Talk:Barack Obama

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.

Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly.

If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Family and religious background

Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?

A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue.

Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)?

A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?

A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this.

Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?

A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names.

Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?

A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

Controversies, praise, and criticism

Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?

A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay.

Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?

A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles.

Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!

A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD.

Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.

A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.

Talk and article mechanics

Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?

A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit.

Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?

A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article.

Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?

A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache.

Disruption

Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?

A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics.

Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!

A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion.

Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.

A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged.

Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!

A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:

Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted.
On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance.

New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Wikipedia's policies and sourcing guidelines.

Other

Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail?

A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

Template:Community article probation

Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 12, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 18, 2004	Today's featured article	Main Page
January 23, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
July 26, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
April 15, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
September 16, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
November 4, 2008	Today's featured article	Main Page
December 2, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
March 10, 2009	Featured article review	Kept
March 16, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
June 17, 2012	Featured article review	Kept
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government FA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Congress FA‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Illinois FA‑class High‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hawaii FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chicago FA‑class Top‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

African diaspora FA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Africa: Kenya FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kenya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance).

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

More information:
/
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Hawaii portal.

Template:WikiProject CD-People

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post.
Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (April 3,2008). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (April 4, 2008). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR.
Eve Fairbanks (April 9, 2008). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic.
Jesse Brown (April 10, 2008). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One.
Tom Foreman (April 11, 2008). "Wikipedia Wars". This Week..., CNN.
John J. Miller (April 21, 2008). "Liberal Web". National Review.
Kelly Heyboer (May 28, 2008). "Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger.
Paul Murnane (May 28, 2008). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Wikipedia Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880.
Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times.
Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Wikipedia page under possible security attack". ZDNet.
Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily.
Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel.
Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims". The Daily Telegraph.
Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times.
Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Template:Stable version

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83

Special discussion pages

Article probation, Incidents

Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

Fixing template-size error with Cite_quick

05 October 2012: I have checked to see that the fast Template:Cite_quick (created 2 months ago) can be used to handle the wp:CS1-style citations in this article, and stop the error "template include size is too large". During testing, all other templates (and navboxes) have fit, so the use of {cite_quick} will solve the template-size error, plus allow another 500 citations to be added, and many could even use the original {cite_web} or {cite_journal} templates if needed. The edit-preview time will drop from about a 40-second delay to only an 11-second reformat. If there are no other concerns, then I will switch to use {cite_quick} later this evening, when there are few other changes in progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well, per the deletion discussion concerning this template, that it is only for testing and should not be deployed in article space, so should be removed from here. Please undo your change, as it has also broken many of the references.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article was broken, rejecting 14 templates, so compromise: This is a compromise to get the entire article to display. Prior to the use of the fast {cite_quick} template, the entire article was broken (see prior revision: oldid=516263945), where it died on the final 14 templates. Two entire bottom navboxes could not display ( {US Presidents} & Election 2012), nor the Authority control, nor the {Persondata}, nor even the featured-article link; all the following templates were broken by the excessive total include-size:

Template:Navbox, Template:US Presidents, Template:United States presidential election, 2012, Template:Authority control, Template:Use mdy dates, Template:Persondata, Template:Link GA, Template:Link GA, Template:Link FA, Template:Link FA, etc.

