User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 12

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

onlyinclude vs includeonly[edit]

Hello GG, Re. our discussion elsewhere about how to transclude partial pages. I think I know why so many people confuse onlyinclude and includeonly: when editing a page, there is a large cheatsheet at the bottom with <includeonly></includeonly>, not <onlyinclude></onlyinclude>. Do you know how to change the content of this sheet? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't. I suspect this is because the use of "onlyinclude" is regarded as an arcane art. We have to balance what most editors are familiar with against what we can achieve with more subtle uses of the Wikimedia software. I don't actually know where to raise such a question: I think Carl might know, but I'm reluctant to trouble him unless he is watchlisting my talk page and wants to answer anyway. Geometry guy 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The page that has the editing toolbox is Mediawiki:Edittools. But I think there is some skepticism about adding more things to the toolbox unless they are very commonly used. You could ask about changes at the corresponding talk page or on the technical village pump. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this Carl! Geometry guy 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: PR Space[edit]

Hi Geometry Guy, I archive after 14 days with no repsonse. As you may have seen, I have a request in to Carl to automate the process and to check if articles are also listed at FAC or FLC and then archive them. Now that I know how to do the partial transclusion trick, it was easier to let it go back to 14 days. I will partially transclude a few more in the next few hours.

To be honest, as long as I am doing PR archiving by hand, I think it would be better to have the "edit article talk page" link in each PR (as it saves me at least two clicks on each article archiving), than showing the SAPR in each PR (on the translcusion page). I know which is the latest SAPR because I always add them chronologically to the current SAPR archive, so I just look at the top entry in the SAPR archive and what requests are above that in the chronological PR list to see which ones I have to add SAPRs to.

I had asked Carl to bump up the PR getting full notice a while ago. Should it be adjusted back down? If so, where do you want to set it: 90% again? Perhaps more importantly, what size do you want to aim for after daily archiving / semi-transclusion? 175? 170? I did not archive last night (I am bogged down in an FAC and was busy in real life) - sorry. I feel a but muddled - please ask if this is not clear Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and it is great for PR that the window is back at 14 days, and great for PR that you are doing such fantastic work. Emotions don't carry well on-wiki, but alongside improving the encyclopedia, a high priority of mine is making life easier for other editors. In this case, I want PR to be as successful as possible, but I also want to make it easier for you, who put in so much work here, to help make it successful. So please don't apologize about anything in connection with the amazing work you do at PR.
My feeling is that it is not fair on you to operate PR on a knife edge. Until archiving is completely automated, it shouldn't be necessary to do it daily. Partial transclusion should also be unnecessary, but I think we'll have to live with that for a while still. Anyway, down to concrete issues: your message was very clear, and it is extremely helpful to know which information in a peer review saves you the most time. I have restored the talk page edit links. Concerning the SAPR notices, I have left a long message with Carl, who is much better than me at coming up with clever wiki ideas. However, your call that the chronological list is your starting point suggests that we could simply add an SAPR notice to every article, advising that the SAPR may not yet exist. That would save approximately 200KB, but I'm not sure it is worth it, and am hoping Carl will have better ideas.
Concerning the "Getting full notices", I think the current 93% is about right. I also think we might ask Carl to program VeblenBot only to check the size every 12 hours: the repeat notices don't help the image of peer review. In terms of what size to aim for after archiving/transclusion, I think there should be a comfortable buffer between the VeblenBot threshold and the size we are aiming for. But here, I go back my initial remarks and your best interests: isn't it frustrating to fix the page size, only to be told less than 24 hours later that the problem has resurfaced? It shouldn't be necessary to do this kind of thing daily. I want it to be as easy as possible for you to carry on the fantastic work you do. Geometry guy 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your kind words and for your and Carl's work on all this too. The AZPR account used to automatically add a link to Peer Reviews, but transcluding them broke that (they were no longer on the page). The transclusion of the notice that an SAPR is available on the overall WP:PR page made that unnecessary A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found here.... I was assuming that even if those notices were not there in the individual requests on WP:PR, they would still be there in the individual archive pages, which would save sapce at WP:PR. I can do 10 SAPRs in about 10 minutes or less, much faster than archiving, so a bot to do archiving would save more time. If there were a bot to do SAPRs, my thought was that it would run the script when the article was added to the list and paste the SAPR into the current SAPR archive, currently WP:PRA/A08. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good news, at last[edit]

The code I wrote for for conditional transclusion has been sent to the production servers.

Code: {{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Peer review/A Day in the Life/archive2|R}}
Output: 11946

By combining this with the #ifexpr: parser function, we can create a PR template that transcludes pages under a certain size and links to pages that are over that size. PAGESIZE is an "expensive" parser function, which are capped at 500 total per page, but that should be enough for PR for the near future. The |R stands for "raw", otherwise commas are added to the number which will probably break #ifexpr.

Would you like to work on the template, or should I do it? I think you have a better sense of how it "should" work, but I can do it later tonight if you're busy.

It will be a little while before I will be able to work on the automated peer review archiving, but I have been carefully reading all the comments here and on my talk page.

For the automated peer reviews, I should be able to write a script to make a post to the peer review page to link to the automated peer review. Is that what you were thinking of? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That is good news. If it weren't for the bug, there would only be a single template to fix, but to save nested transclusions, almost all of the CF templates have to be changed to take advantage of this. I'm also concerned that this code will cost us more than it will save, because it looks like it will involve an additional two nested transclusions. I'm quite busy today, but I'll keep an eye on your contribs, and experiment with using this feature when I get time.
For the last remark I was thinking of a bot edit to individual peer review pages to announce when a semi-automated peer review has been done, but please see also comments from Ruhrfisch. Geometry guy 06:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize that bugzilla:13260 affected parser functions as well as nested transclusions (but I should have known, because the same code handles both types of transclusions). So I had hoped this would resolve the issues. I'll ask about bug 13260 and see if I can make a patch to fix it. I hope that maybe this weekend I will be able to look at the automated archiving, but I don't expect to have time this week. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?[edit]

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grothendieck.png)[edit]

(Removed boilerplate warning from bot)

Image:Grothendieck.png was one of the images that Oberwolfach released under a free license this week, and is on commons now. I went ahead and deleted the orphaned local copy. But I think that the original photo, seen here, is nicer than the cropped version currently on the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

[1] Sometimes it takes the bot awhile to put the star on, but the list is official! Wrad (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic news, but being in such a rush to announce it undermines the credibility of the achievement, This is a mistake which I hope the FA-Team will not repeat. Geometry guy 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying. It isn't premature at all! The article was promoted hours ago! Wrad (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Off to the movies, but don't understand G guy; an article is featured as of the moment Raul or I move it to WP:FA. When the talk page gets botified is secondary, housekeeping, not important. I'll catch up later if there's still confusion. If Gimmetrow is delayed, you all can add {{featured}} to the bottom of the article now if you want. See WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's no big deal. When the bot delays it confuses a lot of people. Wrad (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is one of those weird ways in which GA is different from FA :) Wrad (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is completely wrong to go about promoting an FAC success, when the FAC discussion has not been closed (and, at time of writing it has still not been closed). The talk page doesn't matter a jot, what matters is that the discussion has not been archived, because someone could still raise an objection.
Rushing to announce the result is not the way to generate respect for the FA-Team goals. Our values include transparency and article quality, they do not include sensationalism and bragging. Whatever the procedure is for promoting FA's, I would hope that FA-Team announcements respect such values. Geometry guy 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just it. The discussion was closed. If you go to FAC, you won't find it there (Try clicking the link!). It just doesn't look closed because the bot hasn't gone through and made everything look pretty. The only way to tell if something is officially an FA is whether Sandy or Raul promotes it and is listed at WP:FA. The rest is just fluff and show. Wrad (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about whether the article is an FA or not. It surely is. I am suggesting very strongly that we should not start promoting it as an FA until loose ends are tied up. The fact that the the FA discussion is still not archived is a feature of the way FA is organised, and if I were as critical as some people can be about GA, I would make a meal of this lack of organisation, but I won't. My point is that we should not use FA status as promotional material until all the links are in place. It just confuses people. Geometry guy 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm hurt that you'd think that I was dishonestly trying to put promotional material on the project page when I was merely stating facts. If you don't like the FA process, blame the process, but if an article is an FA, I'm going to let people know, whether all the frills have been attached or not is nowhere near as important as the official promotion by Raul or Sandy. People who know the process know that. Wrad (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Wrad, that was Wiki-miscommunication: the idea of dishonesty on your behalf simply couldn't cross my mind: it is impossible for me to imagine you being dishonest or misrepresenting anything. You are one of Wikipedia's most honest and devoted editors. I am to some extent blaming the process, but all processes are flawed, so I don't want such blame to weigh too heavily. If I am attributing anything to you, it is enthusiasm, and your enthusiasm has been extremely valuable to the FA-Team project. Yet, the FA-Team is also about engaging editors who are not as familiar with the FA process as you are, and my view is that we have to bear that in mind, but I totally respect your right to disagree. Geometry guy 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have to let off steam about the FA process every once in awhile too. No big deal. I just wish I could be as cool-headed as you when I do it. Wrad (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I don't think I did a great job of keeping my cool (did I really say "a jot"? :) There is an issue here, which is that discussions should be closed when they reach a conclusion. This is, in my view, a small weakness in the current FA process. However, this weakness should be discussed in a calmer forum, not in the heat of the moment, as I did here. Geometry guy 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, buys, a big MMM hug to the both of you! You are both the kewlest of the kewl, so no need to be anything other than happy!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I'm sorry if I contributed to this too... I saw the congratulations on Lincolnchan98's page (from Karanacs and Sandy), and was about to go out so decided to update things on the MMM page with some speed. Apologies if I put my foot in it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody did anything wrong. Anyway, I feel like we're making a mountain out of a molehill. This isn't that big a deal and I don't want us to hate each other over it. Wrad (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we are too, and of the three FAs, this is the one I want to celebrate the most, because I've mainly been involved with biographies, and these are really hard to bring to FA status. So massive credit to the editors who did it! Geometry guy 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And now, all has been resolved: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mario_Vargas_Llosa :D Acer (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Murder!![edit]

