Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ranking "The Beatles"

Maybe FA is a bad label? The article clearly wears FA because it WAS FA. But it's all crudded up and the current assessment of A class is spot on. For the most part we care about what needs doing, not where it was back when. Not sure what other projects do... IP of NA I don't think had that problem and I've not been in on other projects that wanted to do this level of categorisation. anyone else have any ideas? ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote for "FA" that an article should meet the current criteria for featured articles. I doubt it does. It might squeeze by, but I wouldn't be too happy if it did. --kingboyk 02:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"me"... ?? (looks innocently around) Na... that was text I cribbed, it was already there... (IIRC) I have no strong attachment to it... if it doesn't work for us, let's change it. The question is, do we need to denote that an article was FA at some point, and does it override using the color that denotes what it is, or should it be just mentioned in the remarks. I have no idea, really. (From DAY, well from downtown Dayton actually)... ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph of what I saw as cruft. I don't think the Beatles article needs to mention that they've been covered by obscure and (in one case) redlinked bands. It already amply demonstrates huge notability and influence. I fear that our flagship article has been allowed to drift somewhat - there's no way I'd support FA status right now. That, of course, is something we'll fix! (all in good time, though, let's finish our article classification and devise a plan first). --kingboyk 23:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

nod. Priorities. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at the Pink Floyd article, which is also Featured. Although they're not leagues ahead of us they're certainly ahead. What I like: 1) Extensive footnotes 2) Integration of song samples into the text 3) Use of {{main}}. What I don't like: Integration of what seems to me an excessive number of album covers. --kingboyk 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the colors of the article classes

Bravo. I've been thinking about doing that for a while, to make it a nice smooth rainbow transition from red for not very far along, leading to green for best. I just couldn't come up with a good gradation. Nice work! Question... is AFD OK at purple? ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I was coming here to make a mention of it, but it looks like you beat me to it! I tried to do a logical transition from FA to Stub, but then I used the existing colors as a basis for the other categories. Magenta seems fine, as it's a "bad" article that was deleted, so it needs to draw attention, no? All the rest of the colors OK (now that I've finished)? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

well.. since you asked! (smile) I think stub and start class are too close together color/shadewise. I'd make stub "redder" (darker) and start class more orangey and less salmony. A class and FA are fine... the three merge/deletes I think are a bit unclear as to what the different browns mean without a rationale . One downside of course is that darker, more vibrant colors, black text doesnt' stand out as much but I think I'd rather have the more vibrant colors using bold shades where necessary as the color carries the meaning then. Of course since this was all templatised (pats self on back for cleverness (in STEALING the idea from WP:MILHIST) back when) once you changed the templates it all changed smartly) We might want to put a rationale underneath Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#Codes_and_meanings to explain WHY they shade the way they do (for the benefit of those who are red/green colorblind and thus might not see the shades moving smartly along) Any use for blue at all? Going from red to green, you HAVE to either go through blue or yellow but NOT both... What if different blues were for the different merges instead of browns??? I dunno.++Lar: t/c 02:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I made some changes. Stub is now firebrick and the Merge trio is in shades of blue, but I left Start Class its corally color. What do you think now? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed firebrick to crimson for Stub. I'm not if it's any better or worse.    Stub       Stub    You tell me (firebrick on the left, crimson on the right). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the crimsom better, it's brighter and lighter and the black letters stand out better. Thanks for your work on this! I like how the blue came out too, but do we have the shades in the right order? I wasn't quite sure. ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, crimson is the current color, as I agree with you. As for the blues, they get progressively grayer as the tag gets more negative. (Bright for "Merge", lighter for "Merge or Delete", and blue-gray for "Merge".) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha!... (however "Merge" could be said to be the "least" negative since it's completed work... Naaa... That's just crazy talk! Smile.) ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rolls eyes. --kingboyk 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and as for "Why doesn't the sample use the same style as the real-life table?", that would be because... um... I forgot to fix it when we changed from hard coded colors to templates! The sample will get changed again once we introduce categories as a new column. Thanks for fixing it! ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: WP:MILHIST just changed theirs. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Worklist. I chimed in. we probably should take another look at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment again but I think our colors are "better", actually. thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fiddly edits, how to do same

Editing a section of the classification table is sometimes hard... if you want to see what a section you're working on looks like in preview, add "{|" and "|}" (without the quotes) as new lines at the top and bottom of the section you are working on... then omce you have it right, either remove them or comment them out (with "<!--" and "-->"). That saves multiple saves that don't work... it's what I do anyway. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

New Project Page

Because discussion about History of the Beatles versus The Beatles - and related threads was getting fragmented, I've created a new Project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history. Discussion threads have been pasted into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history. --kingboyk 21:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)