Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Slightly modest proposal

It strikes me that one way to get Vital Articles to FAC is to exempt them from the one-article-at-a-time limit. That is, you could nominate it even though you had an article on the page. It's basically a free pass. However, you still suffer the standard penalty if it does not pass. If this is overused, we will have very little cause to complain.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

...except that vital articles are so damn hefty that working on one takes....a long time. I don't think there will be too many candidates here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Then it won't overstrain our delegates. That doesn't make it a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
True, I guess I am wary of rule creep, and also I am cautious that it might delay other measures. I guess I don't think it will be much of an incentive, though I'd love to be proven wrong on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I just glanced at your contributions, and saw what you are working on. Possibly they could help each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Two things: mutliple nominations (or a lengthy page) were not curtailed because they were a "strain on delegates"-- they were a strain on the limited time of reviewers, there were a couple of notable abusers (using FAC as a revolving PR door), and number of noms was curtailed after a lengthy and thorough RFC in which the community requested same. (With, by the way, delegates retaining authority to grant exceptions-- which are rarely asked for.) Second, since we almost never see VAs coming to FAC anyway, I'm not sure why more "rules" are needed to accomodate them, especially since exceptions can be granted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoo-stuff

I wonder what it takes for a zoo-article to become featured, but there are hardly any pointers — thus far, there's only one (Belle Vue Zoological Gardens), and that one's about a zoo with quite some history. I'm looking at the Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider looking at how Tony the Tiger does his Chicago architecture articles, that is the closest analogy I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Chaco Culture National Historical Park might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It needs a bit of work before nomination, the lead is a bit thin, and the references aren't all up to the Nikkimaria standard. I get no sense from the text whether the zoo uses any natural landscape, and if so what type (I assume desert?). A location map in the infobox would be good, especially for those of us who barely know where the state is, let alone its towns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Consider using the infobox to host two maps, see Canoe River train crash for an example.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers; I'll try to see what's possible. Sources are a problem; that's why I started wondering whether it's even possible. There's very little written about the facility. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the article is a way from I'd expect of an FA nomination. It's not a bad article, and perhaps worth the little green blob, but it still needs some work. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, I realize that, but you're not helping; I'm not asking whether it needs work, I'm asking what kind of work. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Blonde on Blonde

"See also" section discouraged?

I'm preparing an article for FA status, and I was curious about the perception of a "See Also" section in FA articles. See question at WP LAYOUT talk page. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In general if its linked via a navbox, a {{see also}} or {{main}} template or linked in the prose then no. If you have a see also entry, you should consider if it would be better to be linked via them or if its unusual enough to be duplicated in that section again if its in the prose. I don't think to many people would complain though if you had a few links (and they weren't duplicated by a navbox which is right below).Jinnai 04:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think "discouraged" is the right word, since the majority of "See also" sections either have relevant stuff that should be linked in the main article, or link to a list of articles of peripheral relevance. I try to avoid them in my own FAs, but there is no blanket ban. If we take, say the ACLU article, I would say that it falls into the "vaguely relevant list of similar North American organisations" category. My instinct would be either to lose the list or make a (second) proper navbox for these groups and the ACLU. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. As long as "See also" sections are permitted when there is a decent justification, I think the system is working. Your NavBox comment is also pertinent: a good sidebar or footer NavBox should include most relevant links, and will often make a See Also section unnecessary. --Noleander (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The question becomes, when there's a large See also, is the article comprehensive and why weren't the See alsos included in the text. If you've got a good answer for that, you're probably fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A question on quotes (not sure if this is the right place - hope you can help)

I’m not sure if this is an appropriate venue for this query, but I have searched the MOS guidelines and the information is not very clear, so I am asking for a little help. If I should make this query elsewhere please let me know and I’ll take it where it needs to go.

I am the nom for the Tetrabiblos article and my query concerns formatting issues concerning the use of single or double quotes and the referencing of articles in books. As the main text-developer I have been using a convention that has been consistently applied, and was recently checked for internal consistency as part of the review process. Now another editor, who came to the article after opposing in a review, and has since got quite involved in changes made to content and formatting, has changed some occurrences, so I would like to double-check the policy before following that new format - which would mean a substantial change to the rest of the article's content. (I don’t mind making changes if this needs to be done, but thought it would be wise to check this and place a notice about the convention used on the talk page, so there is no more to-ing and fro-ing). Here are my queries on this:

Book titles. Many of the references to the book are given in Greek, Latin or Arabic, with an accompanying English translation of what the term means. If the title is Greek I have used the convention of:

Transliterated title in italics + polytonic Greek brackets + English meaning in single quotes; so:

Transliterated title (polytonic Greek) 'English meaning'
Tetrabiblos (Τετράβιβλος) 'four books'

For other languages like Latin that need no transliteration, the format applied is:

Latin title in italics + English title in single quotes; So:

Translated title 'English meaning'
Quadripartitum 'four parts'.

The suggestion is that the quote-marks used in the English translation should be double quotes. but this is not what I have been taught elsewhere. There doesn’t seem to be much about this on WP except in the section Double or single on MOS, which says

There may be some conventional codified exceptions, such as single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious').

The page gives a reference to the use of scare quotes in linguistics which also says that single quote marks are used for this purpose. See here and also here. Following those refrences, I believe that the article is currently correct and not in needof change for this.

For other content, the policy that has been applied to the page is this:

  • Double quotes are used to denote quotations and scare quotes,
  • Single quotes are used in footnotes to denote article or chapter titles, with double quotes used to indicate quotes (as usual); which gives this effect:

Tetrabiblos (Robbins ed. 1940) 'Introduction' p.xxiii: "My collations have been made against Camerarius’ second edition, because thus far this has been the standard text and it was most convenient".

So my question is whether the styles I have applied are OK, and can they be retained throughout? Thanks for any help -- Zac Δ talk! 13:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The rules I would follow are (1) Do what the MOS says; (2) but if the MOS is silent, follow a convention used by the best scholars on that topic; and (3) always use the same convention throughout the article. Regarding single/double quotes for foreign languages, as you say, the Scare quotes guideline indicates that single quotes are preferred, on the other hand several FA articles that employ foreign languages include these:
  • sockenmål (lit. "parish speech")
  • mannen i grå kostym; "the man in a grey suit"
  • kil (கில்), meaning "to be possible" or "to befall".
  • kaba Türkçe or "rough Turkish",
  • kapıdır ("it is the door")
  • ti' na "door" (lit. "mouth of house"),
  • ru-kej "his/her horse"
Regarding single/double quotes for article or chapter titles: I think either is acceptable, as long as it is used consistently throughout (most articles in WP use double quotes for that purpose). As for quotations from sources, that is always double quotes. If there are two editors that have different approaches to the style, and both styles are consistent with the MOS and scholars, then the article should retain the style that is already predominantly used within the article. --Noleander (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, though the MOS seems to leave the matter open, it links to the refs I gave earlier for more detailed information. These seem quite specific is supporting the use of single quotes, which is the style already predominately in use. The page on scare quotes says this:

In linguistics

Single quotation marks are used in linguistics to mark a gloss as separate from either the metalanguage, which is used in the descriptive or theoretical prose, or the object language, which is rendered in italics. The following sentence illustrates this:

  • The Latin word homo means 'man'.
This sentence is about a word in the object language Latin, which appears in italics, and about its counterpart in the gloss language English, enclosed in single quotation marks. The metalanguage, also English, is unaltered.
Hence my view is that the article is already correct, and since it is the predominant style this can be continued. I want to give some time to be corrected, in case I am wrong. -- Zac Δ talk! 14:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Yes, I think Scare quotes indicates that single quotes are good for that purpose ... although the fact that other FAs are using double quotes means that either way should be acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for the swift clarification. I'll make a note on the talkpage that they don't need to be changed, and give a link to this discussion. -- Zac Δ talk! 14:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations templates an accessibility issue and are they required?

Sigh, I hate to do this but .... from various comments I'm seeing regarding the recent dust-up at the Ernest Hemingway page I'm getting the impression that Harvard style short notes are the "preferred" citation style for our best articles. If so, shouldn't that have been advertised? If not, why all the finger-pointing? Does anyone know what's going on, because I don't, and I've decided this really isn't a healthy way to spend my time. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR states "different articles use different citation systems, styles and methods. Points of difference include ... whether citations are produced using citation templates ... On all of these points, Wikipedia does not have a single house style." (own emphasis added). The guideline then goes on to say "If there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (emphasis in guideline). Was the guideline mentioned on the article's talk page? Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not at issue, I don't think. I'm seeing posts to the effect that Harvard style is the preferred style. I had introduced Harvard style there myself as a new editor, not realizing the policy, and last week, with consensus, I dumped the templates. I'm happy to change back again if necessary because it's not all that difficult. What worries me is that I rarely use Harvard style anymore, but if it's to become an accessibility issue, then it should be advertised. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know the harvnb template isn't given priority over any others, it's down to the choice of individual editors. Recently Stephen, King of England passed FAC without anyone recommending the use of the harvnb template, and I'm pretty sure Ealdgyth doesn't use it in her articles. Nev1 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not think FAC objects to any style citations, so long as you are consistent. I recall we had a discussion about two years ago with User:SlimVirgin urging us to avoid use of templates to minimize page load times, but I don't think there was ever any consensus about whether she was right.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
FAC doesn't dictate citation style. As long as an article is internally consistent, it can be passed at FAC. Many editors at FAC don't use the harvard style templates. Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Lately, I haven't been able to detect a difference in page load times if a page was loaded up with {sfn} or {harvnb} templates, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not use Harv or sfn ... I only use templates in the full reference listing at the bottom.. If Harv or sfn became required at FAC, that'd be the end of my FAC work, quite honestly. I find the extraneous templates very annoying to edit around. That's also why I don't use list-defined references - they make things difficult for newer editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As someone who pays a great deal of attention to sourcing and citations; I would vehemently protest editors demanding certain citation styles be used. I will demand internal consistency, and adequate material to verify the cited content. But (Parentheses 1989) or Johnston 1960 writes about within prose citation are acceptable with a full-enough reference list citation; short, or long, they're all beautiful. Template-linked, or just plain text, citations are a beautiful thing. (Of course, if authors choose a citation style, or template presentation method, they need to use it correctly.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    User:SlimVirgin is technically correct. The wiki-text is shorter than the sfn or harvnb when it is transmitted as HTML markup, but it does not result in anything noticeable unless you turning the images off, which is what will really save you if you are on a slow dialup connection. Stephen, King of England(which uses no templates) contains about 68K of text (including all HTML markup) and 23K of references in an article that is 309K in total. (Note that the image in the infobox alone is 57K.) Manhattan Project, which uses templates, has 149K of text and 20K of references in a 414K article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    Load time wasn't the only reason that SlimVirgin (and others, like me) object to citation templates-- they are horrid to edit around. I've seen multiple editors in multiple places trying to push through this notion that we must use citation templates, or a specific kind or density of ciations in FAs, and they're wrong, Wrong, WRONG. I'm with Ealdgyth and Fifelfoo-- I hate those blooming things, and if anyone forced me to use them, I'd say, you can keep your FAs. The only thing required for an FA is consistency in citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    I thought that reasoning behind the "first person" guideline was just that: to prevent editors from endlessly altering the citation style, thereby resulting in a lot of edits without actually improving the article. Often in overhauling an article I find a diversity of citation styles, and just pick one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    Actual wording is "first major contributor" (different than "first person". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    A wonderful "out", as I usually position myself as the first major contributor. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    I like cite templates, but fear them in the hands of a certain ever-present, industrious and influential type of Wikipedians. [There really is no cabal: the cast of characters I am referring to changes continually, but their goal remains the same]. That is, there is always a new crop of people who wish to delete existing templates and move to standardize things, and to make One Template to Rule Them All. In their hearts and minds, it is self-evident that standardization is a virtue. But far from it: the next step after deleting all templates other than the one they all love would be to push make it mandatory.. because... you know... that would be even more standardization, and standardization as we all know is a virtue. I for one would like to see a weak form of standardization: all articles must use a citation style established by a respected source outside of Wikipedia. Choose MLA or APA or Chicago or whatever you like, but we shouldn't accept "Look Ma, I made a new citation style! Little smiley faces instead of bullet points! All articles sorted by journal's name! Ain't it cool!?" My two cents. NotSixBodies (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    What Ealdgyth, SG and Fifelfoo said. There's often loose talk on "what FAC requires/prefers/doesn't like" on various issues, but one thing that's been consistent here is strong opposition to imposing any one citation style. Scientists seem to prefer the fancy templates & sometimes regard them as self-obviously the ideal standard, but among their many disadvantages is not allowing the longer rambling footnotes that are still normal in academic work in the humanities. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed nationalities in the lead sentences of two FAs

