Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:32, 23 March 2006

List updater

In subsection A below, listed are articles which are missing from the Misplaced Pages:Good articles. They were found by looking in the categories in subsection C. One can add more categories to be searched to subsection C, see some suggestions in subsection D.

All this process can be restarted by clicking on the link at the bottom of subsection D.

Please note that anything around here is editable, but please don't modify the lines of the form

<!-- bottag:X:begin -->

or their order.

A: Articles missing from the Misplaced Pages:Good articles

B: Place here articles not wanted either in the Misplaced Pages:Good articles or in subsection A.

C: Categories to be searched

The bot will look for potential additions to the Misplaced Pages:Good articles in this list of categories. You may add any other categories to this list, for example from subsection D below. Use the format ] (the colon (:) shows up twice!).

D: Potential searchable categories

Move up to subsection C any categories which the bot should search for missing articles in the Misplaced Pages:Good articles.

Archives
October 2005 – January 2006 - initial discussions and debates 8 January 2005 – March 2006

A version with icons

Adding to what was there already, I've had a bash at putting icons in for each heading. I've used yellow as a complimentary colour to the blue. I realise that there are a couple of display issues with it at the minute but for look and feel, has anyone any feedback for an approach like this? (or is it all regret code?...) The page is here, and it actually only adds 2 kb to the page size. Cheers SeanMack 16:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted out the glitches, checked it in IE and firefox and the colours(colors) are web safe. Does anyone know if there is functionality to +Show and +Hide for these templates for the whole page? I've had a play with it and it helps me at least see the conceptual groupings a bit easier. Let me know how your milage varies... SeanMack 16:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone there? SeanMack 11:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the look of that - I am experimenting with a slightly different version at User:TheGrappler/Good3. I thought it looked better with the first colour put darker (blue) to give it a clearer definition. I changed a couple of icons too. What I am hoping to do is find a way to reorder the articles so that there are no repeated subheadings. This may be easier said than done! I also want to find a way to deal with a few anomalies e.g. military history is split between History and War. I am also in favour of removing the article counts after each subheading - they tend to get out of date and I can't really see the benefit from them. TheGrappler 18:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the main title bar and the first heading being the same? If so - just remove the first heading, eg Art, architecture, and archaeology User:SeanMack/sandbox/Good2. I agree with making blue the first heading. No strong feelings on the icon changes either way. I agree the sub counts don't add much value.

My thoughts on military history, historical wars are part of history so they should be in History. War and military for me should only be for warfare and military articles for the present day. This would resolve the problem(?) I guess there are going to be many cases where an article could feasibly belong in multiple areas. Categories are one way that this issue was tackled, so that an article can be grouped into higher level amalgamations of related information. I'm not sure that our list needs to do that. I think each article should go into the most appropriate section even if it could feasibly fit into others, if someone clicks on the article, they will find related articles through Categories. Do you think it worthwhile pursuing the look and feel I suggested? There wasn't any interest apart from yourself... Cheers SeanMack 05:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks very nice! It makes the page look more "professional" IMHO. Walkerma 08:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the colour scheme or whether icons are the right way to go. Personally is my favourite. But keep up the good work. Cedars 09:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't repeat the first heading then you can't do section editing, which is a real shame, because that makes editing so much easier. My feeling is that the sections can be broken down, like the Transport one is, so that becomes a non-issue. If we are going to break down in the same way as WP:FA, then military history would go under military, even if that seems strange. Not sure what to do about crimes and criminals, probably they should be filed under Law (there doesn't seem to be a precedent on WP:FA). Similarly, even if it is underpopulated, we ought to keep "Awards and decorations" - given the number of FAs for that topic, I am sure there are some more good articles out there. Does anybody object to removing the section article counts? I can't see the benefit of them if we have another way of counting up the total number of articles, and they add to the maintenance issues of the page. TheGrappler 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete list?

