Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Good Article RfC

Too many sub-proposals

There are too many sub-proposals being generated on this RfC making the page complicated and removing the focus from the central issue. As has already been metioned on the project page, many of these proposals are really more concerned with the content of the main page as a whole. I propose that they be removed from the page to keep the discussion focused. Spinning Spark 09:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the sections that are not in scope should be at least closed and collapsed. They seem to distract from the RfC. --ELEKHH^T 09:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Brad's offered to be the closer, it might be worth asking him to rule on this. (I think some are fairly tangential, but others are usefully defining the scope of what the community is happy with) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged him.--Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 12:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is rapidly getting confusing. I'm particularly concerned with the vague proposal to re-write the GA criteria; it seems to me to be introduced with an inaccurate subheader and is going to generate a lot of misunderstanding. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More or less agree with Khazar: 2.6 through 2.8 aren't quite on scope. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's closed, I will run a separate RfC on the GA-FA proposal. I would have thought it would have been better to keep the discussion in one place, though. Prioryman (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with closing 2.6 and 2.8 as distracting from current RfC. 2.6 is a totally different proposal, 2.8 is quite misleading and can be discussed at WP:GA. --ELEKHH^T 13:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2.7? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes, 2.7 goes with 2.6 IMO. --ELEKHH^T 13:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it. It is a completely separate alternative proposal. So that this does not get even more confusing as the structure of the page changes, I post below the current section numbering for reference. Spinning Spark 13:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of RFC proposals

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

   1 Background
   2 Main RfC
       2.1 Support
       2.2 Oppose
       2.3 General Discussion
       2.4 Limit
           2.4.1 Yes (and what should it be?)
           2.4.2 No
           2.4.3 General Discussion (limit)
       2.5 Consider GAs only if they were expanded in association with the GA review
           2.5.1 Yes
           2.5.2 No
           2.5.3 General discussion (of a minimum expansion threshold)
       2.6 Create a separate Main Page slot for GAs
           2.6.1 Yes
           2.6.2 No
           2.6.3 General discussion
       2.7 Combine GAs with Featured Article slot
           2.7.1 Yes
           2.7.2 No
           2.7.3 General discussion
       2.8 Clarify that copyvio/close paraphrasing check is mandatory to the GAN process
           2.8.1 Yes
           2.8.2 No
           2.8.3 Discussion

I'm for keeping this tight. Another sprawling, unfocused RfC on DYK will only result in the same thing the previous sprawling, unfocused RfC's have. That is to say, nothing. The Interior (Talk) 17:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - problem is, maybe, that the author of 2 of those proposals, Prioryman, has already said above that he'll open a separate RFC if they are closed here, and that's one of the things that was also cited as detrimental and confusing to the last RFC. Guess it depends which we think is less confusing... On balance, I'd probably say separate is better, and separate and subsequent(delayed) would be ideal. Begoon ^talk 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last time there was a discussion about adding GAs to DYK, IIRC the fact that only one proposal was made and no alternatives offered was used as a justification for doing nothing. So there is a very good reason for keeping the proposals together in one place. RFCs typically have many counterproposals in any case and this one is not at all unusual in that respect. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some numbers

At the time of writing, there are 18,129 GAs, of which 5,028 have historically been processed through DYK. (I am not completely sure if all old DYK articles have been merged into the new maintenance & tracking templates, so the real figure may be slightly higher, but probably not by much). So the estimate of "about a third" is reasonably close.

Relatedly, there's been some discussion about how to handle "old" GAs under the proposed system. We have various options (free-for-all, newly passed only, some intermediate system) but I don't know if there's a clear sense on what was expected. Would it be worth an additional RFC to find a sense of how we want to implement it if passed, or should we save this until September? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "old"? My proposal as written would only apply to recently passed GAs (within the previous 5 days).--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 16:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) That would be a direct challenge to the DYK principle of "new" which many at DYK consider to be the core idea. I can't see that being accepted right now. There are many old articles, not just GAs, which have "missed the boat" for whatever reason. There is perhaps a discussion to be had about them, but not as part of this debate (or even concurrently). Another point is that review standards have increased enormously over the years. Assuming that years old articles are to a good standard without a new review is not a good idea in my opinion. I don't know what discussion you are referring to, it is crystal clear to me that this RFC is only concerned with new GAs. Spinning Spark 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely right. (This is a little embarrassing). I was sure I remembered the proposal saying this, but read it again today and thought I saw it was missing from the notes... and didn't notice it was in the text of the proposal itself not the explanatory comments. I'm going to go hide under the table now. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re/ discussions, there are a couple of comments about "swamping" or "flooding" DYK with old articles, but on examination it looks like it's just one or two users who've parsed it this way - I had got the impression it was more widespread. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew: "I am not completely sure if all old DYK articles have been merged into the new maintenance & tracking templates" -- these numbers are actually populated through {{Article history}}, not the DYK templates. No old articles have been merged into the DYK nomination templates, but that is irrelevant. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant - I am old-fashioned enough that I still think of {{Article history}} as new and shiny ;-). I've done some checking since and I'm reasonably confident that all or almost all DYKs have been merged into it, certainly all those since 2005. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, we had conducted a GA Sweep to ensure that old GAs were at least up to 2010 standards. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]