Perhaps some FA regulars would like to get involved in disputes on the first sentences of two FAs: Ernest Shackleton and Mary Shelley. Both are being changed by editors who like to quote the MOS, but seem unable to cite specific passages to back up their assertions. The FAC and talk page consensus that Shackleton was best described as Anglo-Irish is being ignored, so the first sentence now says only that he was born in Ireland (where this life-long British citizen spent just the first 10 years of his life).(diff) Meanwhile, Mary Shelley is no longer British, but English, and in the process a link to a dab and a bare URL ref have been inserted into a FA (diff).

In the interest of full disclosure, I was in an edit war with one of these editors over the Ernest Shackleton edits and will not edit there now. I have done one revert on Mary Shelley and am limiting myself to 1RR with the editor in question. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"British" is a strange thing, not at all like "American". I've never heard an English (or Welsh, Scottish or Irish) person claim to be British rather than English, Welsh or Irish. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of "English" people who call themselves British. You've just been deluded into believing all the modern nationalist crap that people from the four constituent countries are somehow different from one another. DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You may disagree all you like, but it doesn't make you right. And neither am I deluded. As it happens, apart from my father I'm the only English person (as in born in the country) in my immediate family: my mother, my brothers and my sisters were all born in Scotland. I've never heard any of them describe themselves as British, and I've never described myself as British. You are aware, I take it, that at the Commonwealth Games the countries compete separately? And of the furore surrounding a GB football team for the 2012 Olympics? Malleus Fatuorum 11:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Both the above comments seem unhelpful to me. Many people born in one or other part of the UK regard themselves primarily as "British" irrespective of where they were born - though surveys do suggest that the proportion is diminishing. (I am one - born in England, ancestors from Wales and [Northern] Ireland (having presumably moved there from Scotland at some point), now living in Wales after many years in England, I regard myself as quintessentially "British".) But, at the same time, DrKiernan's opinions in his final sentence are, clearly, even more misinformed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
@Malleus: Everyone's different. Many Scots would never describe themselves as "British" because they associate the word with a union with England which they dislike or oppose. Similar arguments apply in Ireland and increasingly in Wales, but not in England, where (until very recently) many and perhaps most people have been quite content to describe themselves as both English and British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
A union that the Scottish parliament voted in favour of don't let's forget, whatever present-day Scots feel about it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
People are no different whether they are English, Welsh, Jamaican or Tibetan. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. DrKiernan (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether people are different or not is completely irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 11:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I may just be being paranoid, but a similar dispute blew up over whether Bristol was in the UK or England a couple of days ago. I smell fish. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps some Americans don't realise that the UK is a union of four countries, each with its own history and in Scotland's case even a different legal system. It's not a union of states as in the US meaning of that term, but of sovereign countries. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Not now sovereign countries (though Scotland once was), but still countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
That they are not now "sovereign countries" is irrelevant; they share a sovereign. Malleus Fatuorum 11:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you said they were "sovereign countries" - they are not, they are countries that share a sovereign. As do Tuvalu, Australia, etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite. Did you notice the past tense? Has Australia ever had an independent monarch? The constituent countries of the UK all did. Malleus Fatuorum 11:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The past tense as in: "..the UK is a union of four countries....It's not a union of states as in the US meaning of that term, but of sovereign countries." Nope, didn't notice it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me, I foolishly assumed that you were a competent speaker of English and would understand the meaning of "that they are not now sovereign countries ...". I'll try to use shorter words and sentences in the future. Malleus Fatuorum 12:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you said that after your original comment that referred to them in the present tense as "sovereign countries". Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour, by the way?  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am well aware of the distinction, though there are some Americans who refer to all British people regardless of country as "English" (sorry). Do you want to read the Shackleton arguments at Talk:Ernest_Shackleton#Nationality and weigh in there too? :-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have done. Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, most of us here are completely informed on this. This talk page is very long. Is this really worth having a discussion about in this forum? You guys just know it will end (not soon, or anyplace near here) with long rants about who is using the Queen's English properly ... oh, bugger.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
What has the length of this talk page got to do with the price of cheese? Too many ill-informed editors insist on imposing their ill-considered ideas of nationhood on UK subjects, and it's time it stopped. Malleus Fatuorum 11:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
For any biography article how to present and phrase this information depends entirely on the context and the time period and the life of the individual in question. It is rarely possible to generalise, especially when reliable sources vary in how they approach this. The discussions should take place on the talk page of the articles in question, regardless of whether they are FAs or not. Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
But perhaps having the discussion on a more neutral forum may lead to a more general solution. In any case, is there a tax on discussion? It would seem so, as so many are so keen to close so many discussions down on the slimmest of pretexts. Malleus Fatuorum 11:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It was my thought that since relatively few people watch this page, there may be fora which would allow for a broader consensus to be reached without "why did you have the discussion on such a specialised notice board?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Those interested in such discussions, especially with reference to "British" people born in a unified Ireland, will find plenty of like-minded folk at Talk:Francis Bacon (artist) and Talk:C.S. Lewis. Bear in mind that Wikipedia wisdom has declared Anglo-Irish to be an ethnicity, which MOS says is not supposed to be mentioned in the first sentence. Enjoy! Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget Robert Boyle, plenty of discussion on that talk page as well. Somehow I don't think a discussion here will magically sort out these perennial examples, which is the point I was trying to make above. It's not closing down discussions, but realising when a discussion won't really reach any useful conclusions. A centralised discussion may help, but WT:FAC is not the place to have that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. We might as well have an argument over who the greatest hockey player of all-time is on this discussion page for all the use it will serve. I knew based on the section header alone that this was a home countries nationalism problem. Arguing about it here will accomplish nothing. Resolute 14:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it all comes back to the sometimes bitter, sometimes sublime consequences of our core content policies: Wikipedia will never be any better than the sources. If people out there haven't figured out yet how to resolve this, then we're not allowed to (in article space, anyway). - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My hope was that interested editors might comment on the talk pages of the FAs themselves - thanks to Malleus for doing so. In both cases reliable sources can be found that use a variety of formulations (British or English for Shelley, Irish or Anglo-Irish, or British for Shackleton), so the issue is which to use in a concise lead sentence. Finally, I would have thought that a page where cruises are discussed would have room for an appeal for more input on the talk pages of two FAs. ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing "FA maintenance" fatigue ... not sure what to do about it. Actually, I just posted a suggestion at WT:MHC#A-class stuff that's on a different subject for a different reason ... but it might have a bearing on the question of FA maintenance. Anyone is welcome at Milhist talk pages, of course ... the fences have long since fallen into disrepair :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder: voting closes soon

All editors are reminded that voting closes for ACE2011 in just over a day's time (Saturday 10 December at 23:59 UTC). To avoid last-minute technical logjams, editors are asked to vote at least an hour before the close, that is, by:

  • Saturday 15:00 (3 pm) on the west coast of North America;
  • Saturday 18:00 (6 pm) on the east coast of North America;
  • Saturday 23:00 (11 pm) in the UK and Ireland;
  • Sunday 01:00 (1 am) in South Africa;
  • Sunday 06:00 (7 am) on the west coast of Australia; and
  • Sunday 10:00 (10 am) on the east coast of Australia; and
  • Sunday 12:00 (12 noon) in New Zealand.

For the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Satin

This one has had a hard time attracting reviewers, and I don't know why ... it's a well-researched and very readable bio about the "virtual spokesman for war resisters in Canada" in the 60s, the writer of the best book on post-New-Left politics in the 70s, the co-drafter of the Green Party's "Ten Key Values" in the 80s, and generally, a one-man internet before there was an internet. If someone ever writes a history of the "anyone can edit" culture of Wikipedia, I think Mark Satin and others will probably be part of the story ... but we've had a very hard time attracting reviewers at PR, A-class and FAC (since Nov 19). Someone come have a look, please. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, you have roused my interest (and impressed with your politesse). I will look shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy copyediting war stories because for, the families and even the nations involved, these stories have consequences that have lasted for generations; if the stories aren't important, then I don't know what "importance" means. But professional and academic historians are skeptical of bodies of work that are long on details and short on political and historical analysis. This being Wikipedia, we can't "assign" people to cover these essential parts of the project, so all I can do is to assist and encourage anyone willing to write articles like these. They make us look good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Jimbo's

Jimbo has asked editors for their opinions on a one-day strike to protest a copyright bill which has been introduced in Congress, discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Why this trend?

I have noticed that there is for quite some time this trend of writing Strong Support, or Weak support, or Strongest Possible Oppose, or Uneasy support, etc, etc... Why it happens? It won't make your vote somekind of "super vote" merely because you added a "strong" to your "support". Just to call attention, then? "Hey, look how big is my oppose!" Shouldn't this behavior be curbed? It has become more and more common on situations where a vote is required (such as in move articles' title discussion) but I've seen on FAC too here and there, although it's far more rare. --Lecen (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You've never read this, Lecen?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements for FAC

Heller, I'm AJona1992 (as some of you might know) and I have been brainstorming for the past several days on improvements to the way "FAC" operates. As a small reminder, I do not have the world's best writing skills, so please bear with me :-)

Well what do you guys think? Happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to answer your first question in the abstract. Please pick an example of a FAC you believe would have been promoted if an opposer had only returned and acknowledged that the problems had been fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure; this FAC (which is currently still under review) was opposed by a user who felt that a section should be removed, the nominator replied swiftly and added comments to further understand why the section is there. On this one I had fixed BelovedFreak's comments though never replied and it failed (understandable at the time). I can't find any other failed FACs that have opposed but were fixed as I don't save any on my watch list but these two came to mind. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, understood that sometimes it's harder to get through FAC than maybe it should be, but those examples don't work for me. If the first one hasn't been promoted or failed yet, then we don't know yet whether the delegate is going to promote despite the opposes. In the second one, Nikki is a special case ... she does a huge amount of work on all the FACs, and doesn't have time to revisit in every case. The delegates are very familiar with her work and know how to interpret what she's saying. I looked at just one point she made ... WP:DASH (I'm picking it because I expected it probably wasn't fixed, not because it's popular FAC requirement ... it's not!) and I see that "Old Rock, New Life - Page 2" and "man-woman" were never fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Understood :-) Well I was more going with the second proposal but I wanted to see what are everyone's thoughts about the process of FAC and how it could be improved. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding your first point, I understood that delegates read the entire FAC before closing (multiple times!) and do read if the nominator argues against an oppose. If the nominator's argument is effective, I expect the delegates ignore the oppose. Similarly, an oppose must be "effective" and directly relate to the requirements of an FA. Regarding your second point, ease of access is an issue with FAC. I'd suggest sticking a hand up and asking for help, early and often. Somethings are just hard to master (but easy to learn)—like what kind of publication a thing is and how to cite it. Somethings are easy, but a regular FAC reviewer might specify them in jargon. Please, do ask for assistance, the people here are quite friendly in my opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I guess the issue could be when something isn't promoted and the person fixed all issues and/or made an argument against issues, why it wasn't promoted, ie what the delegate thought was left undone or what arguments they thought might not work.Jinnai 16:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsure whether or not to submit an FAC now or until after the holidays

I am planning to submit an article for FAC, but, given that the holidays are right around the corner, would it be a good idea to wait after Christmas to send one? I don't want to submit one right now if nobody is going to be around to review it. –MuZemike 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it would make much difference; reviewers are thin on the ground and getting thinner. Well not me obviously, I'm getting fatter. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Scheduling plans for roast pork fuelled spotchecking. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Muzemike, I'd just go on readiness of article. There are people around regardless of time of year. So don't hurry if article unready, and don't delay if article ready....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting more reviewers in?

I notice that, to my annoyance, that two FACs for the article Russell T Davies (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) have been and gone from FAC with nothing apart from the standard checks. Obviously, this is somewhat annoying that, over two months, there has been only the smallest of feedback on an article that I've put a lot of work into getting it up to this sort of standard, and it's made worse by the fact I remember The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) was on FAC for nearly two months too. Sceptre (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we're a bit short of reviewers. Have you considered reviewing more? I noticed you reviewed Tintin, but additional reviews would help cut down on the backlog. Beyond that, I'm not sure what can be done - the reviewer shortage is becoming a perennial problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Sceptre, here's why helping out with high quality reviews at FAC will improve your chances of seeing a nomination promoted. Other delegates may approach the task differently, but one of our "jobs" is to manage the size of the FAC page so that worthy articles have a fair shot at being reviewed. As long as the number of nominations is in the 25 to 30 range, I would be uninclined to archive a month-old nomination that has gotten no review-- even less inclined to archive quickly for a third nom. On the other hand, I would still archive noms with Opposes quickly, and when the page size gets up around 40 to 50, I archive more aggressively. Long story short-- the more any nominator can contribute towards high quality reviews that help the delegates close nominations more quickly and hold down the page size, the better the chances your nomination can run longer. Conversely, low-quality reviews (that is, supports where subsequent reviewers identify problems) cause nominations to run longer than necessary and add to the backlog, increasing your chances of seeing a nomination archived sooner. It's quality reviews that help the backlog-- dropping in a Support on nominations where other reviewers subsequently find problems just cause nominations to run longer, sap reviewer time, and mean that delegates may have to archive those nominations that receive no feedback more aggressively as the page size grows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
What she said, and there are also some easier jobs that really need doing to get some of these FACs moving. Just reading the article and noting where something doesn't sound right to you ... and don't be shy about saying that you're not sure why, it just sounds wrong, or you don't follow what it means ... can be a huge help. Spotchecks are easy more often than they're hard ... just look at the sources that you can find online, and make sure the writers got the page numbers right and didn't misrepresent or closely paraphrase the sources. (Also see WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches). - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We should probably have a page that tells you how to do a good FAC review. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. From my seat, a good reviewer is one who either:
  • a) specializes in one area so I know exactly what the reviewer's expertise is and what they've checked (examples, prose, sources, images, check the lead, etc), or
  • b) does overall checks of a little bit of everything (reliable sources, accurate representation of sources, no copyvio, comprehensive, prose, MOS, etc) and lets me know what they've checked, or
  • c) a topic expert who can speak from a base of knowledge of the subject matter, or
  • d) a non-topic reviewer, who can check for jargon.
So, anyone who doesn't feel qualified to do b) particularly in the absence of someone else doing a) and c) probably shouldn't be adding Support, but could review to oppose on any basis. The single thing that contributes most to the backlog IMNSHO is reviewers who add unworthy supports and then don't keep the nom watchlisted to see if significant issues are later revealed. When a nomination has accumulated enough faulty supports, it has to be carried until serious reviewers dig in and identify the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, fuck it, I'm a sucker for a request for help. I suppose I could come back to FAC. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
We could still use an essay guide to describe those 4. I believe that is one reason people have issue. That and they think they aren't qualified, so suggesting to cut their teeth at WP:GAN and WP:PR are also good suggestions.Jinnai 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I am very much afraid that we have a reputation as less than welcoming and rather difficult to break into.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That doesn't mean we need to promote that stereotype.Jinnai 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sceptre, the largest concern at FAC is not about your article, it's keeping the index size down. I've read this over and over, and again above is another example. The only way to get your article through FAC in a reasonable amount of time is to join the ranks of the FAC Prima donnas™ where your article hits the FAC index and it has 37 supports within 24 hours. Brad (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, from someone who does not review FACs at the moment, but has always been interested in doing so: the reason I don't review is because I don't feel confident enough in knowing the various WP:# and policy guidelines relating to FA articles to do anything without fear of it being reverted or of sidetracking the process. Additionally and similarly to this point, I'm not quite sure of exactly what I'm supposed to be looking at/for. Yellow Evan's (YE) suggestion for a page that summarises how to conduct a good review, or even a page that summarises SandyGeorgia's "what we're looking for [in a reviewer]" would help. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and it was one of the things I was hoping to bring up during the leadership review in January. We work so much by precedent and unwritten rules it is difficult for newbies. Raul's page on TFA is an example of what I would like to see more of.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I need help here

Could someone tell me if what was said below it's true:

Malleus Fatuorum: "Once upon a time User:Tony1 was the "Oppose, 1a" elephant in the room, but that mantle seems to have fallen to me. I'm maybe being too critical, and that's a matter for the FAC delegates to decide, but I'd bet a pound to a penny that I could find multiple issues with pretty much any FA, never mind FAC."

I always knew it, but this is the fist time that is said out loud. That is: we have a super-voter here, someone whose vote weights far more than anyone else's. If this is true, I see no reason to why there is any need to keep with the present FAC process. We should drop it entirely and let Malleus Fatuorum review all nominations and tell which one will pass and which one won't.

The problem is that he and I share a history. In my view, our relationship is quite simple: I stay far alway from him. Unfortunately, he seems to coninue going after me. I've recently nominated Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and he appeared there. Why? I can see it only as a provocation. There are countless other articles which have been nominated and it makes no sense that he chose to review mine. He won't be neutral for sure.

Thus, I'm asking for any delegate to tell him to stay alway from me. Just that. I'm here asking politely for Malleus Fatuorum to leave me in peace. --Lecen (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you've no obligation to listen to me, but I think you're seriously misinterpreting that comment. It seems to imply not a "super-voter" (and indeed speaks to the opposite with the comment that FAC delegates should decide on the merit of the comments), but instead someone who consistently criticizes unclear or rough prose - just as I am arguably currently the "sourcing elephant" though I'd appreciate very much if no one used that label for me. The personal issues between the two of you are what they are, and the delegates may act on that if they so choose - but your first paragraph is, to my way of thinking, quite off the mark. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec with Nikki) Um, I don't see anywhere in that where Malleus says his vote is weighted more than anyone else's... He says that he's good at spotting errors in prose - that is completely true. He says that it used to be that nominators were afraid of getting a 1.a oppose from Tony, because he was picky about prose - that's true as well. He says that now being uber-picky about prose (something that FAC is known for!) has apparently fallen to him, because Tony doesn't seem to participate in the FAC process any more - that's also true. He does not say anywhere that delegates take his opinion more seriously than anyone else's - in fact he says that they may decide he's being too picky. He says of your nomination, "This isn't bad, but it's still a bit rough", and then gives some very specific suggestions for changes and appears quite willing to engage in dialog. Nowhere in your nomination does he show the slightest bit of attitude (which Malleus is also known for...with no offense meant to him). You have both him and Dank (another wonderful copyeditor) willing to help you out on this article. However, your attitude has driven Dank away - "Okay, I'm done here.". Are you trying to make it so no-one is willing to copyedit your articles? Because that really looks to be where this is headed, when you insult and try to drive away two of the best copyeditors in the project, both experts in what it takes prose-wise to get through FAC... Dana boomer (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
If you read my comments to all other reviewers you'll see that I try to be as helpful as possible. I'm well aware that you're both friends of Malleus Fatuorum and that you'll stick to him no matter what. Unfortunately, no one here seems to have bothered with the problem: he and I do not get along and he should not review my articles. That's simple but I'm seeing that no one is listening. Plus, when he said Once upon a time User:Tony1 was the "Oppose, 1a" elephant in the room, but that mantle seems to have fallen to me he meant exactly that: a nomination can have 100 supports, but if Malleus Fatuorum appears and says "no", it's all finished. I'm not a newcomer and I had articles reviewed by Tony1 (see Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. I came here to ask politely to someone help me and for the sake of preventing greater problems to tell him to leave me in peace. I'm asking now: editors who share a history of enmity are allowed to review each other's articles, to make comments about each other on arbitration, disputes, etc? --Lecen (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: See Malleus Fatuorum's remarks there: we are not allowed to give physical description of long deceased people and an entire section is about the military education of that person we should change its name to "adolescence". Perhaps his early military career should be renamed "adulthood" and his generalship "Senile years". Reviewers can make unnecessary comments too. --Lecen (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I see completely unreasonable behaviour by the nominator, who managed to turn constructive criticism from two respected reviewers into a fight. Assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"The dishonesty on display here is beginning to stink. Attempts to get rid of me for alleged incivility have so far come to naught, but now I have to be eliminated because my standards for prose are too high. Well go fuck yourselves is all I have to say to that." (See here) This is what Malleus Fatuorum said to me less than 2 weeks ago. And you see from my part a "completely unreasonable behaviour"? Only because I asked the person who insulted me before (see here and here) and who does not like me to leave me alone? Really? Does everyone here sincerely believe that a person like that should review my article? (Please see here) --Lecen (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting Malleus's comments, and the fact is that these days no FAC does get 100 supports, least of all yours. Malleus is far from the only one to have commented on prose issues on your FACs over the years. I think you are not a native speaker, & you should just accept the fact that your articles will always need one to give it a tedious and time-consuming going-over to meet the current FA standards. Unfortunately you have managed to antagonize the editors who currently perform that function most often. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Check the article's history log. I never said I was a fantastic writer. On the contrary: I do the research, not the writing. It is Astynax, who does the writing. Another copy-editor reviewed the article before it was nominated. But this doesn't matter. I read enough to know what is the general mood. --Lecen (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You know, it's entirely possible to not tick off Malleus - the trick to that is to ... not have a chip on your shoulder. And I'm impressed that Dank left off that FAC, since he's one of the most easy going persons around. Maybe, just maybe, if Dank left - the problem isn't with Malleus or with Dank - but with your own attitude and the solution isn't to blame Malleus but to work on your own behavior. I read the FAC - and I have to agree with Malleus and Dank - the description of his appearance fits very badly in a section entitled "Military education". And you don't seem to be willing to entertain other solutions to the problem nor be willing to listen to others. Yes, it sucks to have others criticize your prose and offer suggestions - but a real writer learns that having other critique your work is part of the writing process and learning to take well meant criticism is a great skill to have througout your life. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Now you're being unfair. There was not, at any moment, a refusal from my part of collaborating with anyone. Dank reviewed the article and I supported all changes he made and everything he suggested or criticized. The same goes to Fifelfoo who also reviewed the article. It seems that the main point here is being ignored, unfortunately. --Lecen (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not being unfair - I'm calling the situation like I see it. A description of the person is a bad fit for a section entitled "Military education". Dank suggested retitling the section "adolescence" where the description would be fine - you seem to have ignored that suggestion and instead gone off on Malleus instead of replying to Dank's point - that's what I mean when I say you did not entertain other solutions - a solution was offered (by Dank) and you ignored it to go after Malleus instead. Get the chip about Malleus off your shoulder and learn to work with him, and your work will improve markedly. And you'll learn some things. Yes, you don't speak English natively, and we understand that. That doesn't mean that Malleus is out to get you. He actually treated that review pretty mildly - you are the one getting upset with his suggestions and imputing motives to him that aren't needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You're again being unfair. I did respond to Dank [1] and he saw no problem.[2] If Malleus Fatuorum is not after me, could you explain why did he meddle (see here) in a conversation I had with an editor which he had no involvement or reason to? --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The obvious question here is what do you consider fair? Do you wish that no one criticizes the articles you nominate although you admit your weakness with the level of English necessary for FAs? Or do you just wish Malleus Fatuorum to avoid articles you nominate? If that is the case, and he is right when he says he has taken over Tony1's role of thoroughly critiquing prose (and I'm not saying he is, I'm just offering that as a hypothesis), that would mean the article might get passed without his pointing out what must be fixed. One of your articles might be passed when it should not be. So what? Well, imagine it makes it to the main page with errors and confusing English that appears that it was written by a non-native speaker. What would you prefer: Malleus critiquing your prose now or you having to read "Who wrote this crap?" with ten or fifty examples of mistakes that were never caught at FAC, on main page day? --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm replying to Lecen's "Now you made me look like a spoiled child" on my talk page. I've been doing my best to copyedit every Milhist article (and a lot of other articles) at FAC for a while now. Lecen's articles, including this one, have taken me about twice as long as most. That's not a problem, but in fairness to other articles, I wrote: "Lecen, I'm starting a new project and my time is really limited these days ... I have no spare time for settling disputes, so if you and Malleus start yelling at each other, I'm out of here." Lecen started yelling, so I left. No hard feelings, I've just got other articles to work on, and it wouldn't be fair to sink more time into this one, particularly when it's so difficult to make progress. If someone else wants to tackle it, great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks and image reviews needed

We have several FACs at the bottom of the list that are close to being promoted, but that still need attention to sources and/or images:

I haven't yet been able to go through all of FAC today; there may be more articles with similar issues. Ucucha (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (Now done going through. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)) (Updated – Ucucha (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC), 10:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC))

I changed the latter link (Rehab) to point to archive #3. --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm waiting on editor responses to my Brain spotchecks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I just spotchecked Blonde on Blonde. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I have commenced a spotcheck on Diffuse panbronchiolitis and am waiting on editor comment before proceeding or completing spotchecking. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough checks, Fifelfoo. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Diffuse panbronchiolitis has had an adequate (5/27 sources) spotcheck without problems now. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask a dumb question? Does the term "spotcheck" refer to a validity check of all sources, or just a sample of them? I'm new to the FAC process, but I've seen "spotchecks" go both ways (comprehensive, sampling). Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Under most circumstances, spotchecks involve checking a sample of sources for accurate representation of the source (WP:V) and avoidance of copyvio/close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted to help out with some of these, but also wanted to do it correctly. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
To add to that, I'll sometimes ask for a comprehensive source check when a spotcheck yields too many issues. Ucucha (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As someone who tries to clean up the "five on the bottom" with spotchecks, I make a judgement call about what variety and uses of sources the article has, and proceed with a sample of sources to try to "uncover" problematic habits. I spotcheck as many sources as I think I need to, or as few sources as I think I can get away with; and those numbers are the same. Like Ucucha notes, if there are a lot of problems, my spotchecks become more and more complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Spotchecks have already been done for "Single Ladies". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Malformed nomination

Does anyone have time to deal with this malformed nomination and to leave a note with the nominator? FAC page is here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying, Carcharoth-- that has been sitting there since Dec 11th, I'm busy with a funeral, and anyone could have done this over the last four days. See {{FAC withdrawn}}. Remove from FAC, remove from talk, db-g6 the nom, and notify the nominator. There's a page of instructions in my sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, this user's second out-of-process nomination, also a FAR notification. Will someone pls watch this editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Recusals

So far as an FAC delegate, I've refrained from taking action on most biological articles, because that is the area I've worked in in my own content work. However, with both other FAC delegates absent for the moment, I'm going to start promoting and/or archiving those from now on. With one exception (for which I've asked Raul to make a decision), I haven't actually been involved specifically with any of the biological FACs that are currently open. Please do let me know if you feel I should recuse on any of these FACs. Ucucha (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Sandy is back active again? Not that I have any problem with you promoting/archiving bio facs that you haven't reviewed on, but just questioning the validity of the "both other delegates are gone" rationale. Mainly a technicality, though - as long as you haven't reviewed, I don't see an issue with you promoting/archiving. Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Actually, never mind. Just saw that Sandy blanked her talk page and put up a wikibreak notice. Have fun being the sole delegate again :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless you've been a significant editor of an article, I can't see that there's a problem. You wouldn't be doing this job if people had doubts about your integrity, Merry Christmas, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Jimfbleak; there's no COI unless you've been involved in editing the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Second/third Jim/Storm -- the fact you're even seeking a reality check is another sign of your integrity (or is it anxiety -- well, anyway, nice you asked)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be administering the biological articles in general since content is important as well as form. The Sasata-Visionholder-Uca trio is a little tight (although all of you very strong, just you work a lot together). So understand a reticense to be the decider there. But I think it actually makes most sense for you to be the subeditor for giraffe or the like. Would have no issue with you doing a turtle of mine and prefer it actually.TCO (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I think we need more delegates (just more total number). I think it will make things less tense if there is less of a concentration. And also allow delegates to write and review more. No reason WEhwalt, Brian Bolton, Hawkeye, Malleus, etc. can't do this job. They have lots of experience with the processes here. And have strong outside writing experience. And brains. TCO (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiger

hello,

please transclude it. Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN 18:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Article is not FAC ready, but I can't suggest withdrawal based on not consulting significant contributors because there are no active significant contributors. I'm not transcluding it, I did put a suggestion on the FAC that the nominator should consider peer review, and will see what happens. If we had less ill-prepared FACs dominating the page and sapping reviewer time before being archived, we FAC delegates might actually have more FACs to close when we review the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Other topic

If it's obviously not ready, then just close it with an explanation for the submitter. This is what an editor at a magazine would do. Maybe after we have an election, you will feel more authority to lead. (And I'm not having a go at you. This is just common sense for how to adminster things.)TCO (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
GOP's been doing very fine work getting articles improved. I have one I've promised to do for him but I doubt I will get to it before the weekend. Perhaps during one final dose of the Red Zone Channel. Sandy, I did give some thought to the RFC you mentioned on leadership. I did not, however, want to begin work with you away. Perhaps we can talk about it next week, when you've caught up?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Wehwalt, what does the work GOP's been doing have to do with this discussion (sometimes I get the sense you aren't following discussions or don't click on links)?[3]

TCO, Wikipedia is not a magazine, FAC delegates are not editors of magazines (we judge consensus), and we don't just close things based on your notion of common sense-- on the other hand, that doesn't mean I have to transclude an ill-prepared nom that wasn't transcluded by the person who launched it-- I prefer to first give the nominator advice and allow them the chance to decide what they want to do, since it's not my job to make up rules as we go.

Wehwalt, if you're still interested in an RFC on FAC, and can't wait until I'm settled in the New Year, I strongly suggest that you ping in Mike Christie to get some discussion and questions on the table first, since ill-launched RFCs rarely go anywhere, and Mike has a strong history at FAC at running RFCs correctly (meaning, ample discussion and definition of issues before launching an RFC).

And by the way, why are TCO and his adherents (meaning those who believe that only high page view articles should be eligible to be featured articles [4] [5] and that deference shouldn't be given to significant contributors' concerns in selecting TFA dates [6]) giving "your" articles deferential treatment [7] [8] [9] that they aren't allowing other editors? If TFA selection is now being run by TCO and Ettrig instead of by Raul654 and Dabomb87 at WP:TFAR, can we all get in on the new process? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, considering what TCO has done here, I will initiate an RFC on FAC leadership (including myself) once this kerfuffle is settled, and after the holidays.

SandyGeorgia, a FAC delegate, November 28, 2011.[10]
  • I am not TCO's lawyer; if you have questions for him, I believe his talk page is ready, willing, and able to take your questions. Ask him. I speak only for myself, I have no mandate to speak for anyone else, do you? As for Great Orange Pumpkin, as you seemed to question his submission of that article, I was mentioning that even if Tiger wasn't ready yet, he is doing and supervising good article work and needs to be encouraged. I have never asked anyone to give deference to my articles, and do not consider those diffs worth the accusatory tone of your post, Sandy. When TCO's report came out, you stated that you desired a RFC on leadership, as the report questioned your and Raul's administration of the FA area. Don't you ream me out for waiting and consulting with you on the RFC that you requested. If that has changed, you need to say so. Sandy, have you changed your mind?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh wait, Sandy threatened to RFC because of that silly TCO thingie that wants chair and all other such nouns to be an FA. By the way, did anyone outside of this talk page take that report seriously for longer than its allotted 15 minutes of fame? –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I missed answering this query. Yes, apparently enough people were frightened off by TCO and Ettrig's efforts and unique views that only high page view and vital articles should be FAs, that the legacy left from that debacle is that WP:TFAR is now completely dead, with essentially nothing but requests for high-page view articles (not always mainpage ready), and everyone else apparently afraid to even go near the place. As was noted by many early on, what TCO did was bound to do nothing but discourage FA writing, not encourage it, but it also appears to have frightened people off of FAC and TFA in general-- since who wants that kind of scrutiny and criticism, particularly from folks who aren't FA writers. The entire thing was seriously demotivating, and while FAs will still be produced, I'm now more worried about what is happening to WP:TFAR, which seems to have died after being taken over by the handful of "vital" and "high page view" adherents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't personally consider RfC as a threat. Possibly a RfC/U is a threat, I would still not consider it such.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt, GoP didn't nominate/submit that article, he merely found it the untranscluded nomination and brought it here. That was the sole extent of his participation in that FAC. I think that's what Sandy means by not clicking on links... Dana boomer (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Still no reason for Sandy on the warpath. GOP has been doing fine work enlisting editors and reviewers voluntarily. Why is a word of praise for an editor out of line? As for Sandy, most of us are very good at words, and it distresses me when they are used in such a manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt, you seem to have famously missed the point and gone off on a tangent without answering the simple questions asked of you. GOP had nothing to do with the Tiger article-- he apparently found an untranscluded FAC and doesn't know how to transclude it himself (strange), so asked here. I'm concerned that you often seem not to read links or get the point that others have to explain to you-- it wasn't that hard.

    Now, as to the question, I'm still curious. Is WP:TFA/R now being run by an editor who has never written an FA, and one who has one FA, on their individual talk pages, and why are "your" articles given deference that others aren't given? FAC has never been subjected to favoritism, backchannel dealings, or preferential treatment-- it has always been an open and transparent process where everyone is treated fairly. Why is TFA/R apparently now being run on some individual's talk pages, and why are those same individuals hounding FA writers to the point that it would be logical if they stopped submitting FACs, not wanting to be subjected to the craziness that is unfolding wrt TFA?

    As to an RFC, I've suggested the best route-- ping Mike Christie in here to ask the correct questions and get a discussion going (hopefully not one dominated by another TCO wall of text) to determine what issues (if any) anyone besides TCO and his adherents want addressed at FAC, then if anyone credible has concerns, figure out what questions to ask in an RFC. And no one said you were anyone's lawyer, so cool it on the defensiveness-- I think you will find that reading links will help avoid hotheaded tangential responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way are my articles given special deference? The only thing I can think of is that I saw that Ettrig was nominating high view VAs and I asked him not to nominate Nixon because I want it to run on his centennial day in a year? I ask few favors of anyone here and I certainly don't engage in back channels. I think I talked to Clrt once on some messenger system through Google? That's not IRC, is it? We were discussing a Nixon-related collaboration he wound up doing on his own. Anyway, although we disagree on some things, let's agree that this discussion isn't going anywhere positive. After the new year, I'll consult with Mike or anyone else who wants to be involved. I am not foolish enough to walk into a bear trap though. Happy new year, I hope it is less dramatic for all of us.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a coy response-- the diffs are above, it's not a difficult question. TCO and Ettrig have made it pretty clear in those diffs that they think something is wrong with the process if deference is given to the contributors of the article in terms of when it runs at TFAR, and yet you are given that same deference. As to whether I've changed my mind about an RFC, I haven't had time to think about that, since the TCO adherents have targeted an FA written by me (Tourette syndrome), so my time over the holidays has been taken up answering questions posed by folks who don't seem to know Wikpedia practices or policies or to have read the article, or to know anything about the topic or its sources, simply because they want it at TFA because it gets high page views (in other words, who and what is driving TFAR, and will that drive off FA writers?). This is precisely the sort of thing that discourages FA writers from bringing articles to FAC, and makes them cringe at the notion of having their article appear on the mainpage, and if/when it comes to an RFC, I'll fight anyone who is weakening FAC and demotivating FA writers. This business of TFAR being used to discourage FA writers, and being run on individual talk pages, with some FA writers targeted and others given special treatment, to advance the notion that a handful of editors have about pageviews and that most FAs shouldn't be FAs and only high pageview articles should be eligible needs to be brought out into the light. You seem to support the notion, and since you're a heavy participant at TFAR, we all deserve to know why you're asking for special treatment that the rest of us aren't given. As to after the New Year, with the high page view crowd targeting Tourette syndrome, I don't suppose my time will likely be any more free a year from now than it is now, since I'm now a target for folks who know nothing of a topic wanting to prepare it for TFA as they see fit when they see fit; I'm glad you're exempt when the rest of us aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy new year again, Sandy. I'm disengaging.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good, next time you want to go off on a rant about me, please read the links first, and understand how FAC works. Raul and Dabomb have always worked to respect significant contributor wishes, and FAC has never been run by favoritism, preferential treatment, or backchannel dealings-- that seems to be changing by a mere handful of editors who think they can run it the way they want, and who seem willing to grant preferential treatment to editors who support their party line, and that seems to be ... you. Bad bad direction for FAC and TFAR to be headed, when they were one of the few functioning areas of Wikipedia precisely because this sort of baloney never happened. So, let's stop it not just in the New Year, but right here right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
As you say. I'm not going to argue. Again, happy new year. I was sorry to hear of your having to attend a funeral, and I sincerely hope you and your loved ones have a healthy and happy year.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that's most kind-- it was a very long December here. Best to all in the New Year, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • An RFC on FAC? Holy crap, doesn't everyone already have enough trouble and stress already? Is the price of a successful RFC (assuming it would be successful, which is a leap, because FAC tends to be conservative, and Wikipedia tends to let it run itself), is the benefit truly worth the potential cost of adding to reviewer/delegate burnout? Hmmm. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic

  • I found this page suddenly when reviewing my watchlist log. Maybe we should request a bot, which will find non-transcluded FAC pages, and which will correct errors, or at least report them, say, on this talk page. ♫GoP♫TCN 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, GoP, I understood that, since it happens often :) I look for untranscluded noms routinely via Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list, but in this case, you got there first and posted here asking for help. I'm not sure we need a bot to routinely check for untranscluded noms: it happens rarely, and untranscluded noms are almost always drivebys from new nominators who haven't read FAC instructions, and they are often unprepared, requiring personal intervention and a message to the nominator to help decide what to do. If the nominator wants to go forward in a case like this (there are no significant contributors), it's not up to us to deny them. Now, in this case, even though I entered a comment on the untranscluded nom two days ago, the nominator hasn't responded-- meaning it appears to be a nominator who isn't even following the FAC-- not likely a good candidate for transclusion and one that will possibly result in a drain on reviewers without improvements to the article. That's the typical scenario for most untranscluded noms: and we can use the {{FAC withdrawn}} template to educate the nominator and just remove the template from the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, done-- I removed the FAC template from article talk, and when I went to notify the nominator, I realized it was the same editor whose other work had been brought to my attention on my talk page by a third editor (a week or so ago), so I pinged someone who works in that area who might be willing to mentor this editor. (Another case of an unrecognized editor whose sig doesn't agree with his editor name ... grrrrr ... ). Anyway, I think if a bot did this sort of thing, we'd miss too many opportunties to educate new nominators, and end up with a lot more ill-prepared noms (which was my point before this thread went off topic). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose size

I see Dr pda hasn't been on since December 13, so I'm hoping someone here can run his prose size script on Elvis Presley; I for some reason can't make the prose size script work on that article, it has been suggested at WP:TFA/R, and I just noticed that concerns about the article's size were raised on its FAC (including by me). Could someone pls supply the Dr pda prose script data? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea why the script isn't working for you but the readout on the latest version is
  • File size: 482 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 150 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 33 kB
  • Wiki text: 178 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 92 kB (15642 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 1821 B
Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, if Dr pda surfaces, I'll query him about the problem. Could someone also check the version that passed FAC?[11] User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics (last time data checked) shows this to be our longest FA, and I raised the concern after the FAC that the issue wasn't addressed although it was raised on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The stats for the promoted version are:
  • File size: 58 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 145 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 31 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 90 kB (15388 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 1716 B
Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again-- does anyone understand what made file size go from 58 to 482? It's not prose, and doesn't seem to be citations, but I may be reading this wrong. This article isn't accessible or readable by most computers or readers with normal attention spans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the file size for old versions is glitchy. I just checked old versions of Merionethsire, Rochester Castle, and Ben Hilfenhaus; three articles varying in number of words, images, and references and yet the tool says the file size for each is 58 kB. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The 480kB for the live version is for the html for the entire page. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Question re translations

As some may remember, my FAC nomination of Koninginnedag failed earlier in the year due to a lack of quality Dutch sources. I have, in the interim, obtained such sources. I have a Belgian friend who is bilingual in Dutch and English, and if I approached her, I am certain she would be willing to translate the relevant extracts for me (I will insist on paying her, she needs the money). Would there be objection to that? I would not quote from the translations, merely rely on them in citing to the original Dutch. She has no special academic qualifications. I am certain she would do a good job or tell me if she was unable to do so, as she seems to value her friendship with me, as I do her. I don't think she's edited here in article space, but I seem to recall she's posted a question or two to Belgium-related talk pages as an IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's fine, but take care to avoid close paraphrasing-- often folks doing translations forget that when you move from the Dutch to the English, you still have to paraphrase rather than translate literally. Also, ask her to provide an exact quote of the Dutch for you to include in the footnote for anything that might require clarification, is contentious, is surprising, is BLP, whatever ... adding the Dutch to the footnote helps native speakers see exactly what was said and lends assurance about the translation for contentious text. Doesn't Ucucha speak Dutch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I will pass on your advice to her. Yes, Ucucha does speak Dutch, Drmies as well, and so they can look over my shoulder. I can easily email scans to them, and copies of my friend's translations. I see this as far superior than trying to use Google translate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing. I wonder if I could be licensed one way or another as a translator, and if I could get rich off of that. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
On Google translation-- no kidding! (I think you may be familiar with the high regard I hold for Google translations in Spanish :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a few paragraphs and was not happy with the results. Drmies, the Dutch translator who I've usually dealt with (also speaks Spanish) in the court system does very well for herself. If you can keep up with the flow of words in a courtroom simultaneously translating, that's pretty good. I believe she has certifications. And if the Spanish translator is not someone I know and trust, Sandy, I'm listening to the translation to my client with half an ear. I know enough "courthouse Spanish" in addition to my very stale high school and college courses to sometimes catch a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Just keep good records of everything that was translated etc., so that if ever anyone objects to any detail (either during FAC, or even at some later date), you can show the data. One good way would be to put the info in your user space. If that isn't feasible, store it on your computer or your email acct., and don't accidentally delete it later. That's my .02. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Titchwell Marsh