Facundo quiroga.jpg Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For all your hard work, for teaching us the important stuff from "mdashes" to "harvnb" templates, not to mention everything else ;). Thank you so much!
On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, that has got to be my second favourite barnstar onwiki! I wasn't a big barnstar fan (well, you can probably tell: no user page, no list of awards) but Lincolnchan's barnstar of awesomeness totally impressed me: I mean forget the fact he was the driving force behind an FA, he deserves a barnstar just for creating such a cool barnstar :-) Anyway, thanks again. Geometry guy 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I know... Lincoln's barnstar is still the best. But I'm glad you appreciate this one. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I surely do, and this one suits you: I think you should consider a moustache and sideboards to really get into the dictator novel spirit :-) Geometry guy 00:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A geometer at WP:FAC[edit]

.. I've mentioned this before: Émile Lemoine. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look. Always good to hear from you Ling, both here and by email. Geometry guy 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For getting the FA team together. Its a great idea and it has worked out great. I hope we can keep going like this. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! I'm really pleased by how well the FA-Team idea has worked, but I can't claim all the credit: a lot of people contributed to the FA-Team idea, e.g., Mike Christie, Marskell, EyeSerene. I just provided the semi-serious name, graphic and parody quote. I hope the team goes from strength to strength, and appreciate the support of editors such as yourself to make it work for the benefit of Wikipedia! Geometry guy 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

GAR[edit]

Query for you: I have User:VeblenBot/C/GAR watchlisted, but the page never appears on my watchlist. The page history is updating, so I'm wondering what (if anything) I'm doing wrong to prevent it from popping up. Elaborate scheme to dissuade Elcobbola from participating at GAR?

On another note, I'm not sure whether this will be "controversial". As someone more experienced in GAR, feel free to revert if "no consensus" should have been the call. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I expect it is because your preferences are set to hide bot edits. These updates certainly appear on my watchlist. Participation at GAR is at a real low right now, with just a couple of editors (e.g. Majoreditor and EyeSerene) contributing regularly, so we really need more participants such as yourself, and dissuading you from contributing is the exact opposite of what I would like to do! I've taken my eye off the ball here, partly deliberately to make space for others to contribute, archive, etc., but mostly (to be honest) because I haven't had time to review the articles. I think a new post is needed in a prominent place (WT:GAN is probably best) to remind all who support the GA process how crucial GAR is as a consensus building arbiter.
On the second question, I will look into it, but the way consensus works is that if you did bad, someone is going to let you know, and if they haven't, then your decision may have been accepted. Geometry guy 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Helpful[edit]

Hey G-guy,

I was really touched by your nice comments on the proposal page (I won't wikilink it because I'm too embarrassed already) and I wanted you to know that I understand you and empathize.

I knew it was going to be hard, weaving that magic we spoke of, although I didn't dream it was going to be any harder than, say, raising the dead. ;) Still, I can't lay down my shuttle and walk away. None of us can do anything different than what we are doing; we're caught up in something inexorable, like in Greek tragedies. Everything must move towards its inevitable conclusion.

If you'd like to help me, maybe you'd enjoy working on the problem of Apollonius? I worked very hard on it just before I started action potential, so that you and maybe others could work on it while I was occupied. A little echo of Jeremiah planting an orchard before going into the Babylonian captivity? ;) (Am I remembering that story right?) Anyway, it would be comforting if that article could grow up to be a graceful young article, ready for her debut at FAC. :) Willow (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I promise not to let myself get distracted with golden apples. ;)

It is always a pleasure to express my appreciation for your contribution to Wikipedia, because it is so manifest, and thank you for the empathy. For your other suggestions, I'd really like to link the golden apples more closely to the problem of Apollonius, but that requires me to do a bit more (hopefully not too original) research, and I've so much of a backlog IRL that I can't promise getting to it any time soon. But I will keep these pages watchlisted and chip in if I see a way that I can help out. Geometry guy 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ratio dispatch[edit]

G guy, I weighed in on the GA proposal, but I don't watchlist that page (would swamp me). If you want a Dispatch slot to cover the GA/FA ratio, please keep track of the talk page at FCDW and weigh in there. What is happening is that everyone wants a slot, but few get something done on time and no one follows the talk page, so a few of us (Karanacs, Tony and I) are always scrambling to get something written, when supposedly everyone wants space ! Please list it over there, maybe start something in sandbox so we can call on you as soon as there's a slot? The more the merrier, and if people aren't signing up, helping decide what's next, starting articles in sandbox, it will always be Karanacs and I scrambling to put out something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured lists decided to back out of the 28th, so I'm scrambling and juggling. DYK may take the 28th, I've moved lists to May 12, and May 5 may be open. Do you suppose that date will work out for the ratio GA article? I see the numbers are close. (Perhaps weigh in on the talk page at WP:FCDW so this all stays in one place ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the idea post recent "dust up" at WT:GA. I could present my understanding of the way that GA works in comparison with other content review processes, but I've already explained dozens of times (sometimes even on the talk page of my dearly beloved :) how GA can be a community process even though a single editor can list an article of a GA and I've already explained dozens of times why GA is not the same as GA-Class and how WikiProject class ratings are an entirely different beast to community wide GA and FA processes.
Yet still editors come back with these misconceptions over as trivial an issue as a green dot. I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to understand Wikipedia's content review processes is to participate in them for a while, as I suggested at my RfA with regard to GA. I'm learning a lot working with FA more now, thanks to the FA-Team and wikifriends like Willow, and I learnt a lot about WikiProject assessment by assessing approximately 2000 mathematics articles a year ago. But can this be presented in a dispatch?
So, I'm not asking for a slot, but I'm always willing to help out, especially to save you and Karanacs from having to do all the last minute scrambling. I won't be able to do last minute work for May 5th, because I'll probably be away that weekend. But I could try drafting something in my user space again, then you can use it if you need it. Geometry guy 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on everything else then later; after playing bot games all morning, I have an immediate scramble problem to solve April 28 and May 5 ... everybody wants the space when they want it, but few are there when the writing has to get done by deadline :-) Karanacs is off-Wiki on weekends, and we all know my writing stinks. When you have a dispatch suggestion or want the space for GA, though, pls do weigh in over at WP:FCDW; without others weighing in, I'm starting to feel like a dictator. I'm sorry you didn't include me in the list of people who could help you learn about FAC (and FAR), since I'm keen to deal with some recent misperceptions, but ... time is short ... always ... back later :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am free this weekend, so I will try to make a draft. I'm not watchlisting WP:FCDW, so I doubt I'll get up-to-speed on the discussion; if I make a draft, it will most likely be an insurance policy :-) — I can't really make a case for it at the moment, and my draft will probably be rubbish.
Sorry for the miscommunication about FAC and FAR. You misunderstood my list: I'm not listing the people from whom I am learning, I'm listing the reasons why I am more involved with FAC and FAR now. I hope it is obvious to you that you would most definitely be on the first list (maybe top :): I came to you for advice on my FAR problem re Emile Lemoine, despite the fact that I always hesitate to visit your talk page, because I know how busy you are/the talk page is. It was a fun exchange though! Primarily, I learn from doing, and I'm not a complete newbie at FAC: remember Equipartition theorem? Ah, nostalgia is not what it used to be. Geometry guy 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
ack. lost to edit conflict. Will start over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Where was I?  :-) You must speak to me in short sentences when I'm in scramble mode :-) I haven't heard back yet from the DYK editor who has a Dispatch almost ready to go; I wanted to give them the 28th and give you the 5th, because I suspect (??) you'll reach the 2:1 ratio by then, and I thought you wanted to write about that?? But if Royalbroil can't do the 28th, I've got a problem (meaning, Wiki may be forced to read my writing, and that is not a good thing.) Are you saying you could do something for the 28th if DYK doesn't come through, or do you want to get something ready for the 5th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying I could write something tomorrow, but it won't be good: as you say, the 2:1 milestone won't yet be reached. It could be an insurance for the 28th, and otherwise an option for the 5th. Geometry guy 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-)) So the 5th would be better for GA, but I'll ping you as soon as I get resolution from DYK. There's also something from Ealdgyth started somewhere ... could explore that as well, to try to make everyone happy. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew ! Resolved. DYK is taking the 28th, so I'm off the hook. If you think the ratio milestone will be there for the 5th, that slot is up for the grabs. Can you do a projection and see if you think the ratio will hit by then? FAs average 2 per day. If you won't make it by May 5, I can plug something else in to that day. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good news about the 28th. May 5th is a knife edge: with 10 days to go, we're currently at 4026 GAs vs. 2023 FAs, and I agree with your 2/day projection, which gives 2043 FAs, and a target of 4086 GAs, i.e., 6/day (bear in mind I'm a mathematician, which means my arithmetic, contrary to popular belief, is not reliable). GA does achieve this rate, and more at times, but not reliably so (see WP:GA/S).
I stress, I have no strong desire that there should be such a dispatch (it was just an idea, which might be fun and helpful). I am willing to draft it anyway, and will not be offended if it never sees the light of day. If it is needed and the timing doesn't work, this can be finessed: I would refer to the recent (fantastic) dispatch on the 2000th FA, the recent 4000 GAs milestone, and the observation that the 2:1 ratio is imminent. If it is really close, we could even put some of that rivalry to good use by having a friendly competition about whether the milestone will be crossed on the day of the dispatch. Geometry guy 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PS. Note that despite the "you" (admittedly plural) in "If you won't make it", I actually won't personally be helping: I contribute at GAR only (where my input is much overdue); this is a net delister of GAs, so if I do contribute, I may actually help prevent the milestone being reached on time!
Ah, well, I've been to my garden, and the crunch is over, so now I can handle more than two words :-) I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to invest the time to put something together. If you do, and it works out for a milestone, we'll have it ready and we can run it; if you don't, we've got one from Ealdgyth we can use and we can save yours on the backburner. Up to you. So I'm breathing a sigh of relief :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

