Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive22

message: Per above, we were talking about the use of the small template. This is a bad solution to the problem of too many templates on talk pages. A much better solution would be to generalize the above - that is, combine similiar-purpose templates into one multi-purpose template. For example, consider talk pages for articles with 10 different Wikiproject tags - which in themselves necessitates the addition of even more templates and parameters, like small and skipt-to-toc templates). Rather than that, you could have one template that does the same thing in a much more compact manner. Raul654 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really scale.  Sure, if you have ten WikiProject tags that are nothing more than neatly-formatted links to the relevant projects, you could combine them into a single template; but many (most?) tags used by the larger and more active projects are already consolidated versions of dozens of independent tags (collaborations, smaller sub-projects, portals, etc.).  You get to a point where trying to combine tags further results in a maintenance nightmare with hundreds of independent (and independently named!) parameters, convoluted conditional logic to deal with all the various special cases—joint tags are often the result of careful negotiation between different WikiProjects—and so forth.  Granted, there could be more coalescing done; but a truly generalized tag is pretty much impossible without losing a lot of functionality that's built into the current tags (the loss of which will not sit well with the projects involved, for obvious reasons). Kirill Lokshin 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most complicated FA-related pages I've seen have 4 FA/PR templates. Is that really a big deal? I somewhat like the idea of a failedFAC template which provided a link for the next future FAC submission page. However, this connects to another problem I noticed another problem recently. There are currently 28 FACs listed, yet :Category:Wikipedia_featured_article_candidates contains 60 pages. Some of the extra 32 are just example uses, but some have FAC pages never added to WP:FAC: Talk:Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia. Others seem to be just added to the talk page without a FAC discussion ever created: Talk:Judy Garland and even a dab page, Talk:Eight_ball (disambiguation)! Maybe the bot needs to check pages in the category, and then either add them to WP:FAC if the subpage exists, or remove the fac template if it doesn't. Gimmetrow 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you count failed (as well as successful) FAC and FAR noms, I'm sure there must be some articles that have had upwards of 6 or 7 nominations, not counting peer reviews. A combined template giving the chronology in these cases is of the utmost importance. Raul654 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *A few examples: All That has had 4 unsuccessful FACs, Charizard has had 5, Megatokyo has had 4 (the last successful), Singapore has had 5, We Belong Together has had 6. Then you've got the cases where an article was Brilliant Prose, demoted, promoted to FA, redemoted, e.g. Glass or Simon and Garfunkel. Dr pda 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Gimmetrow, I just looked at a couple of those, and I think we should process the exisiting ones manually.  Some of them are older facfailed that didn't get tagged; some were never submitted.  Should I start through them manually?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going through those - many of them are either talk page archives of old fac templates, or repeated fac templates which were placed in a talk page section, rather than at the top of the talk page, so didn't get facfailed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Processed through them:  three things for potential bot consideration.  1) fac tags on top of talk page, as well as within a talk page section, the duplicate lower on the talk page didn't get failed or promoted; 2) fac tags in talk page archives; and 3) facs that were added to talk pages, but empty, never submitted.  There are 3 that have content that were not submitted - don't know what to do with them.  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis de Gaston, Chevalier de Levis, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Global Positioning System/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia.  Wish an admin could delete them?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  A bot could remove extra mentions of  on an article talk page after promotion or non-promotion. I would consider that part of the talk page maintenance. I haven't started writing any talk-page related code, and won't until the talk page template issues are resolved. Gimmetrow 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The extras that ended up in talk archives were because nominators put them in talk page sections rather than at the top, so catching those extras will probably prevent them from being archives.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Generalizing this