Any chance of an image review for the Titchwell Marsh FAC? Thanks, Jim

Sure. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 767

Greetings all FAC contributors...is there anyone able to perform source spotchecks for the FAC of Boeing 767? Thanks for any help. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The History Review Department

I have restructured WikiProject History's review department so that it can serve more than just one WikiProject and conduct general history A-class reviews. The link is here. DCI traveling Talk 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the participant list, and did you change anything that affects FAC? PS, the idea that we should contact a coordinator via email in cases of abuse goes against everything I stand for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The 70 were here but he has cleared the page for some reason. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The participant list is not yet "live", as it were, but you can find a current one here. The only change, ruleswise, that affects FAC at all is that articles on subjects which are covered on 50 or more Wikipedias are now worth triple points, 100 or more quadruple (last year, the only multiplier was that articles on 20 or more/VITAL3 were worth double). I've removed "by email" from the main page; the question of transparency is a legitimate one. As Ucucha's bot should now deal with the notification, I'm assuming that this is no longer an issue? If not, I will remove it from the rules. If there's anything else I can do to make things easy for you, please let me know- I consider myself a part of both the Cup and the FAC process, and I hope to see them interacting positively. J Milburn (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Holy cow, I didn't know there were 100 Wikipedias ?? Will need to hear from Ucucha on the bot issue. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
There are 283 right now, 107 of which have 10k or more articles. Naturally, of course, anything covered on more than 100 is gonna be something pretty significant... J Milburn (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
283 according to the list. GRAPPLE X 02:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm still running the bot, and it should work correctly starting tomorrow. I'll keep an eye out for possible issues. Ucucha (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps CUP instructions can continue to remind other CUP reviewers to declare their participation, for the avoidance of the appearance of <you know, whatever>. For example, back when WP:FAT was submitting FACs, they would quickly rack up boatloads of support from involved participants, and anyone opposing had a tough row to hoe. We need to know if reviewers have a pony in the race, in either direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. The high-quality media gleaned from sessions like these will help illustrate FAs, hence my message here. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Image quality in FA candidates?

Moved from WT:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire is heading towards FA. However the quality of the gem images has been questioned. Are these adequate? Is a notion of image quality even within FA's remit?

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Pre-FA_feedback. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I noticed this today. I'm biased because I encounter professionally produced images in my line of work (stuff that people actually pay to use), but I have to agree that those images could be, um, better. Note the image description for that one says 'taken with blurry cell phone camera'. To be honest, if I took an image like that on my camera, I'd delete it immediately. To balance this (I noticed one of the editors of that page getting upset about the image criticism) the text looks great. To answer the question, if I'd been looking at that article at FAC, yes, I would have raised the issue of image quality. Normally in a more diplomatic fashion, but here less so as the images do stand out as being so out-of-focus. Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it is the best you got. Getting coin images, I remember, was an utter nightmare. I do not imagine conditions were better with the gemstone.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and I do sympathise. I took the photograph at Lister Medal after I wrote the article and was surprised to see that the medal was being awarded again after a gap of many years and ended up attending the lecture (most lectures and awards like that are open to the public, but it was still very gratifying to be there in person). It is not a very good picture at all, but it is difficult to walk up close and stick a camera in people's faces during an award ceremony. Thought of something else, but will follow that up on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is we are too digital. Because we can't be perfect...we don't strive for good. I would have no problem with allowing something worse than what Sports Illustrated or National Geographic puts out for images. But we've taken that allowance and then converted it to anything goes. An article on a gemstone, sure as HECK should have an appealing picture.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Two points: (1) The article does have some nice images; (2) The real blurriness of this image is only apparent when you click on it and look at it at full size. It is clearly the worst image in the article, but do go and look at the other images as well. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to beef up certain pictures, maybe you could try Flickr. Just a couple days ago I asked a guy there if he'd mind re-licensing a certain photo of a medieval effigy I was interested in for an article. He was totally OK with it, and I think he probably felt good that someone noticed and liked his work.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I just looked at it. That article is adequately illustrated. We have much more serious issues with FACs lacking images at all or with submitters thinking they "don't have to" write and ask for donation requests when there is no image. The one image is blurry even small...but the overall article is decent. One step at a time. Maybe eventually we get to professional quality. But for now, that article is fine.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  • None of the gem images is much good at all. The one you pick should probably be dropped. In totally different ways, I shall have rude things to say about the images in Bulgaria if I get round to reviewing it. The same excuses won't work there. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have better mineral images in an article on a non gemstone than in that thing about a gemstone. :-)
Notable fluorine-containing minerals
pink globular mass with crystal facets
Fluorite
 
Long prism-like crystal, without luster, at an angle coming out of aggregate-like rock
Fluorapatite
 
A white rock on a black background
Cryolite
 

TCO (Reviews needed) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not claiming that images we use, even at FA, have to be of excellent quality. My point is that they need to be good enough (which I don't see these as being) and that given the constraints today, it's acceptably easy to achieve much better images than this. Bare cell phones don't work for close-up like this, but that $100 compact you took photos of the kids with over Christmas is certainly capable of doing far better - especially with decent lighting. Even if a gem is in a shop and we're relying on the goodwill of a shop owner to let us spend a few minutes photographing it on their counter, we can still achieve this. Then if we didn't get it right, we do it again - and the article isn't up to FA standard until we've achieved it.
If these are the best image that have been achieved, then the article isn't up to FA. If these are the best images that can be achieved (probably for historical reasons), then the article might be up to FA, because we've still got to remain pragmatic. In our case today though, the images can be re-photographed (neither subject access nor technical complexity or equipment cost seem to rule this out). Before we think we're at FA, then IMHO, we have to do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Taking a photograph of a small object through glass while standing and with the lighting uncertain can be difficult, notably an object that reflects. Especially since many museums ban cameras but don't make you check your cell phone. Been there, done it with uncertain results. Worth keeping when the alternative is no image. One of the reason I gave up on coins (besides I was trying the patience of FAC) was the difficulty with images. US coins are popular, high grade ones can be pricey. I got tired of using pre-1978 catalogues and asking for the indulgence of dealers and museums, who were suspicious of me to begin with and who are understandably obsessed with security. And, yes, I tried several routes to get high quality images, including asking the coin grading services and appealing on the coin boards. I got some help, but not enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Objects through glass - buy yourself a polarising filter and hold it over the front lens.
I did ask this question, and they're outside cabinets.
I've worked in museums. One of the things you learn is that museum staff are pretty much all crazy obsessives in love with their collections (they sure don't do it for the money). You want to make one of these people your bf for life? Tell them how much you love their collection. Once you've lifted yourself out of the mass of chewing-gum-planting great-unwashed visitors, you join them as someone who appreciates the collection, and (IM-vast-E) after that they then can't do enough to help you. Museum staff are doing it because they want their collections to be seen and appreciated by the outside world. If you look like a route to more of that, they'll be all in favour (NB - art galleries though, whole different game 8-( ). Many museums want a digitisation program, but can't afford it. OK, you maybe aren't going to have King Tut's headpiece handed over to you, but I've been granted access to world-class museums in the UK, USA and Europe, just for asking and looking like I was a fairly serious chap who was going to wash his hands first and not drop things. Today I'm asking to borrow a castle for a sculpture exhibition - they love it, because it's more visitors.
I'm too far from Montana to see many Yogo sapphires, or I'd just offer. I've also got enough past mileage through Commons that I get to say stuff like that with a straight face. Yes, I've driven to other towns with cameras, lights and ladders just to get that one weird photo for a gap in a wiki article. In this case though, the original photographers seem more interested in bringing FA down than in lifting the images up. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I would not assign motives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If we're talking about a unique object where it is being held in a location that forbids photography, there is no way we can reasonably expect a free image of the object, and one can argue that even if one gets a good image of the object via cell phone camera, that could put Wikipedia or the uploader in trouble should the museum find out (we're not talking major trouble, but enough to try to avoid that problem). In such a case, a non-free image provided by the museum or previously published before going into the museum would be acceptable presuming that the article in question is about that object specifically. We can't expect editors to break laws or private entities' requests to get a free image just because we can to try to replace the non-free image. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I have "snuck shots", like at the Matthew Boulton exhibition in Birmingham a couple of years ago, but I hate doing that and generally won't. Besides, I'm generally concerned about "next time". I try to keep good relations with archives and museums. And in this day and age, word gets around so easily ... it is not worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
From the article talk, these are stones that the photographers either own, or have gained reasonable access to. They aren't working through cases.
If I can't get the photo angle I want, I ask the museum to move the furniture. If you look like you've a serious purpose, and you're flexible about just what and when you're after, then it's surprising just how flexible a museum will be. Even better is when they already know who you are, because you photographed something there before, and afterwards you thanked them and showed them how you'd used the images. We're both on the same side here, and decent museum staff recognise that. Few museums forbid photograpy anyway - they either forbid excess lighting in textile galleries, or they forbid arrogant jerk photographers trying to block up a gallery during busy opening hours. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you are in such a comfortable position with the museum to manage a free shot of something that they have generally disallowed the public from doing, great!. However, this is an unrealistic expectation if the museum broadcasts, in general, that photography is disallowed but they allow you to do such. A "freely available" image means one that any random editor at that place (and time?) with a camera could grab without breaking any laws or requests; if you have to make special deals to do that, that's not the same thing. We'd still love the free image, and if you can grab it, heck yes, use it over a non-free, but in the generalized case, the non-free image would pass NFCC#1 if obtaining the free image was restricted like this. And to tie back to the image quality issue, it would be the same thing: if the only free image you can get is going to be a washed out, blurry mess because you have to turn to a camera phone than a good digital camera, due to the nature of the display of the object, it is not an equivalent free replacement for a non-free image of the same object taken under high quality conditions. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed in part. At the Money Museum in Colorado Springs, I was allowed to shoot between visitors (if they see you doing it ...). The only thing I could possibly adjust was myself and the camera. Both are somewhat antiquated and worn with time. I did my best. Note though that we don't consider images snuck or with special permission less "free use".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen a museum or gallery that bans photography. The tightest ones (and this is usually the case with art galleries) are where they want to own image copyrights, so they restrict photography to themselves. This is (IMHE) insurmountable. Even then though, photography still goes on, it's just restricted as to whom. In most cases though, those "no photography" signs are only there to keep the crowds flowing, not to stop your evil glass eye stealing their souls. If you talk to the museum staff (and this can often take weeks), things become so much easier. It's disruption they have a problem with, not imaging or copyright. I've sometimes paid money to museum staff as overtime, to keep access to buildings after hours, when the public have gone. Most often though, I've been working in the museum myself - lots of small museums or libraries have voluntary projects, especially if you have some skill to offer (I have a little training in paper conservation). This is the sort of interworking that the WP GLAM project is about.
I'd have to disagree about the rigours of NFCC#1 though. Usually I encounter this when arguing against image deletion, and the deletionists there take a far more stringent view - usually that if someone could take the photograph then a free image is needed, not that if anyone could take the photo. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I recognize that there's several different ways that a ban on photography can be taken - the copyright issue (for modern works, at least, but that means that a picture won't be free regardless), issues with flash photography impacting the art directly, and as you mentioned, crowd control. We do have to consider that museums may or may not be public places, and there are laws that impart copyrights on photos taken on non-public places depending on numerous criteria. You may be able to sneak a camera photo of a work of art of great quality, but if it is a private collection, that may no longer be a free image.
On the second point, I think we have a problem and inconsistency if editors are arguing that if at most one person can take a free image, then a non-free is inappropriate. NFCC#1 is written to follow the Foundation's resolution on non-free media, which contains this line An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose.... This implies that the ability to take the free image has to be of an Wikipedia editor, aka someone interested in promoting free content. For all purposes, these are members of the public at large; if a free image could be taken but requires access above and beyond what the public can do, it is not responsible to expect the free image could be made. This is why we have limited exceptions for non-free photos of living persons that are incarcerated or known to be recluse; the public (and ergo a WP editor) cannot easily access these to get the free photo. Similarly, if there are out-of-copyright works of art kept in locations where photography is outright banned, even if they allow a lone professional in once in a while to take photos, the free image cannot be reasonably expected. Now, if it is the case that we know of a specific active Wikipedia editor that has good ties to a museum and can easily gain access to spots the public can't to take free photos, that's a different story. But generally that's just not an assumption we can make. If people are making the argument that it can be anyone, not a random member of the public, that just needs access, that's the wrong point to make, and we may need a separate discussion on that. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As a side note, I had another editor wet the bed over this image:[12] in the Dagger article for being too good. The typical people who never served in the military but edit military articles wanted a "Real Fighting Dagger" and were going to use a horrid B&W one from the commons. So I took this picture:[13] which I think sucks, but it makes the kids happy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you are scary. With you and then TTT and his "farming implements" (and a set of 105 db bench press!) Oh, well...I can say that the M-1 rifle makes a great sledge hammer. It'll crack gemstones probably with the right amount of torque and ass driving down on something. Definitely pops a combo lock well. Um...that is the limit of my knowledge. Very good for breaking locks when you lack bolt cutters.