G guy, where do you stand on the Dispatch for the 5th ? Would you rather take another slot (Lists has the 12th, so it would be the 19th)? I've got to get someone else on the 5th if you're not taking it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be a bit ridiculous to do a dispatch on the relation between GA and other content review processes right now. And to be honest, while experienced editors' attitudes include "they haven't yet figured out how to keep up with articlehistory", a dispatch aimed at promoting mutual understanding seems a bit of a long shot. Geometry guy 12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, I'll round up someone for the 5th; you're not really going to trivialize my concern over WP:V policy to housekeeping issues, are you ?  :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of it. There are plenty of valid concerns being raised and I am basically neutral about the whole issue: I could make a case for a green dot one day, and a case against it the next. Re dispatches, I was assuming you still had one from Ealdgyth ready to go. If not, and I've dropped you into another spin, let me know and I'll try to come up with something. But it will probably be impossible to avoid mentioning that pesky dot. Geometry guy 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, my concerns about GA are all fixable: if someone would just listen and look at the quantifiable data and figure out the best way to address that within the GA "culture" and process. I could put forward my ideas, but I'm quite sure that would be seen as stepping on toes. As one example, I think (hope) that doing this is the most effective way of letting reviewers know that I'm not just counting votes; "I'm watching", and I gather and save quantifiable data. Ealdgyth is traveling (I wasn't aware before), so I don't want to use hers while she's not around to bring it up to speed, but not to worry; Tony has something I can use if no one else wants the spot. I just want to offer it first to other processes, so it doesn't seem that FA and a few editors are dominating FCDW. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also travelling this weekend, so that rules me out anyway. The monthly round-up at FAC looks very good. Geometry guy 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Letting you know, the 19th is open: Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#May 19. Please weigh in there if you want it. (No hurry yet.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't look now (4066 and 2033, exactly); wasn't it nice of me to do no FA promotions for two days? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't ask for more in a spouse :-) Thanks, Sandy: I'll see if I can draft a dispatch related to GA and content review, and then FCDW can see if it likes it. Geometry guy 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could use your assistance[edit]

Hi, G guy. I was wondering if you could participate in this GAR discussion. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been neglecting GAR in general for far too long now. It does seem to be suffering from a lack of participation: you seem to be one of the few regular reviewers at the moment and there's a significant backlog now. Is this your feeling too? If so, then after all the fuss over the trivial green dot issue dies down, it may be worth posting again at GAN to get more reviewers to contribute. I'll check in at GAR today or tomorrow. Geometry guy 12:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that a posting at GAN would be useful once the great green dot debate abates (whoa, that's a tongue-twister.) Majoreditor (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong foot[edit]

We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I'm a huge admirer of your work and am really disappointed by my failure to communicate helpfully at the GA page. I think it's a wonderful project and I feel like my participation in the discussion is serving primarily to drain the enthusiasm of people who do nothing but good work on Wikipedia. This isn't my intention, and I'll consider that I've said my piece (peace?) and move on. I hope next time we cross paths it's happier circumstances. --JayHenry (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is really nice of you to stop by to explain, especially with your kind remarks. You have in fact been making some of the most cogent arguments against the GA icon, and I hope I have been addressing the arguments rather than getting us off on the wrong foot myself. Per the icon itself, I'm neutral, but there are wider issues. I am concerned that this whole issue is a complete distraction for editors across Wikipedia, and I wish it would go away, but it keeps resurfacing, and has to be addressed. I look forward to interacting again, and thanks once more. Geometry guy 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Salute![edit]

You brought the solution to the issue without any sparks. For that, I salute to you! (Wish there's an award or a barnstar for this, but apparently Wikipedia discussions have not reached this level of maturity yet) OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I don't share your optimism, but I am relieved that there have been far fewer sparks at this discussion than previous ones, even if it leads to no consensus for change. Geometry guy 13:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Zig-zag[edit]

I'm sorry to be zigging when you're zagging, that is, I took the approach of making this icon thing a big deal (and therefore nothing to worry about, because everyone will take it seriously) when you're trying to make it a little deal (and therefore nothing to worry about). My intentions probably haven't been clear; I am a big supporter of the GA process. I have been a bit timid about it; my comfort level goes up as I learn things and as I gain respect. Over time, I will probably communicate better in discussions like these. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It entirely clear that you are a big supporter of GA, and your support is most welcome. Supporting a process is completely different from praising it and overlooking its flaws. I wouldn't say I love GA as Ling does: I support it to the extent that it helps to improve the encylopedia, and try to find ways to make it better when its failings let the encyclopedia down.
As for the icon, both approaches to the issue are entirely valid. That's why it is not a vote: people who apparently are on the same "side" can say quite different things, while those !voting differently can be largely in agreement. There are rarely just two sides to a complex issue, so I would always recommend articulating your own point of view, as you have been doing.

See also the next section, where I reply to your email. Geometry guy 13:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Email from Dank[edit]

(Reproduced with permission.)

Couldn't we get a win for everyone here? I support the idea that many have mentioned of a vetting procedure. Perhaps this could be sold to GA-reviewers as a way to make GA "official", both with the green cross on the front of the page and with public recognition of the quality of the process. I think the FA people in general would be eager for anything that makes less work for them (and increasing the consistency of GAs would be a huge relief to many of them). Putting the burden on the FA people to figure out which GA reviewers are dropping which balls would take the pressure off of GA people to police and criticize each other. This could have a very positive "process" outcome, I think.

