already covered by much simpler wording of following MOS. We need stable criterion, not one that changes according to WikiProjects that come in and out of existence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words: WP:MILHIST must reconfigure itself to be listened to, in order to solve a wording problem here. What unspeakable arrogance this is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure which part of the sequence you're taking issue with. There was at one point a reference to "relevant WikiProjects" in the criteria; you pointed out that not every WikiProject is suitable and some qualification should be made. Similar comments are made upthread in this section; see Bishonen: "That part never made sense to me . . . How are you supposed to follow [WikiProject Medicine]?". The impact of the change was said by Kirill, surely the most likely to know of any editor in Wikipedia, to be mostly symbolic although a slap in the face; I'd like to hear from Kirill if he thinks that the new approach is appropriate or simply a stopgap way for MILHIST to recover influence on the FA criteria. I actually think this will increase, not decrease, the influence of the WikiProjects, because the ones sufficiently well-organized and supported to put together useful style guides and adhere to them will now be able to cite them at FAC in support of their articles. The intention of Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines was similar, I think, though I understand it has not always worked to the satisfaction of everyone. Mike Christie (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST is not as fragile as some people seem to think it is; if we need to fiddle with the page structure a bit to get a bigger stick at FAC, we have no real problems doing so. ;-) Kirill 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is no reason for you, or other Wikiprojects to have to do so.

Sandy, hsving objected to a sentence which indicated the sort of Wikiproject we mean by example, now objects to "widely respected" Wikiproject guidelines as too vague.

• Does she deny that there is a difference between WP:MILHIST and WP:MEDMOS, on one hand, and the hypothetical WP:FANCRUFT?
• Then does she deny that we should consult one sort and not the other?
• Then why should we not say so?

Better wording than "widely respected" would of course be welcome; none occurs to me.

A more captious mind than myself would suspect that this is mere imperialism on behalf of poor beleaguered WP:MOS, but I'm sure that there is a more logical explanation, which Sandy has not yet expressed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vague to the point that it will only cause harm. Let's wait for MILHIST to come up with something. Marskell 09:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hierarchical headings" and "Table of contents"

While we're discussing brevity in the criteria, what difference is intended between the two terms above? Isn't a "system of hierarchical headings" the same thing as a table of contents? Combine to: "A heirarchical table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming." Marskell 09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between the two, and the change should be reverted. A table of contents is just that... a table that contains a listing of the contents of the article. A "system of hierarchical headings" refers to the actual headings on the sections within an article. For instance I could write an article with 15 level 2 headings, which would make for a very "substantial but not overwhelming" TOC, but wouldn't really be a "system of hierarchical headings". But if I write an article with four level 2 headings, each containing two level 3 headings, some of those containing level 4 headings, each falling under where each should fall (topically), then it would be a "system of hierarchical headings" AND provide a "substantial but not overwhelming" TOC. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm unsure why "substantial but not overwhelming" is there in the first place. We let through some mighty small FACs, occasionally with justification. "A system of hierarchical headings" sounds fine to me. Tony 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just about as perfect as can be. Since the TOC should really just be an afterthought anyway. We should be using the headings to organize the article, and not base them on how the computer-generated TOC will appear afterwards. The headings are the important part. The TOC, not so much. --Ali'i 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine too. A more specific way to phrase my initial point is that the headings and the ToC are the same thing—the latter an intra-page transclusion of the former. It didn't really make sense to treat them separately. Marskell 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... it used to be just one paragraph, but soooooomebody decided to split it out and make them distinct. ;-) --Ali'i 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Moi? I don't remember that far back, conveniently ... Tony 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Substantial but not overwhelming

I think "not overwhelming" is essential. Thirty or forty headlines in a ToC turns off readers, almost always indicates stub sections, and generally suggests poor integration of material and poor prose flow.

But I agree with above that "substantial" isn't right for smaller articles; you don't have to throw in excess headlines just for the sake of having a large ToC. "Logical and convenient for reader browsing but not overwhelming" or something like that? Marskell 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Makes sense. Although I think the current wording is fine. --Ali'i 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely need "not overwhelming"; an overwhelming TOC is often a sign of poor article organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Raul seems to disagree with this discussion: [4]. He replaced the thing about the TOC being "substantial but not overwhelming". Maybe a little discussion from him here would help. --Ali'i 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well written proposed addition

Non-regular or intra-universal words, terms, or concepts specifically related to the article should be explained, or avoided if this would be possible without lowering the quality of the article. For instance, video game or comic book babble should be ignored or explained, specific (e.g. mathematical/chemical/philosophical...) concepts used should be properly introduced, etc. Sijo Ripa 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's covered under Criterion 2, WP:MOSLINKS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions

Just like we have Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions, I suspect that writing a similar page for FAC will help address the apparent problems with feature discussions (FAC, FLC, FPC, etc). It seems that several pages have been featured while failing to address important problems, or not featured for spurious reasons, such as whether their en-dashes were "properly spaced". Please contribute to the above page, and give comments on its talk page. >Radiant< 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please present a single example of a FAC that has failed due to strictly WP:MOS issues. I've been asking for a very long time; an example has never been provided and to my knowledge, no such beast exists. That editors who know the topic matter aren't reviewing FACs for featured criterion 1b, 1c or 1d is not a reason to undermine criteria 2 (Manual of Style, referencing your recent move of WP:MOS without even discussing the move at the talk page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If true, so much the better. The first two FAC reviews of Sale, Greater Manchester are pretty depressing, although they don't quite sink to that level. William Claiborne would have, if not for Carabineri's last minute comments. But Radiant's proposed page is still a good idea; reviewers should not waste time with such matters when articles have problems with clarity, neutrality, and verifiability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And this ignores the real danger; that an article will be promoted, solely because, after a long struggle, all its endashes are in place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant - I think this is a good idea as the topic has certainly come up on the talk pages concerning FAC a few times. I think its main benefit is to improve morale and make the whole shebang a more collaborative and happy exercise. As far as your second point, I think it would be diplomatic to back up allegations with examples - luckily there are solutions - FAR for articles promoted which may have needed more work, and renominating for FAC for the opposite.

PS: I'll add some stuff to the page later cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has tried (and failed) with this. I believe it was "How to review a featured article candidacy". It's out there somewhere on a failed guideline page (I guess that's BEANS). (And how many pages do we need in Wikipedia space anyway?) This will just be another essay that becomes stale. Remember WP:100K? What a bang. What a whimper. If Radiant! would cease the crusade, we might better refocus. Marskell 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples, please, of FACs that have been failed solely because of en dashes. There are, no doubt, examples where the content of FACs is insufficiently reviewed (for comprehensivity and POV, for example), but what has that to do with en dashes? Lack of content review comes down to a paucity of reviewers, an age-old problem that no new page constraining "arguments" is going to fix. Is that paucity the "apparent problem" that forms the initial premise that there are "apparent problems"; this opening slant needs to be exemplified or explicitly justified. Tony 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This from the editor who strongly opposed an article for purely stylistic points. Worse has probably happened; but this joke of a review, which contains only two substantive points, one made on the last day before closure, is bad enough.

Radiant, do remember to deprecate the uncivil and pretentious term MOS breach; it is neither a fortification nor a commandment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Anderson has turned to utter rudeness. I stand by that point—the en dashes looked ridiculous, and to fix them would have taken two minutes. It would have been a joke of an article, otherwise, giving it a gold star. I don't see why hyphens and dashes are SO difficult; they're basic to good writing, and if you can't get it, or you can't find someone else to review the text who does, you shouldn't be making claims to writing of a professional standard. And Anderson's claim that "MOS breach" is uncivil and pretentious is ... well, hard to see. Either MOS is followed or it's not. An "ignore it as you please" dictum would be self-defeating. Tony 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• [rolleyes] We're discussing articles here, not people. Tony, Marskell, can you two at least try to be civil for a chance? >Radiant< 08:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Tony did try, eight minutes before this, to propose a deal about arguing without putdowns. He may wish to strike some of this comment acccordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(left) As for the substance:

• Hyphens and en-dashes are less important than clarity, neutrality, accuracy, verifiability.
• In particular, the difference between them is, quite literally, a millimeter. The distinction is not "basic to good writing"; it is orthogonal to good writing. Good prose with hyphens is to be preferred, always, to bad prose with endashes (good prose with endashes would be marginally, but only marginally, better still).
• They may take Tony two minutes; when I have reviewed, and saw something purely uncontroversial that I could fix in two minutes, I have generally done so. Hyphens take me much longer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent) - hang on, you were the one who started this with your comment about errors in promotions/non-promotions, which has now sidetracked what could have been more productive than what has ensued. As before - please cite your examples and deal with appropriately or strike out your comments.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. William Claiborne has been cited of a FAC nomination that centered almost entirely on form rather than content. More to the point, many users have expressed dissatisfaction with the present focus of FAC. People say that "Infoboxes, dashes, persondata, MoS and other semi-irrelevancies occupy far too much time in our reviewal processes", "English Wikipedia seems to have developed a small but influential bureaucracy of MoS obsessives", "there don't happen to be a lot of people reviewing the content at FAC", and so forth. So there is an apparent problem here - which our FAC director admits to, and which is further underlined by the blatant hostility of some FAC regulars to people who point this out. The AAFD page is an attempt to address the problem; I welcome other suggestions for addressing it. >Radiant< 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked William Claiborne's FAC, I thought Tony was very positive, the issue appears to be that the nominator has stopped editing. Anyway, this one should fall over the line if someone renominates it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • This hostility, and the concurrent elevation of process over results in article space, are two of the hallmarks of failure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...right...so what are you proposing PMA?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • At present, the Wikipedia:Featured article review process contains a total of 18 references to "MOS breaches" in the requests to de-feature candidates. Out of 20 open requests. >Radiant< 11:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

