Template talk:Vgood/doc

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Template talk:Vgood
I disagree with point 5. If I come along afterwards and add a sentence containing a red link, will the article be demoted automatically? One or two red links should be fine. Add-on to point 4: categorisation. ...Aurora... 03:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can add a sentence with a redlink, then it is probably little trouble to make a stub-like definition for the subject covered in the redlink; or to point it to Wiktionary... --Eptalon 08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I covered Categorisation with gone through a few revisons, or no templates left that point. I think the minimal requirement is one iw link, and (if applicable) one categories (Articles needing a category ;) ) --Eptalon 08:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I finally figured out why I've been so hesitant to keep the current very good articles as very good--they are missing reference sections. Therefore, I propose that we add the following criteria:

  1. The article should have a reference section or somehow cite its sources.

· Tygartl1·talk· 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly a good criterion, I will add it. --Eptalon 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is one item, I think needs discussion: There should be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, and {{wikify}}.

I fully agree there, except for the {{stub}}. An article can always be improved by adding more information, supposing it is well-sources (etc). Also, this statement is ambiguous, it can be read as

  1. The article can not (or no longer) be improved. Therefore there should be no such templates. (This can certainly never be the case)
  2. The article is at a general level, where further improvement is unlikely to come from simply adding more (sourced) information, by unqualified writers. If this is the case (which in my opinion is the case), it needs to be expressed differently.

In other words, the valid tags for such articles are {{mergefrom}},{{expert}}, and {{stub}} As to the citations, where do we draw the line? IMO, info that is (uncited) in other Wikipedias does not need citation in simple. Cited material in other wikipedias can also be too much for the SimpleWP user to understand. The level of complexity of the language fo academic publications tends to be quite high. --Eptalon 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) --Eptalon 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What is {{expert}}? I just tried it and it was a faulty template. As to using the {{stub}} criteria: yes, "stub" is a relative term. What one person thinks is a stub, another may not. The point I am trying to get across with the criteria that it not be marked as a stub is that (most) everyone should be able to agree that the article is "long enough"--that is to say, the article provides thorough information and is not lacking something obvious. If an article is marked as "stub", that means that someone thinks it is not long enough or is missing something. Essentially, someone is saying that they don't think the article is very good. I think that if an article is marked as a stub, that it should not be considered a very good article. If that criteria needs to be reworded to better get that point across, that's fine by me. But I believe the essence of the statement should remain. · Tygartl1·talk· 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There was this template: "This article or section needs the input from an expert..", used to be {{expert}}.In enWp, it can be found (but is deprecated) as en:Template:Expert. I am unsure now if we have it here. If not, it would probably be a good addition. As of "stub", I think a stub can be a very good article. This is again the argument, that something (which you possibly do not know), could be missing. In other words, the meaning of "stub" should be: This article is fine as it is, but it would be better if more material was added., and not This article needs more material added. Another comment; the two other merge templates ({{mergeto}} and merge) are of course also valid in a very good article; though merging a very good article into another (possibly normal) article, will probably be the exception. Also, remember, I have a robot for propositions for very good articles in the back of my mind. This would be much easier to write, if the grammar for the selection could be context-free, that is, not require knowledge about the subject.--Eptalon 15:39, April 15, 2007

I respectfully disagree. I see your point, and in theory your definition of a stub is correct. However, in practice, people use "stub" to mean: This article needs more material added. If we use (your) theoretical definition, every article could be defined as a "stub". And I think we can both agree that we should not mark every article as a stub. · Tygartl1·talk· 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. In my opinion, an article becomes a possible candidate for a very good article once the editing behaviour (and patterns) change. From that point on, the focus no longer is on adding more content, but to improve what is there. Looking at the edit log, this the point can be seen when the edits become smaller. Or to take a current example, compare Fencing with Equinox.Then look at Chopstick. All articles are similar in size. All are nominated for very good pages, yet the quality of chopstick is much better than the other two. Perhaps we should also make a difference between needing more content (i.e. stub), and making existing content better (cleanup, used far too little). --Eptalon 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)