As I have explained in the discussion, I am personally quite indifferent as to whether there is a green dot on GAs. However, I think it is important that all ideas for improving GA are motivated by improving the encyclopedia and not by seeking approval for a green dot. I am not saying that this is your motivation, as there are plenty of reasons for introducing vetting/mentoring and so on, and you make some of these good arguments.
However, I have an entirely different point of view. The real problem facing Wikipedia is not that its GAs are unreliable in quality, it is that the vast majority of its articles are rubbish, and if it really took its policies seriously, 95% of the content would have to be deleted as unsourced, unreliable, non-neutral junk. At the moment barely 0.25% of articles are GAs or FAs. With FA growth at an average of 2 per day (see WP:GA/S), this isn't going to change any time soon. The massive advantage of the GA process is that it has the potential to scale, because each transaction only involves two editors. But a lot of baggage has been added to this system, and GA growth is only about 3 times faster than FA growth, which means that the current 2:1 milestone is the last one we'll see unless something is changed.
I'd far rather there were some dodgy GAs out there than doom Wikipedia long term to having barely one or two percent of its articles meeting any reasonable standard. Article growth has now peaked, so there is a real opportunity for a new phase of rapid quality growth, but I think that opportunity is being missed.
I couldn't agree more with "there is a real opportunity for a new phase of rapid quality growth". Generally, I'm happy to follow your lead on making it happen; you're pretty clued-in, and people seem to tell you what they need and rely on your support and advice. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
On another subject, is Sam available, and is he acceptable to everyone, and do you want to pull him in sooner or later? I can think of some other names that might work out well if he doesn't, or if you need more than 1. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I checked his contribs and Wannabe Kate. He is active, and his admin work mostly concerns categories, which takes him out of the involved area. But he may not be willing, so other suggestions would be welcome. On the sooner/later/acceptability front, I think we have to wait another day for the !voting to settle. Maybe an admin will volunteer. If not I guess we should ask tomorrow. I think I can approach Sam in a neutral way, as we only interacted one time, but I'm open to other ideas, from anyone. Geometry guy 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting the burden on the FA people to figure out which GA reviewers are dropping which balls would take the pressure off of GA people to police and criticize each other. I can't parse this statement, but 1) FA people aren't going to figure out which GA reviewers are dropping which balls, and 2) I already know which GA reviewers are dropping the balls :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(To G-Guy) Kim Bruning was very helpful in a recent discussion at WP:VPP (WP:VPP#Using a policy page as a scratchpad to develop a proposal), which helped us solve a problem today at WT:MOSNUM. He seems passionate about keeping the process going and getting to some kind of conclusion. But everyone knows Kim; you probably know much better than I whether he would be suitable.

(To Sandy) Well, that was in an email, although I always give permission to post :) If I had thought it out more, I would have said: some of the FA people know a lot about what various GA reviewers are doing right and wrong, so if we just ask them, everybody wins: GAs get better, and poor Ealdgyth doesn't get worn out checking bad sources, which frees up FA people resources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks; now I get it :-) But you can't just ask because I won't be blowing any whistles; all the info you need is all in the FAC archives :-) By the way, some folks who apparently don't know much about the MOS disputes are accusing Tony of operating socks; see my talk page if you want to engage that particular wild goose chase and ... get your popcorn ! I can't wait to see what Tony says when he wakes up :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh good lord. Okay I'll tune in, and you're right, I better do it before he wakes up :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You have to admit, it's going to be fun to see Tony's reaction :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CCEGAC (unwieldy name! FA Team is so much better!)[edit]

  • see this' Ling.Nut (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'll take a look, but see also the thread immediately above this one.

and now for something completely different[edit]

  • channeling Keanu reeves: wo-o-o-o-o. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm, there seem to be experienced editors involved... maybe it is best just to let them decide whether a change to pillar five is a good idea. Geometry guy 23:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing[edit]

Thanks for thinking of me and the kind words. I'd be willing to look at it, but since it will involve quite some time and effort to read through it all and analyze the discussion, I'm wondering if you can answer some questions I have:

  1. Has the issue been widely publicized on pages like Village Pump, Request for Comments, etc...
  2. Has the volume of discussion settled down? Are issues still getting brought up and discussed or are people just waiting for something to happen and repeating things that have been already said?
  3. Is there already an expectation that an admin will come along and close the discussion?

Answers to these will help me decide if I want to jump in. I do think I would be impartial about this, I have had no involvement at all with Good Articles. -- SamuelWantman 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to answer, G-Guy, but since I'm wandering by:
  1. RfCpolicy and a notice on the Community Bulletin Board (currently the 7th one down) have been up for a few days, with heavy response. To my knowledge, no one has posted at any of the village pumps, and I get no hits on WT:GA when I search for "village pump".
  2. There are some people who are still actively discussing the issue, but most simply recorded an opinion and haven't said much since. The page is quite long, and it's hard to see much room for any new shocking revelations, and even if there were, I doubt many votes would change.
  3. G-Guy (supporting) mentioned that he would ask for an admin (and mentioned your name) 2 days ago; Bignole (opposing) has also mentioned it would be a good idea; Lampman has doubts about that; there are no other opinions (when I search for "admin"). No one asked me, but my guess is that nothing will happen without a closer approved by both sides ... or nothing good anyway. Both sides are fairly deeply dug-in, and I see the possibility for little green crosses sprouting unannounced on GAs, followed by page-by-page edit wars, although perhaps I'm being too cynical. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I replied on Sam's talk page, but thanks for your comments, Dan: there is a post at Village Pump Proposals. I didn't see that Lampman expressed doubts. I'm not feeling quite so cynical. I don't see such a deep dig-in, but it is only by doing this process properly that we will avoid the concerns you raise, and further template deletion discussions etc. Geometry guy 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right on all counts. Lampman had concerns, but not "doubts". Some of the cynism from WP:MOSNUM rubbed off on me today; I think I've shed it now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Duck Soup[edit]

Gguy... you might want to have a look at Duck Soup, which I just quick-failed at GA Review. There's obviously a bit of bad blood on the part of one of the article's major contributors when it comes to the GA process itself. You might want to take a look here and here while you're at it.

I think I've approached the whole thing in the right way, but in that I became the subject of an incipient edit war, arguably I might have lost some distance from the article. That's why I thought I'd consult you about it. On the other hand, I fear the bad blood may be indelible. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ach, and I see I'm not the only person who has had a run-in with this major contributor. It's a bit of a pity, however, if the article has to suffer as a result. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to specialize in answering questions on G-Guy's talk page, but I took an interest in this one, read Ed's userpage, and read the RfC. Ed is a basically solid user, with very nice "ornery" tendencies, who is making a couple of technical mistakes and getting himself into trouble. I think we can straighten this one out, I've replied on his talk page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Team[edit]

The FA team seems be dying and dying fast. We need to pick another mission. MMM is still listed. Let's have this discussion over on the talk page. I will alert the other big contributers. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rumours of the FA-Team's demise are premature, methinks. Now get thee over to WP:Peer review/King Arthur/archive2 and help to improve the article!  :-) Geometry guy 12:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Hi Geometry guy, can you make the archive / fix Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2008? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I took my eye of the ball, evidently. Or maybe I'm in denial that it is May already :-) Geometry guy 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I made the SAPR archive and put one in there already. It all seems to work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Goofy question - where do peer reviews go when archived? I assumed they were archived in the same month's archive in which they were started, so if a PR starts April 30 and does not end until say May 30 or even June 1, it would still be archived in April, right? I think that's what you meant by saying the bot did not have to watch March anymore on Carl's talk page too. However, when I looked at Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2008 it looks like the archived notices there are what was closed in May, despite being opened in April. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that peer reviews are archived into the current month when they are closed. So in your example, the review will be archived in May or June, not April. The two month window is just to trap errors and make sure the archive is stable. Geometry guy 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've started a "how to" page at Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Maintenance. Geometry guy 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GA reviews[edit]

There is clearly a problem with some GA reviewers, for instance here. That's not the first time that I've seen something similar. Not so long ago I found myself in a position where I was challenging almost every listing made by a reviewer who was clearly trying to tick all the boxes for his RfA nomination. Marking great swathes as under review and then taking weeks to actually turn in the very poor reviews.

