Template talk:FAR-instructions

message: (partially adressed to Sandy, because we're here in real time - but open to all of course!) - how do you feel about the removal of the acronyms - I don't think they're useful, and add to the 'jargon' flavour somewhat. It also doesn't help that FARC is almost a homophone for something else....! Purples 03:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict, lost my reponse, starting over) that was done recently and someone changed them back.  I don't remember who changed them back or why, so not sure what to do there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's see what others think ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: okey doke.... Purples 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronyms..... 

message: I hate to say it, but we need to add back "If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1" because of what happened at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Can we drop the paragraph "Reviews are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to featured articles, from updating and light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to the addressing of more complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and neutrality." to keep the length down? DrKiernan 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, I just reinstated that, and then came to the talk page, GMTA?  It was always bugging me when that was dropped. I'm not sure about dropping that other sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: The old wording of the first paragraph on FAR is; 
*Here, issues are raised and proposed improvements discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". When listing, a nominator must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and may propose remedies. The ideal outcome is that the issues are addressed and the review is closed at this stage without a change in status. Nominations should be made with the goal of improvement rather than removal. 
This plainly does not emphasize the instructions not to vote keep or remove for FAR enough; or we would not have to keep on reminding people at individual nominations. There would also be fewer protests that this is mindless bureaucracy if we gave the reason. Similarly, placing an emphasised direction to notify wikiprojects and authors will get it done more often. 
I therefore propose:
*Here, issues are raised and proposed improvements discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". When listing, a nominator must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and may propose remedies; it will often be helpful to mention specific flaws so they can be discussed or fixed. Please notify all WikiProjects to which the article belongs at the same time.
*This process is chiefly useful to the encyclopedia because it improves articles; the ideal outcome would address the issues and close the review at this stage with no change in status. Nominations should be made in order to improve the article, not to demote it. 
This also shortens the remaining  wording, places it in the active voice, and removes such redundancies as the ideal outcome is that. I did think this would be uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This addition
#repeats instructions which are already given in the nomination instructions lower on the page, creating duplicate sections, 
#*As I said above, the current instructions plainly need more emphasis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I notice that you accused me of a personal attack in edit summary because I reverted redundant vague additions.  Tsk.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I could have used other words; but  you have identified no vagueness in the additions and have claimed redundancy where there is none. Close enough to a personal attack for present purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just going to say that I'm reverting because there's been zero consensus developed. It seems to be extra words for the sake of extra words: "...including particular flaws for discussion or emendation." Ugg. Plain English please. If we want "Nominators are strongly encouraged to provide examples", I can live with that. I don't see that we need anything else. Marskell (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do tell me: Do you count the unspeakable intended to facilitate a range of improvements, to which you have four times reverted,  as plain English?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "To facilitate" could go. The only thing that has really bugged me is the use of the present continuous ("the addressing of more complex issues"). I would like present simple. But, as ever, suggest it on talk. This is only an issue because you seem unable to do so. (The cleanup tag? I mean, really.) Marskell (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cleanup tag is interesting considering the large number of editors ("regulars" and "non-regulars" at FAR) that participated in the rewrite of the current instructions only four months ago.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the discussion at the top of this page, it does not appear to address this section at all; if it's somewhere else, please link.Some of the old discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 6, in various sections. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying you added a cleanup tag to an important instruction page over one sentence?  A cleanup tag usually applies to a page with significant issues, more than the wording of one sentence.  I preferred "facilitate" over emendation, btw.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefered fixed, myself, as above; but when Marskell reverted without discussion, I had to guess what he objected to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (Left, ec) No, Sandy; the whole section is in bureaucratese; I just quoted howlers from different sentences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I objected to unneeded additional words and the lack of discussion. "...intended for..." would be fine. Please remove the stupid tag. Marskell (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so; provided you, at the same time, redraft into reasonable English. We can all then tweak further; that's how a wiki is supposed to work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way Wiki is supposed to work is that we work collaboratively to tweak the text, don't edit unilaterally against suggestions of others and consensus, and consider adding tags if discussion fails.  It would be nice if you would propose text first and add tags as a last resort after discussion; the tag is overkill.  Cleanup is usually reserved for messy pages, not wording differences. DrKiernan worked on some of this wording; I'll ask him to have a look.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have suggested changes to templature. You should bring them up on talk. That's how Wiki is supposed to work. And really Pma, it isn't written in Pig Latin at the moment. I will remove, per your comment. Marskell (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No question that it is not as bad as it was. It still says  with the goal of, and other infelicities; I shall tweak, slowly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This change sounds like it's up to FAR reviewers, not nominators, to raise issues; we've seen that in a couple of noms.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "In this step, the aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. Possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status."  DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status." DrKiernan (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We could also discuss again whether we should add "Declarations of "keep" and "remove" may be removed by other editors." DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like both, but probably prefer the second. Not sure we need to remove keep/remove declarations as we may then also remove important statements, but I think we can strike through premature Keep/Removes without need to say so in the instructions.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes