Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence/Extra-Long Article Committee

message: *GABA A receptor - 167kb (50 pgs) - Done: 8kb (2-3 pages) @ 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful projects

message: We’ll that was fun!  The ELAC project is less than ten days old, it started on 12/10/06, and we have already had such a fun bunch of arguments.  Two people have suggested that someone delete this project (which is why I added the new header shown above, i.e. to save the third person the trouble of starting a discussion), we have had three project pages voted out by deletion, and one template deleted.  I sure am glad that I volunteered my time for all this fun.  That last round of derogative attacks, for everyone to note, came from predominately the FA editors, after I posted a suggestive comment on the FA project talk pages about how many featured articles are getting too long, such as this 107kb FA article.  I pulled us out of all articles, for the moment, so that we can have time to recalibrate, and to see if more people join us, and to gather more user data as to which articles people are complaining about the most. --Sadi Carnot 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadi, the community has overwhelmingly spoken about the tone and tactics of this project, and yet you have deleted wording added to the Project page here, and re-added inaccurate statements about Featured articles.  Featured articles aren't longer because they're featured.  *Referenced* articles have higher overall than prose size because they are *cited*.  This project could be very useful in dealing with the truly long articles, if you would listen to the message the community clearly sent abuot the tone and approach here.  The entire article page needs a thorough editing, readjustment, and copyedit for flabby prose as well. Consensus is the way Wiki works:  please don't continue adding text to the Project page which is clearly not supported.  Further, your comment above about "derogative attacks" from FA editors is just wrong - the problems started on a peer review of Psycho the film, which isn't close to being featured, and *many* FA reviewers - myself included   - agree that the article you highlighted is too long.  It's not too long because it has 107KB overall: it's too long because it has over 80KB of prose.  Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved message from Sadi Carnot from my talk page to here: Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, you more than welcome to contribute to the ELAC (or delete the entire project for all I care) but please do not make reverts such that the previous (sourced) contributions I just made get deleted. Changes are fine (as long as they are sourced); otherwise use the talk page to discuss your actions. P.S. I do not want to get into a big argument right now, I'm just doing a little project clean-up and then I will take a break (its the holidays).  I pulled all ELAC involvement out of the three articles we were involved in.  I am just going give the project a break for a while.  Please do not put unsourced suppositions about “text size” only limits in the project page; please only contribute based on the published works of the others, not your own opinion.  Also, please be try to be nice.  --Sadi Carnot 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm doing the nomination right now, and no, it isn't just about the methods stated. I love calling disagreement "derogative attacks". -Amarkov blahedits 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the lovely templates like  and  too. pschemp | talk 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflicet)  I would like to support the goals of this Project, if they would be correctly re-oriented to a Wiki-like approach, focusing on extra-long prose.  It doesn't appear that Sadi Carnot "heard" the message.  I will reluctantly vote to remove the Project if there is no adjustment in goals and tone.  Sandy (Talk) 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles could accomplish the actual possible worthy goals (not the exact same as this) without the weirdness.  seems to be a bad idea carried out in a fit of anger. pschemp | talk 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could, except my issue is partly with the goals. Dividing up long articles is fine, as long as you don't assume they should be divided up over objections of the people who edit the page, and make it your goal to divide all long articles. -Amarkov blahedits 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, and dividing up all long articles is not the goal of the modular articles project. Sorry if I implied that. pschemp | talk 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll look into that project after the holidays, pschemp - it's hard (for me) to work on articles this time of year. Sandy (Talk) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not dead yet. You just tried something that didn't work. So what? Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it had even occured to me that there would be so many stupid conduct standards and goals, I wouldn't have joined. I should have expected that, after seeing you try to recruit admins to block people reverting the committee, but I didn't. -Amarkov blahedits 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have it known Sandy is always helpful - it's the derogatory tone of this project that needs to be curbed. This isn't a war! LuciferMorgan 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update