The ongoing discussion about the GA icon on the article's main page ought to focus our minds on these kids who are basically demeaning the honest efforts of others. I hate Ling Nut's idea of a test, but I do think that there does have to be some sort of overview put in place. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, the example you give has been drawn to my attention through GAR. While the outcome of the review may be accurate, the quality of the review is miserable, and I hope you will contribute to the GAR.
All too often, we editors forget that behind the usernames, there are real people. GA attracts the young and enthusiastic. This can be a good thing, the enthusiasm especially, but it has its drawbacks too. I believe that those of us (young and old) with the maturity to look at Wikipedia culture from the outside as well as the inside, have an obligation to provide perspective whenever we can.
My own view on where GA should go is rather radical. I think it should stop trying to be more and more like FA and should instead focus on Wikipedia's main problem: most Wikipedia articles are crap. There is no point in making 0.25% of our articles beautiful when the vast majority are rubbish. I have commented already on this above. If you agree with any of this, please let me know, because post GA dot debates, I imagine editors will want to improve the reliability of GA, and will not be interested in such an alternative suggestion. Geometry guy 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
On the same theme, glad to see mention of article history and topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/May 2008. That's an interesting reviewer list; so glad to see Jbmurray and Ealdgyth are active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think your view on where GA should go is at all radical. It's exactly where I always thought it should be going. as you say, the overwhelming majority of wikipedia articles are crap, and the FA process can't possibly scale to address that. Perhaps the only area I might disgree with you is over the GA icon. I think that's an important step in that same direction, in encouraging at least some minimum standard. The idea of GA as some kind of FA-lite though is not one that I'm especially sympathetic to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I deeply and sincerely wish GA could have the green dot. really. I'm not spouting bullhockey. I mean it. But examples like the ones Malleus linked to at the start of this thread would make me feel actively embarrassed to be putting green dots on things!
  • The reason I would like to see training, and a voluntary list of those who have been trained become reality is because I want the green dot to mean something. It's also because I feel that under the current system, there are two levels of GA. One is the level of output that occurs after an article has been pored over by regulars; the other is... what Malleus linked to. Only a small fraction of GAs make FA, and usually those are the ones that have been pored over by experienced reviewers... and that's the level we think of when we think of "GA". That is the level that inspires such passionate defense from the Regulars. But that is not always the level that outsiders see...
  • As for G-guy's thoughts: I deeply agree with your assessment of the problem, G-guy, but disagree with the solution. I hope this won't be discouraging, but Wikipedia has too many articles for anyone to have anything even vaguely resembling a satisfactory solution to this problem. There simply are not enough moderately-skilled & moderately-knowledgeable regular editors across all all of Wikipedia to address a problem of this scope. If all of Wikipedia is not big enough to handle this problem, then the subset known as "GA" is certainly not adequate either. In theory, the Wikiprojects are the place to address this, but they are all either haphazard in their contributions or coverage or are (quite reasonably) more concerned about the GA-A-FA end of the spectrum at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. I dunno, G-guy. I think there simply is no solution ! :-( Ling.Nut (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So many friends stopping by! Malleus, I'm with you on the GA icon (I !voted support): I see the benefit, but also don't think it is a big deal. This debate only generates so much attention, in my view, because editors want to attach a meaning to it. Ling, who loves GA, wants it to be something to be proud of (i.e., not embarrassed about). Sandy wants it to mean that every GA is verifiable and the process by which it became GA is verifiable. And so on.
In the end, such an icon only means what it means ("this article has been designated a GA"), not what we want it to mean. We can try and tweak the process to affect that meaning, but if it ends up saying little more than "someone's checked that this article is not totally crap" then that is at least some minimum standard per Malleus: admittedly, using "good" to mean "not totally crap" is a bit misleading, but all things are relative!
I agree with Sandy that "not totally crap" should include WP:V and with Ling that WP:V is a minimum requirement for all articles, not a gold standard. However, I only agree with this if one accepts that there is a certain amount of subjectivity in the interpretation of WP:V: how reliable and how secondary and how numerous do the sources need to be? And how easy should it be for the reader to find the source (the thorny question of inlines)? If we imposed the same verifiability requirement on all articles as we do at FA, then 95% of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted: start over!
Let's take the case linked by Malleus as an example. This article is almost entirely drawn from a single source, "Who's who in Marine Corps history" published by the United States Marine Corps. There is no way that this would count as a reliable secondary source at FA, and probably, at the moment, the article would be regarded as inadequately sourced for GA too. On the other hand, the source is at least moderately reliable and pretty official, and it is so much better having an article attribute its content to such a source than provide no source at all. I thus declare that this article is not totally crap.
I believe my point of view is radical, because I attach much much more importance to improving the crap than I do to ensuring every GA meets the criteria. It is not good enough that GA is only working its way through the rubbish three times faster than FA. We need everyone who has ever edited an article to be able to contribute to the GA process for it to scale. I am even willing to accept that maybe a third of GAs will be inadequate, as long as they are not totally crap, and we can sort out more of the articles which are. Maybe the solution is to accept the reality of two levels pointed out by Ling, and actually have two tiers of GA, one where the article has been checked, one where the check and the checker have been checked too. Geometry guy 12:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with G-guy here. In the past I used to have a very different conception of what GA should be, a year ago I would probably have been in favor of stricter standards but all that changed after I started helping out at WP:AFC, the average quality of the submissions there really puts things in perspective. Compared even to the worst GA articles, the great majority of submissions don't come even close, heck I usually am quite happy when I see one that can be rated as Start-class. A B-class article submitted thru the process is grounds for celebration, and the AFC reviewers usually compliment IPs who submit one. So after the AFC experience I've come to share G-guys view that so long as GA articles are above average (and that’s a 2.3 million average..) then it's doing its job. Some people say that since standards are lower than it doesn’t mean much, but it does, it means so much in fact. 0.25% of articles are GA or Featured, 0.25!! That’s not even one percent. Our main goal should be to get the remaining 99.75 articles into this group, because whatever problems the assessment process might have, the articles that come out of it are definitely better than the rest. Any further complication that is added to the GA process will only hinder its chances of scaling and honestly I'd much rather have 5% just ok GAs than 0.5 excellent GAs. That’s what FA is for. Acer (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have probably been too vague. Intentionally. So as not to step on toes or point fingers, and trusting you brainiacs to do the math and read between the lines. I'm a numbers and data person. My concerns shouldn't be summarized to only WP:V. FA and GA share a common problem, that is limited, identifiable. FA has a mechanism for dealing with it: FA is not a vote, and one reviewer doesn't determine the outcome. GA hasn't yet 1) acknowledged our shared problem (MF is moving that way, though) or 2) found a way to shine a light on it, which I believe will 3) help stop it. You only have to look at the data for one or two months; it's not a big ongoing commitment. I suspect (but I could be wrong) that some people within GA aren't seeing the full scope of the issue as I do in my review of every single FAC and my month-end summary of the data. Lowest common denominator, weakest link, affects all of GA and drags down the good work done by some fine reviewers. I could propose some solutions, but I am very hesitant to do that, because I know how rare it is for someone outside of the process to fully understand the inner workings, and my proposals might not be workable. But I have always thought that a "central clearing house" (maybe 3 editors) would solve the talk page bookkeeping issues and provide a way to recognize the quid pro quos and sloppy reviews. Even if a clearing house panel merely glances at every GA pass as the final step before adding it to GA, this panel could spot the blogs used to source articles without having to do the amount of work done by Ealdgyth, and they'd quickly see certain trends. IMO, this would resolve every concern I have about a GA icon, add prestige and reliability to GA, and address an issue that bleeds over into FAC; although it doesn't affect FAC outcomes, it costs a lot of FAC reviewers a lot of hard work. Both processes could work better if deficient GAs weren't being promoted and immediately appearing at FAC on the road to RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Very sensible. P.S. Wasn't sure whether to post this on WP:VPG (G-Guy) or WP:VPS (Sandy). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Sandy seems to be suggesting suggesting a two-tiered WP:GA, with a panel of old hands acting as a "central clearing house". The idea I have been pushing is training... So... Historically... the reason I have always pushed training is that from the dawn of time anything resembling a two-tiered GA was resisted as "bureaucracy". I don't remember whether I suggested that option or merely saw it suggested by someone else; I do remember that the voices shouting it down were firm and certain. Historically (again) whenever I suggested training, the answer was always negative, but not as firmly negative. So that's the reason why I have stuck with suggesting training instead of a panel... but if GA can now accept the latter rather than the former... then go for it. It has the advantage of being workable using only those editors currently on hand.. but... who will choose the panel? Again—there is a problem with the possibility of stepping on toes!! But I will be bold and say that there are some GA reviewers who have been more than a little active for more than a little while whom I would not want to see on such a panel. Hint: The quicker they volunteer, the less likely they are to be acceptable.. I am sorry that I am playing the role of WP:DICK here. Again. I know I am coming across like a WP:DICK, both now and in related discussions. But darn it! Some people have tons of heart, but little or no skill! I describe reality. Execute me now, if you will. The line forms here... :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be a matter of how one defines the problem: training won't solve the problem that I'm observing. Shining a light on it may solve it. 'Nuff said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

