User talk:Hunterhogan/Archives/2014/January

FA criteria
I reverted your good-faith edit to the criteria. The biggest issue I had with your edit is that it altered the numbering of the various criteria. If left alone, references to criterion 1c about research would be meaningless because it became 2c, but 2c traditionally is about consistent citations.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me, Imzadi 1979. (Frustration is expending effort without achieving results. For years, I have avoided any editing, but recently, I have cautiously experimented with minor edits on pages but only put real effort into talk pages so that my suggestions might achieve some results. My edit on the WP:FA Criteria page was the first time in many years that I put significant effort into a page edit: the result is not encouraging to me.)


 * The renumbering was merely incidental to the larger edits: the other changes were substantive and significantly improved the writing, organization, and clarity of the page. I'm unsure why reverting multiple substantive improvements to correct one small issue is preferable to keeping my edits but correcting my incidental error. Correcting the renumbering issue is relatively simple: one could either move the new  to a location that does not disrupt the current numbering, for example, or one could change the text that references 1.c to reference 2.c.


 * A larger issue, however, is a some previous editor referred to an object in a list by item number even though the numbering is arbitrary and may change. Microsoft Word allows authors to use dynamic reference links to attach list item numbers to text that references the list. I am unaware of a similar feature on Wikipedia, but given that the coding would be substantially similar to coding, it is possible that the feature does exist. If the feature does not exist, or if the editor modifying a page is unaware of the feature, then it is exceptionally poor communication by the editor to use a dynamic reference, such as the list item number, when drafting. hunterhogan (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you've missed part of my point. We can't just change the numbering because there are a number of issues, plus you've effectively created a new specific criterion by number. Pages like User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a would no longer make sense in referencing the criteria because Criterion 1a would be 2a, etc. The stability of the wording of the criteria, and the introduction to said criteria, is also important.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S., linking my user name, as you did, in the manner you did will not "ping" me through the notification system. That system will not notify editors that they were mentioned unless the edit also contains a new signature. That behavior is by design so that people archiving talk pages, as just one example, will not trip a notification to every linked user name in moving large blocks of text around. I have your talk page on my watchlist since I initiated the conversation here, so there's no need to specifically link to my user name to call my attention here.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the additional information about notifications. I personally, do not watch pages because I avoid edit wars, so I don't want to know if something I wrote was changed. If there is a way to see which pages you are watching (such as my talk page), I am unaware of the feature. I have a vague recollection of that feature, but I looked at your user page, and I was unable to find it. I didn't want to assume that you had added my talk page to your watch list, hence I added your username (knowingly) assuming that you would at least have that notification enabled.


 * The original text, and now current text of the page, includes "In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." Therefore, WP:CONPOL was already explicitly listed as a criterion. I didn't want to change the listed criteria because that was beyond the scope of my knowledge; therefore, I made sure I included the link and language in my edit. From an organizational perspective, however, because WP:CONPOL is a criterion it should be listed in the same manner as the other criteria.


 * I agree that by placing it at the beginning of the list, which caused a dynamic renumbering of the ordered list, that I unintentionally created a cascade of cross-reference problems. I apologize for my oversight.


 * I still believe, however, that building on the positive aspects of my changes and correcting my one error is preferable to a full revert. To me, it's the difference between moving forward (with course-corrections) and moving backwards: the lexical similarity between revert and moving backwards are not coincidental.


 * Nevertheless, I am so averse to editing wars and revert wars that I won't even engage in an editing skirmish or editing staring-contest. The current text is not the Franz Ferdinand of Wikipedia, a potential cause of a micro black hole, or the impediment to ending world hunger: I'm ok with whatever the result is. hunterhogan (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor I have the power to impose a new numbered criterion though. Additionally, the list at CONPOL applies to every article, whether it is a FA or not, so FAs already have to comply with those policies anyway. That's probably why it doesn't have its own number in the list, because even a stub has to comply with policies. If it is advantageous to give it its own number, just suggest it at WT:WIAFA. If consensus is to make the change, it will be made. (Since the FA criteria impact thousands of existing articles and dozens of open nominations, we don't change the criteria lightly nor frequently.)  Imzadi 1979  →   13:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I am absolutely not going to do anything like that. The bulk of my edit indisputably improved the quality of the writing; the location of one phrase is the only potential problem. I disagree with discarding the indisputable improvements to protect one phrase because it is simple to improve the quality of the page while protecting the location of the one phrase. It does not matter if I agree or disagree, however, and I will not try to re-introduce my edit: stability and peace are good. hunterhogan (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Followup
You received some belated followup to your posting here, in case you want to reply. All the best, Walkerma (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)