This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Content assessment page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:ASSESS

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Council This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil articles Article quality research (inactive) This article is within the scope of the article quality research project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Article quality researchWikipedia:WikiProject Article quality researchTemplate:Quality assessmentArticle quality research articles

Should Hermann (name), Bellver and Zinc silicate be classified as disambiguation pages on Wikipedia? These randomly chosen examples are currently classified as "set index articles". More generally, what is the distinction between SIAs, dab pages and stand-alone list articles on Wikipedia, and is the concept of a set index article useful to the project? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, these three pages (and most other pages which transclude ((given name)) and ((surname))) should be classified as disambiguation pages, because their purpose is purely to disambiguate between different terms of the same name. These pages are not articles in any way, for example they have no content nor references. The description and examples given at Wikipedia:Set index articles make it clear that SIAs should have some actual content, in much the same way as standalone-lists. It is not really clear to me why we need a separate type of article for SIA because "list" seems to cover it nicely. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  MSGJ, the RFC question contains three questions. "Yes" is not a valid answer to the second one. Maybe this RFC should be treated as a request for actual comments, and not yes/no votes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Sure - all comments will be welcome. I just thought a direct question would be helpful initially. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure what the implication of this question really is. Human naming practices naturally resolve ambiguity so there is an inherent disambiguation quality to anthroponymy lists. We also know from statistics that these lists are frequented by readers, and we know that biographies they link to often have magnitudes more traffic than lists and/or etymologies themselves, so it's logical to treat them as part of the navigation system of the encyclopedia. If we say we don't want set indices, and instead want either disambiguation lists or stand-alone lists, what's the practical difference? --Joy (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Dodge Charger is the canonical example of a SIA. It's a list, but it's a list made of sections and paragraphs rather than bulleted list items, so it doesn't look like a list in the same way that the examples at the top of this section look like lists. I have wondered whether Floods in California could also become a SIA.

  I'm not sure that the SIA designation is super helpful. We could perhaps just eliminate the designation, and then adjust various other systems to include former SIA-designated pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It seems like the definitions don't matter here as such, rather the real question is do we want to prefer formatting things in a concise manner or not at the base title? IOW we could have a guideline that says that the current Dodge Charger article content goes to a title like Index of Dodge Charger cars or List of cars marketed as Dodge Charger while the former title gets a much more concise disambiguation list, which also links to the longer article. --Joy (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are many possible implications. For example, when you press Special:Random you will be taken to a random article. This may include lists and SIAs but should not include disambiguation pages (because they are not articles). If we don't classify these pages properly then there will be dab pages incorrectly classified as articles. Another example is our content assessment system. ((WPBS)) is designed to automatically detect disambiguation pages; however it will not detect the pages above because they are classified incorrectly (in my opinion). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Wait, why wouldn't you want Random to send readers to disambiguation pages? I honestly never would have guessed that it avoids some types of pages over others, after decades of occasional use. Also, what does the banner shell do differently about disambiguation pages again? I suppose I must have seen that effect before but I can't remember what it is. Automatic type=disambig is there, but automatic type=list isn't? --Joy (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As the practical effects of these implications seem to be a matter of a dozen lines of Lua and/or PHP code to accommodate either way, this appears to be fairly inconsequential. --Joy (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Include me in the list (or set?) of people who don’t understand why those examples aren’t dab pages, or what the point of labelling some articles as set index articles is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanation of Set Index Articles --- I was part of the discussion in 2007 that set up the SIA concept. The idea came out of a tension between two good impulses:

1. Disambiguation pages should have as little formatting as possible to make it easier for readers to find the correct page, and
2. Some WikiProjects wanted to create list articles about topics with the same name, including comparative data (e.g., Goat's head has images, or List of peaks named Signal has coordinates).

The problem in 2007 was that editors who are fanatic about (1) prevent any development of lists in (2), because deviation from MOS:DAB was reverted very quickly. As a compromise, we came to consensus on the idea of a Set Index Article, which were allowed to be list articles that could also serve a disambiguation function. SIAs do not have to obey MOS:DAB, but can develop into list articles naturally.

I believe that SIAs still serve that purpose today. Even back in 2007, there was some discussion about requiring "List of" in the title. The way the guideline developed is that if there is a DAB and a SIA with overlapping names, then the SIA must begin with "List of".