... who will choose the panel? Again—there is a problem with the possibility of stepping on toes!! But I will be bold and say that there are some GA reviewers who have been more than a little active for more than a little while whom I would not want to see on such a panel. I showed you the way to do this with the monthly FAC awards, by retrospectively analyzing the data. Gather data. A big defect in the way GA is run is that you don't have the means to do that (unlike any other proces on Wiki, there are no GA files or archives). I can quantifiably tell you exactly which reviewers at FAC, 100% of the time, Support articles which ultimately are not promoted because other reviewers uncover significant deficiencies, or are promoted because other reviewers dig in to fix the identified deficiencies. It's all in the archives, hard data. This is not based on opinion: it's based on quantifiable, sortable data, with over 700 entries per month in a spreadsheet. I would like to know how GA defines "trusted, long-term reviewers"; I've provided a sample methodology for quantifying the issue. But until GA maintains files and archives, I don't see how they can move forward on this problem. GA is a free-for-all with no accountability; if the decision is that's what's better for Wiki, that's fine, but then no GA icon belongs in article space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Random dorkiness: "trusted, long-term reviewers" are the ones who look like this. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL ! I'm unwatching the GA page. Some of the recent "us vs. them" posts defy logic, and ignore the fact that we all want to improve articles. Ping me if anything important develops, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you opposing the "us vs. them" mentality, Sandy, and thanks for your many detailed thoughts! This is turning into a very useful discussion. I'm travelling this weekend, so won't be able to comment much, but I would encourage those who watchlist my talk page to contribute... with one proviso: despite this discussion being long, please read and ponder before adding your thoughts :-) Geometry guy 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps what is being missed in the conversations "over there" (and perhaps because I'm being vague), is that it is a problem that affects both processes, although FAC has a means of dealing with it. Addressing what I believe to be the underlying issues helps both processes. I don't see my concerns being solvable unless GA moves to some system of archives, and I'm not sure that's the direction you all want to go (again, I hesitate to offer "fixes" as an outsider to the process). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this all day, so what I'm about to say isn't some knee-jerk reaction. I had believed that helping with the GA project was helping with the wikipedia project. What's become abundantly clear to me as a result of the green dot discussion is that there is a substantial body of entrenched opinion that believes the GA process is worthless crap. I don't happen to share that view, but neither am I prepared to devote further time and effort in reviewing articles to award a status that is widely considered to be crap. I've got two currently open reviews and I'll obviously take those to a conclusion, but after that I'm done, unless something changes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already stated this somewhere in some part of one of these discussions, but I'll say it again. I don't think GA is worthless crap; I simply look to see who passed the GA. Some GA reviews are extremely good. Somebody put Tourette syndrome up at GA when I wasn't looking (traveling), and I came home to find that someone named TimVickers (who I had never previously encountered) had been messing around in there and had awarded the article something I never wanted. But he helped the article, and I got to meet TimVickers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen enough GA/FA reviews to give me a good idea of what's an acceptable standard. I'll use that experience when writing those articles that I want to write, but I doubt that I'll be doing any more reviewing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, I didn't mean for that image to imply "us against them"; I meant for it to connote a battle-tested crew of "old hands." Sorry if it seemed otherwise. The odds that I can get that deleted off Commons are precisely zero-point-zero, though. I've run into Commons Admins before. They don't give a crap if you want the image deleted! ALSO I apologize for expressing myself extremely poorly. I do not believe GA is crap. I think it has many fine reviewers. I think the GA system lets crap slip through. This is an extremely meaningful distinction. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary section break, and discussion with Marskell[edit]

Almost two years ago I tried arguing that GA should just review compliance with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and that only a small number of reviewers would actually put passed articles on the WP:GA page. People didn't like that at the time because "committee = bureaucracy". Since then we've increased bureaucracy in other ways, with GA sweeps (good) and the largely-ignored topic. These other processes need to be maintained and take time away from the primary goal here. I've noticed in the recent discussion that nobody has really brought up how a GA icon would be maintained, either. Gimmetrow 05:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, this discussion is not going so well any more if it has discouraged Malleus from reviewing any more, but I sincerely hope that this was primarily prompted by the extremely unfortunate "Shut down?" section on the GA talk page, and that he will reconsider. Meanwhile, Gimmetrow, I suppose in a two tier system the icon would be added by the "certifier" (the experienced reviewer who checks that a proper review was carried out). Some thought would be needed to ensure that the icon is removed when GA status is lost. Geometry guy 11:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What was unfortunate about it? I wasn't trying to be mean. I'm actually stopping by hoping you might comment. The admin who volunteered to close it was reverted today, which doesn't seem helpful. As I mentioned there, the poll has been tracking 50/50 since its fourth day. There's no consensus—why prolong it? Marskell (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you meant well Marskell, but the thread started a meta-analysis of the debate which polarised the discussion, and contributed to the atmosphere in which Sam was regrettably reverted this morning. Outside of one or two acrimonious threads, there has been something of a meeting of minds in this discussion, with serious issues being taken on board, and greater mutual understandings reached. The hope is that someone like Sam can draw a little more out of this complex discussion than simply "Is there consensus for a GA icon, yes or no?". The thread you started had the unfortunate side-effect of reducing the discussion to that question, but I am not blaming you or anyone for that.
I have left a message with OhanaUnited and hope that Sam will now be allowed to read through the discussion, draw out whatever consensus he can find from it, and suggest ways forward that will leave reasonable editors feeling that progress has been made. Geometry guy 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with initiating the poll was that, even if it had achieved the supermajority we normally call consensus, it would've been hard to call it binding because of the "framing bias" involved. It's probably best to close the actual numerical voting.
A better idea would be to take the four broad options—one, two, all, none—and have a larger poll as we did with ATT. We could have the devs list it at the top of the watchlist and we'd get votes in the hundreds. Marskell (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There were plenty of ways that the poll could have been initiated in a better way, and I made the point very early on that it would be hard to call any outcome binding. However, we have to try to get the most out of what we've got, no matter how it was initiated. From the start I have regarded this as a straw poll to see what consensus, if any, there is, and not a numerical vote. I support letting Sam close the discussion now.
I'm not in favour of an ATT style poll. I think that has too much potential to embarrass Wikipedia. Instead I think we have to address the underlying issues that make such a small dot loom so large. I have some small hope that these discussions provide a step in that direction. Geometry guy 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The ATT poll didn't embarrass Wikipedia. It was a pain in the ass to know hours of editing time had gone down the drain, but it wasn't an embarrassment. Ultimately it was for the best.
What concerns me G-Guy, is that people in favour of the icon are going to take their 58% or 60% from the poorly done poll on GA talk and say "well, this gives us a partial mandate to do a trial or some such." But really, there isn't mandate to do anything at this point. Others will notice the trial icons and say "wtf is this?" and there'll be more defensiveness and so on. That's exactly what happened to us on ATT; we thought we'd done enough homework, launched it, and then it was opposed by others because of the feeling we'd cheated and gone behind people's backs.
So what are you going to do? I see only two options. A Wikipedia-wide poll or very clear statement from Jimbo. The latter seems quite unlikely. So poll it—properly. The good part is we won't be stumbling ass backwards into a poll. We can design it together.
Finally, note that we can't be half-pregnant on this. The icons either go up or they don't. Unless you get a clear, neutrally derived consensus for putting them up, you'll always be open to the accusation that it was a cheat. Marskell (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your concerns are unfounded, Marskell, and you have completely misread the mood. I expect some serious discussion based on Sam's excellent closure, not any attempt to do a trial. I agree ATT was not embarrassing, but I'm not so sure about an ATT style poll on a green dot! Certainly many other Wikipedia's will be laughing. I agree that if a poll is needed it should be done properly, but I would rather focus on addressing the issues and finding consensus first. Perhaps even the whole green dot idea will be dropped as a chimera. Geometry guy 11:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean poll the green dot alone, but the whole idea of having meta icons in main space. I very much doubt it would cause laughter. We've never actually sounded people out on the FA star, for instance; for all I know, the star would be voted away by Wikipedians at large. As the closer noted, an internal talk page poll is going to scale in the dozens, at best. Wikipedia lacks a means of properly gathering data on the opinions of the community because it's developed a culture that doesn't respect polls. The arb elections are about it.
The mood, at least on the poll itself, was defensive and adversarial. Old habits and all that. Marskell (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there are perfectly good reasons why Wikipedia doesn't respect polls. Consensus is much more effective at reducing divisions and improving the encyclopedia than polling is.
It is very difficult to read mood from Wikitext, and one's impressions are filtered through preconceptions and personal experience. Among the most defensive and adversarial threads were your oppose vote and the shut down thread. In general the discussion seemed to me to be less adversarial and defensive than previous occasions, with much constructive discussion. I understand your viewpoint that GA is redundant, especially the more it tries to be like FA, but I urge you to consider how this colours your approach. Old habits and all that indeed.
This very thread started with my thoughts on how to make GA less like FA and give it a distinctive mission. I am not confident that I will be able to make any headway, but I will try. I'm not helped by those editors (I'm not pointing fingers here, but such editors certainly exist) who wish GA would simply disappear, when that manifestly isn't going to happen. Geometry guy 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia is a 70% supermajority. There's no way around that. We do not define consensus the way the dictionary does and over time I've given up on the pretenses surrounding the term on this site; if a strawpoll isn't close to 70% it's best just to admit it and move along. (A social scientist studying the place might start with our first article of faith, "It's a discussion, not a vote"—we've created a fascinating denotation shift in this regard.) Anyway, polls are not evil—they are not moral or immoral, but amoral. They can be done well or badly. Indeed, the community might create a polling taskforce to deal with these things neutrally.
When I voted I had a little bit of bile I wanted to spit out because of Malleus'...um...unbecoming behvaiour toward some of the opposers. I transferred that to Wrad, Will, and Kevin and sounded pissy. Shouldn't have. (But then that's one of the problems with polling here: votes should be left alone.) Admittedly, some of the opposes were colourful in putting down GA, so it's something of a vicious circle. I do understand becoming upset over insults to something you've worked on.
As for becoming less like FA, that's exactly what GA should do. But even in '06 that seemed impossible. I still think some form of marriage is a good option :). Marskell (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So your "um ...unbecoming behaviour" is somehow my fault? I've heard some pretty poor excuses, but few more childish than that one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Marskell (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm rearranging this post edit conflict. I think Marskell is accepting personal responsibility for his behaviour, while also saying, however rightly or wrongly, one of the things that prompted it. Geometry guy 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) No worries: I understand both where you and Malleus were coming from. GA has a lot of young enthusiasts who speak their mind, but I'm used to that, and value their enthusiasm. The colourful opposes didn't bother me at all. I only value GA to the extent that it helps the encyclopedia, and I originally got involved because I thought it wasn't. The reality is more complex...

