Brianboulton (talk | contribs) |
Mike Christie (talk | contribs) →RfC regarding quote boxes: new section |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
It seems that it's for the first-time nominators, but as someone not very familiar with FAC (though I do have two FAs under my belt), could I have some help with [[Taylor Swift]]'s article, before I bring it here? Also, it will be IndianBio's first nomination, I presume. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 21:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC) |
It seems that it's for the first-time nominators, but as someone not very familiar with FAC (though I do have two FAs under my belt), could I have some help with [[Taylor Swift]]'s article, before I bring it here? Also, it will be IndianBio's first nomination, I presume. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 21:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
*Certainly you may request help from a mentor. Although primarily intended for first-time nominators, there is no reason why you shouldn't seek similar help from the scheme. [[User:Brianboulton|Brianboulton]] ([[User talk:Brianboulton|talk]]) 22:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC) |
*Certainly you may request help from a mentor. Although primarily intended for first-time nominators, there is no reason why you shouldn't seek similar help from the scheme. [[User:Brianboulton|Brianboulton]] ([[User talk:Brianboulton|talk]]) 22:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
== RfC regarding quote boxes == |
|||
I don't usually post MoS discussions links to this page, but this one might interest some FA writers, and since I only stumbled across it by accident myself I thought it would be worth letting people know about it. There's an ongoing RfC [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC:_What_.28if_anything.29_to_do_about_quotations.2C_and_the_quotation_templates.3F|here]] about quotation templates. Initially this was set up as a general discussion, but it now includes a specific proposal section, [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Permit_Template:Quote_box_for_regular_quotes|here]], to permit quote boxes for regular quotes, which I highlight because it's already a long discussion and I want to make sure people are aware that supports and opposes on at least one point are now being posted. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 12:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:29, 4 September 2016
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
Mission: Impossible – Fallout | Review it now |
Blackrocks Brewery | Review it now |
I'm God | Review it now |
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 (April Fools 2005)
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Image/source check requests
FAC mentoring: first-time nominators
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Draft essay on improving "Critical reception" sections
I've written an essay on how to improve the "critical reception" section of articles, which I feel are often very flawed. The essay grew out of a rewrite I did for The Left Hand of Darkness; the nominator, Vanamonde93, very kindly agreed to let me use his text as the example. Please comment there or here as you wish. I would like this to be improved with the help of others to the point where I could link to the article as a recommendation, when needed. Thanks for any feedback. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Now at User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections, for posterity.) Thanks for the note, I read through it and found it quite interesting. If there's a place to quibble, it's that while I recognize that attributing statements to individual authors ("X's Y said") Can get repetitive, and you definitely don't need to mention every critic, there's a fine line to walk between summarizing a few critics and getting into original research, especially with overarching statements of quality. For video games we can sort of get away with stating that something is well-received or mixed because we can point to a critic aggregator as backing evidence, but that's not often the case with most other forms of media, especially novels. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is a point that a couple of others have made at the essay's talk page, and I agree it's something that needs care and editorial judgement. Practically speaking, if an article arrived at FAC with a crticial reception section that had overly-broad or synthesized introductions to each paragraph, and no other problems, I think that would be a lot easier to fix than some of what we see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to be removed from that list. Does anyone know how that's done? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 18:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- The list is generated from Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2016 etc, so you need to remove your names from those lists. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I know that. I want all of them off. Who do I ask? My first was six years ago. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's maintained by Rick Bot, so ask Rick Block. I think the bot will keep putting your name back if you manually remove it, so Rick might have to program a blacklist of sorts.
- The list is re-generated each day; if you remove your name from the by-year lists, you should disappear from the list next time the bot runs. (You might need to remove yourself from WP:WBFAN as well to make the bot notice the change.) ‑ Iridescent 19:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's maintained by Rick Bot, so ask Rick Block. I think the bot will keep putting your name back if you manually remove it, so Rick might have to program a blacklist of sorts.
