TenPoundHammer (talk | contribs) →Stale GAR: new section |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 15:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC) |
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 15:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Hijiri88]], you could have at least pinged my name if you were going to evicerate my work. (I haven't been active lately and I just saw this.) —[[User:Prhartcom|Prhart]][[User talk:Prhartcom|com]]<span style="color:red">♥</span> 04:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC on the [[WP:ANDOR]] guideline == |
|||
:For all I know, I did ping you, or notify you on your talk page, or make it clear in a comment directed at you elsewhere that I knew you would see that "eviscerating your work" was something I planned on doing. This discussion was a year ago: I recall discussing the problems with you somewhere around that time, but I really shouldn't be expected to go and hunt down the discussion in question a full year later. Anyway, if I recall correctly, your "work" was a unilateral rewrite of the guidelines with the effect (if not the explicit intent) of making the GAR process more convoluted and discouraging its use, and given that your rewrite only passed without comment because it was on a subpage no one watches "eviscerating" it and expecting you to get consensus before reinstating it is [[WP:BRD|standard procedure]]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Hijiri88}}, you didn't ping me this time either. Do you see how I pinged you? Please do so from now on when you wish to address an editor or their work; they will receive notification. Thank-you. —[[User:Prhartcom|Prhart]][[User talk:Prhartcom|com]]<span style="color:red">♥</span> 13:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?]]. A [[WP:Permalink]] for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=775928927#RfC:_Should_the_WP:ANDOR_guideline_be_softened_to_begin_with_.22Avoid_unless.22_wording_or_similar.3F here]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== GAR Closure == |
|||
Could someone please close [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demi Lovato/1]]? It's been open since March, and hasn't received any input since April. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">edits</b>]]) 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== simplify instructions with PAGENAME == |
== simplify instructions with PAGENAME == |
Revision as of 13:08, 15 March 2018
![]() Archives |
---|
|
This page is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to retrieve it from the current archive. |
Information on maintaining the GAR page and archives |
RFC: Should last year's amendment to the guidelines be reverted?
Should this edit be reverted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Survey
- Revert Per own comments above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Don't revert. I don't think that the new version is perfect, but most of it is an improvement so tweaking rather than reversion is what is required here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
@Hijiri88: could you break down your reasons for reverting? This all-or-nothing approach makes it difficult to see what the benefit of this would be. For example if your major (or only) objection is to the phrasing "do everything you can to improve the article", we don't need to revert the entire edit to fix it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- @BrightRoundCircle: The edit did not, apparently, improve the guidelines. It was presented as a "copy edit" but included significant changes, such as the blatantly counter-policy
Do everything you can to improve the article during this time
. It made them less readable, and so made GARs more difficult to open. I don't have any concrete figures for the whole project, but my first two GARs were opened without any problem, but after since the rewrite last March I have opened four GARs and three of them have been misfiled. I can't help but feel that my having been able to follow the instructions the first two times and only started making mistakes later could be partly blamed on the less intuitive instructions.The edit was pushed through without any prior consensus or discussion, and if more people had the subpage on their watchlist probably would have been BRD-reverted a year ago. There should be some argument in favour of keeping the current version, or it should be reverted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)- What other instructions have changed? I'll make a list of what I see:
- The lead section and the four instructions that follow had no material changes, and the new version is arguably more readable. There is no need to revert the lead.
- The instructions have become longer and more verbose.
- "When to use" should have all the redundancy cut. It can be concisely explained how to choose individual or community assessment: whether or not the assessment is likely to be controversial. Then list off what's controversial (article has failed nomination or has been delisted, there's an ongoing edit war, you are a major contributor to the article, or you have little experience with article assessment, or with assessment of this particular topic)
- "How to use" is more verbose but that's okay, it gives step-by-step instructions.
- Which leaves "Do everything you can to improve the article during this time." Instead of taking an all-or-nothing approach you should discuss this element by element. For example I support the new lead and the new "how to use", but I think "when to use" should be combined to a single section to remove redundancy. Finally, I find "do everything" to be both too vague and too demanding, so I would prefer it removed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, if you read the discussion above, the "do everything" was added based on a number of false assumptions, like that all GAs that were promoted were reviewed thoroughly at the time of their initial promotion and (worse) that a number of GARs are opened in bad faith, to delist for delisting's sake. The former assumption is demonstrably false, and the latter meant this guideline was based on assumption of bad faith, something that should never be the case.
- But the "do everything" part has already been removed. Your opinion regarding the other parts is noted. I need to sleep now, but I might go over it in more detail and decide whether I agree with you shortly.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- What other instructions have changed? I'll make a list of what I see:
User:Hijiri88, you could have at least pinged my name if you were going to evicerate my work. (I haven't been active lately and I just saw this.) —Prhartcom♥ 04:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- For all I know, I did ping you, or notify you on your talk page, or make it clear in a comment directed at you elsewhere that I knew you would see that "eviscerating your work" was something I planned on doing. This discussion was a year ago: I recall discussing the problems with you somewhere around that time, but I really shouldn't be expected to go and hunt down the discussion in question a full year later. Anyway, if I recall correctly, your "work" was a unilateral rewrite of the guidelines with the effect (if not the explicit intent) of making the GAR process more convoluted and discouraging its use, and given that your rewrite only passed without comment because it was on a subpage no one watches "eviscerating" it and expecting you to get consensus before reinstating it is standard procedure. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
simplify instructions with PAGENAME
{{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
is it OK to simplify it to
{{WP:Good article reassessment/{{subst:PAGENAME}}/n}}. Replace n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Notify major contributing editors
Is there some tool to automatically list major contributors? Manually going through history is a slog Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I found https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/index.php? - is it OK link it from instructions ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please close this? It's been open since June and hasn't had any activity since September. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Still not closed!? I find this very hard to believe. Perhaps BlueMoonset and/or DragonZero could carry this out, so pinging them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Stale GAR
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shenandoah (band)/1 has been sitting stale since September. I would like to see more participation here to help close the reassessment and see if the article still meets GA criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)