May I know if Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Archive 3 represents a complete and exclusive list of all good articles which have gone through the due process of nomination and approval, and if not, where may I find such a list? I noticed that the {{good article}} template was applied to Celtic F.C. but I can't find it on Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Archive 3, so would like to check whether it's an erroneous edit or not. Thank for any help in advance. --Pkchan 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't a mistake, it wasn't labelled correctly, good articles are supposed to have a {{GA}} stamp on the talk pages rather than a dot in the corner, and I did not see someone comment on it. Check to see if it meets the criteria, (it shouldn't take long) and if it does, put the GA banner on the talk page, and if it doesn't, just remove the dot. Homestarmy 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have removed the dot for the time being and left a message on its talk page to notify its authors to go through the due course from the beginning if they are to represent Celtic F.C. as a good article. --Pkchan 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation as a criterion?

I have come across some GAs that are uncategorised. There is actually a clean-up tag for this - it would be odd to have something requiring clean-up still being listed as a "good" article! Perhaps one of the criteria at WP:WIAGA should be that the article is appropriately categorised? TheGrappler 19:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be a given that a GA has none of the flaws that would lead to it being listed under one of the {{opentask}} categories: being a stub, lacking sufficient verification, needing wikifying, NPOV issues, clearly out-of-date, etc. Sad to say, not only is Misplaced Pages uneven in its depth of detail & use of references between articles, but some articles are very uneven -- quite good paragraphs are mixed in with slabs of text that read as if they were written on the bus on the way to school. (I know of one article that I originally wrote, & have since found quite mangled by someone with a POV to push.) If you want to nominate an article with a cleanup problem, please fix the article first. -- llywrch 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be a given - but this particular criterion isn't actually explicitly stated (infact it's not even a condition for FAs, and I have seen poorly categorized FAs in the past too). What I found interesting was that I came across an article somebody else had listed as good, thought it a bit odd that it required cleanup, then realised that it actually did meet all the conditions at WP:WIAGA. Just suggests to me that this particular "given" might need to be made explicit! TheGrappler 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Give the issue some time, & I expect you'll start seeing FAs delisted because they aren't properly categorized. (Every time I look in to that forum, it seems that the denizens have again raised the bar.) But if we insist on this for GAs, it doesn't mean that the nominator can't fix these (relatively) minor issues first. -- llywrch 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot Request

I see we have a bot that determines what articles are tagged for GA, but aren't on the list. Could someone make a bot that updates the GA counts automatically, since not everyone has been doing that manually? Seems like a simple bot to make... and much less wiki-server intensive than the current bot we have. Fieari 20:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new look for Good article page

I am proposing a new look for the page based on previous work mentioned on this page already. Thanks to TheGrappler for working on this and feedback from Cedars and Walkerma.

The Proposed new look.

Points to note:

• We have kept the colour scheme in line with the project page as it exists presently bearing in mind the comments by User:Cedars. The list seems to be clearer starting with the darker colour - blue.
• It includes editable sections to facilitate moving things around within a section. Without this I would not have suggested it...
• It provides an excellent structure for growing the article list, without overwhelming - this is especially important as I think the good articles list will eventually dwarf the FA list by a large margin.
• Many new sub-sections have been introduced to help group together related articles. A large amount of work went in here from User:TheGrappler, and I approve of the structures within the main sections.
• Sub-section counts have been removed. I agree with the comment that these make the page higher maintenance without adding a huge amount of value.
• More distinct article separator - namely this thing here: ♦ separates things visually ♦ quite well ♦ but isn't an image ♦

I want to get feedback from as many editors as possible and hope that you will support this new look. I have used it myself to update the page slightly from the version of the page that I took at one stage, as a test of it's usefulness. I found it quite easy to find and change sections and sub-sections. It is a bit out of date at present. I didn't want to spend too much time keeping it in synch with the current page unless there was support to implement it. I make a commitment that if it is accepted I will ensure that all the articles currently in the GA page will be transferred into this page before implementation. Lets be bold! Thanks for your time. Any feedback can be either here or my talk page. Regards all. SeanMack 16:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Homestarmy 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)