Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-10-18

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-10-18. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months (713 bytes · 💬)

• Hopefully the Committee will handle cases in a more time efficient manner in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I think that the length was appropriate considering the drama in the topic area. The case submission was long overdue, and sanctions should have been applied years ago. (X! · talk)  · @139  ·  02:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review (14,111 bytes · 💬)

This needs to be fixed:

Wikipedia articles use what are called "inline citations", each of which is added to the main text. Editors can format citations in a variety of ways, by hand or by using templates such as those of the "cite" family. No matter the format, the citation details go between a pair of <ref></ref> tags. These should be placed inline directly after the end punctuation of the text that is being supported.

Parenthetical citations are acceptable, and they don't use ref tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think they should be standard to tell you the truth. Can you point me to an article using "true" parenthetical citations...? ResMar 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the article - thanks Sandy (and please feel free to tweak my changes). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they may be uncommon, but they're definitely still around. Remember that it's the policies that matter, not what your personal feelings on the issue are. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Policies are are based on editor consensus; any less and they are no more then dead weight. No, they do matter. ResMar 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a policy-- it's a guideline. Another sample: Taiwanese aborigines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And I repeat: consensus changes. ResMar 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The MOS is descriptive, not proscriptive (it generally tells us what we can do, not what we cannot or must). There are many academic disciplines where parenthetical footnotes are the standard and I think it makes perfect sense to allow them here. They do not need to be popular to be allowed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that they shouldn't be allowed, only that template citations should be preferred. It's bothering me that people are taking the MoS as an unbreakable code of law: something is changed nearly every other day. ResMar 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In journalism we have a saying: "Follow the stylebook out the window." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All styleguides—all—no matter how they might spin it, are both descriptive and prescriptive. Tony (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Note: Section headers which represent arbitrary time frames do not each need to (in fact, should not) be represented in the lede (using the traditional spelling). This is especially true of biographical articles which often have such section headings to avoid excessively long sections. Im my opinion, of course. Collect (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that the content of each section should be in the lead, even if the arbitrary dates in the header are not. I have changed it to "A good rule of thumb is to mention every section in the lead in some way, even if only through a word or phrase." (dropped the word header). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Admirable inconcept - unworkable in practice. Vide an article like [1] (not the only article with this many sections, to be sure). I consider that having the lede cover only the most major points in a BLP is quite sufficient, and in line with newspaper practice. Recall that immediately following the lede is a list of section titles - having each referred to in the lede is effectively redundant. Collect (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I think of it as just another way to say what WP:LEAD's Provide an accessible overview section says (in part "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.") I also note that the example you give is from 2008 and does not follow WP:HEAD. I also note that the Joseph Widney article has a much more reasonable structure and Table of Contents now, which would be much simpler to summarize in the article lede or lead. Thanks for you comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You might note who did the pruning :). Alas - a lot of BLPs still contain kitchen sinks. Collect (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I had not noticed. Agreed that the work is great and the workers are few. Still, we perservere. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the Signpost is short on manpower. You may notice we had to drop ITN this week... ResMar 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what this means . . .

"Fair use media must be mentioned in the article in which they appear." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. Sorry to be so slow to respond, but I've been traveling and often off-wiki of late. "Fair use media must be mentioned in the article in which they appear, and must add significantly to the reader's understanding of the topic." - The fair-use media must be mentioned in the text of the article and not added as a disconnected aside or decoration. Would it be more clear to say "Fair use media must be mentioned in the main text of the article in which they appear and must add significantly to the reader's understanding of the topic"? Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Media is plural for medium, which I assume means media of communication -- like radio, television, motion pictures, newspapers, magazines, etc. Well, anyway, no; I don't understand. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, light bulb clicks on. Image files are one possible form of media, but so are videos or animations or sound files. Basically it is saying you can't just grab a copyrighted picture (or whatever) and put it in an article for decoration. The article has to discuss the picture (or sound file or ...) and it has to add to add to the reader's understanding. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Avoidance of list elements should not be carried to the extreme of being a fetish