Garandparts.jpg

TCO (Reviews needed) 05:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the best thing to pop a combo lock in my experience is a spent 105MM Howitzer casing. Just the right weight and the brass usually doesnt leave a mark on the lock. Most of the time the combo still works, which is why it comes in handy when you want to put a live goose inside someone's wall locker the night before Inspection.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm convinced this should be part of the RFC process, if only to make clear our expectations for images.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Good luck with that-- another one bites the dust. The work is hard, draining,[14] and with Elcobbola gone, there are precious few image reviewers anywhere on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. Criterion #3 just says "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Without wanting to be very prescriptive, it is odd there is nothing at all about quality. Is the Rfc the place to deal with this though? For the other side of the coin, on the infrequent occasions I look at featured pictures or their selection process, I am frequently appalled at how little attention is paid to the blurbs, which are often very shoddy. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If we want to modify WIAFA #3, I think a RFC is a proper route for that. Personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe the quality aspect has generally fallen to NFCC#1 in terms of equivalent replacement. We can presume that given a blurry, poor quality free image of something, there will always be a very high quality non-free version. The question we have to ask is when these are put side by side, does the poor quality of the free image impact its use as an educational tool over the non-free image. Arguably for the OP's photo of the gemstone, I would say, "probably not" in this case, ergo making the free image acceptable, but that's highly subjective and one of those things that really can only be resolved through consensus. But the discussion's framework is set by the equilvalency clause in NFCC#1, and thus I don't think a change to WIAFA is needed (though certainly pointing to NFCC for clarity on the image quality issue). --MASEM (t) 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You are talking about totally different things, deletion criteria & FA criteria. Most of WP consists of stuff that should not be deleted but also should not be featured content. Rather alarmingly, Commons seems to have no clear deletion criterion for poor quality, but that is different again. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm speaking of FAC criteria. NFCC#1 is used for deletion of non-free content when equivalent free content exists, but it can also be used if there is a free image and a non-free image (already used elsewhere) and deciding between those. Quality of the image is related to the "equivalent" aspect of NFCC#1, because a poor quality image cannot be said to be equivalent to a high-quality non-free one. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! You're clearly not talking about FAC criteria, which can't depend on some other discussion somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it does and it doesn't. If the MOS shifts, we shift with it, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
WIAFA specific addresses all non-free images meeting the NFCC. NFCC addresses that a non-free image is inappropriate if a free equivalent will do the same job. But a free image is arguably not going to be able to do the same job if it of very poor quality. Ergo in such cases, if it is otherwise impossible to reasonably get a better quality free image, we'd use the non-free over that free image. It does apply to the FAC process, though not to this current present discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The BEGINNING of the criteria says this "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." So...I think that covers some expectation of quality in images. Note the word PRESENTATION. And the word PROFESSIONAL. Not JUST having the right license and following the period MOS caption nit. Also, we might think about what the actual impact is on readers. Not only "wiki law" criteria mode of thinking. And I'm NOT trying to say we need to immediately jump to National Geographic photographer standards. I'm reasonable. But we ought to at least consider the actual impact on the reader. And visuals are a huge effect. No reason why we can't try to up our game just a bit...TCO (Reviews needed) 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Note also the wording "has images where appropriate". So that certainly puts an expectation that unillustrated topics (where an illo is needed for identification or understanding or enjoyment) are unsat. And really stepping back from the "what is in the rules" game. Think about what we are trying to do in terms of presenting things to readers...that is the end goal. If the reader "should" (qualitative judgement) have an illo and it is lacking...then the article is not up to par. (TCO, unsigned)
I am finding myself coming around to that point of view, and I think it is the words "professional standards" which is doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy--no need to live in Montana, buy a Yogo from ebay and have your gf take the pic. PumpkinSky talk 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bids are already in on a few, and some rough stones too. Any reputable sellers you'd recommend? I could use a few sapphires, if these are as well coloured as the article claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know some. Some I would even buy from over the phone. Are you seriously buying some? If your gf takes photos as good as you claim and the stones are good samples, that'd be cool. PumpkinSky talk 03:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer the question

Someone please answer the question, where does it say, other than in people's varying opinions, say images have to be of a certain quality? All FAC criteria says is "It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status." Nowhere does it say an image is even required. Nowhere does it say "if andy doesn't like it, it can't be FA". This is merely Andy making up his own standards. Yes, they should be as good as we can reasonably get. But expecting people to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on equipment, or to buy anything for that matter, is complete bullshit. You want pro photos, give me the money to buy the gear. If wiki wants pro levels, it should pay the volunteers, not rely on the goodwill and expect them to spend their own money. Before we started taking this free Yogo photos, there were none. And what to we get for it? A bunch crap from certain users. And you want us to volunteer more time and money? We should go delete our images so the article has none. If you other users think it's okay to spend your own money, buy a Yogo from ebay and take your own photo. PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for the general FAC criteria, but I can say that if I reviewed that article at FAC, I'd object to the image taken with a cell phone (not currently in the article the last time I looked), and grouch about some of the others (but ultimately accept them). If that cell phone image was the only issue, I'd be unlikely to oppose, but I could understand if others did. If the cell phone image wasn't there, and the rest of the article was OK, I'd support. I certainly don't think professional standard pictures are needed (that is expensive, as you say), but you've been given good advice on how even amateurs can get better pictures if they understand the limitations of their equipment and the lighting conditions, and are alert to little tricks that can help (you pick these little tricks up the more you experiment with the equipment you have). But I do think some images can fall below the minimum standards you would expect in an online encyclopedia, let alone the examples of its best work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What really pissed me off was no appreciate of the money and effort we'd spent to get what seems to be the only free pictures of Yogos on the web. Did anyone give a crap? no. Andy came in saying they were crap, more or less, and expecting us to buy even more equipment when the FAC criteria say not one specific word about image quality. Yea, I could reacted better, but Andy's acting like his as innocent as a newborn, which is far from the case.PumpkinSky talk 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer, PumpkinSky, is that WP:WIAFA doesn't speak specifically to the issue because it's a matter for reviewer consensus. I've seen similar situations in the past where it truly was not possible to get any other image, so low quality images were accepted. It has to be weighed on a case-by-case basis, and one of the factors reviewers consider is whether it might be possible to go out and get a better image somehow. Now, having said that, someone will say the delegate shouldn't opine as it will prejudice the discussion-- but there you have it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally, a straight answer!--though it proves what I suspected, wishy washy standards that people with stronger personalities defacto set. If we deleted our images, wiki and the web wouldn't have any free Yogo pics. Consider that. The way we were attacked for being lousy photographers doesn't encourage trying more or spending more money. I was wary of trying FA for this very reason--hostility from the FA regulars, no wonder so many people avoid it. Extrapolate to all of wiki, and I see why so many people leave. I'm really not motivated to get this to FA anymore. PumpkinSky talk 03:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody has de facto set anything (and it seems to me that tempers are flying all 'round this topic, including the article talk page, not just in here :). Folks can argue all day long on a FAC, but until/unless a clear case is made one way or another, an article is not going to be promoted or archived based on a guideline-- it is almost always other issues in the article (prose, neutrality, comprehensiveness, reliable sources) that determine the fate of any FAC. I don't see any consensus in the discussion above because no one has yet asked the right questions. Calming tempers is a better way to get to the bottom of this, but it strikes me from reading the talk page that y'all were already pretty upset about this well before you approached this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That may be the stated goal and ideal, but reality is quite different. PumpkinSky talk 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad that worked out happily. I got engrossed in reading John Tyler at FAC and starting a review and forgot all this. We can always use another president at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly be ready to oppose an article if there was one or more really unsuitable images, in whatever way - but all I would be asking is for them to be removed from the article, not deleted. When it comes to opposing an article because it is under-illustrated, then arguments as to the difficulty of getting images come into play, but in principle I would be ready to do this, though reluctant. Before I started both Royal Gold Cup and Holy Thorn Reliquary we had no images of either piece, and it would have been wrong to bring either to FAC unillustrated. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I can heart someone having tried and just can't get it done. But I hear people say they should not even have to try. If you are not writing for donations, scouring flickr and Google. Not having the Graphics Lab improve your images...you are not putting forth best work for the end customers.
And...the Image Peeps are like the nicest people in Wiki. They are not nasty alligator snapping turtles like me. They are incredibly helpful and sweet and kind. I'm just a newb, but I've already come across Fallshirmjaeger, Materiacientis, MissMJ, Dcoetze, Carl Lindberg, Jack whateverhisnameisatCommons, Jwkchui, and whoever flipped my organofluorine pic. I mean there are some great peeps there. Several even have Ph.D.s but like to work with images. If you are doing any writing and putting images in, you'll come across them. It does not have to be that hard to find Faschua Nua replacements.TCO (Reviews needed) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
TCO you have no idea what you're talking about. Not you nor anyone here have any idea how much money I spent and how hard I tried to get decent photos of my own gems. PumpkinSky talk 23:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed this image from Everglades National Park, an FA. It's a bad photograph period: it's date-stamped, unattractive, and not well-framed. The name also does not identify what kind of turtle it is (soft-shelled, btw), making me think the photographer does not know what it is. In the absence of all other images, it may at one point have been appropriate, but in an article where there are already extraordinary photographs, it is clearly below the standard of images in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That pic was humdrum, agreed. Commons shows several Florida turtles, including some saying from the Everglades. I thought we had a FL softshell FP, but can't find it now. Anyhow...maybe this one, better for you (says from the Everglades)?
Floridasoftshellturtle-cropped.jpg