Hope this helps explain the background of SIAs. — hike395 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to what hike395 says, some projects use set indices to compile complete lists of a type, regardless of whether an article extends (that is, they are not only for navigation to existing articles like dabs). older ≠ wiser 05:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both for the explanation. It does still feel like a simplification should be possible. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No. This hammers a variety of square pegs into a single round hole. Anthroponymy pages are not disambiguation pages. Hermann (name) should contain cited content on the origins and incidence of the name. Obviously not everyone named Hermann is known solely as "Hermann" in the literature of their field. Compare John (given name) — do we really want to turn that into a disambiguation page, and remove all the information about the name itself? The same for surnames like Andrews (surname). As for chemical terms like Zinc silicate, these again are a class of things, and can properly be referred to and discussed as a class. BD2412 T 17:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Obviously I agree that John (given name) is an article with encyclopedic content. But I think it is wrong to classify Herman (name) in the same way just because someone might in the future come along and write an article about the name Herman. The current page does not contain content and its purpose is to disambiguate between different articles, so we should classify it as a dab page accordingly.

  The problem is that Herman (name), like all such articles, uses ((given name)) which is categorised as a "set index article template", so it is impossible to reclassify any of them without changing this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hike395 thank you for the background. Do you think the SIA classification is helpful on the three examples I provided initially? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lists collect entries with a specified common property, such as List of English monarchs. Disambiguation pages (dabs) collect entries with a common name, such as Mercury. Set index articles (SIA) collect entries with both a common property and a common name, such as people sharing a surname. Many SIAs could equally be dabs; they are simple lists which happen to obey MOS:DAB or could easily be modified to do so without significant loss of content or usability. Other SIAs would not be suited to the dab format, for example a surname page containing a detailed etymology with references and a navbox of similar names, such as Smith translated into many languages. A third group of SIAs such as Ayers, Corvin and Naughton seem to have morphed into dabs by acquiring significant numbers of entries which do not share the common property (of being people, in this case). They should be converted to dabs if conforming to MOS:DAB would lose nothing much, or be split if we need to keep the existing format. I'm picking on surnames here because examples, good or bad, are easy to search for, but the points apply equally to other types of SIA. Certes (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case of Ayers, I would actually explicitly advise against pondering a split - adding yet another click to the workflow of readers looking to navigate to all those biographies would make it that much worse for them. The average reader most likely wouldn't care much if e.g. the section on people had an introductory paragraph about the name. For some reason we have a bit of an extremist approach to disambiguation lists, as if there's something holy about keeping them sequestered from set indices, which is not actually proven to be particularly useful AFAICT. There's plenty of content dispute potential already in item selection, captions and ordering of disambiguation lists, so adding a part which would actually be governed by standard content rules is unlikely to create much of an extra maintenance burden. Likewise, the disambiguation itself all too often devolves into huge laundry lists that make quick and easy navigation an illusion anyway, so a bit of extra length is unlikely to cause readers to be any more unhappy about the list length than they already are. --Joy (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't split Ayers but we should redesignate it as a dab. Lists of twelve places and three companies have no place in a surname article. Compliance with MOS:DAB would need only simple changes which won't obstruct the reader's search. Certes (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFAICT it can already be done. There are no incoming links to it. If a tree falls in the forest... I mean... if we replace a boilerplate template at the very bottom of the list, will anyone actually notice? :) --Joy (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: we have a bit of an extremist approach to disambiguation lists – there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what disambiguation is. Disambiguation pages are a navigational tool, like a hatnote, but on a separate page because there is too much to put in a hatnote. That is all, nothing more. Nothing should go on a disambiguation page that would not go in a hatnote, if the options were few enough to use that as the navigation device instead. BD2412 T 00:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how this statement is helpful here, as even hatnotes typically have descriptive captions, and they have ordering, and there's differences in opinions between people about what should and shouldn't be in a hatnote. The problem of how to describe ambiguity to the readers isn't automagically resolved by any sort of an appeal to an imagined purity of navigation lists. --Joy (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, amusingly enough, hatnotes themselves are far from a settled matter in the topic of anthroponymy. Apparently we've been having discussions about how to handle foreign naming convention hatnotes and failing to reach consensus since at least 2011, which I last noticed last year in Template talk:Family name hatnote#Extraneous links. --Joy (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• All three of the examples given by OP are and should be tagged as DAB pages. For the difference, see WP:SIA. And, yes, actual not mistakenly-tagged SIAs are useful to the project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  BTW that would also make more obvious the question - what would be the point of keeping Hermann (name) out of Hermann, if they're exact same type of list? All the while causing https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Hermann to happen - where most outgoing traffic is to biographies, but one semi-random one happens to be in the first list while the others are relegated to being behind the extra layer of bureaucracy. --Joy (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not sure there is a compelling reason. There's a long discussion of this kind of thing