...and MOS breaches are a helluva lot easier to fix than large chunks of prose. Simple then. Fix and keep at FARC. 'nuff said.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to state the obvious, but we would expect to find a lot of MOS breaches at FAR and FARC. The point, again, is that articles aren't defeatured merely because of MOS breaches; in fact, most of the "regulars" there pitch in and fix them ourselves if the article doesn't have bigger issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The bee is in your bonnet, Radiant, and you need to justify why we're wasting so much time on this with substantial examples of the problem. As for civility, you've been launching attacks on Tony persistently for weeks. It's been strange and saddening to watch the deterioration in the editing behaviour of a long term contributor and admin. I mean what in God's name possessed you to move a guideline title that's five or six years old? And why are you out there reverting other admins—myself (thrice, I think), Bishonen—and numerous others inbetween without so much as a hello on user talk? This is clearly a WP:POINT issue, not just one of "style." Marskell 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point so effectively. I ask if you can please be civil, and you respond with more personal attacks. Do we have a policy against moving pages that are five years old? I thought not. If you would just read up on what was happening instead of attacking people who disagree with you, you'd realize that this was discussed extensively on the admin board, and you'd realize that the people you're defending have been downright nasty to many people that disagree with them, for several weeks now. Don't make one-sided remarks. Just because you happen to agree with them on some issue does not excuse their (or your) "deteriorating" behavior. >Radiant< 11:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming Radiant's increasingly prevalent strategy to claim that anyone who doesn't agree with her behaviour or views is making a personal attacks against her. She'll do so for this very post—watch. Tony 11:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Um hm. Radiant, you have a very bizarre definition of PA. I'm commenting on your contributions—that I find them unhealthy, unilateral, and poor form for an admin. I'm free to do so.

Do we have a policy against moving five year old titles? No, but we ought to have common sense. You haven't linked the supposed consensus—and to move MoS, which has stood from '01 or '02, is going to require consensus in the mid-double digits. Really. Aside from the enormous name and redirect issues involved, it's a significant "de-intensitive" change that requires more than a couple of days on AN. Which leads to another issue: you're posting to numerous forums, creating new pages, reverting intermittently at MoS, and starting brush fires as you do; it's practically impossible to follow any of this. Take a step back. Marskell 11:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• {{shrubbery}}. You're not commenting on the change, but that "process hasn't been followed" in making it. The problem is that there's several basically unrelated issues that some people insist on conflating; note that I have been trying to get these separated again. I'd be happy to step back from the (relatively minor) GNL issue if you would step back from the (really unrelated) importance-of-MOS issue. Apart from that, the three of you should really stop sniping; aside from being immature, it is counterproductive to discussing the points at hand. >Radiant< 12:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I find immature: placing archive tags around comments you don't like minutes after they're made and refactoring talk pages to suit yourself, as you've been doing with your last edits. Shrubbery to demand substantial consensus for moving very old titles? Sure. And you haven't been keeping anything separate. You've been using GNL as a proxy in larger attempt to undermine the MoS and take shots at Tony. Marskell 13:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. Don't tell other people not to "take shots" when you're busy taking shots at them yourself. You're obviously biased, and in no position to judge the dispute between me and Tony. >Radiant< 13:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My God, Radiant. KETTLE and NPA appear to be the only redoubt you argue from. At least show us some variety. Marskell 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this William Claiborne non-example is still kicking around, since we discussed it (including Raul's response) already at WT:MOS and there seemed to be an understanding that the problem there was that the nominator stopped responding. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course he stopped responding; any self-respecting editor would, given that appalling treatment. There was one comment dealing with content or clarity until the last day of the review, and that one was an obvious, and corrected, typo. The one, perhaps two (does the capitalization of "protestant", which he oversimplifies, count?), comments by Carabineri which are substantive have little more significance than the typo.

Tell me, if the nominator had had different tastes in year-linking, or been willing to grovel, would the article have passed with no consideration of its content at all, and three small corrections in the writing? This is irresponsible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And this is a not-very-clever attempt to sideline debate into the "trivia-zealots have taken over FAC at the expense of content review" argument. Naturally, we need both content review and technical/language/style review. Very often, the content is OK, but appallingly written—or just a few things need fixing in the language and typography.

When I can sit back and think "Yes, WP's FAs, as a model, have pretty good and consistent typsetting and formatting, as well as those other essentials for 'our best work'", I'll be pleased. Just to take the hyphens/dashes/number ranges issue alone, I do not want to see the following in any WP article:

• 4 September 1788—21 March 1839
• hypo–glycemic
• 1933-940

But I have seen these and similar examples. They look bad and make the text harder to read. It's not acceptable in any writing, let alone writing that aspires to be of professional standard. This is not the grocer's shop where English is treated with disdain on signage, and proposing that reviewers should ignore these and other so-called "trivial" aspects of MOS when reviewing FACs is counterproductive. Tony 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust that this is not a claim that "hypo-glycemic" is correct. Any stray character in the middle of a word should be removed as a typo; on the other hand, typo fixes are not serious; most FAs have probably accumulated one or two. Pulling an oppose over the (perfectly clear) 4 September 1788—21 March 1839 is simply bizarre; 1933-940 may be sufficiently unidiomatic to be confusing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1933-940 confused me. You could do that if it was 1933-940 BC, but it makes no sense for AD. I think the example was meant to be "1933-40 should be 1933-1940". I've never seen anyone write 1933-940. Carcharoth 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to this bit from Tony: "This is not the grocer's shop where English is treated with disdain on signage, and proposing that reviewers should ignore these and other so-called "trivial" aspects of MOS when reviewing FACs is counterproductive." - you are missing the point. No-one is saying ignore copyediting. Just step back and look at the overall pictures of a FAC and think what impression it will give if the first and only comments are copyediting ones. That is also counterproductive. Copyediting concerns are valid, but they shouldn't exist in a vacuum. I can't put it any more clearly than that. Carcharoth 17:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stunning example

We've been led to believe that somehow FAC reviews used to focus more on content than they currently do, and I continue to say (based on what I've seen in archives) that's just not the case. A stunning example surfacd today. Compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stuttering to the issues at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stuttering. Some strong review of content there, huh? Not a single content reviewer, and all focus on style, no one knowledgeable in the subject matter. That review focused on images, reference formatting, table layout, etc. So, what has changed? We have much more serious content reviews now, and we also review style issues as a bonus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was two years ago, when FAC had a bee in its bonnet over pretty pictures. When FAC takes its collective eye off the ball (clarity, accuracy, neutrality, verifiability) and focuses on some side issue, nominators will satisfy whatever the effective criterion is, especially when it's easy (uploading pictures requires the right program or equipment, but it's not hard). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Casliber