message: Here we are again, on the problem we've discussed above, and I don't have time today to fix it - can someone look at the mess on the archiving of former FACs on the New York City nom, and get it straightened out in archives and on the talk page templates?  We need a better method. We should have at least an Archive 1, Archive 2, and the current nom pointing at them.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to take care of it. — Tutmosis 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much :-)  You can delete my small comment if you want when done, so it doesn't impede the FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay for the most part everything has been fixed except some redirects. The only problem I have is I found that the current FAC page is linked from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2004, but checking Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York City shows no archives in 2004, checking the move log for the article show no different article name in 2004, and no mention of this nomination at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2004. I'm confused... — Tutmosis 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, checking your contribs, I see that took you almost 25 minutes to untangle - what a mess this system is !!!  Thanks so much for doing that - I knew it was a bad one.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, I just hope the above problem can be figured out. — Tutmosis 17:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Great, I figured it out [sigh]. The 2006 april nomination was put over the 2004 nomination which is now lost in it's history . I wonder if it's possible to split a history of a page into 2 articles... — Tutmosis 17:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it before with cut and paste, which isn't optimal, but if you leave a good edit summary ???  I'm not aware if admins have better tools for dealing with this?  This happens too often:  there's a problem with our procedure and instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's possible to split a page history into two pages - in fact, there's two ways to do it. You deleted the article, restore some revisions, move the article, delete the redirect, and then restore all remaining deleted versions. Viola - two articles. The other way to do it uses a new mediawiki feature that allows duplication of an article (including the history), but I'm not really sure how that works. Raul654 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pass the Excedrin, please.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After a lot of copying and pasting and such I think I have fixed everything. Turns out there are 5 previous nomination. I just now read what Raul wrote, would you have preferred it done that way or you fine with what I just did? I didn't want to step on anyone's toes... sorry if I did. — Tutmosis 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it (took me 5 deletions/restorations). AZ t 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This took a few hands to sort out. Gimmetrow 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone who knows the new template fix the ones at Talk:New York City? Their are about 6 on the page and it looks very unorginized. The Placebo Effect 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. If anyone wants to double check for mistakes, that would be nice. — Tutmosis 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good, thank you. The Placebo Effect 02:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Um, which new tool? (I'll test out on my copy of MediaWiki and see how it goes) Titoxd(?!?) 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page archived versions

message: Greetings. I'd like to know if an article that is currently under peer-review and GA evaluation is disallowed for FA candidacy. I've already been told that peer-review does not affect GA nomination, but can the latter stop an article to be a FAC? Thank you. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions at WP:PR specifically say that articles listed at both placed will be delisted from there.  Further, listing at all three places is bad form as it places a burden on editors (many who help with reviews pitch in at two or more places); a more common procedure would be to apply first for GA (they pass just about everything), then get a peer review - staying there long enough to get good feedback, which can be up to a month - and then approach FAC.  A common mistake is going straight from GAC to FAC; GA does not an FA make, so get a thorough peer review and Project feedback in between.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the wisest choice, which I'll follow. Thank you for clearing this. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if you want good feedback from the peer review I'd suggest asking a few people directly if they wouldn't mind responding. It is very backlogged, and some requests may not receive a response. Trebor 19:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are right. I didn't want to bother anyone who may already be busy, but if it helps... Thank you, also. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also check whether the article may fall under the umbrella of any WikiProjects. It's often a good idea to drop a mention on the project's talk page that you'd appreciate someone from the project to review the article. Some projects even have their own peer review areas that are transcluded to the main peer review (see, for example, the newly instituted Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review). — BrianSmithson 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article is within a WikiProject's scope and I asked other members to review it. Thanks. That PR within the project, however, is quite interesting. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC and PR: obstacles to FAC? 

message: This article was failed two days ago, and it's back already - do we have a policy?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. This one is back without implementing many of the changes suggested in the last one, so it seems pointless for everyone to go back and say the same thing (not that that stopped me). You could ask Raul I guess, since he's the one in charge of starting and ending noms. Trebor 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to separately ask him - he follows this talk page.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are actually two days away from dealing with all the problems, it is probably better to ask Raul not to delist it in the first place. But in general I don't see a big problem with quickly relisting; if people do it disruptively (i.e. without addressing the problems in the previous FAC) then that behavioral issue can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The re-nom before the old nom had been archived messed up GimmeBot, so I'll let Gimmetrow know.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tenacious D]]

message: Could somone split Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender at the location when Raul restarted it(it's marked in the beggining)? Could it please be moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender/archive2 The Placebo Effect 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split please 

message: Can someone pls remove the coloring from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military; this really doesn't seem to be a favorable trend on FACs. I hope Raul can read a FAC without color coding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove coloring

message: Your thoughts would be most welcome on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing.  Worldtraveller 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Wikipedia producing high quality content at an acceptable rate?