at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Should the section on Incomplete Disambiguation be deprecated or revised?; I don't think it's come to a firm resolution yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Okay, so the next question is how to do it because the template's categorisation automatically classifies them as SIA. So either we need to change the template or to remove that template from those pages (and any others like them) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Some more recent examples of how the set index versus disambiguation list paradigm is probably doing us a disservice are at Talk:Boyle (disambiguation), Talk:Baldwin (name), Talk:Pierre (disambiguation). --Joy (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  A few instances of someone misusing a term/template/category/title to brand something a set-index article when it is really a disambiguation page (or vice versa, and I've run into cases of that) does not mean that "the set index versus disambiguation list paradigm is probably doing us a disservice"; it just means there are a few instances of someone misusing a term/template/category/title to brand something the wrong kind of page. It is never a principle here that some small number of well-meaning (or even otherwise!) people not following rules or documentation means that the system is broken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It suggests a disservice because those discussions are evidence of how the distinction between these types of pages are causing editors confusion. A clearer system would mean fewer contentious discussions. How much simpler it would be if we could have one disambiguation page for Baldwin, including people and other uses. I can't see any benefit in having a separate page for people called Baldwin (Baldwin (name)) and other things called Baldwin (Baldwin). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @SMcCandlish The problem is that the existing paradigm is formulated in a way that precludes any practical combinations, which causes this whole "You're holding it wrong!!1!" problem to happen. The rules are fine for most cases but haven't actually been updated to match the practical reality of reader navigation in a subset of cases. --Joy (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Let's go back to first principles. The problem occurs when we have a term which is a name (with a list of people sharing that name) and the term also has other meanings, often as a placename. In some cases, we can list the people, places, etc. on one page. That page should be a dab rather than a list or SIA, because nothing is common to all of its entries except a shared title. If such a page is currently not a dab, the solution is to convert it, as we did with Ayers. In other cases, a single page would be too long or would break our rules for any possible format – perhaps it has both a referenced etymology making it ineligible as a dab and a list of places etc. making it ineligible as a name SIA. Then we need two (or more) pages, raising the question of which to put at the base name. The name itself is rarely a primary topic by our usual rules. However, there is still a case for putting the name page at the base name for navigational reasons – it leaves the reader who lands naively at the base name just one click away from each person so named and two clicks away from each other meaning, rather than vice versa if the dab were at the base name. However, I don't think we have a policy or guideline that puts that case or advises when it is strong enough to award the unqualified title to a name page. Certes (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, exactly. If the direction is to collapse the distinctions between disambiguation, set indices, and other superficially similar pages, they shouldn't be called "disambiguation" pages, but something more generic such as "navigation" pages. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yeah, if we have all these various types, as well as broad concept articles, templates and whatnot, we should be able to define a hybrid type and apply it judiciously. In fact this reminds me of how we sometimes have articles with various tables or navigation templates that have a [show] button next to the caption which then uncollapses that content. I'm pretty sure most readers would be quite happy with making any supplemental information collapsible, be it a name etymology or any kind of a long tail in a long list (like Hermann (crater) or Jacob Herrmann). --Joy (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  MOS:DONTCOLLAPSE. It's fine if the content is collapsible as long as it is not collapsed by default.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think you wanted to link to MOS:COLLAPSE. The difference here is that this style guideline refers to "article content". Navigation lists aren't typical article content, their main function is typically different. They're not trying to tell a coherent story and impart deep knowledge, where hidden spoilers would be unhelpful gimmicks; they're mainly trying to accomplish successful navigation, and information overload is a known issue. --Joy (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I made that shortcut work, too; weird to have MOS:HIDE and MOS:DONTHIDE both working, but not the same for COLLAPSE. Anyway, the guideline doesn't have anything to do with spoilers (which are covered by WP:SPOILER, and the hiding of which was invalidated by community RfC and TfD before the MoS section existed). That section exists because pre-collapsed content is an accesibility and usability problem. Nothing in that guideline can be taken to suggest that sections of the main content of such a page can be auto-collapsed (it says quite the opposite), just because the purpose of the page or section within it is primarily navigational (otherwise "See also" would always be pre-collapsed, and so would the content of all disambiguation pages, and the content of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE short summaries of other "side" articles linked to with ((Main)) in lengthy articles on complex topics that have been split. It's quite clear: "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content ...", the last of these being exactly what we're talking about here. "Other methods of hiding content should not be used". The only mention of navigation anywhere in that section is this: "Auto-collapsing is often a feature of navboxes. ... If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all." That right there already addresses the "information overload" issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Exactly, and because we have no systematic way to stop including ambiguous items in disambiguation lists, this just doesn't apply. Where we did apply a method of removing some of the ambiguous items, WP:NAMELIST, we basically screwed up and did it in a way that actively harms navigation. --Joy (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Much simpler to put all the disambiguation on one page (e.g. Hermann (disambiguation). If in the future, someone writes an article about the etymology of the name, then this could go at Hermann (name) with a hatnote that says something like "This is an etymological article about the name Hermann. For people named Baldwin, please see Hermann (disambiguation)#People" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The problem is that this fundamentally alters what disambiguation means. Very few of the entries at Hermann (name) would ever be expected to have their article titled as simply "Hermann". These are nothing more than partial title matches. The same is true of surname lists, although to a lesser extent as it is somewhat more common to refer to a person by their surname only, especially after context has been established. I could perhaps see creating some sort of superset category of "navigational pages" that included both disambiguation pages and set indices, but I don't think calling them all disambiguation pages is helpful. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  But that is exactly what they are doing: disambiguating! It's for people who are trying to find an article including the term Hermann. Perhaps they can't remember the other part of the name. If you look on Hermann you will see that most of those entries are not just called "Hermann" either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What you describe is navigation, not disambiguation. On the page Hermann, many of the entries could reasonably be expected to be titled as simply "Hermann" in the absence of any other article that might share the same name. From the earliest stages of Wikipedia, disambiguation developed as a means to resolve article titling conflicts. Disambiguation pages and hatnotes are the primary means of providing navigation between such potential conflicting titles. Over time, disambiguation pages have seen an accretion of other aspects, becoming something more like an index or an annotated search function. older ≠ wiser 14:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would be comfortable in calling all these pages "navigation pages". That might have been a better choice of word from the beginning. But I'm not sure the general community would see enough benefit in changing the title to make it worthwhile. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Disambiguation is a subtype of navigation. I've never liked the D word – it's almost never used outwith Wikipedia, and I doubt that most readers seeing it for the first time will know what it means (though it's easily guessed). However, we do need a term of art for a page which lists different meanings of the same term, which is just one of many ways to navigate Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't agree with "If such a page is currently not a dab, the solution is to convert it, as we did with Ayers", as an across-the-board, no-brainer approach. This has to be taken on a case-by-case basis to do what is best for the content and the readers of it. Various surname articles contain considerable encyclopedic information and should not be converted into DAB pages that just provide a list of names and throw away verifiable information on the name's history, etymology, distribution, etc. Nor, when such a page includes that information and also includes a list of notable people by that surname, should they be split into a spearate surname article and surname disambiguation page without a good reason. A good reason might be that the encyclopedic content is quite long impeding the ability of the page to serve a disamgibiguation navigation function, or the list of notables is very long, dwarfing the non-list content of the article; or both. When both the list and the non-list content are are short, then "ain't broke, don't 'fix' it".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Articles containing considerable encyclopedic information are not "such a page". My suggested rule of thumb is that if the page already almost obeys MOS:DAB and conversion would be as simple as replacing ((surname)) by ((disambiguation|surname)) and making other minor tweaks (add ((wikt)), ((TOC right)), unpipe a few piped links, etc.) then the page is ripe for conversion. If we'd have to throw away useful content, references, etc. to shoehorn the article into MOS:DAB then it's probably unsuitable for replacement by a dab, though splitting may still be a good option. Certes (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There has been decent explanation above about what separates Set Index Articles from disambiguation (where appropriate), but less clear is what separates them in essence from other lists (which can and do include contextual information to explain the list) and why this difference is significant enough to merit its own page type. CMD (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Exactly. The current set of SIAs fall into two groups: ones without content, which should really be dab pages. And ones with content that could quite easily be called lists. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  An SIA is a list whose entries have similar names. SIAs and non-SIA lists share other characteristics such as contextual information. Our list of people called Braun is a SIA (although most visitors will be looking for Braun (company)). Our list of US presidents is not a SIA. "Set index article" may not have been the best choice of term: US presidents form a "set", our list of them is an "article", but presumably it's not an "index" because its entries differ in name. Certes (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Why don't we call them all "lists"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We do. SIA is a subtype of list. Certes (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another point of confusion appears to be Wikipedia:Lists of lists. That page states that Lists of lists are not SIAs (makes sense, they are not items with a shared name), but Lists of lists appear to still be classified as SIAs; for example Lists of English words. (I'm not sure why they are classified as SIA, is it somewhere in Template:List of lists?) CMD (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm coming round to the idea of calling all these pages "navigation pages". They all serve the same purpose and then we don't need to worry about distinguishing between these different terms — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What shows us that Lists of English words is a SIA? If it is, it probably shouldn't be. Certes (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It is displayed as such by the default Wikipedia:Metadata gadget available in preferences, but as my parenthetical notes I'm not sure what the technical trigger is. CMD (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agree that it shouldn't be. It may be due to Template:List of lists calling ((dmbox)) with parameter 'type = setindex'. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA class says under "Editing suggestions" for FA articles: No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.