- I know that. I want all of them off. Who do I ask? My first was six years ago. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Victoriaearle: It's easily-peasily. I can do it for you, if you wish. Actually, if there are any FAs for which Victoria is the sole contributor then it becomes more complicated. I'll see if the bot's owner (if still active) has any answers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have to admit I find a list of FAs arranged by editor name very useful for determining if a current nomination should be spotchecked for accurate use of sources without close plagiarism or paraphrasing -- this is a check we regularly apply to first-time nominators, and also experienced editors who haven't had a spotcheck for a while. Of course I respect any editor's wish to have their name removed, but I do think the list has practical value, however else it may be thought of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I left a message on User talk:Rick Block#wp:wbfan option to skip usernames. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Lingzhi for leaving a message. It's something I need to give some thought to. Ian Rose makes a good point and I have to mull it all over before I can express myself clearly. As I mentioned above, it's something I've been thinking about for a while (for lots of reasons) and some of the discussions above for some reason made me think of WBFAN and I thought I'd ask if I could be removed. I haven't yet read through everything above, didn't mean to be here at all today, got caught up more than I intended, and will return another time. At least I know it can be done. Victoria (tk) 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I left a message on User talk:Rick Block#wp:wbfan option to skip usernames. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Request for another pair of eyes
If anyone is looking for something to review, I would appreciate another pair of eyes on Ellie (The Last of Us). It has four supports; I posted a tentative oppose on prose, without reading the whole article thoroughly, and the nominator has addressed the points I made. I've looked through again, and it's certainly improved, but I'd like to get someone else to take a look and see if I'm just a bit jaundiced from having thought about bad prose a lot more than usual over the last week. I think the "Reception" section is clunky, and I see a couple of infelicities elsewhere, but I'd like to get someone else's take. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I left a note to the effect that I agree the writing is weak & needs a c/e, but I dunno if I will have time to do the c/e. Several things on my plate... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Request advice about Jane Austen
Requesting the collective wisdom of the FAC community regarding the situation at Jane Austen. The article was brought to FAC and archived this morning. The first issue is this: in this edit most of this text was copied over from Reception history of Jane Austen and possibly Styles and themes of Jane Austen. I would like to do the following:
- Check the article history for other such edits
- Remove all the text copied from the subarticles
- Request that if it's replaced that it be done with proper attributions in edit summaries and on the talk page
- Try to mentor on this article because I have the subject knowledge
The situation is complicated by the fact that since yesterday or the day before, the referencing system has been changed against consensus, which muddies the waters even more in terms of trying to keep text/source integrity in regards to the copied text. I could use advice as to whether this plan is the correct course of action or whether other options would be preferable. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 14:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you were to resume work with the brace of editors who were engaged in the today's FAC, that would be a good thing. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- It would be a good thing. Given the match I'm finding between the text of the biography and the text of Reception history of Jane Austen, I'm ready to start trimming it all back, or preferably would like to roll back to March or February for a clean version. But I don't want everyone to start screaming at me and am wondering whether it's too drastic of a proposal, and whether anyone here has any other solutions. Victoria (tk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- There were requests, by an isp in the first FAC, and me on the article talk page, for treatment of Austen's "themes". Fountains responded by adding loads on the history of Austen criticism, which isn't really what I meant or, I'm fairly sure, the isp did. There is too much on this, and the article still lacks a proper analysis of Austen's treatment of key themes such as the marriage market, money, class, gender, etc. not to mention money from slavery, currently hot. A concise summary of Styles and themes of Jane Austen would be good, especially the latter part. The current "themes" section should be trimmed & merged into "reception" which it mostly duplicates or overlaps. I'm afraid I only send a drone over the battlefield at rare intervals now. It's not yet ready for FAC for sure. Lots more reading and writing needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Wadewitz and I bounced ideas about structure (well, she suggested, I followed) when I worked up Hemingway. Writing these sections are really hard in summary style but I've had some practice and know what needs to be done. The first stop is to gather the sources and start reading. Huge thanks for your input. Victoria (tk) 14:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- There were requests, by an isp in the first FAC, and me on the article talk page, for treatment of Austen's "themes". Fountains responded by adding loads on the history of Austen criticism, which isn't really what I meant or, I'm fairly sure, the isp did. There is too much on this, and the article still lacks a proper analysis of Austen's treatment of key themes such as the marriage market, money, class, gender, etc. not to mention money from slavery, currently hot. A concise summary of Styles and themes of Jane Austen would be good, especially the latter part. The current "themes" section should be trimmed & merged into "reception" which it mostly duplicates or overlaps. I'm afraid I only send a drone over the battlefield at rare intervals now. It's not yet ready for FAC for sure. Lots more reading and writing needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- It would be a good thing. Given the match I'm finding between the text of the biography and the text of Reception history of Jane Austen, I'm ready to start trimming it all back, or preferably would like to roll back to March or February for a clean version. But I don't want everyone to start screaming at me and am wondering whether it's too drastic of a proposal, and whether anyone here has any other solutions. Victoria (tk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you were to resume work with the brace of editors who were engaged in the today's FAC, that would be a good thing. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Quick Question about FAC Consensus
Hello, I was wondering how many votes it takes to reach a consensus for a FAC. I apologize if this is obvious, as I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (especially the FAC process), but I would appreciate an answer so I can better gauge my current FAC and better prepare future articles. I believe that my current FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1, has reached a consensus to promote, but I am not certain and would appreciate feedback. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Aoba, we try not to think in terms of "votes" at FAC -- the coordinators seek to determine consensus from reviewers vetting an article against the FAC criteria, and the nominator working constructively with the reviewers to resolve any issues. That said, the convention is that when a reviewer is satisfied that the FAC criteria are met, they will clearly indicate their position on the question of promotion with a bold "support". Historically, a minimum of three supports based on a comprehensive vetting of the article -- plus dedicated checks for image licensing, source reliability/formatting, and accurate use of sources via spotchecks if needed (for instance for first-time nominators) -- has been required for promotion. The number is elastic though, partly because there are many variables -- if ten people review an article but only three explicitly support (and especially if one or more oppose) then we could say that consensus is still to be achieved; if a support is very brief and doesn't necessarily seem to be based on a good understanding of the FAC criteria then it probably won't count; if there are three or more supports but we're only a week or two into the review then we'd probably want to allow more time for other reviewers to comment; if there are three or four supports but the topic is controversial then we may want to see more commentary; and so on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: Thank you for your response. I apologize for the really stupid question, but I greatly appreciate that you took the time to explain everything to me. My question was mainly to check on the status of my current FAC. Hope you have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
citevar, templates, apa mla etc proposal
- For those interested, see Help talk:Citation Style 1#Wadewitz memorial proposal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
FA that gets moved subsequently
What should be done with the FAC page for an article that gets moved subsequent to the FA promotion, and where its previous name is now occupied by something else? I'm thinking of Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station, which will be TFA in early September; its FA was conducted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wotton railway station/archive1 during 2010, but the article was renamed in 2015, and the redirect so created, Wotton railway station, is now a dab page.