Now, the entire article will reformat, to display all other templates and navboxes, and edit-preview within 11 seconds, rather than 40. The template {cite_quick} is a compromise to allow wp:CS1 citation templates in very large articles, and contrary to incorrect claims, it was not discussed during the July 15 deletion discussion, but rather came as a later compromise. I have changed the journal cites to show volume and issue numbers, and any other formatting issues can be discussed. Also, other CS1 templates can still be used in the article, such as adding new cites by {cite web} or {cite press release}. Again, this is a compromise, to allow all templates to fit together, while we work to improve the article's content as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne is correct. You are being wilfully disruptive. You've been told time and again the people think your test templates should only serve to help improve the standard citation templates, and you won't do that. Instead, you disrupt articles, and suck peoples' time. You should be blocked for this, and my yet be. I've remove your test template for this page. I know that it's a tad over the template expansion size. The solution to that is to cut some of the over-citation that is present in this article (cf Wikipedia:Citation overkill). Over-done navboxes such as {{United States presidential election, 2012}} are not helping any, either. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to break navboxes & Persondata again: This article is involved in a featured-article review, and was specifically fixed to reformat all bottom templates, including 3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and the FA/GA interwiki links to the other-language wikipedias. Please do not break the article again without prior consensus. Already, people have expressed favor to have the entire article fit within the page limits, without worrying about the template-size errors. Please respect that result. To reformat the entire article, then prior consensus is needed, such as by showing a userfied version which formats without breaking the bottom 14 templates. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted you. You've been enjoined from deploying your experimental templates into articles. You'll be blocked for disruption should you persist. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a note; I've reviewed the differences in the rendered output; there are many. There are a great many punctuation and positioning anomalies, but there are as many serious omissions of data; missing editors, quotes, agencies, journal names, &c. Your template is not fit; it is outright broken. I may not be used in articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting specific concerns, and I have changed {cite_quick} to handle those cases. Meanwhile, your revert has broken the entire article "Barack Obama" to crash the bottom 3 navboxes, {Persondata} and the FA/GA interwiki links. Please reverse your changes. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you know how to fix it then please do so. It's a fucking awful mess at the moment, and Br'er Rabbit is currently blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the template itself, because I haven't taken the time to look at it, but I do know this: you two need to stop edit warring on this immediately. It's making it very difficult to follow changes in this article, and that is by definition disruptive. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 12:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Br'er has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, but I think was less worried about the 100 citations which crashed bottom navboxes or {Persondata} than about the missing cite values, which I have fixed now. I am sorry I did not respond sooner, and I realize this is a high-visibility featured article, but I have limited time to handle issues each day. The crashing of this article is a massive, complex problem, but I have fixed it again. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're at least as guilty of edit warring on this as Br'er Rabbit, and the next time you do it, it's going to WP:ANEW. It's hugely disruptive, and I don't want to hear excuses. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 17:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeout with Wikimedia Foundation error

When an article takes longer than about 60 seconds to edit-preview, then the whole page can stop with "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" (WFE). If the WFE error occurs when saving the page, then often the changes actually are saved, and the screen flashes the full-screen error afterward. Now, by using the fast-cite Template:Cite_quick, then the whole page reformats so rapidly that there is little chance of seeing Wikimedia Foundation error again during editing. Please remember, this is a vast, massive article, and it needs to be trimmed in size, or split, to simplify future editing. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 806 kilobytes of readable prose, which isn't all that much. The problem is the huge number of templates (which include citations, of course). It's already a summary style article with dozens of sub articles. It's hard to see how it could be cut down much further. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can fix template-error by hand-coded cites

Another option, although very tedious, is to gain consensus, per WP:CITEVAR, to remove the citation templates and begin replacing with hand-coded citations of authors, italic titles, dates, etc. The initial effort probably requires the hand-coding of about 100 citations, as a first step, to fit within the post-expand include-size limit of 2,048,000 bytes of template data, and not crash the bottom 14 templates (3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and FA/GA links). I guess, the next step is to !vote, further below. However, other concerns can be discussed at "#General discussion" rather than in the Support/Oppose/Neutral sub-threads. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The following editors support removal of cite templates in "Barack Obama".

Support. Too much hostility and fear about cite templates, and whether the future Lua script modules will work (without their own new problems), and anyway, hand-coded citations are 30x times faster than {cite_news} or {cite_web}, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The following editors oppose removal of cite templates in "Barack Obama".

Oppose. Are you kidding? Handcoding citations is crazy talk. There are over 300 references, many of which apply multiple times. Switching over to handcoded references would require an enormous effort. And isn't that a retrograde step? The goal is generally to have more automation to make the life of the editor easier, not less. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The following editors are neutral about cite templates in "Barack Obama".

Neutral. (comment)

General discussion

Discuss here with other comments about the use of the cite templates, {cite_news}, {cite_web}, {cite_quick}, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]