Wikipedia talk:The perfect article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:The perfect article page.

Contents

[edit] terrible

This is a terrible article.

[edit] Old comment

In my opinion, this article is quite poorly written, and in many ways does not refelct the spirit of Wikipedia. I feel that many parts of it should be re-written, so my edit will make some pretty drastic changes ... However, I am definitely NOT trying to change Wiki policy, nor start an edit war, so if you really disagree with any of my changes, come complain to me at my talk page. 67.70.162.16 4 July 2005 01:27 (UTC) (I'm not logged in right now, I'l log in and re-sign this in a sec)Oracleoftruth

[edit] removed "Platonic ideal"

I was going to explain this in my edit summary but hit save by accident (it happens). The sentence edited previously read "Perfection is a Platonic ideal—unachievable." A Platonic ideal is the abstract form of which the thing is an instantiation. It is not an ideal that can never be achieved--rather, it is in a completely different category. Chick Bowen 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] move article?

I agree that the perfect article doesn't exist but I don't think it can be described either. While I think this is a helpful page in terms of setting out possible aspects of a good or very good article I think its title is a misnomer. It is an exciting title and certainly attracts attention but I am not sure that it is entirely helpful to the project. This is a minor quibble and probably doesn't really matter but I feel the article might benefit if the title were changed. -orizon 13:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree. The suggestions provided make a perfect article. Imagine an article where its 100% NPOV, thats impossible. Many times we like to rattle off a million ways to improve an article in the FAC and therfore vote oppose. This article makes the point that no article is perfect and thats includes FA's and therefore it not only tell the editor to get it out in the open by nominating it but it also tells those voting on the article not to expect the article to conform in every way to how they think it should but just for it to generally solve most of their criticisms. Falphin 22:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I expect your view is vast majority; my point, anal is it might have been, was that just as the perfect article does not exist, the description of the perfect article is equally elusive. But it is probably a good idea to have the article here where it might be viewed more often and possibly contribute to improvement of articles in general. --orizon 07:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is an encyclopedia?

Is it a book that we read from the first to the last page? A newspaper, in which we read each article which interest us, from the beginning to the end? A place where we come to get the information that we search? --Aïki 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find plenty of people to answer "yes" to any of those options. Melchoir 08:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition vs. description

This project pays says that the perfect article "begins with a definition and clear description" of the subject. It seems to me, though, that although words have definitions, which are given in the perfect Wiktionary entry, subjects have descriptions, which are given in the perfect Wikipedia article. Should this project page say instead that the perfect article "begins with a definition and a clear description of the subject"? The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge

I am considering merging this page with several others. Please discuss at this page. Gareth Aus 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I will just point out that it is "non biased" when I am researching high explosives and am 10, while IT says people my age and younger need more explanations but we do not, it is age biased. by garth whelan on 8:09PM 4/27/06

As far as I can see, it says nothing about age... - Centrx 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not happy with this article

There are a number of problems, not the least of which is that the last category seems to contradict all of the preceding categories. It's an attempt to be ... smart, but I don't think it works. Tony 09:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you shuold see WP:GREAT. --Kitia
  • In that case, change the title of this article. Tony 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the last point

I want to remove it; it's silly, and contradicts the title. Ah, I see that I raised this a while ago, so soon I will remove it. Tony 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not an attempt to be "smart" at all, but rather a very needed attempt to prevent ownership of high-quality articles by those who would argue that no further improvement is possible. Kirill Lokshin 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I'd like to restore it, as I've always thought it was the most important point. Also, can we replace the i.e.s with, say, em dashes? It's jarring to the reader when used with such frequency. Pagrashtak 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I restored it then. Don't see a consensus to remove it, to be honest. Hiding Talk 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example