I'm quite willing to discuss this with you, but other people keep derailing the thread with ad hominems. As soon as that stops I'd be happy to reopen productive discussion. >Radiant< 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The broad thrust of this is very good IMHO. I've suggested before that some kind of league of copyeditors be set up to attend to articles in whatever way they prefer, MOS is so vast and labyrinthine these days, it makes sense to have specialist that know it, to do the typesetting and leave writers to write. As ever, the hope of encouraging reviewers to edit articles is a small one without a big sea change of attitude. --Joopercoopers 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors? Pardon me if something went over my head there. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant the WP:Department of style, a daughter project of the league of copyeditors. --Joopercoopers 16:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What's happened to the league of copyeditors, anyhow? Marskell 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they got overwhelmed by requests—just like peer review and good article candidates. There are about 200 peer review requests a month; few get enough attention. This is a Wiki-wide, systemic problem—not a FAC problem. We don't lower standards on our best articles—those that are an example to editors of all articles—because we're picking up more articles that haven't been through a good peer or Project review or GAC and come to FAC without the basics in place. Strengthening those other processes would be good, but I don't see how that can happen when so many editors are being tied up discussing dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't "lower standards on our best articles" only because it would be difficult to lower them much further. Read Augustus, with its flawed writing and Augustan propaganda; the present standard on FA is no glaring bloopers plus endashes. Editors are perfectly free to untie themselves from the subject: all they have to do is stop making FAC comments on dashes, dots, and year-links except on articles otherwise flawless. They might then have to actually consider content and writing, something beyond the capacities of a bot; but what's a little substantive work for "our best articles"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to be dictating to the few reviewers we have at FAC and FAR/C what they shall do and what they shall not do. PMA, why don't you spend the time and effort on attracting more reviewers to those places than trying to blow the house down? Tony 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:WIAFA is to dictate what standards reviewers shall use; that's what we're arguing over. If we are not going to do so, we should mark it {{historic}} and abandon it. As an incentive to do so, I would expect to abandon FA at that point as a terminally failed process; there was a time, about a year ago, when I thought it couyld possibly be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) - I massaged the prose of Augustus and was happy with the end result. If you feel so strongly about it PMA then there is FAR (which is its purpose), which is the appropriate forum for discussion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please supply diff; all I see this is this typo fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I won't take it personally either and will try to collaborate. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I choose Augustus because I read it, and saw it approved; I think it is no worse than average. It does not deserve to be demoted unless we actually begin to promote well-written, well-sourced, accurate articles, which will mean prevailing upon reviewers to review on those grounds; and if it were demoted, I would only have to go to the trouble of finding another merely mediocre FA, recently promoted. This wouldn't be hard, but why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK so you're seriously saying that the overall standard of FAs has gone downhill for the past year (?). I must say that does not concur with my observations. I don't get it though -you complain about prose yet much of what people like Tony are on about is improving prose - geez, the MOS stuff is mindlessly relatively simple to fix and I can't see why it is such an issue. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. Pma, it seems, would like to cut off the nose to spite the face. Marskell 09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be part of the problem. Prose is (one) form of language; it consists of words. Endashes and (not) year-linking are not prose; they are conventions in representing prose. One of them is a convention outside WP; the other is something that a handful of editors at WP:MOS have come up with. (Large parts of Wikipedia do link years; one Wikiproject expressly recommends linking many years in its articles.) Neither appreciably affects clarity; and as long as they do not, it is really secondary which convention we use. English has many. In short, I'm not cutting off any nose; I am recommending that we cease to worry about the color of the Groucho mask.

It may be that I was overoptimistic a year ago; but now we are certainly and consistently passing articles on the standard of having no glaring errors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) I disagree with just about everything in Pma's first para. (2) "Widely recognised" is a recipe for endless wikilawyering, and it's hard to imagine a better wording in that vein. Tony (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If a reviewer thinks it widely recognised, he should consult it, and having considered it, apply such standards as will improve the article. If the standard being applied is silly, it should be objected to, whatever the source. If not, the position "This is a good point, but you got from a project which is less widely recognized than you claim" will be, justly, ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You really want endless disputes about the boundary between "widely recognised" and "not widely recognised"? It's just the can of worms that rules and guidelines need to avoid. Tony (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If we get them, we can reword; or reword now, if you can think of a better way of putting it. I rephrase my questions:

• Do you deny that there is a difference between WP:MILHIST and WP:MEDMOS, on one hand, and the hypothetical WP:FANCRUFT? No.
• Then do you deny that we should give more weight to one than the other? Would be good, but I can't see how this is practicable generically, i.e., without causing lots of disputes; do you suggest explicitly naming those that should carry weight here? That might work in one way, but would cause disputes over inclusion in the list.
• Then why should we not say so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've responded in italics at the end of the first two of Pma's questions. Tony (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I've found the better wording: we should consider {{WP:MILHIST]] more seriously than WP:FANCRUFT, but this point is already contained in "due": due consideration for the former is much more consideration than for the latter. I've changed to "due weight" because Wikipedians are familiar with it from WP:NPOV. I don't see this wording provoking disputes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No prejudice as to whether PManderson's addition is essential, but I've formatted and re-worded it to fit into the existing criteria structure. Er, PM, though, I'm not sure what "this" refers to in "Some projects include this in the general style guidelines." They include what? I've assumed it's their style advice, and tried to make it unmistakably clear. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC).
      • Thank you for fixing the ambiguity; yes, "this" is style advice (would style guidance be better?). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The editor from a paranormal wiki project is going to give "due" consideration in whatever way they please. Look at the parapsychology troll just a few days ago on WT:FA. Let MILHIST work out their own solution and let other projects come here for consideration. This makes little sense as it stands. Marskell 22:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
          • And finge theory trolls are going to insist that not concurring with their favorite webzine is a verifiability violation, too; this is true of almost every clause of this guideline. How guidelines apply is a matter for consensus, as everywhere.
          • "Let other projects come here for consideration" is uncalled-for arrogance. Neither this page, nor any other, is a durbar, at which tributary pages sue for acceptance.
          • Does Marskell disagree that we should pay attention to the style recommendations of WP:MILHIST, and not to WP:Fancruft (and if he does disagree, why?)
            • His actual wording is "that have become established within the featured article process". This criterion will be more disputable than the wording he changed, and is a bad idea, establishing FAC as an in-group. If we find a long-established Wikiproject whose style recommendations make sense and are actually followed, we should consider them whether they are "established at" FAC or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If we agree that we should pay such attention, we should say so. How we say so can, and should, be tweaked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I have tweaked it. And it's respect for others' work, not arrogance. Marskell 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I brought it back to the original numbering scheme, so the numbers are consistent with past discussions (it is still about MOS issues). I still strongly disagree that it should be here at all, as the wording is still too vague and open to interpretation. I don't even know what it means; how is a newcomer supposed to interpret it? In the meantime, MilHist is moving towards becoming part of MOS, so where's the issue? Which Projects do we consider part of the FA process? Entirely too vague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
                • • Ah, now we're back to all Projects, so what's the point? That's where we started with the original wording days ago that was removed to begin with ... due weight to style recommendations from Wikiprojects that have become established within Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • I don't care whether it's 5 or 2d, both are new labels, which is all that is needed. The numbers of everything else are what they always were. To make it 5 seems undue weight, as it were. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • (Why are we using stars instead of colons?) Back to "established within the featured article process." This allows Raul to say "yes, that's a project I'll listen to." If it's simply "on Wikipedia" it can be argued over endlessly. Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal is eighteen months old. It's "established" on Wikipedia; but it's not established on FAs. To make it five makes it new—it doesn't screw up old numbering. --Marskell 23:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) We're back to Projects again, when this all started on consensus to delete Projects ... due weight to style recommendations from Wikiprojects, allowing for their record within the featured article process , still relative and meaningless. Where does the Chicago Project fit? Where does NBA fit? What one editor considers a good record another may not; this is still entirely too relative, and the whole concept is being solved by MilHist becoming part of MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

...allowing for their record within the featured article process is just bad wording. In any case, the idea is this: "within the featured article process" is shorthand for "Raul's discretion," which is much better than "on Wikipedia". And, of course, Raul may well come here and scrap the thing anyway. Marskell 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I find this edit summary confusing: there was no gerund, there was a participle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I am into my fourth Royal Dutch, but I would call it a gerund. Assuming not: the participle is poor and confusing wording. Marskell 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Did we not have clear consensus to remove mention of WikiProjects? What changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, clearly not; the subject came up a few days ago, and is still under discussion. I see no reason to delete the mention other than the concern that Wikiprojects differ in value, and the present text guards (perhaps excessively) against that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as "allowing for their record within [the?] featured article process" doesn't make much sense, it doesn't much guard against anything. Marskell 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The other problem in the wording is "due weight". What does "due" mean? Different things to different users. So there's another point of contention this will open up. It was all very well for the US to coin "due process", with their courts and highly paid lawyers to ponder on it. Here, as in most other jurisdiction, text should not do this. So, I find the whole clause problematic, still. Tony (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes! "Due weight" requires as much judgement (and is prone to as much disagreement) as determining whether prose is "engaging" "brilliant" and "professional standard", or whether an omitted fact is "major", or how reliable a source is, or whether an article is neutral or stable, or whether images are "appropriate", and the length is "appropriate", or whether detail is "unnecessary". None of these are objective criteria.

There is no need to be scared of adjectives that impose a degree of subjectivity or uncertainty. It is an elephant test - you know it when you see it.

As Douglas Adams said: "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." -- !! ?? 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not rigidly defined. It may as well not be present in the text: exactly what does it add? Tony (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing here is "rigidly" defined, nor should it be; articles being opposed because they have four paragraphs in the lead and they have four things to say there would be absurd, although it has doubtless happened. It adds an incentive to consult the standards of the Wikiprojects on matters of style, which is only reasonable; many of our best articles were written to such standards.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Right - Everybody out of the pool - let's try carrots instead of sticks

OK folks - let's see if carrots work better than sticks to get folks (darn! repetition!!) editors in the mood for sprucing up articles. I've got a game plan here.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Job swap!

