User:Rambo's Revenge/Bug 16085

Currently there are two Featured lists candidates with a bug (16085) that stop timelines rendering correctly. In order to keep discussions centralised I thought I would start a page to try and determine consensus of whether an article should be featured if it contains a bug.

Arguments for not opposing.


 * The basis you are opposing on "is not actionable"
 * That Timeline of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season was promoted even though the bug exist.

Arguments for opposing.


 * That it is actionable. An image could serve as a replacement until the bug is fixed.
 * That the bug (regardless of whether it is actionable) means the list fails the criteria. This particular bug definately violates 4. Stucture&mdash; that it is "easy to navigate".
 * That something with a bug does not "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work".

Discussion
Oppose - I think the oppose is valid here. The not actionable argument is superseded by the image which can be used as a work around. I would have also opposed the promotion of the 2003 list, and I think that any list or article that does not meet the criteria (by a bug or not) should not be promoted as featured work. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the damn thing! - It takes an administrator with shell access, but if you're my friend (or Cyclonebiskit's, for that matter), you will fix Bug 16085. I refuse to let it get in the way of my first piece of featured work. --Dylan620 ( Home •  yadda yadda yadda  •  Ooooohh! ) 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I just opposed a featured listing based on this. It seems to me that if something has a bug, it shouldn't be used. These articles are for the readers, if there is nothing to read, then who is the FL helping? why do timelines have to use this buggy feature anyway - if it doesn't work, it shouldn't be used - it is actionable, there are myriad ways to construct a timeline without using this, or by fixing the bug. Both are actions.Yobmod (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the image? The timeline problem is wiki-wide, so someone should fix it instead of arguing here!--Neka 2008! 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * except the problem there is that not evreyone has acesses to the wikipedia servers Jason Rees (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the image. Although it is helpful, I was a bit confused as to which storms went to which line. Ana and Two are easy, but Bill seems to just float around, Claudette looks like Bill's, Danny takes Claudette's, Six is on the wrong side of Danny's, the actual bar for six is lonely, Seven is on the wrong side as is Erika and Nine, Fabian is floating above its bar, Grace is on the wrong side, etc...It's just really confusing for people who don't know how the season actually went, don't get me wrong, it is a good image, just needs some reordering to be correct.
 * As for the actual bug, I'm not sure what is the big deal, there is nothing most of us (I think) can do to fix it. Both 2003 ATL and 2005 EPac timeline passed with the bug and I don't see why 1983 can't.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(←) If your treat the image as an idea however, clearly it becomes an actionable response to the bug. A better image can be made for these articles, that fixes all those problems mentioned above. It would be possible to create an image that replicates what the timeline should be almost exactly. It can even use image mapping to link to the hurricanes/cyclones etc. As for the others being featured, I would have opposed their promotion as well had I reviewed them. I am judging this list on its merits and for me it does not represent Wikipedia's best work, especially when there is a reasonable proposed solution (the image). Rambo's Revenge (talk)  19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst that image could be a good idea for Basins like the Atlantic, Epac, Spac, NIO, Aus, & SWIO - it would not be a good idea for current season articles and seasons like the WPac that have about 20-40 storms per season. Jason Rees (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with the opposition. If the bug is fixed, then great. But what if it's never fixed? Clearly it becomes inaccessible. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created an image to replace the broken template for the time being. It may need some minor placement tweaks but otherwise I think it's good. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by my oppose vote on the FLC here. This picture makes no sense as it currently stands. A featured article/list cannot have an entire section that does not make sense. Therefore, an FLC cannot pass with an image like this. -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  22:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * It seems that consensus dictates that opposition based on the bug was valid. Hopefully this has set a precedent and articles and lists submitted for FAC/FLC/GA will no longer use the bug as an excuse for their shortcomings. For this particular bug Cyclonebiskit came up with an image that solves this problem, and I think it is now accepted that an image supersedes a broken timeline. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)