- Should Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wotton railway station/archive1 be moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station/archive1?
- Regardless of the answer to the previous question, should the FAC be edited so that the links within it point to the article and not the dab page?
--Redrose64 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Rick Block, do you know the answer here? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- IMO, the FAC should remain as it is (pointing to the dab page), but the link from WP:FA should be updated. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Manual review count question
Since we don't know if we're going to get an automated FACstats tool (it's been requested, but that doesn't mean we'll get it soon, or at all), I'm considering maintaining some stats manually. Would anybody here object if I kept a table of how many reviews and nominations people did? It would live in my user space and look something like this:
User | Nominations | Reviews | Image reviews | Source reviews |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mike Christie | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Brianboulton | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
Nikkimaria | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
If I get the energy the names or numbers would link to the reviews that counted towards the number. I don't want to do this if people feel it's actually a bad thing to do. If I don't hear objections I'll probably work on it some this week. I would include only FACs nominated in August of this year or later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Mentoring note
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- This should be duplicated on the FAC page, and perhaps on the Wait! notice that pops up when you try to edit that page. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ling - this note doesn't need duplicating on the FAC page, as there is a link there, within the general instructions, to the mentoring page. The note on this page is intended as a permanent feature, to be seen widely, not buried in the middle where it may get overlooked or archived. I'm returning it, (minus this commentary) to the top. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I left a note this morning at WT:GAN as well. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ling - this note doesn't need duplicating on the FAC page, as there is a link there, within the general instructions, to the mentoring page. The note on this page is intended as a permanent feature, to be seen widely, not buried in the middle where it may get overlooked or archived. I'm returning it, (minus this commentary) to the top. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Some review numbers
It turned out to be a bit easier than I thought to gather review numbers, though to make it easy I had to do it via the FAC logs (here and here), which means the grouping is by month in which the FAC ended, rather than by month of nomination. The data is at User:Mike Christie/FACstats (which summarizes an offline spreadsheet which was too complicated to upload). I've removed some editors' names, though I can re-add them if they want me to: Ian Rose and Laser brain, since their FAC duties prevent them from reviewing, and Brianboulton, who has responsibilities at TFA that limit his time. I haven't looked around for the other editors with coordination jobs but can remove them too; I just took out the names I knew off the top of my head. I have also removed my own name since I propose to give out barnstars based on this data and I don't want to compete for an award that I judge.
With that said, here are the lead reviewers for the month of August, perhaps to be updated if any more are archived or promoted before tomorrow night.
Reviews
- 7 reviews: Dank.
- 4 reviews: Tim riley, Cas liber.
- 3 reviews: Sarastro1, Moisejp, Aoba47, starship.paint, Checkingfax, Lingzhi.
12 reviewers did 2 reviews; 53 reviewers did a single review.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
- 12 reviews: Nikkimaria.
- 4 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus.
- 3 reviews: Cas liber.
- 2 reviews: Imzadi1979, Moisejp, FunkMonk, Hchc2009.
There are several reasons not to take this too seriously. The main reason is that I'm counting a one-sentence Support from a first-time reviewer as the same as a five-page review from one of our most experienced reviewers; the work involved is not remotely comparable. I don't want people to feel berated because they're not on top of this list. I do want people who are high on this list to feel like the community is grateful for their work. Unless there are objections, once August is over I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list, along with the thanks of the whole FAC community. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
We are losing content editors
Within the past 48 hours three of our most prolific featured writers – User: Tim riley, User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto, with around 70 FAs between them, have either left Wikipedia or have signalled their imminent intent to do so. They were also regular FAC reviewers, apart from their involvement in other aspects of the encyclopaedia. Their departure is a huge blow to the FAC process.
The immediate cause of their departure appears to be frustration and despair at the machinations within the ongoing infobox dicussions on the Noel Coward talkpage, but there's more to it than that. These three, and their articles in the music and performing arts fields, have been regularly targeted over the years by editors, not always the same ones, pushing a pro-infobox agenda against their individual and collective conviction that such boxes are not always necessary or advantageous – a position upheld many times in the FAC process. It is worth noting that there are many featured articles in fields other than music/p.a., that do not bear infoboxes and which never receive any attention from the infobox lobby – they always turn to the work of these three or their co-writers such as myself.