How about... people swap jobs for a month? That way everyone will be more sympathetic to each other afterwards. I got this idea from reading Septentrionalis's comment here about what reviewers should do: "all they have to do is stop making FAC comments on dashes, dots, and year-links except on articles otherwise flawless. They might then have to actually consider content and writing". In my view, the ideal reviewer will be a jack-of-all-trades, and will comment on both style and content. Not necessarily at the same time, but equally not ignoring the other side of the coin. I know when I review something, I try and do both. So how about it? Why don't the content reviewers try and do intensive copyediting for a while, and the copyeditors try and review content for a while. Or at least for long enough to confirm why they don't normally do it, and to get a little bit more insight into the other side of the issues. Carcharoth 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, you're assuming there's a division; I disagree. A few examples: when definitions and terminology aren't well defined in an article, that's a prose problem (1a), but it can also be a WP:MOSLINKS problem. I direct the editor to links in the MOS and remind them to either link or define their terms; another may choose to orient the discussion towards prose. Same thing; two approaches. When a medical article is missing information on Prevention or Screening or History, for example, I direct the nominators to WP:MEDMOS (a manual of style page), but it's actually a comprehensive issue (1b) that is covered by the style guideline. This entire notion that there is a stark line dividing style and content is overblown. And this oft-repeated notion that fixing MOS issues is trivial is just insulting, since I spend hours and hours helping prepare articles for FAC, and it's certainly not fun, fast or easy. These things should be done before they come to FAC; if someone asks me to do it pre-FAC, I'm glad to help. If someone comes to FAC with an article that requires hours of work, I suggest they do it themselves, because then we're working unnecessarily against the clock, and we can't fix 'em all. And finally, I have no interest in seeing people who know nothing of specific content area reviewing that article for content, but I'm happy to see them format refs or fix dashes or dates or units. I helped that K-T event article gets its MOS issues straightened out;[6] that didn't prevent others from reviewing content, and they didn't have to bother with it. Other editors just starting out look to featured articles to set the example; if MOS isn't upheld in featured articles, we might as well just allow a free-for-all across all of Wiki, so why this deprecation of a manual of style anyway. And finally, why not just copyedit someone's article? Don't get me started on the consequences I've seen as a result of that. I'll fix someone's MOS stuff, but I won't dare touch their prose after seeing a few people get their heads taken off. Did I miss anything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the boundaries of specialisation are fluid in most cases. A an aside, if I don't have time to come to grips properly with the content of an FA (since there's a continuous cascade of nominations), I start by familiarising myself with the content by skipping through. In doing that, if I see obvious failures to follow MOS, I say so without commenting on the content (much, usually). I'm signalling to the nominator that it would be a good idea to read MOS. Occasionally, regrettably, when I return to make deeper comments on style and content, it's slipped off the list. Is this what they mean by reviewers who are interested only in dashes and hyphens? Tony (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And where's the discussion of 1c, reliable sources, which IMO is more important than either 1a or any of 2 (1c is policy, 1a and 2 are not), and yet almost no one checks (and I get flak because I do check)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When I talk about content, I include sources in that. Sourcing is a must, from the word go. Style can be either the MoS, or, where the MoS is silent, an external (reputable) guide or a personal style. I accept that there are cases where style and content interact, but let's not fool ourselves: there are many examples where style and content can be separated and treated as separate issues. Though the correct ordering of the material in an article, and the section headers, is another example where style and content interact. Sandy's point that the standard of reviews in general is higher is a good point. What might help is if content (including sources) were reviewed first, and only then are copyediting concerns brought up. Someone nominating at FAC will feel a lot less 'bitten' if content issues are brought up first, followed by copyediting concerns later. Carcharoth 09:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless, of course, there aren't any content issues! :-) Carcharoth 09:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And if there aren't any content issues, it would be a courtesy to say so. It is possible that Casliber sees the evaluation of William Claiborne as positive by reading the strong opposition over year links as implying that the content is the best possible, but this is certainly not obvious to me, or, I think, to the nominator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, Carcharoth, the simple fact is you can't please all the people all the time, or even most of the people some of the time. I used to have a standard review path; I started at the bottom of an article and reviewed all of the sources first (because I see no point in reviewing the rest of an article if it isn't based on reliable sources—1c is a deal breaker IMO, because it's policy and the rest is gravy). I was criticized as much for that as the MOS is being criticized now, and I grew weary of being the only person reviewing sources and noticing that when I backed off, articles were promoted based on very faulty sourcing (no fault of Raul's, simply no one reviews for RS). I find it utterly curious that all of this discussion about MOS is happening, while 1c is still being largely ignored. This entire MOS discussion has done nothing but create a diversion and drain from where we should be focusing, which is 1c IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me encourage you to look at sources; consider Daniel Webster, which was promoted to much acclaim despite being sourced to Henry Cabot Lodge and Profiles in Courage. Both are on the web, and each has its own odd tendentiousness, duly reflected in the article. Again, I doubt it is worse than others, but I happen to know it, and my notes from a modern biography of the man are still, unused, on the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So... the conclusion is that we should stop worrying about the MoS and all go and carefully review the sources used to write articles? That is what it sounds like to me. So why don't we (or rather you, as I don't participate at FAC on a regular basis) all actually go and do that? No replies needed here. Go and review the sources in a FAC instead! :-) Carcharoth 17:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FACs are required to satisfy all of the criteria, not just some at a whim. If there's a dash or a hyphen wrong, it should be fixed. If the lead is insubstantial, it should be fixed. Not all nominations receive an explicit content review, and just because reviewers tend not to review on the basis of all of the criteria (they're not all skilled in doing so, and have limited time) doesn't mean that technical details should somehow be ruled out of contention. People who try to sideline the debate into "the trivials are taking over" should probably be busy in the nominations room reviewing the very content they complain is being neglected. On that note, I'm sick of this silly debate, and have better things to do with my scarce Wikitime. Tony (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Then any mention of the MoS should be removed from the criteria, leaving the three substantive requirements. Since two of them are part of good writing, and one of verifiability, they do not require it be mentioned. Failure to do so will merely result in this broken process continuing to collect badly written, badly sourced articles, with all their endashes in the right place and no other virtues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You write as though your pet peeve were a widely held belief. I see no evidence that FAC or FAR/C are "broken". That is not to say that improvements can't and won't be made as they evolve. MOS is central to achieving a reasonable degree of stylistic cohesion in the project. Sick of going around in circles. Why aren't we both in the FAC room now reviewing? Tony (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is widely held; I have already quoted some of the editors who do hold it, but nothing will persuade those who will not hear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone please be careful of 3RR

I haven't counted up anyone's exact edits/reverts, but I do see a lot of to and fro. Would everyone please be careful of the three revert rule? I don't want to see anyone involved in this get a short block, and 3RR is one of the surest ways to draw a block no matter what the explanation. Let's sort this out on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed several different wordings; I still don't see Sandy's spurious consensus. I will wait until another rewording occurs to me, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The principal point is that Raul had decided against it. It saves us arguing. Marskell 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another failure

Please see Talk:Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre#Martial. Yet the FAC found time to discuss endashes again. Possibly if wasting time on WP:MOSDASH had been precluded, by disallowing it in the criteria, someone might have actually noticed that one of the sources is a work of literature, and inserted the necessary caveats before this got on the main page. Let's do it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we need reviewers who will point out these technical shortcomings as well as people like you, PMA, who might be spending more time reviewing content rather than harping on here about the same thing. Tony (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good God, PMA, it's gotten old. — Amcaja (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very old, and costly, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we need reviewers who can see the forest for the trees. The disruptive harping on trivialities now underway at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Countdown (game show) is destructive to this process, and will result in it being a laughingstock. This should not be a game of gotchas over hyphens; and time spent on it is diverted from real concerns. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, PMA, why are you stooping to these trivial musings rather than contributing to the "real concerns", as you put it. Fowler would have taken issue with your grammar. Tony (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, perhaps a comma would be better; if this were article space, I'd fix it. (Semicolons before "and", however, are one of his pet examples of a rule of thumb which should not be made into a fetish.) Why? Because Countdown (game show) is an excellent article; despite one surface flaw, now fixed, an example of excellent, well-sourced, work in a field where this is rare. None of the reasons so far made warrant, or even approach, delisting; Augustus and Daniel Webster are still much worse, both as prose and as sourcing (the last considering what exists on Roman and American history). I approve, and have said so, of reviewers polishing articles themselves; that is a contribution to WP, whereas pointing out imaginary reasons to delist is not. Btw, fixing the flaw was, I believe, my only edit to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the comma's fine; the problem lies in "it being a laughingstock". Tony (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, he thought "it's being" would be hypercorrect; but the problem with Fowler is the absence of an index, so it will be hard to check. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You certainly wouldn't use its with an apostrophe. Hypercorrect has a different technical meaning from your assumption here ("terlet" for "toilet", after "thoity-thoid" in NY). You'd reword it. Tony (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

For another example, consider the discussion on the article Yomangani was watching on the Parliament Acts. This could have used some attention to the prose; but not endashes and hyphens: Doubts that existed in academic circles concerning the validity of the 1949 Act were refuted... in the lead. Are doubts refuted? Is the passive necessary? (I've settled the first; the second is harder, but it should have been considered.) Let us get to the xondition where we don't pass articles without these defects before we worry whether to always use a symbol for pounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you do some content reviewing instead of harping on about dashes. If I or any other reviewer wants to point out wrong uses of hyphens or dashes, so be it. They're important for good writing. And doing so implies no obligation whatsoever to review citations, comprehensiveness, other technical aspects of prose, or content. Please get the bee out of your bonnet about dashes. Tony (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dashes are a reasonable thing to comment on; they are a good thing to fix. But emdashes are not, as Tony himself said, a good ground for opposition; neither are they a good ground to remove existing FA status. Please stop demanding either, make clear that comments are comments, and I will have nothing more to say on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I just read the words disruptive harping up the page? Interesting collocation. Marskell 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Yomangani (talk · contribs) has retired. If you're able to help maintain the FAs that he wrote and restored at FAR, please add them to your watchlist:

1. Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre
2. Laika
3. Sophie Blanchard
4. Beagle
5. Elizabeth Needham
6. Four Times of the Day
7. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump
8. The Log from the Sea of Cortez
9. Red Barn Murder
10. The Four Stages of Cruelty
11. Harry McNish
12. Thylacine
13. Platypus
14. Oceanic whitetip shark
15. Anne of Great Britain
16. Common scold
17. England expects that every man will do his duty
18. John Dee
19. Mary II of England
20. Order of the Garter
21. Order of St. Patrick
22. Order of the Thistle
23. Parliament Acts
24. The Adventures of Tintin
25. Transit of Venus
26. Humpback whale
27. Blue whale
28. List of Cuban birds
29. List of birds of Belize
30. List of birds of Nicaragua

I've got Red Barn Murder, Beagle and Laika, but I'm not sure I'll stick around much longer for this either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Twelve Ten Five of Yomangani's 30 articles still need editors willing to watch them; list of who's got what here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate length

How long is an "appropriate length"? Wikipedia:Article size seems exceedingly vague on the subject. AndyJones 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Long enough to cover the subject. We have not had very short FA's; but there's no real reason why not, if they are in fact comprehensive. See also the discussion higher on this page about an effective 32K lower limit. Articles at or below these bounds should expect severe scrutiny as to whether they have in fact included everything verifiable on their subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find that FA:s are generally too long for my interests. When I come to read an article on Wikipedia, I don't want to have to spend the next hour with it because it reflect all possible bits and pieces. A max limit of 32 KB limit would be my ideal. / Fred-J 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred-J 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarity, neutrality, accuracy, or verifiability

The chief purpose of having MOS at all is to contribute to the quality of articles; the original purpose of including it here was so that articles insofar as they contribute to the clarity, neutrality, accuracy, or verifiability of the article. We should say this. I note that Tony is opposed to this; but then he wants to follow the guidance of MOS when it introduces ambiguity.

I acknowledge that this standard would interfere with the endless opposes about dashes, year-linking, or that there were periods at the ends of the wrong captions. On the other hand, without those, FA might accept fewer mediocre articles, and reject fewer decent ones. Is anyone else opposed to clarity, accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability as our overriding standards? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, just to your edit. Marskell 13:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anderson's trademark dispute tag has gone up, I see, because he didn't get his way. Getting one's way here, unless an edit is uncontroversial, is a matter of doing the leg-work to gain consensus. I can vouch for the fact that it's hard work, and that it often fails to convince others. Just how long we should allow the authority and status of WP to be diminished by the presence of this ugly splotch in the middle of a key policy page, is a matter for users here. I really think we should keep the squabbling to the talk page. Tony (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The "authority" and. more important, the credibility of Wikipedia is diminished far more by having bad articles, chosen for irrelevant trivialities, on the front page. Since Tony has now taken to objecting to articles for things that aren't even in the MoS at all, his credibility is itself limited. Let us see if anyone objects to the content of the edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, yes, I'm opposed to that. We have plenty of perfectly good policies for those already (notably the core content policies themselves, as well as the auxiliary explanatory pages like WP:CITE). The point of having an in-house Manual of Style is not merely to make articles readable, but also to make them consistent and professional. Under your version of the criterion, I could submit an article written in blinking purple font over a green background studded with polka dots, and legitimately claim that my utter disregard for common standards of professional typography and layout did not impact the "clarity, accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability" of the article itself, and thus could not be objected to. Kirill 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The text under consideration says: It follows the style guidelines, insofar as they contribute to the clarity, neutrality, accuracy, or verifiability of the article, or to the overall professional presentation of the encyclopedia, including: (three major points)

The purple font would fall under professional presentation; I'm not convinced that periods at the end of captions do, but that would be properly discussed about individual articles. Emdashes do not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I know; I'm the one who added the "overall professional presentation of the encyclopedia" bit; but you only mention the original four points above. Kirill 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we have a potential meeting of the minds. Can you think of a way to tighten "professional presentation" to exclude the WP:MOSDASH cruft? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarity is covered by 1a and 4, neutrality by 1d, accuracy and verifiability by 1c. It's redundant and poorly phrased and just another attempt to undermine the salience of the MoS. Marskell 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not salient when it is being used to object to endashes, to periods on captions, and other cruft; here it is used (apparently in error) to insist that an ambiguity be introduced into an article. ("5 to 20 million" is ambiguous; "5 million to 20 million" is not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, per Tony, Kirill, Marskell, etc. Raul654 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. Anderson, this personal war that you're conducting against your pet peeves, among them dashes and logical punctuation, is disruptive and tedious. I can't be bothered to respond directly to your allegations that I'm opposed to clarity, accuracy and the like. You would do the project a favour by discussing your proposals here first, rather than taking your squabbles onto the actual policy page. The same goes for MOS and MOSNUM. This continual generation of disputes, against the prevailing culture of collaboration and consensus, needs to stop now. Tony (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony can't be bothered, because he has no case. I agree with Raul's wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Raul edited, leaving that language; Tony's objections remain unspecified. If he would bother to state them, instead of appealling to non-existent proceedure, we might get somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to essay

Raul has recently inserted a link to an essay on when to cite, which explicitly says at the top that it's opinion. While we do need more guidelines here (I haven't yet digested the contents of the essay), may I suggest that until the status of the essay is firmed up, this link be moved to the "See also" section? Tony (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The essay isn't bad. The only problem I have with it is the 'in a timely manner' in hte past point. Usually not a problem at FAC but alot of aggressive deletion recently with trivia with interesting interpretations of this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I had been meaning to suggest that Raul bring together the various pages on Featured articles he has in his user space into one page in Wikipedia space, so that all may debate things. We would make clear that it's guideline-like: V and this page are still the last word. We might add the FAR rationales that have been discussed as well (e.g., if there's work, it's left open). I think it would reduce opaqueness. Marskell 14:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's been lots of debate already in his name-space, plus many contributions from others. I'm keen to look at them, but can't until the weekend. Tony (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Basic draft of FA Criteria

I believe Featured Articles are special things that "exemplifies the finest outcome achieved by the Wikipedia community," and thus should not be handed out easily or carelessly as if it was not worth much and meant nothing.

Here's the first draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leranedo/Criteria

Feel free to edit it!

I like to know everything WRONG with it, and what can make it better. Please help.

The main elements I like about it:

• I like the neat presentation, though far from perfect, I admire how it strikes a balance between conciseness and comprehensiveness.
• I like how each important headers stands out, associated with a bold number, making it vastly easier for FA reviewers as well as FAC nominators to observe and memorize.
• I like its details and how it breaks things up so simply and neatly. I greatly admire its economy, though again far from perfect, considering it's only a first draft.
• I like how it sets higher standards, though by just a tad.
• But most importantly, I like its flexibility and how it can be reworked and revised for the better.

The major flaws I see:

• I don't like how it's lengthy, and possibly overbearing, but that's a result of the details.
• I don't like how certain sections like #8 is so empty and lacking.
• In some ways, I don't like how the criteria are challenging to fulfill, but for the most part, I believe in quality over quantity.
• I don't like how its not specific enough and how its not broken down to its finest detail.
• I don't like how it's mediocre and that it could be better than what it is, but I just don't know, at this moment, how else it can improved and progressed.
• But most importantly, I don't like how easily ordinary (non-featured) article can become FAC when basic aspects like "no grammatical or syntactical errors" or "charity" are not fulfilled.

What can be made better? Need Feedback. Learnedo 07:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Remarks & Feedback

FA doesn't mean much, and isn't worth very much; it never has been. (It is still better than some of its competitors, which mean nothing.)

No harm in trying to improve things just a tad. Learnedo 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with FA is that reviewing an article strictly takes an enormous amount of time; unfortunately, accuracy and verifiability take the most time, and therefore all too often are not adequately considered at all. We don't have enough reviewers to do this for the articles we consider now, to the extent we do consider them. This is a scaling problem, and mya be expected to get worse until FA is abandoned.

That's all the more reason why these articles shouldn't come to FAC in the first place. I know first-hand I did not have every single second of my life to check in extreme detail every single section. The last point Standards on the draft addresses this and helps alleviate this to some degree. Learnedo 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The result of this is that almost any article can be attacked by arguing that it is, in one or another aspect, not the best we can do; this will be correct: No article is the best we can do, or beyond the reach of improvement. Meanwhile the same aspect will be let slide on articles that are promoted.

Sure, but some of these articles have basic flaws like grammar or 'couldn't this have been organize better?' or 'can't you focus the article better'? Better can't even be meet. Learnedo 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Raising the standards of WIAFA will make this worse; so will lengthening it. This will worsen the outcome of FA,

I suppose so. We all have our opinions. Learnedo 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

viewed as a competition of gold stars,

I would like that actually. I much prefer 10 great articles earning those gold stars than 1000 good articles earning the stars. Learnedo 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

while decreasing its actual service to WP: articles that go through FAC are generally, not always, better articles when they pass than when they are nominated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't they pass to A-status rather than FA-status? I think that may be feasible, though am uncertain. Learnedo 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Current FA criteria is fine. But maybe there should be criteria written for reviewers, first that they acutally read the articles that they commment on and fully understand what the FA criteria is, and then base these comments upon current FA criteria and not criteria that a reviewer perceives should be in effect. ♫ Cricket02 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Fine doesn't cut it. I don't think the articles that come to FAC are actually read fully before being presenting there. I feel some are mediocre and just want an easy pass, which I had gave some on the grounds that I felt that they worked hard on their articles. Learnedo 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the current criteria that is addressed by your draft. Pagrashtak 14:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Does there need to be dire issues at stake for us to attempt to improve things, even if it is only a bit? Yes, the world is not going to explode or implode for that matter but what's wrong with trying to improve things? Is it snatching folks who are familiar with current criteria away of from their comfort zone? 'cause we won't want that. Learnedo 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pagrashtak. And thanks for those pearls of wisdom, Anderson. Perhaps you meant to add them to some other page; they appear to be quite irrelevant here. Tony (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Why so? Tell me what's wrong. It's just a draft. I'll be happy to scrap it. Learnedo 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that to my collection of personal attacks, thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you keep a dirt file on me? That would be a hoot. Is this the "Radiant" strategy of defining any resistance to what you say as "personal attack" or "kettle" or the like? And of course when you referred to Noetica and me as "amateurs" in your edit summary earlier today, that somehow was not a personal attack. Let me think about that. Tony (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of appropriate length?

Criterion 4 states:

It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Does the first clause add anything? Isn't it all said subsequently? "It stays focused ...". Tony (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIZE comes into play; 70 to 80KB articles (prose size) have been passed, but the editors had to justify the excess length (they didn't to my satisfaction in any case, but consensus rules :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another question about dashes

I'm concerned about what seems, to me at least, to be a recent trend for applying the MOS rules – particularly concerning the use of dashes – to the titles of publications given in the {{cite}} template. Altering the title of a publication from the form which its authors' gave it seems to me to be a dangerous road to be going down. There's an example of this having happened recently at one of the current FA candidates, Chew Stoke. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• IMO, our first concern with the titles of articles in sources should be that we can find the source on search and to that end we shouldn't alter dashes in titles. I don't do it and I don't think Brighterorange (talk · contribs)'s script does it. Having said that, I'm sure I could have made a mistake here and there and gotten one without intent. However, I looked at the recent edits to Chew Stoke and I disagree that dashes in the titles were altered. If the title contains a dash or hyphen, we should use the same used by the source. In the case of Chew Stoke, dashes were added to separate subtitles, which I don't think is a problem. It's a choice between, for example, colons and dashes, and if dashes are chosen, they should be correct dashes, not hyphens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At least one title clearly was altered; from "Royal Diary of Engagements - January - August" to "Royal Diary of Engagements – January–August". And this is not one isolated incident, but a new trend that seems to be developing. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are current trends on several FACs that are far more concerning than dashes right now :-) All we can do is highlight them on each review to stem the tide. In this case, it may have simply been an oversight, and I suggest calling it to the attention politely of the editor who did it, and mentioning it politely on review whenever you see it happen. AGF and all that. But yes, we should make a distinction between adding the correct dashes as punctuation to titles and altering dashes or hyphens that already exist in titles. The same applies to direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that doesn't mean that we ought not to worry about this growing trend as well. I'm not the keeper of the FA criteria, so I do not consider myself to be in a position to correct the misunderstandings of more experienced reviewers than myself; I simply gave one example of what has happened to a number of other articles as well. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not a matter for FA criteria; if the problem becomes so pervasive that it warrants mention (retain dashes used in original source), it would need to be discussed at the talk page of WP:DASH and worked in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. One of the criteria for FA is verifiability, and that is compromised if reviewers take it upon themselves to re-format the actual publication titles in a mistaken effort to conform to the MOS. As has been happening with increasing frequency. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Two issues here: first, dashes are mangled into hyphens in many web-based applications, including those that store and display work lists. This is a great pity, since en dashes, not hyphens, are typically used by journals as an alternative to colons in multi-clause article titles. Second, any changes of hyphens to en dashes need to preserve our readers' ability to search online for the title. So part of me says "a journal would never use two hyphens as here, instead of an en dash, so I'll change it", and part of me says "oops, don't want to falsify the title". Certainly changing the spacing, as above, is not a good idea. Can someone enlighten us as to whether electronic searching always picks up en dashes for hyphens and vice versa? I suspect that they do, in which case it correcting the symbol should not matter. Tony (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the example Malleus gives, I googled the title both ways, and got the same return, so while I don't think this is a significant issue, we should still leave titles and direct quotes the way we find them in the original source. Tony, have a look at an article I just reviewed, David Petraeus‎. The army apparently uses a hyphen in unit names rather than dashes; it looks awful, but that's the way they do it, so we can't change it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As we appear to be uncertain on this issue, then I would suggest that is a good enough reason for FA reviewers not to make changes to publication titles; the MOS applies to articles submitted to wikipedia, not to articles submited elsewhere. But this dash issue is not the only mis-applied application of the wikipedia MOS to publication titles that I've seen recently. I'm simply suggesting that it ought to be nipped in the bud. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We nip it in the bud by mentioning it when it occurs, like any FAC issue (and there ares more significant ones right now). You aren't suggesting we add "don't change hyphens and dashes " to WIAFA are you? This is something that has to be addressed individually; have you raised this with Epbr? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this thread provides yet another answer to the "why don't reviewers asking for MOS changes just make those simple changes themselves" query? We're darned if we do, darned if we don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, there's a critical shortage of reviewers, and expecting them to shrink their footprint on WP by concentrating at the coalface of just a few FACs is not the way to go. The FA process functions partly to set standards for nominators and, indeed, all WPs. The Petraeus article (not an FAC, it seems): yep, can't do much about the squidgy little hyphens. Ph.D. yet BS (MOS favours no dots). Rather small section titles. Tony (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I encountered Petraeus at peer review; the backlog there is manageable now, and by doing selective reviews there, one can leave a broader footprint about MOS knowledge—and one which stays in the articlehistory record in the event the current editor doesn't bring it to FAC but subsequent editors want to know what work is needed. And, since FAC is kind of a topsy-turvy mess right now, PR is more enjoyable. My latest compromise between "do it yourself" and "ownership, don't mess up my article" is that I make sample edits only to illustrate the issues, and then summarize on PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't mentioned this to Epbr, as from from past experience I've found that to be unproductive. I'm asking that the FA criteria make it clear that altering a published article's title in the name of the holy MOS is a definite no-no. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for Epbr; I'm not convinced we can mention every MOS no-no in WIAFA, but it could possibly be included at WP:MOSDASH if it becomes a big issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing the spaces from "Royal Diary of Engagements - January - August" was an oversight, but I was unaware of the searchability issues of changing the dashes. I don't think changing the dashes actually does affect searches though; I don't think correcting the dashes does any more harm than changing an uppercase web article title to lowercase, which I think MOS recommends. Epbr123 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We can surely mention the basics. Like don't alter a publication's details to conform to the wikpedia MOS. It's not for any reviewer to alter the given title of a printed publication simply to conform with the MOS. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't entirely agree. It's quite acceptable to change an article or book title from title-case to sentence-case (although it's conventional to retain title case for the titles of journals and conferences, for some reason, which I think should be respected); most worklists I have to edit out there are inconsistent in upper/lower case, and need to be ironed out. I'm highly suspicious of double hyphens as separators in journal titles; as above, I'm pretty sure journals don't allow it, and thus I'm inclined to change to a single punctuation (which would make a search more accurate, anyway). Work lists are typically full of mistakes and inconsistencies: I comment on this in my reviews where necessary, and expect contributors to fix the problem. Inserting rules into MOS or the FA criteria is probably not the way to go. Tony (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I had no expectation that you would agree. Nevertheless, the point remains that the publication details given by the author/publisher ought to have precedence over the stylistic preferences of any reviewer. Once you start to believe that you have the right to correct the way that an article is described, because it doesn't conform to the wikipedia MOS, then what else do you believe that you have the right to do? Let's nip this in the bud. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But but but every refereed journal insists on its own house style for references and work lists. The author has no control. When listed in other journals as a cited source, an item is re-formatted into whatever the journal's style insists on. It's not like direct quotations, which should not be tampered with. Tony (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not to do with "references and work lists". It's to do with altering the titles of publications. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your "ho hum" edit summary, on the matters of dashes/hyphens (scrambled through the limitations of web formatting) and capitalisation, it's hard to separate the "altering of titles" from house style and the need to replicate the punctuation used in the original journal. Tony (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in the case of the example I gave at the start of this discussion there isn't. That was a clear change to the title. The fact that Google is able to ignore spacing in titles is neither here nor there. So it's ho hum again I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is something that cuts across the whole Manual of Style and I think it ought to be discussed there. I've suggested we add some text to it reminding everyone that there are some things which should not be altered for style, see this discussion. --bainer (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck; even the idea that direct quotes shouldn't be changed hasn't stuck at WP:MOS. A couple of editors persist in adding back the idea of wiki-linking within quotes, even though our articles may not reflect the original intent of the quote and may change context. If even that doesn't stick, I don't see the problem with changing all caps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable Images

Maybe this is redundant but I have seen tons of articles where user created maps, tables, graphs, diagrams, etc. do not provide verifiable sources like they should. Most parts of the text are usually referenced but people don't bother to add references to their images in many cases leading to articles like trade route which is a particularly bad offender since we have to take the images on faith rather than through the knowledge that the routes have been taken from verifiable reliable sources. Can we explicitly mention this under the images section? gren グレン 14:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just created Template:Imagefact to add in the thumbnail caption area of articles... I wonder if this will actually become useful or if it will be deleted, but I hope it helps to address the problem for now. gren グレン 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It seems to me this is already covered by 1(c), the requirement to be factually accurate and verifiable. Pagrashtak 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's already covered by 1c, although sometimes reviewers forget to check and ask for citations on user-generated graphs. I'm glad you made a template! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Comprehensive", fan pages, one source for..

