Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Projects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for ELAC members to discuss, plan, and formulate both short and long term extra-long article projects or goals. All project suggestions, from both anonimous contributors, registered Wikipedians, and from ELAC participants, are welcome:

Contents

[edit] Top 17 longest article project

As a first project I nominate the short-term goal of reducing Wikipedia to below 200kb. This will entail the division of approximately 18 lists/articles, as shown below (list still needs wiki-linking):

  1. ‎List of states in the Holy Roman Empire ‎[262,352 bytes]
  2. List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1991 ‎[255,203 bytes]
  3. List of registered political parties in Spain ‎[247,715 bytes]
  4. [‎http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_from_The_Wire List of characters from The Wire] ‎[243,452 bytes]
  5. List of Brazil-related topics ‎[241,225 bytes]
  6. List of watercourses in Western Australia ‎[237,923 bytes]
  7. ‎Sovereign states by year‎[235,120 bytes]
  8. ‎List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles ‎[232,073 bytes]
  9. ‎List of former United States Senators ‎[229,270 bytes]
  10. ‎List of Star Trek planets ‎[222,349 bytes]
  11. State leaders by year ‎[219,911 bytes]
  12. List of ethnic slurs ‎[216,272 bytes]
  13. List of registered political parties in Spain by geographic location ‎[209,934 bytes]
  14. [‎http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endangered_animal_species List of endangered animal species] ‎[207,009 bytes]
  15. Official names of United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies in England ‎[204,275 bytes]
  16. List of Euphorbia species ‎[203,681 bytes]
  17. ‎Xiandai Hanyu changyong zibiao ‎[200,230 bytes] - may be copied to Wikisource?

[edit] Discussion

I suggest that first we discuss this proposal here (P.S. I can't figure out how to fix the redlinks to internal links, such as they are here?). Next, if we agree on this short-term goal, that we first tag all these with "ELAC header tag". We then let the tag sit for awhile so to see if enforced suggestive committee encouragement functions to stimulate the regulars of those pages to divide them. We also keep track of which pages have the "ELAC header tag" removed (reverted) by page uses. This may be a red flag and may require extra caution or prudence. This will be kind of like a practice run for the ELAC team. We can study and learn from the experience. When done, we will have reduced Wikipedia to cap-off of 200kb. Then we can build from this platform. During this project we can also chip away at the ELAC report list. Aside from trivial page divisions, i.e. those long pages little tension, I suggest that we aim to work on these on a group basis: i.e.

  1. Tag them for a few weeks.
  2. Next, post talk-page notice on the ones that didn't get divided stating that the page is scheduled for committee involvement during a certain timeframe.
  3. Then, work on all of them (at once) using the team approach.
  4. Lastly, sideline tensioned pages that didn’t get divided for whatever reason.

Any comments? --Sadi Carnot 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  1. I agree with tagging the articles with the ELAC header tag now. I personally favor a two week abeyance period to see if the tag motivates any voluntary reductions in the articles.
  2. Would it be more appropriate to add the talk-page "time notice" at the same time the ELAC header is posted? It might induce a quicker response from the regular page contributors if they recognize there is a time period at play for any voluntary reductions.
  3. Should the committee discuss the page first and proffer any suggestions as to proposed edits, splits or eliminations at the same time the "time-notice" is added to the talk-page?
  4. Could any obvious edits be made during the waiting period? Some instances seem so apparent as to override a waiting period: for example - In Psycho (1960 film) the Ed Gein connection to the film appears in the opening summary and again at the beginning of the pre-production summary. Since both statements are identical except for a note indicator it seems apparent that one needs to go.
  5. How will the group work on the projects as a team? Should there be a master project page with headers for each project in the body of the master page for the ELAC member input?
  6. What is the bottom line for tensioned pages? If contributors insist on reversing changes and the reverses are allowed to stand simply to eliminate tension it could result in a clear indicator to the contributors that it is really not necessary to allow needed changes to last.
  7. How are long historical lists to be handled? State leaders by year ‎[219,911 bytes] is an example. It serves only as a list with nothing to edit. Should these be left intact or split by decades into smaller lists with perhaps a master page and disambiguation links to each decade?
Philbertgray 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As for point (1), I agree; two week abeyance sounds fine. Only we should go at this slow, a few lists or articles at a time at most. If we tag too many article at once, it could function to weaken the project. Perhaps, down the road, when we get more contributors (40-50), we can start doing high volume tagging. Regarding points (2-3), this sounds like a plan; we'll have to go through a few rounds to see how to best facilitate the "time notice" so that they are kept track without too much effort. As to point (4), of course make or fix obvious edits; a possible new user page lock might be a good idea to eliminate "editor conflict" issues during page divisions (this is annoying when it happens). As for the "group approach" we'll have to feel this out as we go as to how its going to be favorable to everyone. I would say that it would be a good idea to keep everyone in the loop, e.g. comments like "hey everyone, I would like to suggest this as a project page for this month" (or something along these lines); a master project page sounds good after we become more fluid.
As to point (5), we'll have to do some water-testing to see how this works out. I would say that it would be good for the ELAC team to stay emotionally-disconnected to any particular page. In this manner, we can always keep a cool and level head. I would suggest that if a page puts up resistance to the ELAC team for two consecutive weeks that we shelve that page temporarily, put it on the ELAC:Difficult pages list, while we figure out what to do with them. As for point (6), I suggest that we try out different methods. As a first run, I will do a list page using a subpage format with table in top right hand corner of the main page and see how it works. --Sadi Carnot 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project votes

Once this project gets rolling, it might be feasible to pick submitted articles as they do in Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the month? Just an idea. Later: --Sadi Carnot 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ELAC tag deletions

The ELAC tags on both Psycho and The Wizard of OZ were deleted earlier today. I have reinstated both for now. I suspect the tag may bring forth a lot of emotion in those editors who have worked diligently to make what they perceive as improvements to an article and I understand that. I felt the same after my first major contribution was drastically re-edited. Thanks to the counsel of an experienced editor I learned to step back and look at the results of the edits rather than the impact to my ego. For those editors less willing to accept the opinion/direction of others I think the ELAC tag is going to be an issue. One of the ELAC removals was done along with the suggestion to place the ELAC tag in the discussion section rather than the article. I'm not sure its placement in the discussion would have much impact. Philbertgray 11:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that I had never encountered the Psycho article before, and my removal of the tag had nothing to do with any sort of attachment to the article, rather the inappropriate placement of the tag given this Project's lack of knowledge of how to calculate prose size, compounded by the rude and unWikilike tone I found throughout the Project pages.. I came across the article on peer review, where I often pitch in - my removal of the tag had nothing to do with emotional attachment to the article. Had I first encountered the tag on Wizard of Oz (which is a long article), I would not have objected to the principle, but I still would have been alarmed at the tone and conduct evidenced throughout this Project, its pages, and its template. Sandy (Talk) 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I miss interpreted the response to ELAC tag restorations. I thought the intent was just to reinstate the tag to gauge if this would result in further deletions. I assumed that would mean just reinstating it without comment. Further proof that assumptions are usually wrong. I did offer a reason on the Wizard of Oz reinstatement. My apologies. Philbertgray 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

[edit] Related talk pages

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Extra-Long_Article_Committee_Projects_e4c3.html"