As if enough wasn't enough, the "curators" of the encyclopaedia have opened up a new line of attack, this time against editors' liberal interpretation of MoS with regard to quote boxes. This usage is, again, widespread and features in many FAs. But guess where the curators have focussed their attentions? Here it is: make what you will of it. More walkouts may be confidently predicted, if this is the atmosphere in which content editors are required to work. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- For me, although the Coward thread (and its flawed and biased early RfC close) and the ongoing silliness over IBs is deeply depressing and eroding of enjoyment, it's having to deal with the wall-of-text MoS fetishists, so desperate to prove themselves capable of something that is utterly divisive and ridiculous. There are people so intent on controlling the MoS to their own narrow POV (normally driven from an American style guide) that were the ultimate killers of any enthusiasm I had for the project. A couple of very small groups—one IB related, one MoS related—are targeting the work of a very small number. It's odd that with over 5.2 million articles on Wiki, most of which are in dire need of bringing up to a basic standard, these two groups manage to go feral on the FAs (that is, the articles that have been through two community review processes, are written to high standards, and use professional levels of English in their production. I am not sure if, for example, the MoS merchants understand the difference between their own levels of use and formal English, or whether they just don't care and want to ensure a bland level of 'passable but not excellent' across all articles but, for me, the targeting by these groups is too much to continue. – Gavin (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there's one thing I will never understand, and never did, it's that the infobox sparks such rancor. Wikipedia or anywhere else on the internet, as a reader I find an infobox contains enough to tell me if I want to continue reading, if this is what I was looking for. Back when I was improving the Audie Murphy main article, an editor tried to convince me not to use an infobox because they personally did not like infoboxes. Not because it had anything to do with policy. That editor was just adamantly opposed to an infobox on all military articles. And I don't want to argue the point here, because everybody has their own style. What I don't understand is why this particular bone of contention has become so poisoned that it drives away some of Wikipedia's best, perhaps on both sides of the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maile66 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- What both groups have in common is a lack of interest in expanding content by writing text and, one strongly suspects, a lack of interest in reading articles, so that they don't realize how poor the average WP article actually is. There's no question that these attitudes are held by a much larger proportion of the editing base than was the case in the 2000s. It's a big problem & I don't know what can be done about it. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wikibreaks are often the right call. If two of these editors feel the need for a wikibreak, and especially if they're convinced (and they sure say so) that their not-in-my-club editorial peers are just "drive-by" "non-readers" and "idiots" "destroying" "their" "beautiful articles" [all direct quotes from these threads], they surely need to take a break; both they and the encyclopedia will be better off. I've done it myself several times, and it was refreshing.
(I have no idea what Tim Riley's situation is, only the SchroCat–Cassianto one.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Diffs and personal views redacted, in the interests of peace. 16:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)- And this attitude, complete with half-truths, non-truths and fantasy, particularly from this particular editor, sums up the reason for my resination from the project. Perhaps mcandlish, you could focus your attention on a bigger picture (any picture, really), rather than continually try to smear editors who happen to have differing opinions to yours? I'll also add that if you could avoid making personal comments on the mental health of other editors: "See our nice article Psychological projection; the matches that started this little fire are in your own hand." This sort of disgusting comment is well beyond WP:CIVIL. – Gavin (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Providing diffs and direct quotations is not "smearing". Observing that you were blaming others for your own actions isn't a comment on mental health, just an observation of action and result. What's the fantasy I should retract? You're welcome to scapegoat me here to score a point, but you already said this dispute has little to do with your decision [1], and I've maintained in here twice that it would be preferable for you to take a break than quit. I don't want anyone to quit. I had no dispute with you at all until 26 June when, all in one post, you referred to me as "obnoxious" "twattish", a "bloody MoS nutter", etc., etc., all because I said that decorative quotation boxes should be replaced with {{Quote}} per MOS:BQ, in an FAC, and dared to ask Cassianto to stop making uncivil comments on my talk page. The whole things seems silly to me, and I hope you come back after it seems that way to you, too. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I really do have no wish to continue any 'discussion' with you. Your assertions are meaningless, your advice pointless and your comments disruptive. I will step away now as I feel this thread could be constructive without me having to point out your many untruths and slurs. – Gavin (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since you won't specify what the alleged untruths and slurs are, I just self-redacted a bunch of stuff as a guess. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I really do have no wish to continue any 'discussion' with you. Your assertions are meaningless, your advice pointless and your comments disruptive. I will step away now as I feel this thread could be constructive without me having to point out your many untruths and slurs. – Gavin (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Providing diffs and direct quotations is not "smearing". Observing that you were blaming others for your own actions isn't a comment on mental health, just an observation of action and result. What's the fantasy I should retract? You're welcome to scapegoat me here to score a point, but you already said this dispute has little to do with your decision [1], and I've maintained in here twice that it would be preferable for you to take a break than quit. I don't want anyone to quit. I had no dispute with you at all until 26 June when, all in one post, you referred to me as "obnoxious" "twattish", a "bloody MoS nutter", etc., etc., all because I said that decorative quotation boxes should be replaced with {{Quote}} per MOS:BQ, in an FAC, and dared to ask Cassianto to stop making uncivil comments on my talk page. The whole things seems silly to me, and I hope you come back after it seems that way to you, too. