Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive10

message: I am trying to help an anonymous user nominate this article. Something does not seem right, though. Please help out.--Wiglaf 09:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just changed the heading level - I think that's what you were thinking of.  violet/riga (t) 10:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. Thanks! :)--Wiglaf 10:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Beowulf]] 

message: I still feel there needs to be some mechanism to recognise excellent articles that aren't/can't be featured, since certain articles are apparently beyond consideration for FA status.  Exploding Boy 17:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm curious - what do you mean by articles that can't be featured - without intending to provoke (yet another) argument, it's been pretty much decided that any VFD-survivable article can be featured, even if it shouldn't go on the main page. →Raul654 17:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
::I took it to mean articles that don't necessarily meet all of the criteria for becoming an FA, like missing references or images.  But, I don't know of any reason why an article with brilliant prose couldn't be made into an FA eventually.  I see the recognition as someone coming along to add the missing requirements and getting the article featured.  slambo 18:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
:::m:Instruction creep.  Let's not make this too complicated, eh? smoddy 18:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brilliant Prose revisited

message: In looking through WP:FA, I noticed Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) in the list as one I hadn't seen there before.  I don't remember seeing this one go through the nomination process and I don't see anything in the Featured Log for it.  When was this article promoted? slambo 13:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
The article talk page says they hope to work it up to featured status, mabye someone over enthuastic added it to the list.--nixie 13:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was [[Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)]] promoted? 

message: Can I confirm User:cognition's objection to the GaussFAC will be ignored like User:Slimvirgin said? Thanks Borisblue 2 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
:Slimvirgin is stalking me on pages that have nothing to do with LaRouche, like the Gauss article, because of my political views. This is pure McCarthyism. Cognition 2 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
:Cognition mentions specific things that he wants the article to discuss - are these things LaRouchian (is that even a word) in origin? (A citation would be appreciated) If so, then yes, by the terms of the arbitration committee rulings we can (and are oblidged to) ignore this objection. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 18:59 (UTC)
::You could just say that anyone's objection is "LaRouchian in origin" and the ignore it. You have no evidence that my objection has anything to do with LaRouche, because it doesn't. Just because I happen to admire LaRouche does not mean that I, like any ohter user, cannot edit other topics. Cognition 2 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
:::If you can produce reputable sources who are not directly or indirectly connected to the LaRouche movement, which describe the influences of Kepler, Leibniz, and da Vinci on Gauss; and Gauss's influence on Riemann, specifically the latter's 1852 "habilitation dissertation" (whatever that is), people will be happy to entertain your objection, and indeed, I'm sure the authors would be pleased to include the material, so long as it was relevant and properly cited. But the onus is on you to show that you're making a relevant objection that's actionable within our policies and the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 19:10 (UTC)
::::No way. None of the other users are required to cite sources for their objections to be heard. I must not be treated any differently, regardless of your attempts to have me blacklisted. Cognition 2 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
:::::Cognition - I'm in no mood to play these legalistic games. Other people think that your objections are to the Gauss article are LaRouchian in nature, and that's good enough for me. Either cite a (non-LaRouchian) source that makes these connections or I'm saying the objection is moot. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:42 (UTC)
::::::The main author was taking me seriously until Slimvirgin showed up and said that I am to be ignored and blacklisted. No one has any evidence that my objections are "LaRouchian in nature" other than the fact that I have made them. Sorry, the onus is on them to provide the evidence. I am entitled to be treated like any other user. Cognition 2 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
You're being treated exactly like any other user. Your objection sounds fishy to a number of editors, so you're being asked to substantiate it. Do that, or go find something else more productive to do. - Taxman Talk July 2, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
:Yeah, my objection sounds fishy to editors who probably haven't even heard of Gauss. Cognition 2 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
::Try getting some evidence.  If there is evidence, it can be included.  If there isn't evidence, it cannot.  As simple as that.  smoddy 2 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)
:::I was the one that challenged you, I've heard of Gauss plenty. And experienced wikipedians can smell the fishiness factors of this new account without doing any math: aggressive editing, rebarbative edit summaries, remarkable familiarity with wiki practices and jargon. Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)
:So you're saying that those thinkers whom I had mentioned had no influence on Gauss? Cognition 2 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
::If you think they did, please provide sources.  Otherwise you look like a POV-pushing troll. smoddy 2 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)
:::All scientists influence each other; I'm saying that Kepler and Da Vinci didn't have influence notable enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia article. Most biographies of Gauss (the references I used for example) don't even mention their names. Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
If you people are too lazy to do your own homework, I will do it for you.  Cognition 2 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
*Umm, that's a dead link. The thing is, Raul, I did entertain his request, as I stated in the FAC page, Gauss+ Riemann's habilitation dissertation gets only a few hits, all from Larouche sources and all making only cursory mention of gauss. A googled discussion of Kepler and Da Vinci's influence on Gauss also lists very few sources, and even if I were to include LaRouche sources the information I would add would be very sparse. I've gone through my biographies again as well as googling, and I am certain I will not be able to add the information Cognition asks for without breaking the original research guideline. If cognition will provide a source I will do my best to comply to his request at the best of my ability.Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
**I think Bish and Borisblue have made a strong point. I consider the objection moot. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:57 (UTC)
***Don't mean to rush, but I've handled the last few (minor) problems 10 days ago, and the voting currently stands at 7-0. How long before it gets featured? Borisblue 15:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Tannin did visit the article's talk page, and made a few changes himself, which fixed a few more details he found ambigous. Borisblue 03:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gauss