I would like to make an example "prefect article" one that shows as many MOS items and follows as many guidlines here as possible. This article would mostly be filled with filler text. Anyone think its a good idea? -Ravedave 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "filler text"? Tony 01:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I started one under my user page: User:Ravedave/Perfect_article, it needs work nu t I think it would be extremely usefull as it is easier to show something than to explain it. -Ravedave 06:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ravedave, I realise that the example is the result of some effort, but I wonder whether it's a useful addition to the clearly set-out points in this article. Does the example confuse as much as clarify? Why not point contributors to superb FAs instead? Perhaps a model FA with commentary in a different colored font might be the way to go ...? Tony 11:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] perfection

Croctotheface: You can certainly write a perfect sentence, and thus a perfect paragraph. I don't see why a perfect article is, in theory, unachievable.

I want to encourage WPians to aim for perfection, and saying that it's unachievable is too easily taken up and used as an excuse for substandard work. That's my angle. Do you agree?

Tony 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

do you have an example of a perfect sentence? ;) Mlm42 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many examples on this page. If every sentence in the article isn't perfect, editing is required. Now, I see that the bottom item has bloated again. To me, contradicts the title and what we're trying to achieve on WP.

"The perfect article cannot exist. By no means should you spend a lot of time worrying about how to make an article perfect. Perfection in general is an unachievable ideal. The joy of writing and editing is that perfection isn't required."

There are a number of issues tangled up here. I'd like to think that a perfect article does exist. If it doesn't, let's change the title. I don't know what the purpose is of including the seceond sentence here. Why would you "worry" anyway? That word suggests that editing and writing is a painful activity, and confounds the "joy" thing in this item. And we do want people to "spend a lot of time" polishing articles. I hate telling people that perfection is unachievable. It is.

I think this item should be removed or drastically reworded.

Tony 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The last point is making numerous points. Articles aren't being prepared for some final state where they never alter, articles are to remain editable and improvable at all times. If articles remain at all tines editable, perfection is ultimately unattainable. Perfection is also subjective, and the consensus on what perfection may be is subject to change. If you wish to see our guidance in which we detail are our article standards, I suggest you look at our featured article criteria. This page is menat to be taken somewhat in humour, and is meant to be targeted at the newer editor. In fact, I myself found it very useful when I first came here. I thought every edit I made had to be of a high value, and the guidance offered here relaxed me. Whilst we don't object to people spending time polishing articles, there is no requirement to do so, and in fact, Wikipedia operates through collaboration. Nobody should feel they have to write the perfect article, and nobody should claim they have. That's why the articles we mark out as of a high standard aren't perfect, but featured. The direction that it can't exist has been in this page over four years. It has a widely accepted consensus. This page is not meant as strict guidance, it's a pointer to new and established editors, to use as a means of judging how to improve an article. I hope that explains the purpose of the line. It is not meant to remove any of the joy of editing, and in many cases, including my own, it enhanced it. I'm also unclear as to why Wikipedia can't be contradictory. Wikipedia is not an exercise in logic, it's an exercise in building an encyclopedia. Hiding Talk 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont et anything about this 17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Judy101 17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel as though a perfect article is an oxymoron. An article will never be 100 per cent perfect as there will always be edits a person make based on grammer, sentence structure, formating, etc.. An article can be prefect in theory, but not in actuality. Mr. C.C. 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent additions

I don't much like them. One doesn't fit with the grammar of the items. Tony 01:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sold either, they seem over prescriptive. I don't see this page as a list of commandments but a guide to newer editors on areas to look at. Hiding Talk 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is not protected

I would like to add that the perfect article is not protected and encourages users to continue contributing. This is because our best article must acknowledge the fact that we accept edits from everyone, anywhere. -- ReyBrujo 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is vandalism? We could get it semi-protected. Mr. C.C. 20:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nov 9, 2007 edits