TCO (Reviews needed) 22:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pro or anti-turtle image for that article. Someone I think took the image, loaded it, and thought it would go well in the ENP article. It doesn't. There are much better images--and a lot of them. If there were a section about turtles in ENP (as there are about wading birds, crocodiles, panthers, etc.) I'd be glad to get a good image of a turtle. The image I removed just seemed like a pic someone took on vacation and loaded it without considering the quality of the article in totality. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Obviously an alligator is much more important. I'm honest not pushing the turtle. Just saying if you want one, there are some available. Your choice if you want one at all, for illustration. I would probably not bother if there is not discussion of turtles in article. Well...except they are fricking cute. But...I'm not pushing.  ;-) TCO (Reviews needed) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And videos on this site...really need work. The entire civilized world uses mp3 and the like. Since we have Jpeg, I don't buy the whole format kvetch (and if the content is donated, different versions can be hosted). We are way, way, way behind blogs or websites in terms of normal video. (can dream about Youtube embedding as really radical.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The video problem, I believe, is more an issue with the patents behind most popular video formats; they simply aren't open enough that while we can freely distribute the video content, the player for that specific codec may not be available in an open manner. That's also why we want OGG audio samples. --23:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've heard it, but it doesn't hold water. We routinely get donations of mp3 stuff and then rip it and put it in ogg. The content is the actual content, anyhow. It is just snobishness with the video thing. We can put both versions on our site and let the vast amount of browsers be able to access it. JPEG is also proprietary. And this is a huge deal. We are way behind the times and not engaging in multimedia the way people expect any site to do, nowadays.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I am very rusty in that specific area, but I thought that the last time I read about it, JPEG compression is patented, but JPEG decompression ( as would be needed by viewers ) is unrestricted for distribution. MP3 audio is patented in both directions, as well most video formats. The compression/encoding side, we don't care about, but its the viewing/decompressing/decoding side that is of concern. See this [15] where this policy was set for the project. This is all issues in addition to the actual license of the content of the work. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is that it is still snobishness. Who cares if the algorithm is patented. We are providing the CONTENT. If the user has the ability with his machine to read that, then we help them. And the vast majority of readers DO use that format and DON'T use ogg. I did a survey and less than 10% of random readers to Painted turtle could watch the ogg Wiki video. Every single one could watch the patented one. If we have the content, you could even make a rule that we have to have both version (ogg and mp3). But there is not licence required for us to just have that file on our site. the patent is different from the content.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
And as soon as you exclude some fraction of the readership from being able to access the material, you fail the Foundation's mission. Unless you can change the Foundation's opinion on the format for media files, we're stuck with serving them in open formats that reach 100% of the readership. We use formats that may be someone more obscure but easily obtaining without any legal issues, which reaches 100% of the audience. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A. We are totally falling down on actually providing the content than. I mean...it's as if we wrote the English articles in Church Latin or something. People can NOT access the videos. I won't even try to use them any more in FAs. This is a huge, huge problem.

B. Provide both formats at least. Make it a requirement that every person uploading a wmv or whatever format, also upload it in ogg. I would still like to provide both. For the rare 1% of people who lack the ability to watch the industry standary codecs, they would have an ogg fallback. But I want to provide something for all the other people that can't use ogg, that can use normal formats.

C. And as far as re-use, the content is the content and is downloadable and re-usable (and with work, convertable). I mean...when I got a donation from state of Oregon, I went on Commons and did my OTRS and someone ripped it for me from Youtube and converted it. The same thing applies in reverse. We licenced the video...not the format of it. The format is not copyrighted.

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no one that, if they have the ability to play any other media format, to play the open-source versions, that's the point. 100% of the audience can access it with software that is freely available (free as in thought, and likely as in beer); they may have to install certain pieces of software but because the formats are open, there's no question that they can acquire this software legally. There's no reason to provide a second format to that, nor does the Foundation allow these other formats for these reasons. The Foundation has made this requirement, including restricting what formats we can offer, so you'd have to convince them to change that, not at en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 07:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is NOT ON THEIR COMPUTER, we are not serving them. Be real. We are trying to actually provide content to people that are not all Linux gear heads. And can give you direct and practical example (video at Painted Turtle) where people could not stream the ogg. Not a single one went and uploaded some new browser or the like to solve the problem. You are living in some free software theoretical land that completely ignores real people and what they read and how they behave. And it does NOT include downloading new software to read our site.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And when I go to YouTube, et al., and get told that my Flash plug-in is out of date and that I have to download a new one to play a video, how is that any different? Anyway, this isn't the forum to argue your opinions because FAC is powerless to change Foundation policy on acceptable file formats. Imzadi 1979  17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • an interest perspective so why arent we offering a link to an ogg viewing software as part of the description of the video ie Video of turtle crossing the road download an opensource viewer from here Gnangarra 02:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Reshoot of Yogo sapphires

Reviewer guide

Per Carcharoth's comment above, I've created a sort of "guide for reviewers" at User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates, as a supplement to the Dispatches article already linked on WP:FAC. This is a draft only at this point, and any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'd be willing to help out with Dispatches articles if the community decides to go that route. In partnership with someone else, preferably. I am giving some thought to suggesting a column, rotating among director/delegates, those who mostly review, and those more into writing, giving practical advice, pet peeves, or just ranting for 500 words. Possibly we could begin to build a reference library (I didn't mean it about the ranting)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki! I've left some inline comments. Wehwalt, what prevents me from writing Dispatches is the need for a good copyeditor-- otherwise, I've got plenty of potential topics bouncing around the back of my head, and have for years, assuming The Signpost is now willing to let us publish without deadlines to assure content is well-reviewed and accurate. I doubt they will let us promote/mention ongoing FACs there, but if someone can convince them, grand! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikki, for addressing the inlines. The review Dispatch is linked in the FAC instructions, so I've added your guide as a See also to that Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, write a draft of one in your copious spare time, and I'll have a go at it. I am generally good at tightening language and the like.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No we are not willing to let you publish without deadlines, and will snobbishly hound you into shooting your ducks early. How impertinent of you to suggest otherwise; who do you think they are, common editors just like you? What a ridiculous notion. ResMar 04:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice one Nikki. Can we give promonince to this at the foot of the talk here. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Source and image checks pending

Moved from Ucucha list above (now archived for length): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone have time to do a spotcheck on sources at:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Feast to famine-- the above list still needs attention, but thanks to all of the ole regulars who dug in (you know who you are :)-- I've now got more than half a dozen maturing FACs, articles to read, and no archivals today! Thanks to all of you-- without our hard working and valued reviewers, we wouldn't have FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks done on Lamb. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

General note to nominators on source checks: if you've had a spotcheck of sources for accurate representation and avoidance of too-close paraphrasing elsewhere, it is helpful if you mention that in your nom statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and got Ontario Highway 401's mostly covered in my review of it. Some problems do need fixing, but it was in need with one. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Keeping up with MOS; images

WP:MOS#Images used to say not to sandwich text between images-- it no longer seems to say that-- has that changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

donno. MOS is subject to change and edit warring like most of Wiki's layers of made up rules. Better question is what is best for the reader. I use centering a lot to good effect in laying out pages. It is an available tool in the software and sometimes a great way to show detailed maps and the like. I think we should stay flexible. No reason why every single image is best displayed as text wrapped.TCO (Reviews needed) 07:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
See here for a table of images in a grid: [16] or here for a large detailed map: [17]. (I know in book layouts and website layouts sometimes graphics are embedded in text and sometimes sandwiched. Just options available to best serve the reader. No reason to rule out a choice.)TCO (Reviews needed) 07:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, but my question is whether anyone knows if MOS has changed or if I'm just missing it in the typical page changes at MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It was removed in this edit. Goodvac (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Goodvac; I'm glad to know it's a fairly recent change and not a case of losing my mind :) Since it's so recent, I've queried the MOS talk page. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

People sneak changes in there all the time, so it is hard to keep up (like someone softened the overlinking a few months ago). Anyhow, this section on the main page talks about not sandwiching: [18]. (Page you linked is a summary of more detailed guidance, Sandy.) They are referring to left right sandwiching, not top/bottom. Not sure which you meant. I do think it is hard to follow their not sandwich versus image and infobox for species and elements, where there is a very long infobox. (I know we violate that routinely.) I do try to avoid normal left-right sandwiching otherwise though.TCO (Reviews needed) 08:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems like centered panaromas or centered large maps are allowed from that text. They seem more woried about left-right sandwiches.TCO (Reviews needed) 08:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The edit summary in the diff Goodvac provided looks like the edit is intended to be housecleaning, but that edit has actual consequences. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Autumn-- I've worked closely with that editor for many years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that people have stopped complaining about it and removing it, compared to a few years ago. Many of us, like me, have moved to wider screens in the intervening years, where it is much less of a problem than it used to be. But of course many haven't. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep-- but alternately, a lot have also gone to reading on smaller personal devices-- even I finally got one! Thanks, Johnbod-- keeping up with MOS has always been a task :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It is actually "still in" the MOS, if you want to cite a rule. As I said above, and as Sandy was answered at MOS, the page she referred to is a summary of a larger page, that still contains the same wording about not left-right sandwiching.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
On a wide screen, with personal image size preference turned up to 11 (300px), you get a large number of partial overlaps, which aren't usually a problem. I tend to hope and believe that people on narrower screens, with a default 220px image size, aren't experiencing these. These days rules on this sort of thing don't mean much unless they are related to particular kit, sizes & settings. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's already super wide, who cares about some sandwiching. The issue with the sandwiching is not having enough room for the text. Not that it is intrinsically wrong, like crossing the streams on Ghostbusters.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally I find that on wider screens sandwiching is acceptable, and on smaller ones, the text wraps enough to resolve the issue in of itself. I work on both a small (netbook) and a large (desktop) screen. ResMar 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Presley TFA needs eyes

Could I ask everyone to keep an eye on the Elvis Presley TFA in a few hours? It is likely to be high profile. At present it is semi-protected, that may well change as it is not customary to protect the TFA. Five hours to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Whats this? An island in the madness? ResMar 04:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)