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- And this attitude, complete with half-truths, non-truths and fantasy, particularly from this particular editor, sums up the reason for my resination from the project. Perhaps mcandlish, you could focus your attention on a bigger picture (any picture, really), rather than continually try to smear editors who happen to have differing opinions to yours? I'll also add that if you could avoid making personal comments on the mental health of other editors: "See our nice article Psychological projection; the matches that started this little fire are in your own hand." This sort of disgusting comment is well beyond WP:CIVIL. – Gavin (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Replying to McCandlish: There is an honest division of view about the universal use of infoboxes in Wikipedia, recognised in the guideline that leaves them and their content to editorial consensus. This guideline has proved unworkable, since consensuses are changeable and manipulable, so nobody feels inclined to accept them. Thus, this guideline is the root cause of many of the infobox disputes and ought to be modified, not to give one side or the other "victory" but to make it work better. Another thorny issue is that of box content; MoS defines them as summarizing key features of the subject, but some editors use them to record non-essential trivia, another casus belli. I opined on this particular issue here, some years ago, and it's surprising how much of that reasoning still holds good. Still, that's all background stuff; here, you depict SchroCat and Cassianto as a tagteam "dominating hundreds of infobox-related discussions", and provide dubious links to support this assertion. I have looked at some of the discussions on article talkpages. I see that very few of them were actually started by the renowned tagteam, nor is there evidence that the supposedly combative pair have systematically visited articles containing infoboxes to aggressively request or demand their removal. They are in the main reluctant participants in these debates, rather than warriors. The fact that in discussion they frequently break the bounds of decorum has to be seen in the context that they, together with Tim, were specifically and almost exclusively the targets of the pro-box people. I have made the point elsewhere that there are many WP articles, featured or otherwise and across a range of subjects, which lack infoboxes; why are the pro-box squad's attentions always turned towards this mini-group? This looks less like a principled effort to press the cause of infoboxes than a deliberate strategy of hounding and provoking and prodding certain editors. Perhaps their skins ought to be thicker, their patience more enduring, their terms of exchange politer, but people will often lash out when they think they are being singled out. Better to cure the cause than the effect. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree on the MOS:INFOBOX problem. SchroCat put it aptly elsewhere that, in combination with WP:ARBINFOBOX, it creates a "consensus loop" such that consensus is never really achieved. This kind of thing is one reason MoS regulars are so frequently opposed to including frequently demanded "un-rules" that amount to "keep arguing about it at each article"; a guideline should either state a clear rule (even an arbitrary one) or remain silent, and should state a clear rule (or set of contextual rules – I don't mean to be simplistic) if remaining silent continues to enable dispute. I also strongly agree on infobox content often being problematic. I was, after all, the proponent of the landslide-consensus RfCs at VPPOL to remove the religion and ethnicity parameters from {{infobox person}} as loci of endless dispute (and for which plenty of "infobox fans" are very angry at me).
I redacted the diffs in question, and don't want to argue about two parties, so I'll hardly be pasting in more diffs here to prove a point, especially if the concern is the editors might really quit for good rather than chill out for a while (though I didn't say anything about who "started" disputes; it's recently been re-impressed upon me that one can still be unconstructive in a discussion even if entering it late). The allegedly "pro-box" people are not "always" doing anything. A new "have the cake but eat it too" complaint against Gerda, for example, is her adding I-boxes to completely random articles at the rate of about one per day (it was said; I have no checked). Either there's "targeting" or there's not. Various disputes seem to involve the same half-dozens parties, both sides combined, simply because they're the most apt to argue over these matters. I agree of course that people are apt to overreact when they feel put-upon. Editors prone to a dismissive attitude toward "outsiders" should keep this in mind next time they want to start labeling people that way or feel like grossly demonizing others for seeking compliance with a clearer guideline, like MOS:BQ. I know the editors more into infoboxes than I am feel very singled-out, too. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the discussion, Brian. I've respected both FAC and MOS processes for many years, and MOS people haven't had a problem with my work as a closer in the past, so would anyone object to my being one of the closers if we could somehow turn all this mess into a coherent discussion that's focused on the most important points? (It could be an RfC if you want it to run for 30 days, but I don't think people are in the mood to wait that long.) It's unfortunate to see all these divisive discussions happening at the same time, and sad to see quite a few people getting depressed about it. I'll keep an eye on the RfCs that have already started, and I might close one of those, but what I'd really like to see is a discussion where people think a bit about whether what's happening is corrosive to FAC or MOS culture, and if so, come up with some rules of thumb that would make things go smoother in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Closer of what, though? This isn't a proposal for specific changes within FA's scope, it's a generalized and one-sided venting, subject to a lot of refutation, and commingling too many unrelated things. This isn't a user-behavior forum, either; we have noticeboards for that. If we were going to examine an actual issue here with an eye to a resolution, I would suggest that it be explicit