When has this ever been true?? The example article Cleopatra has had many content additions since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about Jesus Christ in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently 94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was first featured.

Depending on how much free time you have and how granular you want to get, you can always add more to an article.

This goes against WP:FA?, which only says it must neglect "no major facts or details", is a "thorough and representative survey", and "its content does not change significantly from day to day". Recommend removing this line. Schierbecker (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interpretations may hinge around the word "necessary". To become an FA an article theoretically "neglects no major facts or details" and "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If these points are true, then no further additions may be necessary in order for an article to be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information", although they may as mentioned be possible with granular/minor information/details. CMD (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if my experience is representative, but that's not the way I interpreted that wording when I was a newb in 2009. I distinctly remember holding off on some needed changes to featured articles because I thought featured=complete. In any case, that language is wrong no matter which way it was intended to be interpreted. Content additions are necessary for an article to keep its featured article status (And of course here I'm not just talking about new information becoming available). A featured article when I started would be a B class today. Schierbecker (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this needs to be re-written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC about FA completeness

This RFC proposes the removal and replacement of the statement in the Featured Article editing suggestions that reads, "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible." Schierbecker (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Should be removed for the reasons listed above. But replaced with what? Schierbecker (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe, "Continuous improvement, including both minor and major revisions, is encouraged to ensure articles remain current and comprehensive. While major content additions may focus on significant updates or the emergence of new information, contributors are urged to engage in ongoing refinement to enhance both content and presentation, recognizing that the nature of featured articles implies a commitment to continual relevance." (LLM-assisted content). Schierbecker (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we need to have anything? If we decide that we can't just leave it blank, then maybe the FA and FL could both say something like "May need to be updated with more recent information". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply deleting the Editing suggestions column is an option your thought prompted. What does it add that is not in Criteria and Reader's experience? CMD (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded. Schierbecker (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment When has this ever been true?? The example article Cleopatra has had many content additions since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about Jesus Christ in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently 94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was first featured.