message: Please take a look --MarSch 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit]] 

message: I was reviewing the nomination of Zambezi when I noticed that the article has a ((1911)) tag.  I asked the nominator and main author, Worldtraveller, about this, and he replied that "I'd probably say it's still similar enough to require attribution rather than be listed just as a reference."  Given that meaningful portions of the 1911 EB content have been preserved, what do we as a community think of featuring this article as "exemplify[ing] Wikipedia's very best work?"  I for one am uncomfortable with the idea of presenting public-domain materials as examples of our best work.  That said, I'm also uncomfortable using that reason to not support articles such as this one, which has clearly grown from the public-domain material in question into something better.  Thoughts? - Bantman 21:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I think you've come up with two very good points, and I can't tell which one is better, either.  Dave (talk) 21:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I think you have a valid point there - I'm hesitant to promote featured articles which are copied (mostly/entirely) from somewhere else. →Raul654 22:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
If you read the original 1911 article you'll see that Worldtravellers text is significantly different, alot of the material in our article isn't covered at all the the EB one, and I actually couldn't find any sections where they were word for word cut and pasted text. In this case I can't identify a meaningful portion of EB material. I think if we pass over article that have their origin in 1911 or some other public domain text we're probably doing the editors that have whipped it into shape a disservice.--nixie 22:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this issue should probably be handled on a case-by case basis, and I trust Nixie's judgement.  I wouldn't object to this article, her analysis of the article. Dave (talk) 23:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think it might be useful if I just try to clarify my thoughts on this a bit more.  I started by copying 1911 content wholesale into the article, and have since probably re-worded pretty much every sentence (and cut it down by about half - my word, they were verbose back then!).  So, I would think only a very small part of the text would now exactly correspond to the 1911 text.  But, I think it wouldn't be right to merely list it as a reference, as the article is still very much based on the 1911 text, even if it's now very different to it.  The whole 'course' section is a derivative work rather than a new piece based on references, so I felt it more appropriate to leave the 1911 tag there, to properly credit what I derived much of the article from. Worldtraveller 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Nerts! I was too slow to get my vote in. I'll say my piece here instead, and incidentally I think this illuminating discussion should be moved to or linked from Talk:Zambezi when it's time to archive this page. I agree that we must evaluate such issues on a case-by-case basis. Bantman makes good points, but there's one aspect that hasn't been mentioned: the decisions World had to make about the 1911 content, i. e. his analysis of which bits remain reliable and which have been superseded. He didn't just rewrite some bits of the 1911 article to fit the modern perception of encyclopedic prose style, he also took responsibility for picking the bits, i. e. for researching which parts of 1911 have been invalidated by later observation, map-making, uh...  measurements, and what have you... and which haven't. Doing that reliably seems to me to be an example of Wikipedia's best work. At the same time, it would be good if he accounted for his selection principles and conclusions, say in a note at the top of the article's talk page (with a request for archivers to leave it there), so readers can evaluate them. The "cribbed from the 1911 EB" template should stay on the page, but it's not in itself enough information about the relationship between the new article and the old. Anyway, I would have supported! Bishonen | talk 12:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1911 EB content 

message: Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page.  Thanks.--Pharos 04:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates]] 

message: Based on the fact that there are some pretty fine collections of articles that might be worth highlighting, I have created Wikipedia:Featured topics.  Please take a look at the idea and make some comments on the talk page.  14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured topics