message: What about creating an informal league of editors (somewhat like the League of Copyeditors) to take care of all the little stuff that otherwise derails good articles at FAC? Those thinking about submitting an article to FAC could, if they wished, list it at the league's page to ask for help in putting the finishing touches and final checks on an article. Editors that are "experts" in certain areas (referencing, MOS formatting, fair use guidelines, prose, etc.) could then help whip it into shape. This would (hopefully) pave the way for a smooth FAC. It would also help get rid of the "adversarial" label that is attached (rightly or wrongly) to reviewers at FAC, since I would imagine it would be regular reviewers who would be involved in this league and help prepare articles for FAC. What do you all think? Gzkn 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My first instinct is that, if it's going to be populated by mostly the same people (which is almost certain), it would be redundant to separate these functions from normal FAC reviewing, and would just mean those people have to post things in two places. 'FAC pre-review' would really just be FAC part I, wouldn't it? I also fear that such a program would encourage rigid adherence to the manual of style as written (which is usually well behind practice). On the other hand, if someone feels compelled to fix dashes and spaces, I have no problem with giving them an avenue in which to do so. Opabinia regalis 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like less places to check, not more. A list of articles needing  ing would be nice in the short term, but I don't know how it would fare in the long run; it will likely be abandoned fairly soon. That said, it would be nice if there were more editors approach FAC, both from within wiki, and from outside... that may allow this idea to grow. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points. On further thought, perhaps WP:PR just needs more attention and more reviewers. Gzkn 06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this sounds like a good idea. The more reviews an article undergoes and the more drafts it goes through, the better it gets (everyone who writes papers or takes composition 101 should know that). I just wonder if there are people willing to dedicate their time to reviewing articles for MOS problems. Awadewit 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: League of FAC...preparers?

message: Is there a limit between submissions of candidates? In other words, would it be wrong to request an article that was recently rejected? PlatformerMastah 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much time as it takes to improve the article. WikiNew 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's considered bad form to resubmit if you've not addressed objections raised in the previous FAC nomination. CloudNine 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time between submissions 

message: For anyone involved in article assessment, I've developed a little javascript tool that will display an article's assessed rating on the article page itself. It does so by prepending the rating to the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"—so it becomes, for example, "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." It changes the color of the article title to roughly match the color scheme of the grades, as a visual cue. Finally, if an article is a current GAC or FAC, it states this, with a link to the FAC page.
To try it, you would add the following text to your User:YourUserName/monobook.js file:
 
 // Script from User:Outriggr/metadata.js
 document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Outriggr/metadata.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></s'+'cript>');
 
Purposes: 
* increase visibility of article ratings; users can more easily determine that an article's rating is no longer accurate, for example.
* gives the user an overall sense of how many articles are rated, and need rating.
* sets a user's expectation for the article's quality.
I welcome any feedback or ideas. (It's called "metadata.js" for when/if it is expanded to capture other  article metadata.) Thanks, –Outriggr § 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Thanks very much for the tool. Currently, my only suggestion is to support spaces between "class" and "stub/start" etc. (i.e. just an extra statement per article class), as it marks assessed articles, such as Joey Santiago, as unassessed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CloudNine (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. This will be addressed in the next "release". (I intended to use regexes for that purpose but at the time javascript was not being cooperative. My test version is already doing it properly, but I'm gonna be offline for a few days.) –Outriggr § 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to invite users to help test my recent update to this script: you can select a Wikiproject template and an assessment on the article page, and the talk page will be updated accordingly, in preview mode. Details at User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js. –Outriggr § 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a small error in the script. When I went to the Wikipedia page,it said it was unassesed even though the ARticle History template lists it as a good article.The Placebo Effect 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. –Outriggr § 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   tool for displaying an article's assessment on the article page  

message: A number of articles have ndashes in the title, eg the recently-renamed Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941). There are others, but the recent rename got me looking around, and I found this and this discussion, where the point seems to be that anything other than regular hyphens has some accessibility issues. In fact, the ndash causes problems for the FA bot on one of the platforms it runs on. Can we have a clear policy on this, at least for FAs? Gimmetrow 04:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with ndash in the title 

message: If you are interested in music Wikipedia articles, could you please take a look at this Featured Article candidate and comment? ---> Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Ilaiyaraaja. Your effort would be greatly appreciated. With regards, AppleJuggler 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could more music-minded reviewers or editors check out this FAC of a '''musician'''?