Numbered and bulleted lists, including nested ones, have usefulness in organizing information for easy parsing. The trouble with most writing advice is that pedants latch onto it and turn it into a fetish. I'm just putting in a plug for common sense. The aphorism goes that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As Arthur Plotnik riffed on that, "A little Strunk and White is a dangerous thing." Don't give writing advice without acknowledging some exceptions. For every 5 readers who don't need to be told that there are limits to the generalization, there are 5 who do. The advice that, in paraphrase, "you shouldn't use lists unless you're making a "List of [...]" article" is misguided/misguiding. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that advice in the dispatch above. Can you point out the exact sentence and suggest an alternate wording? Finetooth (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry—you're right. The advice given in the piece is sound: "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. If an article's essence is a list, it should have a title such as 'List of rivers in Asia'." The problem is not the advice as worded; it's the distorted caricature of it that pedants may come away with. I fight this all the time at work regarding the principle of "A little Strunk & White is a dangerous thing." Pedants would remember the takeaway lesson as being "never use lists for anything that could conceivably be forced to be prose" and "Using lists is the wrong way to write that only people who don't know any better engage in." This pedantic distortion happens over and over with just about any point that writing-advice authors ever take up. There is no action to take in this case; I was too tired when I wrote that comment last night, and I wasn't being careful enough in my reading. However, I will say, as someone who deals with the problem professionally, that you're better off writing a rule or guideline that's phrased to seem obviously, painstakingly self-aware of its limitations (i.e., "use your brain, and don't follow this rule off a cliff") than to write any rule that's straightforward but can easily be twisted by a pedant—because it inevitably will be. Half my job is un-mis-educating 2 generations of Americans who were taught in their formative years that writing and editing are about enforcing pedantry (as opposed to being about communication and damn the trivialities, which is what it's really about for the people of the world who get things done, e.g., physicians, surgeons, firefighters, EMTs, military personnel). Anyway, this is a mere musing, and not a direct reflection on the piece, which is very good and which I shouldn't have commented on. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a good point - thanks for making it. At peer review we tend to see articles where the opposite problem applies - things which should be prose are instead forced to be lists. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: A week for marine creatures (1,823 bytes · 💬)

Thoroughly exciting and enjoyable read! I still think, though, that it would be even better if the weekly stories would discuss whether or not any delisted FAs/FIs appeared on the Main Page, and when. Otherwise, great! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Delisted? I thought only featured content appeared on the main page. We do try to keep a cap on the length of the page, since The Signpost is already a pretty long read, and we like to leave the readers wanting more—that way they're more likely to return next week. We struggle a bit with the very fiddly job of copying over the links, noms, and blurbs, inviting judges, and the time-consuming task of selecting and locating the images. Although it is very satisfying to prepare pages that highlight the work of our talented users, we would be pleased if one or two more editors wanted to be in the team to share the workload. Tony (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We are short on hands everywhere. ResMar 21:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the TFA is mentioned on every TFA's talk page, it would not be difficult, I think to put in parenthesis (Today's featured article on January 4, 2005) next to the delisted articles that were TFA at one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief (989 bytes · 💬)

A rather straightforward week...ResMar 00:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A P.S. on the Frankfurt Book Fair story: It should be said that the Wikimedia Foundation supported this by funding Patricio's trip with a grant (m:Grants:WM_AR/Participation_at_Frankfurt_2010; see also m:Grants:WM_AR/Frankfurter_Buchmesse. These links were already noted in the story as an HTML comment, but since it wasn't clear from m:Grants:Index whether these applications had been successful or not, additional fact-checking was necessary, which wasn't completed until after publication).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news (675 bytes · 💬)

The "WikiBhasha" is rather interesting, and ties in with a conversation just started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_articles#Well_Referenced_in_other_languages. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

m:Developer payment makes for quite an interesting comparison with the situation in summer 2004, when payment of developers was first introduced. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)