clarification that the deference to primary/sole editors' wishes that some FAC reviewers sometimes individually decide to show at FAC is an personal choice, and does not grant a right-to-control against other editors in perpetuity. Quite a lot of editors are clearly confused on this point, as if FAC was the Immunity from WP:MERCILESS Bureau. This feeling is the proximal cause of all of this dispute. In virtually every such case, it can be traced directly to a "you didn't do the work, so you have no say about anything here" argument being advanced either explicitly, or by "revert without explanation until The Other gives up and leaves our space" action. Obviously, it has, aside from all this drama, the terrible undesirable side effect of erecting barriers to entry that impede any further improvement. If you weren't already in the Private Club you likely never will be once that FA icon gets placed; you're just another damned "drive-by". That attitude needs to be buried in a deep hole. It's anti-policy, and we all know it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Replying to McCandlish: This discussion will end when people have no more to say, or when hell freezes over, whichever is the sooner. The FAC talkpage is a general discussion forum, at which all who are interested in the FAC process can, as you put it "vent" their concerns. This thread is not one-sided; all including you are welcome to have your say, as you certainly are. I am not sure what you are objecting to in "the deference to primary/sole editors' wishes that some FAC reviewers sometimes individually decide to show at FAC". Many points that arise in a FAC review (or in the peer review that frequently precedes it) are 50:50 issues, with the quality of the article unaffected either way. In such circumstances, of course I would defer to the nominator's preference. It would be different if significant matters were waved through, but that is why the FAC process is moderated by co-ordinators who are the sole determinants of whether or not an article is promoted. There is no right-to-control in perpetuity entitlement for FAC nominators, although there is a slight degree of discretion provided to them under WP:OAS. You wave WP:MERCILESS around as your weapon of choice, but every rational editor knows that this is not a licence to edit indiscriminately, a sure way of beginning edit wars. "Anyone can edit" has to be considered along other core policies, which include respect for fellow-Wikipedians and that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not carved in stone – something for you particularly to bear in mind in your interactions over MoS issues. It is absurd to summarise the position as "you didn't do the work, so you have no say about anything here". The articles I have shepherded through FAC have been collectively edited thousands of times since; very rarely have these edits resulted in disputes. That is because, in the main, editors attending to these articles do respect the efforts and expertise of the main content creators, and why not? There is a way of doing things collegially and collaboratively which is generally successfully, another of heavy-handed assertiveness which leads to endless disputes and eventually editor loss. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've been considering replying to some of the points made in this discussion, but in this post and the other paragraph Brian added in the same edit Brian has said everything I would have said. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I won't address all this right now if at all (point-by-point is a blunt instrument). In short: The problem is, I have multiple diffs of people directly stating that another editor has no right to have any say at all because they weren't among the major editors of the article (I think it would have a deleterious effect to post them right here, since it might seem like singling people out for some kind of special opprobrium, and put us back into arguing about whose emotions justify what). I am not pulling this concern out of nowhere, and virtually no one ever says this sort of thing except at an FA or sometimes a GA. I think you're mistaking my concern for a "down with FA" viewpoint, but I'm seeking a simple statement in FAC documentation reminding people that they don't have more editorial rights than others, even if the FAC process internally may sometimes lean toward their preferences. It's fine if it also reminds people that we're more careful with FAs. I'm not trying to change FA process, just incorrect perception and the disputes arising from it. Now is probably not the ideal time to address this in detail. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have seen some of the diffs that you refer to, which reflect a perhaps natural desire to protect work into which a considerable amount of physical and emotional energy will have been invested. That doesn't make them right. They are the opposite side of the extremist coin from that which asserts that principal editors have no rights to steward their articles. This is equally wrong, as the principle of stewardship of featured content is established within WP policy. I think it would be useful step forward if this fact was incorporated into the statement that you are seeking. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Frankly all of the editors you point out act atrociously in that discussion, digging their heels in with pointless fervor over an infobox, being needlessly sarcastic, snippy, and combative to every opinion that ran against theirs. I also tend to hate the idea that editors will try to treat their retirement as a way to sway things to their point of view; thanks for your contributions, but no one is forcing you to stay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- We have a page about that, at WP:HIGHMAINT (and it used to be pretty much an outright attack page against people saying they're quitting, though I managed to get it moderated through a lengthy RfC – it's way better for the behavior to adjust than for the editor to quit). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is true, David, that some of the editors concerned have behaved badly at times during the various infobox discussions; they sometimes went over the top and made extreme statements, but that's what people tend to do when they feel targeted, endlessly prodded and provoked, forced to make the same arguments over and over again. And I can't recall Tim behaving in the way you describe. It's also worth remembering that in the whole sorry saga, the only two editors formally sanctioned were members of the pro-box lobby. And these retirements shouldn't be dismissed as a sort of debating ploy – shades of Talleyrand (or was it Metternich?). My concern is that content editors are being driven away, per Laser brain below, and "thank you and goodbye" does not seem an adequate response. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This is indeed a sad period in the history of Featured content development. I've expressed dismay in several venues that any editor has to waste time on these arguments. I do not blame the principal content editors on these pages for getting upset. Anyone who asks us to believe these editors are displaying inappropriate ownership or to believe they should not feel targeted are being unrealistic and are forgetting that the upsetting aspect of these situations is the behavior, not the content. My only plea is that editors who are getting upset (on both sides of any given debate) have some faith that the imminent authorization of Discretionary Sanctions in the infobox area will alleviate the behavior issues. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Two separate points, first, I like and respect you LB (though I may have been snippy with you before, I do not recall), but I have to call "Bullshit" on your well-intentioned "Just have Faith in sanctions" comment. Some people, as we know from years of experience on WP, just never stop until they are simply banned. Before that happens, they have left a long stream of destruction in their wake. "Close your eyes and hope" is the same as "Give them room to continue destroying things". Second, I recently saw a long discussion to define Primary versus secondary sources. I say we concentrate on having a similar one about when IB are and are not useful, and then insert limitations in MoS. IBs are useful when there are relatively large quantities of meaningful information that can be summed numerically or categorically. The classic example is "Battle of...", where you have troop strengths involved and killed (crucial and numeric info), units involved and commanders and leaders (crucial and categorical info). IBs are NOT useful when you have so little categorial information, such as on Noel Coward, where you have what, the place where he was born, died, etc.? Not crucial info, easily listed in lede. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I hope Laser_brain is correct that DS will be authorized for infobox-related discussions, but I'm not that hopeful. ArbCom rejected my last request for this, and I'm not sure the current one at ARCA is going to get anywhere. I've been drafting an RFARB in case it does not, approaching the "infobox wars" as a site-wide "topic" and behavioral morass. The original WP:ARBINFOBOX only addressed editwarring and disputation over infoboxes at the individual article level, which is why it has not been even slightly effective in curtailing the battlegrounding. ARBINFOBOX actually made the situation worse, since it's led to endless recycling of the same arguments on a page-by-page basis. However, Lingzhi shouldn't get his hopes up about what DS would mean (even if one admin already seems to be indicating how they intend to use it). But this isn't really about infoboxes at all. More on that later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If I can make a general comment on the theme of this thread: two months ago, we lost a contributor of well over 50 featured articles and hundreds of GAs; a similar issue seems to have been a contributing factor. Rather than a dispute over quote boxes or infoboxes, this was a dispute over citation formatting. If I may add: the closest I personally have come to wanting nothing further to do with the project in many years was when I ended up in a dispute about citation formatting, and my faith in the project was rocked when I saw the response when the issue was taken to one of the noticeboards. I feel that these recent retirements are part of a much broader trend, but precisely how to characterise that trend I do not know. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Did that incident involve an ongoing effort by a persistent core group (with drive-bys coming and going)? Or was it a one-off deal by editors who do not have histories arguing as a group on that issue? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- In my case, a single editor. In the other case, I really don't know; I wasn't honestly aware of it until the retirement. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- The general trend is that WP was a "what?! I can edit an encyclopedia?! live?!" gee-whiz thing in 2005, even 2010. As that novelty factor has worn off (along with the opportunity to set the initial stage of an article on much of anything noteworthy now that we have millions of articles instead of thousands), those still here are those who treat it as volunteer work, not an Internet fad. And few people do that kind of work forever, in any field, for any project. It is essentially statistically impossible that editors drift away for various reasons, in all aspects of the project, but that FA would be immune to the effect. If anything, given the intensity of the work required, it's probably naturally higher than the average attrition rate, though I'm not sure how we could build up accurate stats about it. Most editors who leave rather than fade out do so in response to some drawn-out dispute, in which they've been angrily and fully participating but didn't "win". Given CITEVAR, I would think that citation style disputes are not often among the reasons, though honestly CITEVAR's fans actually cause more disputes than anyone else when it comes to citations, often supposing that not one character of "their" cites can ever be changed by anyone without a full-scale RfC at the article's talk page. This is not a constructive, collaborative, encyclopedic attitude, just territorialism. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- With respect, I think you make a lot of claims there which require supporting evidence. On "citation style disputes are not often among the reasons": in the last couple of months, I have seen three disputes relating to citation styles (despite CITEVAR, which has sometimes been invoked in completely ludicrous ways) which seem to have led to considerable bad feeling. One involved an article I brought to FAC, one involved the editor I mentioned above (Sasata) and one is ongoing on the Jane Austen talk page, involving a number of FAC regulars. (And, to be clear, I'm certainly not saying that all three were a case of "experienced content editor" versus "inexperienced MOS enthusiast", just that it is something which leads to upset.) This doesn't prove that citation styles are a major reason for editor drop out in the grand scheme of things, but it does perhaps provide an explanation of why I am mentioning it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think aggressive MOS-enforcers are doing great harm to the project. What is more important, content writing or stylistic consistency? The Bird Wikiproject was also decimated some time ago for the same reasons (enforcing small caps in bird names), and there