But, serious point of disagreement! I can't believe that such an experienced editor has such a radically different understanding of consensus on Wikipedia as I do, especially immediately after I wikilinked the Wikipedia:Consensus policy: please read especially the intro and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus in practice. Believe me, I know this is not the dictionary definition, but your definition of 70% supermajority is not to be found anywhere. I know that 70% supermajority is what happens at RfA, but RfA actually is (to all intents and purposes) a vote, whereas most straw polls on Wikipedia are not.

The GA dot poll hovered around 60:40 most of the time; it wasn't going to reach 70%, but so what? As you say yourself, the start and location of the poll was not ideal anyway. None of these things are reasons to close a straw poll if it is generating useful discussion which will contribute to consensus-building. I agree with you that polls are amoral, not evil, and can be done well or badly, but your focus on polling is a big mistake. If your definition of consensus, rather than the actual policy, were applied systematically, it would rip Wikipedia apart. I seem to recall Sandy specifically mentioning you as someone who understands consensus, so I am really surprised.

Ah well, back to points of agreement. I also would like to see some form of marriage between GA and FA. However, this also requires GA to become less like FA. In a marriage, partners are complementary (not necessarily complimentary :) They have distinct roles, and don't always agree, but there is mutual respect, even in the biggest fights. I see many signs of mutual respect beginning to develop, not least because many top-quality editors contribute to both processes. I remain fairly optimistic about this. Geometry guy 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A clarification first: internal Wikipedia discussions clearly resolve themselves around a 70% threshold (RfA is probably the best example). ATT "passed," for example, around 55%—but of course it didn't pass, because 55% is never sufficient on an internal poll. A supermajority around 70% is needed; that was my main point.
I should have been more clear that I was talking about non-main space; in main space, people do compromise over wording in a way that resembles the dictionary definition of "consensus." To paraphrase an old rule of thumb: nobody is entirely pleased or entirely displeased, but everyone half-agrees. That is consensus. And that does happen in main space on Wikipedia. That is the site's strength, and I applaud it. But again, talking about internal discussions, such as RfA, AfD, or a strawpoll on WT:GA...ya, "consensus" means a supermajority of about 70%. It's an uncomfortable but true fact.
Anyway, I've migrated some of my thoughts to the talk of GA. This is the third year I've done this, so we'll see how it goes :). We can comment there.
(Last, petty, comment: it didn't hover around around 60:40. It hovered around 67:33 for four days and then dropped to 50:50; that isn't unimportant.) Marskell (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep bringing up the dictionary definition of consensus when no one but you has referred to it, and why do you avoid addressing the policy and practice of consensus, which applies across namespaces? Why do you focus on voting? Why do you lump radically different types of internal discussions together? Why do you think that migrating these thoughts to WT:GA will be helpful? Why can't you be bothered to read WP:Consensus and address it directly? Lazy, self-confident old-hand, that's the impression I get, and yet I know that is wrong. But you need to provide much better answers than you have for your comments to have value on this talk page. Geometry guy 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Lazy, self-confident old-hand, that's the impression I get". I'm sorry to say that's the impression I've always had. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In these terms, you are, Malleus, by self-admission, a straight-talking, no nonsense, speak it from the head archetype, one I recognise because my family come from Manchester and the north west. However, such straightforwardness can easily be perceived as pushy or arrogant. You and Marskell both make fantastic contributions to the encyclopedia. Please don't enter into a tiff here, unless either of you feel that the encyclopedia would be better off without me. Geometry guy 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Just posted my thoughts over there, but that's the end of this line for me. Ciao. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I simply stated my opinion. I did not, as Marskell has done to me, blame him for anything that I have done. I do however agree that my distaste for Marskell and his attitude has no place here, and so for that I do sincerely apologise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries and apology accepted. I've noted Sandy's (removed) thoughts elsewhere, which are very valuable, and I won't let them be forgotten because she removed them. But Marskell still hasn't answered my questions and demonstrated that he has any deep understanding of consensus at all. Geometry guy 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
End of this line for me as well; I don't reply to spankings. E-mail is always open. Marskell (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Spanking not intentional (nor did I intend to fan the flames with Malleus). I also don't need an admission that you are wrong about consensus on Wikipedia. I was just very surprised, and hope you will rethink. Geometry guy 09:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist, so I happened to find this discussion. I just want to mention that I did not do any counting when closing the discussion. I never count, I read the comments. I read the archives, I read the policy pages, I even read some discussions on people's talk pages. I have a background that includes some consensus decision making training. The problem with straw polls is that people are often choosing to implement a "solution", when people have not defined the problem they are solving. To reach consensus you have to let people voice concerns, define problems, brainstorm alternatives, look for ways to address the concerns of those in the minority, stand aside when you see a consensus forming that you do not agree with but can live with, evaluate your decisions and your decision making process, etc... Very few of these things happen when there is a Wikipedia poll. -- SamuelWantman 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. That matches my understanding of consensus here too. Geometry guy 09:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

White Mountain art[edit]

Thanks for showing me a good in-line citation for View of the Pass Called the Notch of the White Mountains. Can you contribute to the issues that are in dispute here? Or, am I circumventing Moni3 by asking? I don't know the politics of Wiki. But, it seems that authors like me are being discouraged in their efforts to make contributions to wikipedia. I have tried twice for GA status, implemented suggestions, and been denied. This is discouraging for someone who's devoting his time to this project. Any suggestions? Thanks again for your help. JJ (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, I've read the discussion above. Not only are editors being discouraged, but reviewers as well. What's the real purpose of GA, and why should I care? If my stuff gets GA and is still felt to be crap, why devote my time? Again, any advice will be greatly appreciated. JJ (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, although I'm not sure that I did it the best way: the way you have done footnote 18 (Artists Sketching in the White Mountains) may be better. I chipped in because I think there may have been a misunderstanding between you and Moni3 over external links in the body of the article. The GA criteria require consistent formatting of references, and you are using footnotes, so references to external websites should also be footnoted and attributed. There are still a couple of external links in the article body: if you could find a way to redo those as footnoted references, I think you would address most of Moni3's concerns here. Does that make sense?
I'm really sorry that you have been discouraged. Perhaps I can try to clarify the Wikipolitics. Wikipedia really needs and values the contributions of professional experts like yourself, but often accidentally discourages them, because it does not and cannot rely upon the authority of article authors, only on attribution to reliable secondary sources. It may help to know that I am a professional mathematician, and so I truly sympathise! One reason I have a pseudonymous username is so that my edits only carry authority to the extent that they are good. This apparent disrespect for authority can be very disconcerting until you get used to it! My advice is simply to state your views calmly and clearly, try to avoid getting defensive and try to reach compromises. "Consensus" is the fundamental political notion on Wikipedia.
Concerning GA, its real purpose is to overcome the stigma that Wikipedia has very unreliable articles by providing at least a tiny bit of the independent editorial oversight that we ask of our reliable secondary sources. It is a worthy goal, and I am glad you have been contributing to it. Because anyone can become a GA reviewer, the quality of GA reviews is variable. You should not necessarily agree to everything a reviewer suggests (e.g., there may not in fact have been too many images in the previous review - this is a matter for discussion and... consensus!). However, in the case of this review, I know that Moni3 is a very good editor, both from the point of view of knowing what makes a good Wikipedia article, and from the point of view of listening to reasoned argument and reaching compromise. I strongly encourage you to engage directly with her.
A delicate point concerns the links to your whitemountainart.com. I can understand that it is hard not to be offended and discouraged by suggestions to remove links to an obviously valuable resource. Here it may help to bear in mind that Wikipedia is very sensitive to links made by editors to websites they run, and is also sensitive to using individual's websites as sources. "Reliable source" has a technical meaning at Wikipedia, involving some sort of independent editorial oversight. So please please don't take it personally that the use of this site has been questioned. Stand your ground, explain, as you have been doing, why the site is a valuable resource. If you can demonstrate it is reliable in the technical Wikipedia sense, then it can be used as a source, if not, you can probably still argue for its inclusion in the external links section, and maybe a footnote too.
I don't mind helping out if the discussion stalls, but in the meantime I hope the above is useful. Geometry guy 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been very helpful. I will work with Moni3 to reach compromise. Thanks. JJ (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I footnoted a few more external links. I think there is only the Glen House link left now, and I'm not sure what to do with that. I guess you'd really like to use the image, but with the two images in the following section, the image density might be getting a bit too much if you did... Geometry guy 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Your enhancements are much appreciated. The article is much better! Thanks. JJ (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I still don't know what to do about the Glen House link. You probably don't need advice now per Moni3's latest post, but in regard to your site, a sensible thing to do is to ask which claims (requiring a source) are sourced to your website; if there are any such claims you will need to provide an alternative source or remove them, or (much harder) justify the website as a (technical term) reliable secondary source. Geometry guy 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little more Noether help?[edit]

