E. Urner Goodman is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.
Because this is today's Wikipedia Main Page Featured Article, we can expect a sharp increase in vandalism. I requested short-term protection while the article is featured on the Main Page, but was turned down per WP:MPFAP. According to this essay, 90 vandalisms in a 24-hour period is "average" for a Main Page Featured Article, so it seems to be tacitly accepted. JGHowestalk - 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know that, but my point is it's not being reverted. Usually when an article makes the mainpage it has a few sets of eyes on it (usually the primary editors who brought it to FA status). Those people seem to not be on the job. Anchoress·Weigh Anchor·Catacomb 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, vandalism seems rather light compared to other Scouting articles that made TFA and it seems to be reverted pretty quickly. There has been some collateral vandalism on Boy Scouts of America, but nothing major. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
When I posted the original comment and the first reply, it wasn't being reverted quickly. But right after my comment here, I posted on the help desk asking for fresh eyes, and since then reversions have been quicker. Anchoress·Weigh Anchor·Catacomb 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Compared to the TFAs for Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell and Scouting, the vandalism was rather light. What was unusual were the number of vandalism only accounts that were created and blocked during the TFA. After going through a few TFAs, I find that you can't get too wrapped up in the attacks; there are lots of editors who will come around and fix things. I had to work late that last wo nights and one of our editors is out on vacation, so the Scouting project was a bit under represented. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. I revert vandalism on a lot of front page articles and I was just trying to be helpful. I certainly didn't get 'too wrapped up in the attacks' - I don't perceive vandalism as an attack. But you seem to have your own opinions, that's fine. Best wishes and happy editing. Anchoress·Weigh Anchor·Catacomb 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony(talk) 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)