[1] I'm sorry for doing a complete revert, but most of the changes violate principles of English grammar and phrasing. "is titled smartly", for example ... "smart" is rarely used that way. "complements the free encyclopedia" - why complements? Isn't it supposed to be part of the free encyclopedia? And why not just say Wikipedia, instead of making people wonder if you're referring to, say, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is also free nowadays? "leads professionally and effectively" - "leads" is normally a rather active word, a person leads others in the sense of giving them orders, or setting them an example, or ... it takes a while to figure out that you wanted to say "has an effective lead section". And these are just the first three changes out of the list. If it was just one thing, I'd try and fix it, but the errors are throughout the change. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There were quite a few grammar problems with the November 9th version. It certainly wasn't more clear, from the perspective of one native English speaker. I think the changes made on the 9th weren't an overall improvement, and support the rather drastic reversion to the pre-Nov 9th version. There's more discussion about this here. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrititionization?

I have completely rewritten the list. One of the things was to put it into a single sentence; this sounded like a good idea at first, but some; sentences; now; read; rather; awkwardly. Another was to condense and reorder several scattered but related points in rough order of importance, but now each point seems too verbose and any ordering I devise is fair game for contention.

Er, in fact, I don't quite like my new version at all, come to think of it. If y'all feel the same way too, I guess the only thing to do is to revert the article to another wrong version. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that open invitation, I reverted :) This page is a general style guideline, meaning that a lot of people read this page (it's the first link in one of the welcome messages), and I don't mean to lecture, but this subject comes up from time to time so I want to be clear, at least about how I feel about it. Radical change in guidelines happens sometimes, and new ideas are welcome any time, but there's a price to pay. If we change the whole thing without any confidence that the new version is substantially better, it creates a certain amount of uncertainty and discomfort (because people rely on their memory of approximately what it says), it requires a lot of people-hours of relearning, and it may not even work. That is, even if we change the page, people may like the version in their heads better, so that leads to multiple guidelines (in effect), and eventually a change back to something like the way it was. Also, the people who rely on the guidelines the most are the people who spend a lot of time reviewing articles, and making the job of article reviewers harder is a Bad Thing™. So, small changes, one at a time, are preferable to tossing guidelines out the window and starting over. [end lecture]
So: can you pick out a few sentences you'd like to change, and let's discuss it first? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is a general style guideline
Oops. Excuse my insolence.
My gripe is mostly with the presentation and language of the article. For example, important points are scattered across the list instead of being placed at the top, and related points are not grouped: citations, a core Wikipedia policy, finds itself in the mid-end section, and the points on categorization and inter-wiki links should be grouped with the two hyperlink points.
A minor issue is that if the article is going to be The Perfect General Style Guideline it should point out various important content policies on Wikipedia and highlight them; I tried at some improvement in this area. The current version, for example, seems to not mention WP:NOTABLE, WP:OR and WP:V, policies I find essential.
Bureaucracy is indisputably necessary to make sure such an effort is properly directed, but I don't think I really have the strength of will to unravel the red tape around such an apparently important article. I've tossed out my diff and my motivations here; may they be found useful.
If you could go over the diff and above issues and comment on them that would be stimulating. I don't mind the article as it is, though, to be honest. Nothing is perfect. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'm not sure if individual sentences would cut it, since one aim was to overhaul the ordering and breakdown of the list itself. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't seen WP:PPP before; that essay reflects my beliefs very nicely, thanks for pointing it out. If you hadn't said that you weren't happy with what you did, I wouldn't have reverted, I would have asked the standard question when someone changes a style guidelines page wholesale: "Where is the discussion that lead to that change?". You're making some very good points. It's a judgment call how much of the rest of Wikipedia we want to pull into this article; I don't think it was meant as a summary. I think it was meant as a list of things that can be read quickly that, in the experience of article reviews and writers, people don't think about often enough, so it might not need core-content policy stuff that most people already have firmly in their brains. I'll ask for advice at WT:GA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the call for editors. I'll refrain from any nontrivial edits until we get some consensus on what can, what cannot, and what should be changed. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)