  ... and were the additions necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: As a FAC coordinator and having successfully nominated several articles at FAC the current wording looks like nonsense to me. WP:FAOWN, which is policy, includes "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." Perhaps a version of this could be used? Eg 'Significant changes to featured articles should be made with care and should usually be discussed on the article's talk page first'? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would support a change to the effect of what Gog has sketched here. I think there's a kernel of a good idea in the current wording, but as phrase it isn't correct and is potentially quite unhelpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I think this should be removed or replaced (like Gog the Mild's suggestion). Even FA's comprehensiveness requirement is not a statement that no content additions could improve the article. Indeed the FA process doesn't often ensure this (though many nominators do), as comprehensiveness is rarely checked thoroughly; conversely, uncontroversial prose improvements aren't often possible as this is one of the most heavily scrutinised parts of the FA process. An example of the bike-shed effect. — Bilorv (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I would support Gog's proposed change, but not outright removal. Last year a large number of readers and editors descended on Robert Oppenheimer. Readers outnumber writers by a thousand to one. No substantial changes were made. (I disagree about comprehensiveness not being checked thoroughly, but you have to be a subject expert to do so. Military History articles usually get this at A class.) There were a lot of changes that I characterised as barely rising to minor edit status, such as deleting white space and reordering parameters within templates, or adding or removing unused ones. There was a fruitful debate about the subject's name, however, which resulted in some small but satisfying changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Gog the Mild's proposed change. The current wording could easily scare a new editor away from making constructive changes to an FA. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Gog the Mild's version is good. Others already said why.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I also support something along the lines of what Gog is proposing. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:'Cause and Talk:'Murica. I think it would be nice if that was the case like it is with the way disambs work, because as is I can't assess these as anything. Or maybe they should have something else done with them. Whatever people think is the best. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that makes sense. That would require a change to Module:Class mask — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just removed A class from well over 100 articles where someone decided to tag the article as A Class without doing the required formal review. It's too easy for this stuff to go unnoticed and its very time consuming to track down. Should there be some sort of edit filter that flags such edits for further review? Schierbecker (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could maintain a central list of A-class articles, and the template would only accept the rating if it's on that list. Then editors can watchlist that page or we can add some protection to it. This is similar to how vital articles work now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we copy whatever we do to check GA and FA tagging? GA tags do appear occasionally on articles which seem to have had no review, perhaps because someone starts an article by copy-pasting from a GA on a similar topic and reducing to boilerplate without remembering to remove the GA tag. I assume someone or something spots them and makes them go away. Certes (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged a random page, "Talk:Zandspruit," as a GA. Maybe whoever reverts can kindly share their process please and thank you? Schierbecker (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA and FA are tracked in three separate areas: the article page categories, the talkpage categories, and central listings. If there is a discrepancy between these three areas, the article will appear at eg. Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches. A-class articles are currently only tracked through talkpage categories. CMD (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches#In a subcategory Category:GA-Class articles but not a good article, a misplaced |class=GA would show up on that page. They don't currently track subcategories of Category:GA-Class articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a point, the relevant category is produced by the GA tag/article history template, not the Wikiproject template. CMD (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have discovered some strange and surprising practices by editors when articles are delisted as good articles or featured articles.

When a good article is delisted, I would expect it to be given a rating of B-class by default, as it is the next rating down in the scale. But apparently it is common practice to remove the rating altogether and wait for it to be reassessed.

Also, you might expect a delisted featured article to become A-class or GA-class. But WP:GACR says "a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality". Why should losing FA status, also mean it loses GA status? The criteria are different. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned on my talk page, the relevant discussion is Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 15#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have always thought it was weird that losing GA class does not automatically mean an article loses A class. Schierbecker (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A-class is used infrequently enough that I doubt this oddity has much practical impact. CMD (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The MilHist Project had a problem with articles losing their GA or FA ratings on grounds other than article quality and the project decided that an A-class rating should be retained pending a A-class review by the project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Hawkeye7, do you remember where that discussion took place? Schierbecker (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been our policy since at least 2009. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 19#Academy errors. It has been discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 163#A-class articles delisted from GA in 2021 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Napoleon and A-class status in 2024. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m wondering if articles that exhaustively cover all information available in the relatively few sources should be designated start-class for their length, or higher because they don’t have any gaps or areas needing expansion. Zanahary (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. If it covers all information, it's probably higher than start though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely it is higher; if it "exhaustively covers all information available" it is very likely to be a B at least. Assessing based on length alone should always be avoided. It is highly unfortunate that most assessors seem to use that as their primary criterion. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it. How can I request reassessment? I think some of my Start-designated articles should be rated differently. Zanahary (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether it exhaustively covers the subject or not, it cannot be B class unless it is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm requesting/suggesting 2 changes to the current Reference.

Fogarty, Robert. (1972). American Utopianism. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.[self-published source?]

No, it is not a self-published source. Also, its an edited work. Some citations indicate he was the editor, some the author. Its a compilation of primary source materials from the history pre 1919 of intentional communities in the US. It was one in a series published by F.E. Peacock, a an established academic press specializing in the social and behaviorial sciences. It was bought out in 2002 by a national corporation, Wadsworth Thompson, that is still operating.

See: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2002/10/07/daily4.html "Belmont-based Wadsworth, affiliated with software and information provider The Thomson Corp. (NYSE: TOC), purchased F.E. Peacock Publisher Inc. for an undisclosed sum."

and: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/

thanks! I will get an account shortly. Betsy Morris, Berkeley, CA 135.180.123.159 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]