Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Archives/Unsuccessful Nominations/August 2012

< Wikipedia:Articles for improvement‎ | Archives‎ | Unsuccessful Nominations


This page lists the TAFI nominations that were closed as unsuccessful in August 2012.

The below nominations are closed as unsuccessful – there was no clear concensus to nominate.--NickPenguin(contribs) 17:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The following Today's Article for Improvement nomination is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For He's a Jolly Good Fellow

Level 3 Vital article. One of the most popular songs of all time. Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, very good! This article can be improved by finding references for all the information. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't feel there would be enough interest in editing this and feel it would be better left as someone's pet project. Ryan Vesey 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Your probably right. My reasoning for the two song requests was that if this is sort of stuff lots of our newbies like to edit anywsys (the latest top 40 hit/episode of favourite tv show etc., then why not start off with them to make the newbies feel at home.--Coin945 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shape

Level 3 Vital article. A very major topic that is rather poorly covered. Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again something that SHOULD be GA or FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Man, this article is really complicated! GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This topic is way to broad for focused collaboration in my opinion. Honestly, I don't know where one would start on this, I'd prefer a BLP. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a piece for specialists. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oil

Level 3 Vital article. A very major topic that is rather poorly covered Coin945 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Coin945 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Awkward subject, but should be expanded upon a lot. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. My own opinion: Just because something is "common knowledge" does not mean the article can or should be improved, nor, indeed, does it mean that editors will have an interest in improving it or that they will have the ability to do so. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Night in paintings (Eastern art)

Needs some more text and references.  RexRowan  Talk  13:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  RexRowan  Talk  13:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, a good one! This article is already being worked on and has some good tips on its Talk page. The writing is clear, and one doesn't need to know a lot about the subject in order to help improve it with some commonsense additions or corrections. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I think its too obscure for the average wikipedia reader to really get involved. Sorry...--Coin945 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think we got the right people working on it at the moment, although some expert input would be appreciated if anyone happens to have the knowledge. Thanks ahead!-- RexRowan  Talk  14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with Coin. In addition, like you said Rex, there are some great improvements being made already and it's a bit of a niche topic that many people can't help on. Ryan Vesey 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One to watch for sure. Since it is already going under major rework, it should not be put up, the only result would be to confuse and usurp the editorial work of the current contributor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human body

One of the most basic human concepts. How can this article be so bad? Coin945 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might also have to check out Human anatomy, Human biology, Human physical appearance and Human physiology as there's a lot of cross-over, as well as holes in coverage.

Support

  1. Coin945 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- RexRowan  Talk  12:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Inexcusable to have this be so basic, even as a jumping off point, its too lacking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh, bugger the nudity. It's an important topic. Although I believe those of us who aren't dogs may have a conflict of interest. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Per the article apparently containing nudity, as mentioned below. I'm not going to check to find out and I'm not going to make any contributions to this article. I know that some might not appreciate me opposing on the grounds I'm using, but guess what, it's my !vote and that's my opinion. AutomaticStrikeout 16:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could just use the CSS image blocker. That was the whole point of the conversation. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe I could, but I'm not going to because I have a moral objection to contributing to/calling attention to an article with that kind of content. That might not be a popular opinion, but I'm not going to go against my conscience here. AutomaticStrikeout 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think that a moral objection is a little ridiculous, but then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writ, I think you're taking a stance that is a bit too satirical here. It is reasonable for someone to have a moral objection to this. I don't, but my comment below was related to the idea that people can. It's also fine for you to disagree with a moreal objection, but there's no reason to equate moral objections and opinions on blatantly obvious things. Ryan Vesey 19:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* I kinda saw that coming. It wasn't intended to be satirical, it's (another) reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and the solipsist Ruler of the Universe. I mean no offense, and quite apologize for the misunderstanding. Poor joke on my part. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I thought you were making light of his views, probably should have wikilinked "I think that rain is wet". Okay, let's just keep on keeping on. Ryan Vesey 19:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. As much as Commons probably needs an expanded venue for presentation of its inventory of 9200 dix pix, this is pretty much an unimportant piece in terms of an encyclopedia article. The same is true for almost all of these nominations, actually — mind numbingly insipid generalities: wall, flag, floor, door... Who gives a fuck. How about digging up one of the HUNDREDS of lousy bios about elected officials of yesteryear, for starters?!?! Carrite (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nudity is likely to prove offensive to some. Seems counterintuitive. --Nouniquenames 17:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • To be honest, I don't like the idea of using this article because it contains nudity. Even though the nudity is scientific, I feel that there will be editors who don't want to take part in this collaboration as a result. The community portal receives ~10,000 hits a day and I feel like some would be contributors would be put off if the.. TAFI link sent them to a page containing nudity. It also creates trouble for anyone editing from work or a public place. Ryan Vesey 04:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could hide the image. I remember reading in one of the wikiforums about finding a way to have image automatically popped down - like templates are. That could be an idea, at least during the editing period. Of course the caption will remain so editors know such an image has already been included.--Coin945 (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We couldn't do that per WP:NOTCENSORED; however, someone intelligent might be able to put together some CSS so that an individual editor could hide only images on that page. That still wouldn't fix the problem for unknowing editors/new editors (Seeing nudity can be very dramatic for someone who isn't aware of our not censored policy), but it would solve the problem for editors who want to improve the article from work or a public place. Ryan Vesey 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant CSS would be body[class~=page-Human_body] .image{display:none;}. How to get people who want this to actually install it is left as an exercise to the reader. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ive been trying to move the image down to the reproductive system section... But im editing on my phone and its really hard. It seems this article missed out on the discussion that affected articles like Mohammad surrounding taboo images high up in an article. At least if anyone casually clicks on out, they then won't get a nasty surprise.--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care about the possibility of some users deciding not to participate in one particular week's collaboration due to the subject matter. Nor do I care that there will inevitably be complaints about our choice of article if or when we run this. However, I do care that users who are uncomfortable with nudity, who haven't yet heard of TAFI, might avoid TAFI altogether if the first they hear about us is as a result of choosing this article.

    In summary, this is a good choice of article, but I would prefer that we don't go with it until we are a little bit more established (2–3 months). —WFC— 14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sadly, the moral issue is one that will be front and center. While it contains nudity with purpose, it is still something that could lead to an awkward situation. Let's play it safe, and medical articles are not friendly to most contributors because of the subject matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As ST Spock would say, more succinctly - it is illogical to assume that an article on the human body would not have nudity. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility 'Category of pages where entering the topic leads to a disambiguation page where one can select from "Article with pictures" and "Article without pictures".' This might also be useful for picture-heavy articles which may take long to download on certain equipment (such as phones). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Today's Article for Improvement nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_improvement/Archives/Unsuccessful_Nominations/August_2012&oldid=1138374973"