Some (most?) pop/rock music articles that make FA are simply nothing more than fan pages. ...if an article's text is drawn overwhelmingly from one source, plus a few scattered snippets from People magazine or MTV.... is this a violation of the "Comprehensive" requirement? It does not seem to be a serious critical examination of the topic.... Even if an article has several refs, the refs are typically ... fan pages! Or some variety of "People"! Are these reliable sources? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image requirements for articles about animals

There is a discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

US-related articles

I've just posted on the the 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl talk page, queued up for 31 Dec FA, and will repeat here: Odd that this got to FA and no-one noticed that the COUNTRY is not even mentioned (well, it is now, because I just added it). I've noticed this so many time in Wikipedia articles: ones that originate from/ are about countries other than the US almost always state the country, but American ones generally don't bother. Is this a reflection of American parochialism, not looking beyond their borders, not realising there's a whole world reading out there, most of whom won't have a clue where the places they talk about might be? Or are we all supposed somehow to know all about American geography, even though this is never expected of articles on other countries? An encylcopedia is supposed to be ENCYCLOPEDIC and to educate.

Try this. You'll need a pad and paper. Keep hitting 'random article' and see how many US-related articles mention the country, and how many non-US ones mention their country. See what I mean? The American editors seem to think that putting 'Athens, Georgia' is enough. It really gets my goat. I know this isn't a specifically FA-related gripe, but the fact that an article got promoted with this glaring omission is an indicator of the mind set of those choosing/reviewing the articles. It's just not good enough. 86.137.136.17 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure American parochialism is a factor, but let's not insist on specifying any country where any fool should know where a location is. Don't bother the readers with more than "Chicago" or "Beijing" or "Tokyo". If they're that ignorant, they should key it into the search box and improve their mind. Tony (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Tony; I object to seeing Atlanta, Georgia, United States just as much as I object to seeing Tokyo, Japan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to either. They make sense. You think children in Africa reading wikipedia on their OLPC should know or care where Tokyo or Atlanta are? Note that this also opens up very large can of worms. How do you decide which places 'readers need to key into a search box to improve their minds'? Capetown? Sydney? Auckland? Kuala Lumpur? How about Hobart? Whangarei? Kuching? Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My response could have been more clear. If a child in Africa doesn't know that Tokyo is in Japan, s/he can find that out by clicking on Tokyo. Japan is redundant. If a child in Africa doesn't know that Atlanta, Georgia is in the United States, clicking on the Atlanta link will reveal that information. In either case, adding the country is redundant and unnecessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A link doesn't require someone to "key into a search box" to find out what it's referring to. That said, there should be some standard for when (and how often) it's needed to put it into the text. —Random832 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's go easy on links, too. Nothing I hate more than to see "US", "Japan", "China", "UK" blue-splotched in articles. Children in Africa—and the rest of us—who don't know these will just have to key the word into the search box. It's really not very hard, and is good training for them. Tony (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you say that, on the assumption that you're being serious, as I too think that there are far too many things wikilinked just because they can be. Editors seem to forget that links take readers away from their articles, and that there ought to be compelling reason to clutter their texts with blue and especially red links. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Me again on a dynamic IP. Several things. First off, I think an enclopedia article should as a very basic fact state the country / nationality of the subject of the article. That's a basic. You shouldn't have to send people off by links to other articles to find out that information. Secondly, Tony's comment about 'any fool' is telling. We should treat all our readers with respect, and we should provide the knowledge they need, not send them off searching for it. 'Good training' it may be, but surely the all the relevant, basic information that the reader needs should be in the article? Nil Einne makes a good point. Who chooses at what stage we decide? By what criteria? And by the way, I chose Atlanta Georgia for good reason - it's perfectly possible that readers will assume that Georgia is the country rather than the state. 81.129.130.162 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, they don't play American Football in the country of Georgia. My way of thinking is that it's insulting to think that anyone reading an article about American football wouldn't have a basic clue. WP:OVERLINKing is needless clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Only in a highly international (non-US) context, where there would otherwise be central-Asian doubt, should the full "Atlanta, Georgia, United States" be used. In all other contexts, "Atlanta, Georgia" first, and thereafter just "Atlanta". However, in the article on the state of "Georgia", just "Atlanta" always. As for the boundary between when to explain/gloss on the spot for our readers, well that's a case-by-case matter, with common sense the determinant, as well as the need to limit both linking and unnecessary explanatory clutter. The benefit of an online encyclopedia is that the nine-year-old Nigerian child can type into the search box anything she wants. The line being followed above – where would it end? Link or explain every word of more than one syllable? Tony (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this trend before, I posted a comment on WT:MOS and got little response, if you check my contrib page, you'll find that a large number of my edits are for fixing this issue. I don't know why you're discrediting this matter as over serious, I think it violates the neutrality of the article and increases the US-centrism of our encyclopedia. It is a very basic job for an article to define its geographical context, and the basic geographical, and most useful, unit would be the country. Why do we consider that any reader will know where Atlanta is? And assume that Kiev or Manille are more obscure city? The only argument would be that this is an English Encyclopedia, so it should be US- or Anglo-centric. This violates WP neutral and geographically unbiased spirit. My solution would be to make a requirement that in every article the basic geographical context (ie. the country) be defined. And you could write Atlanta in the U.S. state of Georgia instead of Atlanta, Georgia, United States.

One more thing, I noticed that this issue affects "British" articles more than "US" ones. There has been a consensus between British editors that the basic geographical unit would be their country (ie. England, Wales, Scotland, Nothern Ireland) and not UK, which is very unfamiliar to the average user (I took me a lot of browsing through discussion to figure out why). CG (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Atlanta, Georgia" is English usage, and is, I believe, unambiguous; although perhaps some enterprising real estate developer will build one in the country of Georgia in time ;->. Readers who do not understand common English should be encouraged to click on links or to consult the Simple English WP; that's what they're for.

Similarly, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are usage except in a purely political or legal context; we should certainly link them when first used, in a cost-free effort to help the confused; but we should not rewrite for the purpose, especially when doing so would be making arguable statements on politically contentious matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Common sense

I agree with this post from Sandy so much that I copy it here:

Hoary, here's my summary. The MOS buck stops at FAC/FAR, because it's enforced at FAC/FAR, so keep FAC/FAR informed when changes are proposed and made (this one was made without discussion, and it took a month for us to realize). Cite templates already insert non-breaking spaces; most other citations are short and asking FA writers to insert nbsps into other citations, which are typically very short (example, Joseph Priestley House) is a burden to FA writers that will generate little benefit for readers. So what if 1 in a 100 citations happens to wrap (although I can't remember ever seeing problematic wrap in a citation)? NBSPs are not needed in citations; line wrap in citations is very rare, and the extra work isn't worth the benefit. There are more important MOS matters to attend to (like how come every WikiProject gets to randomly add their guidelines to MOS without community consensus or input?). Burdening FA writers with make-work nbsps isn't our best use of time. On all the other issues raised, nbsp should continue to be applied as it is currently applied at FAC and FAR; you add nbsp wherever it's needed and makes sense to prevent linewrap. Common sense. That's how it's used now.

The added italics are mine. They add up, I think, to a coherent and generalizable position: MOS covers a lot of stuff, some of it, like non-breaking spaces in footnotes, of doubtful net value to the project; one or two editors can add stuff to obscure corners of MOS; and there is sentiment that all of it becomes obligatory here immediately. This is a bad thing; we should apply MOS with common sense. I agree.