are barely any FAs coming out of the project anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- False dichotomy; no one is impeded in writing content by others later tweaking the extant material for consistency. Why is someone who cares about guidelines being followed "aggressive" and an "enforcer" (especially given which direction the incivility usually runs)? Last I looked, this isn't a mafia sim. ;-) But anyway, the entire "bird caps" thing was very unfortunate, and a lot can be learned from it and hopefully has, both by AT/RM/MoS "regulars", and by people considering fait accompli campaigns against guidelines and policies. The vast majority of MoS consists of contextual tweaks agreed, after reasoned discussion, to be in the best interests of readers, after all. Discourse goes much further than combat. People sometimes get unreasonably worked up over style matters (just like they do over what "fringe" means, why "important" and "notable" aren't synonyms, and many other matters here). That one was a disaster that took about 8 years to unfold, and spun out of control when a few people from one wikiproject tried to advance a style preferred by many journals in one particular field to apply everywhere even where there are explicit conventions against it, with the result that people started capitalizing things like "Mountain Lion". We're still cleaning up this mess even now [2]. Activity is picking up in the wikiproject again, now that the three editors who stormed off have found more productive things to do than come back as anons to call people names. I really, really hope nothing like that ever happens again, and I've actively headed it off in several cases. (Details elided per WP:BEANS, but another involves capitalization, and not all MoS people back me on the matter. The idea that there's some cabal of lock-step MoS pundits is pure conspiracy theory; it's a wonder we ever agree on anything other than "just do what it says because the whole point is to play by the same rulebook and stop fighting page by page".) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Both examples cover over-enthusiastic MOS-enforcement which lead to content-writers leaving Wikipedia, and thereby less content being written. So they are very much related. Yes, we know you think you were right in these cases, but that doesn't solve the problem which is the focus of this discussion; content-creators being driven away by overzealous standardisation. If all we want is a lot of unsourced stubs that are nicely consistent in style, that's what we'll get if there isn't room for flexibility. But is that really what we want? It really has to be a choice at this point, it is getting out of hand. We can have both style and substance, but it should be clear that the latter trumps the former when it comes to an encyclopaedia. As for "heightened activity" in the bird project, apart from articles about extinct birds (all nominated by me) there has only been two nominations of living species since July 2014 (when the project consensus was overruled), and one of them was "just" a renomination of a former FA. Before that, there were nominations about every month. As for "trying actively not to repeat" the mistake, it seems to me the exact same behaviour is what has driven the three above-mentioned writers away. So clearly nothing was learned, and we have a problem that needs to be solved, which goes beyond repeating "they could simply have followed the guidelines!" over and over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- False dichotomy; no one is impeded in writing content by others later tweaking the extant material for consistency. Why is someone who cares about guidelines being followed "aggressive" and an "enforcer" (especially given which direction the incivility usually runs)? Last I looked, this isn't a mafia sim. ;-) But anyway, the entire "bird caps" thing was very unfortunate, and a lot can be learned from it and hopefully has, both by AT/RM/MoS "regulars", and by people considering fait accompli campaigns against guidelines and policies. The vast majority of MoS consists of contextual tweaks agreed, after reasoned discussion, to be in the best interests of readers, after all. Discourse goes much further than combat. People sometimes get unreasonably worked up over style matters (just like they do over what "fringe" means, why "important" and "notable" aren't synonyms, and many other matters here). That one was a disaster that took about 8 years to unfold, and spun out of control when a few people from one wikiproject tried to advance a style preferred by many journals in one particular field to apply everywhere even where there are explicit conventions against it, with the result that people started capitalizing things like "Mountain Lion". We're still cleaning up this mess even now [2]. Activity is picking up in the wikiproject again, now that the three editors who stormed off have found more productive things to do than come back as anons to call people names. I really, really hope nothing like that ever happens again, and I've actively headed it off in several cases. (Details elided per WP:BEANS, but another involves capitalization, and not all MoS people back me on the matter. The idea that there's some cabal of lock-step MoS pundits is pure conspiracy theory; it's a wonder we ever agree on anything other than "just do what it says because the whole point is to play by the same rulebook and stop fighting page by page".) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If I had to sum the problem up in a few words, it would be: death of a thousand paper cuts. --Rschen7754 18:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Mentoring
It seems that it's for the first-time nominators, but as someone not very familiar with FAC (though I do have two FAs under my belt), could I have some help with Taylor Swift's article, before I bring it here? Also, it will be IndianBio's first nomination, I presume. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly you may request help from a mentor. Although primarily intended for first-time nominators, there is no reason why you shouldn't seek similar help from the scheme. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC regarding quote boxes
I don't usually post MoS discussions links to this page, but this one might interest some FA writers, and since I only stumbled across it by accident myself I thought it would be worth letting people know about it. There's an ongoing RfC here about quotation templates. Initially this was set up as a general discussion, but it now includes a specific proposal section, here, to permit quote boxes for regular quotes, which I highlight because it's already a long discussion and I want to make sure people are aware that supports and opposes on at least one point are now being posted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)