G-Guy, I don't want to pull you away from your joyous experiences with what appears to be a fun time at GAR, but I was wondering if you had a minute or two to tweak the final two sections in the math area of Emmy Noether. The peer review we just got asks for a little more clarity about Galois theory and Invariant theory. (I wonder if the reviewer may have missed some of the historical context about Galois, but we can move some stuff around if necessary.) Thanks in advance! – Scartol • Tok 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted both the peer review, and the article, and will try to help out. Geometry guy 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated. This thing'll get finished one of these days. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WM art (continued)[edit]

As a voice of reason, please see my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Mountain_art#On_Verifiability_and_Original_research. Please respond on my talk page. Am I just being a pain about "guidelines?" I think you can help more than Jack, since his is a strong supporter of mine. Unfortunately, I read all the debate about GA and my question remains, why waste my time? I'm convinced I would not have a prayer of FA. I don't mean to boast, but this is not a subject that has any academic experts, so, without me, the article will not be, IMO, much improved. Help! And, thanks again. JJ (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation needed tag which you need to fix at some point. Concerning the "Glen House" external link, I think it might be better if you uploaded the image and linked to it on wiki (I guess the image is out of copyright). This isn't a standard approach, but it might be a way to provide the reader with this helpful information without raising eyebrows. If Glen House is a notable place, an even better solution would be to start a stub, with the image topright, and link to the stub. Geometry guy 23:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been fixed. See my footnote. Thanks for being so helpful to me. As I have stated, there appears to be a lot of politics involved. I'm making some changes that I don't feel should be necessary, and I don't know when or if Moni3 will reread the article. JJ (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the trend, but Glen House still has to be fixed. I don't think there is politics involved here (and believe me, I've been through a lot of wikipolitics!). I recommend ignoring the post by Dr.Cash, and don't make changes you disagree with until you are convinced that guidelines and consensus oppose your view: they do in some places, and you have adapted; continue to adapt, but stay true to making the article as good as you can. Geometry guy 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Darrell S. Cole[edit]

I have added a lot to this article based on your comments. Could you please take another look at it and let me know if there is anything else that needs refining?--Kumioko (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is good news. I see you've added material, but much of it is still sourced to the U.S. Marine Corps, and you've only added one reliable secondary source, whereas Battle of Iwo Jima has about 20. Do any of these mention Cole? Perhaps not, if there were 23 Marines who received the medal of honour for their contribution to this battle, but that in itself is a fact that needs to be mentioned in order to put Cole's contribution into context. I'll comment further at GAR in due course. Geometry guy 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another goofy PR[edit]

Hi G guy, Pied-Noir is currently up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pied-Noir/archive1, but it has had an earlier peer review (I know because I did it), which is in the article history and here, under a slightly different name: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pied-noir/archive1. If I understood the article history template I would try to fix it, but I don't so could you please? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixing this kind of glitch is probably not essential (the old peer review was correctly linked from article history), but I've fixed it anyway by moving the new peer review to /archive2, the old peer review to /archive1, and updating the actionlink in article history. I hope this was what you had in mind. Geometry guy 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much, it was more the fact that I knew I had reviewed the article before and could not find it at first. Now that I have seen what you did I can try and fix future examples I may find, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this thread[edit]

WT:MoS#Bot being made, to convert " &emdash; " to "&emdash;". I've already gone several rounds on this one. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Groups GA opinion[edit]

Thank! That was excellently written. I hope it helps to set a standard for GA reviews. The article has vastly improved from this positive, detailed process.

Is there a proper way to "check off" the items as they are done? I think interspersing comments is frowned on, but with a long list like that, it seems better than multiple replies at the end.

I hope to do a new draft of group theory in June. I think it will address the broadness issues. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, interspersing comments creates a confusing mess. I suggest you refer to the numbers in your responses, and I will strike off comments as they are addressed. I am really happy that you appreciated my detailed review, but please also note that you can disagree with any of my comments as well. The main goal is to improve the article and meet the criteria: my comments are just a means to that end, not a dictat! Geometry guy 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks a lot[edit]

Hi Geometry-guy,

thank you for giving an example of GAR at its best! When I nominated groups for GA, I was hoping for such a high-quality review.

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see Jack also thought the same... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See my above response. Confusingly, this isn't GAR, which refers to "Good article reassessment". I tried to fix as many issues as I could during my review, and will be happy to help out further. Good luck improving the article! It is a fantastic piece of work. Geometry guy 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to keep you up to date: I asked User:Wafulz (who did the first review (in the secound round)) to have another look and decide whether it is a good article now or not. If he does not want to, I guess we need a third opinion. But I'm fairly convinced that the article has improved once again, so I hope there will be some convergence phenomenon :) Thank you again and have a nice day, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wafulz has now passed the article, so congratulations! But more or less simultaneously I expressed my concerns about the "applications" issue, re the lead and a couple of citations. Could you, as a return favour to me, think over those concerns and address them as you feel best, so that we can all be confident that this article really does meet the criteria? I think this will help put the article on course towards FA status. Thank you in advance... Geometry guy 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I will do my best. Earning the GA without concerns and the long-term goal of a possible FAC is too tempting to stop at this point. The main thing is the applications section, surely. I tried to add a few sentences on applications sprinkled over the text, but this could and should be more, more profiled, and also more in one place. Again, thanks very much for your help. I truly appreciate this atmosphere here, working with highly knowledgeable people (like you and JackSchmidt, for example) on a goal without reward other than the work itself. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:Citation#Link_accessdate[edit]

Since you are involved with the template, please have a look. Gary King (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot Question[edit]

I should probably ask before we go any further, since I just realise I don't know how good you are with bots...

Are you able and willing to maintain the bot needed for your suggestion? And if not, do you know of someone who is?

Have a cookie regardless; your work is extremely valuable. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't personally operate a bot, but I am very familiar with how they work, and working with them. My approach requires a small modification of an existing bot, namely VeblenBot, which lists the contents of a category. The small modification required is to add a "category intersection" feature, so that the bot can list the GANs by subtopic but also identify whether they are "on review", "on hold", or "second opinion". I think the operator of VeblenBot, Carl (CBM) may be willing to do this, but if not, the code for VeblenBot is publicly available, and there are a couple of other editors I could ask, e.g. Happy-melon. Geometry guy 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. Thanks for all you help at GAR!
So long of the short, we do have a way of implementing the proposals? Great! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. Same goes to you. Now we both should do some more GAN work! ;)

Peer review problem[edit]

Hi G guy, WP:PR is only displaying the first 5 topics of 10, and the date sorted PR page says there is a "node count limit exceeded" error. There should be over 120 peer reiews there, but it is chopping off the bottom 50 or so. Can you fix this? I will also post this at Carl's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone's changed the limit. I've commented on Carl's page, and expressed my anger at WP:VP/T. (Contributions from more tactful editors may be helpful :) Geometry guy 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review redesign[edit]

The current setup we have for peer review is a headache. Now that I'm getting a bot set up expressly to handle Peer Review, there is a lot more freedom in what can be done. My personal opinion is we should redesign the PR system so that it no longer uses the auto category listings. I don't have the patience to deal with the mediawiki headaches of the category listing system on an ongoing basis.

I don't have any other code on my todo list, and I have a pretty solid bot framework, so the actual time it would take to write the code is minimal. It will take longer to work out the optimal flowchart for listing and delisting PR pages, and for handling semiautomated peer review, than it will take me to write the code.

This is independent of any stopgap measures we may have to take to fix the node count problem.

What do you think? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour. I hope you will continue to support category listing, but PR clearly needs a more adapted solution, so please develop it. I also hope you'd be willing to consider adapting the approach to automate WP:GAN (see a couple of threads above). It is probably not a good idea to rush into things based on recent events, but there is a clear case for starting on a redesign now, and testing it carefully.
Re current events, I don't use IRC, but I hope you will be able to impress upon the devs just how much embarrassment random changes like this cause to editors like us who are trying to provide a stable framework for processes which improve the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray[edit]