When the present WIAFA was written, MOS contained many fewer rules, and fewer of them dealt with matters like this, which would be part of the ideal Wikipedia, but may without serious loss be postponed until just before WP:DEADLINE. The problem here can in principle be solved by continually arguing over MOS; but it would be simpler to cut the Gordian knot. Let us rephrase condition 2, to make the application of common sense the actual rule. Adding generally should be enough, but I don't care how this is done; merely that it is done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any change to WIAFA, because consensus is what makes common sense rule, avoid instruction creep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please put your !vote where your voice is. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Action potential is being argued almost entirely on WP:MOSDASH nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo sez: TFA needs a free image

Over three months ago, I added that a featured article needed to have at least one free image in order to become Today's Featured Article. It was reverted within the hour: (Rv: requires discussion at talk.). Today, I added the suggestion again, per discussion in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• But the main page article doesn't have to include an image, for example, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 6, 2008. Therefore, TFAs aren't required to have at least one free image. Epbr123 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is why I used "should" (that is, recommended) and not "must" (that is, required). Should this article use small-capital keywords per RFC 2119? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Epbr, disagree with the change, and the discussion link provided takes me nowhere, so I can't see the nature of the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The section about the Main Page is what I was talking about. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a different discussion. We don't have to have an image in a featured article, so I think this change needs to be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure the change is necessary, and seeing that there's people disagreeing here about it, I've reverted it until more discussion is held. Hi, Sandy! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A Minor Quandary: Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Primary Source

I need a bit of clarification because I have seen an apparent double-standard and I'd like to form a consensus here about what we really expect of FA's. In particular, I am speaking of candidate articles that are about works of fiction. Recently I have participated in an FAC (Randall Flagg) where a reviewer posted significant oppose comments, chief of which was that the plot summaries in the articles are primarily the interpretation of the author and not backed up by scholarly sources. The FAC basically failed because of these concerns.

Sorry to jump the line here (makes me crazy when people intersperse commentary), but important to clarify here that the Flagg FAC hasn't failed, and I think the oppose was based on other reasons. More below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually came around to the reviewer's point of view and have since left a couple similar comments on other FAC's about fictional works (The Last Temptation of Krust). I've been told there that, at least for the television articles, there is a consensus that plot summaries do not require academic or any other kind of secondary source.

I tend to think that FA reviewers can and should hold these articles up to a higher standard than perhaps their respective WikiProjects do, and that we should decide here if FAC's on fictional works should have such requirements. I, for one, lean toward requiring secondary sources but I don't necessarily think that plot summaries derived from only primary sources make for bad or inaccurate articles. --Laser brain (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Laser, far more editors follow WT:FAC than this page; you'd get broader input there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if FA reviewers didn't hold articles to a higher standard, then FA would be pretty pointless. On the specific issue of primary vs secondary sources, I would have thought that, as a matter of wikidefinition, secondary sources must be preferred. So, love or hate the primary sources, your opinion is worth nothing without corroboration by those whose opinions on those sources has been evaluated by their academic peers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my question. I mean, whose plot synopsis of a Simpsons episode has been evaluated by academic peers? These projects have decided that since secondary sources are largely unavailable, they should write their articles with basically unsourced plot summaries. This happened, then this happened, then this happened. No sources. And some of them have passed FA like this. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll get fuller feedback at WT:FAC; for example, Deckiller has input in this area, and few people follow this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I cross-posted there because I wasn't sure if it's appropriate to move everyone's comments. People had already replied to me by time I saw your suggestion. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is appropriate for FA to set different standards in these areas from those endorsed by the content policies. The role of the FA process is to encourage adherence to best practices; the role of determining best practices falls to the community policy forums. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think that fictional works should provide some sort of source for the plot. I'd imagine that most popular TV shows have a transcript; by popular, I mean shows that have more information than just the plot, which is needed for article if it was going to FAC, anyway. Surely this would count as a good secondary source, for the Simpsons episodes. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they should not: If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information. - Wikipedia:When to cite Raul654 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is in keeping with our manual of style for fiction-related articles, too: "Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source." The important thing is that the article not consist solely of primary-source plot summary. It should include real-world information too. — Dulcem (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued from above, the Randall Flagg FAC hasn't failed, and my understanding of the Oppose is different than what Laser writes above; Laser, you might want to revisit your understanding of that oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry - it has been restarted. I'm afraid I carried a bit too much baggage in from the original FAC where we discussed one of the aspects of one of principal problems. Since the article is pretty much "plot summaries" (a problem in and of itself), Awadewit had a problem that those plot summaries did not have secondary, academic sources for the most part. What I'm reading here is that at least some editors agree that should not be a problem. --Laser brain (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I read Awadewit's object differently: that Awadewit says there are untapped scholarly sources that should be accessed is somewhat different than the plot summary issue. I read it as making sure the article is comprehensive and utilizes the best sources available, which is a different issue. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is what Awadewit means; but I'm not sure this is a reasonable standard, considering that scholarly literature on the subject is scarce, and we do not expect it of other candidates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Sandy, citing plot summaries in the articles I have done work to can be frustrating, especially since the cited sources lack the detail some of the summaries I have to write have. I have a question, though. From the video game FA's I have seen, they seem to cite the plot in every few sentences, mostly from dialogue from the game. Do they have some sort of set rules, or does the editor do this them self? See various Final Fantasy game articles to see what I am talking about. xihix(talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing the script is extremely important, because it discourages original research and shows that there is none. It allows logical/obvious claims in the summary to be checked with direct excerpts from the script. It also shows the effort that went into making the synopsis; with Final Fantasy articles, we usually cite the script either every few sentences to show that the summary is not being drawn out of thin air, and also to support potentially shocking events. Sorry if I'm difficult to understand tonight; just got home from work and it's 2 in the morning here :) — Deckiller 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people throw in refs to video games plots because it's an important turn of events, or it's a portion of the game that some people disagree with, and then it's useful to have to transcript to squash fanboy complaints. But sourcing is generally scarce- Halo 3 has only seven primary refs in five paragraphs. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing the script is potentially a can of worms, since there is much which never appears in detail in a shooting script ("the battle ensues"), and additionally the shooting script often is not identical to the film. The film style guidelines, IIRC, make provision that the plots should be straightforward and uncontroversial. Anything which would require a secondary source - such as analysis or interpretation - should not be in the plot section, but instead should be contained in separate analysis sections. Remember, primary sources are not absolutely verboten, they're just not acceptable in certain circumstances. Things like plot summarization are precisely what primary sources are excellent for. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that writing about primary sources is original research. Now, it is more likely to lead to original research than citing secondary sources, which is why we have the requirement to present primary sources in a purely descriptive manner. Such descriptions should be reviewed by others to avoid personal interpretations and specialist knowledge. I think it's completely possible to find wording that would be indisputable to all editors. If there is a plot element that is unclear to all, the issue can either be avoided, made ambiguous in its description, or clarified through a secondary source. In addition, we should be able to cite non-print primary sources. Some sources, like films, can be difficult with lack of segmentation, but hopefully nobody thinks it's realistic to cite time stamps for a film's scenes in presenting a plot. In the case of Randall Flagg, though, I agree with Awadewit's assessment that it is predominantly a plot summary of the fictional character. Not only does it cover every appearance of the character, it goes into detail about each appearance. Imagine if we did this for Batman or Superman! All appearances by the character are in works that have their own Wikipedia articles, so a lot of the context could belong at their respective articles, especially considering that Randall Flagg is only a part of these works, not entirely representative of it. I think that the issue with the article, at least in terms of using primary sources, is that it embellishes them. Primary sources are second-tier and should only be included to support the context of secondary sources, not to be a force of its own. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Context of a FA

A FA needs its context to be described either in a number of articles or in external sources. Fallacy of quoting out of context describes only literal quoting but the same danger exists for any text -Wikipedia article. Any reader has his/her backgound so he/she understands the article in the context of his/her culture. Example: Authoritarian countries frequently have democratic institutions like constitution, elections, media, but the institutions work worse than in democratic countries, but also better than in totalitarian ones. So an article about elections in country X should inform about the freedom of the elections, not only that 99% supported John Doe on September 22. Xx236 (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikifying a rare word?

What level of wikifying is expected of a featured article. If an article contains a word that is very rare would you expect the article to wikify the word so the reader could understand what it means? If further more the rare word had no article on wikipedia to explain it, what should happen? Should it be redlinked, left without being wikified or something else? SunCreator (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINKing (this question would get more response at one of those talk pages, it isn't related to the featured article criteria, rather applies to all articles). Generally, if a word needs to be defined, redlinking it won't be enough. You need to either define the word in the article, or create the stub, but this is a question you should ask elsewhere for a better variety of responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

It doesn't seem to say that the lead actually has to meet the lead section guidelines! Richard001 (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is even part of the GA criteria I've modified it to make the requirement explicit. Richard001 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is part of the manual of style; that is covered in crit. 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Searched for 'manual of style' and 'mos', but it in the sentence just above... Richard001 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a fundamental change in the Featured List process

Consensus is being tested concerning a proposal to establish a directorate (possibly two of the regular reviewers) as part of a program to improve the FLC process. Input is welcome. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Should_we_have_a_FL_director.3F Tony (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul of FL criteria

I've re-started the process here. The input of reviewers and nominators from this page would be valued. Tony (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

1b vs 1c

<moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#1b vs 1c> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)