This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Gliding page. |
|
Archives: 1 |
Aviation: Gliding Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Aviation WikiProject |
---|
General information |
|
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The last couple months of Soaring magazine have included discussions on the heavy reliance on jargon and its impact on accessibility to the sport. The proposed glossary looks relevant to this subset of the WikiProject Aviation. Given the extremely broad scope of other List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical abbreviations articles, I suggest a focused glossary for terms either unique to or with particular importance or interpretation in gliding. I also suggest putting a link in the style of a disambiguation reference on other aviation glossary articles. Any recommendations or further reading prior to committing to this plan would be welcome. Enginerd27 ( talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Most of our articles about gliders contain an Infobox near the top right corner. Most of these Infoboxes contain an image (photograph) of a glider of the type. These images should be of a quality and accuracy that match the general quality and accuracy of the detail information and the prose found in the article. Unfortunately, some of these images are of poor quality:
There is little incentive for professional photographers, and even amateur photographers with high-quality cameras, to post their images on Wikipedia. Many of the photographs of gliders have been taken by amateurs with little regard for the artistic merit of their work. Many are reminiscent of the photographs seen on social media!
I have been attempting to improve the situation by supplementing these poor images by using Wikipedia’s External image template to post the URLs of high-quality images that are available on the internet. To illustrate my point, look at the following articles and notice the poor quality of the image in the Infobox. Notice also the External image box I have inserted and take a look at the higher-quality image I have added.
My use of External images has aroused at least a little concern. Some Users are uncertain as to the current status of these images when used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has specific advice at Template:External media:
It is worth noting that Wikipedia takes account of both the quality and the accuracy of an image on WP:COMMONS when deciding whether it is adequate to force the removal of an external image. If there is an image available on the Commons, but its quality and accuracy are not of the standard expected by readers, that image may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant article but not sufficient to force the removal of higher-quality external images.
What do others think? Dolphin ( t) 12:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Two weeks have passed since Ahunt’s 7 August edit. No new comments have been added. I won’t be offended if anyone starts a similar conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft in order to better gauge the aviation community’s view of this matter.
My view is that images (including photographs) are a form of information, and images inserted in a Wikipedia article on a particular subject contribute to the body of information about that subject. Whether an image (internal or external) contributes something to an article must be judged primarily on the image itself; the box and the words “External image” surrounding the image are cosmetic and only of secondary importance.
Ahunt has used the descriptor “intrusive” and Nimbus 227 has used the descriptor “eyesore”. Neither has clarified what or why. I will assume both are referring to the box and the words “External image”. My view is that we must focus firstly on the image itself, and what it contributes to the article. The box and the words “External image” are of secondary importance although presumably they could be re-designed if the Wikipedia community wished to do so.
Wikipedia has advice that is relevant to the views expressed by Ahunt and Nimbus227. At Template:External media it says:
At this stage, my inclination is to look for a high-quality external image to support any article that lacks a suitable high-quality image, and to insert that external image in the main body of the article. However, I’m always willing to discuss these things. Dolphin ( t) 04:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we direct anyone interested in this thread to hop over to the Aircraft Project and join the discussion there.I think you just did! - Ahunt ( talk) 12:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Gliding page. |
|
Archives: 1 |
Aviation: Gliding Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Aviation WikiProject |
---|
General information |
|
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The last couple months of Soaring magazine have included discussions on the heavy reliance on jargon and its impact on accessibility to the sport. The proposed glossary looks relevant to this subset of the WikiProject Aviation. Given the extremely broad scope of other List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical abbreviations articles, I suggest a focused glossary for terms either unique to or with particular importance or interpretation in gliding. I also suggest putting a link in the style of a disambiguation reference on other aviation glossary articles. Any recommendations or further reading prior to committing to this plan would be welcome. Enginerd27 ( talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Most of our articles about gliders contain an Infobox near the top right corner. Most of these Infoboxes contain an image (photograph) of a glider of the type. These images should be of a quality and accuracy that match the general quality and accuracy of the detail information and the prose found in the article. Unfortunately, some of these images are of poor quality:
There is little incentive for professional photographers, and even amateur photographers with high-quality cameras, to post their images on Wikipedia. Many of the photographs of gliders have been taken by amateurs with little regard for the artistic merit of their work. Many are reminiscent of the photographs seen on social media!
I have been attempting to improve the situation by supplementing these poor images by using Wikipedia’s External image template to post the URLs of high-quality images that are available on the internet. To illustrate my point, look at the following articles and notice the poor quality of the image in the Infobox. Notice also the External image box I have inserted and take a look at the higher-quality image I have added.
My use of External images has aroused at least a little concern. Some Users are uncertain as to the current status of these images when used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has specific advice at Template:External media:
It is worth noting that Wikipedia takes account of both the quality and the accuracy of an image on WP:COMMONS when deciding whether it is adequate to force the removal of an external image. If there is an image available on the Commons, but its quality and accuracy are not of the standard expected by readers, that image may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant article but not sufficient to force the removal of higher-quality external images.
What do others think? Dolphin ( t) 12:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Two weeks have passed since Ahunt’s 7 August edit. No new comments have been added. I won’t be offended if anyone starts a similar conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft in order to better gauge the aviation community’s view of this matter.
My view is that images (including photographs) are a form of information, and images inserted in a Wikipedia article on a particular subject contribute to the body of information about that subject. Whether an image (internal or external) contributes something to an article must be judged primarily on the image itself; the box and the words “External image” surrounding the image are cosmetic and only of secondary importance.
Ahunt has used the descriptor “intrusive” and Nimbus 227 has used the descriptor “eyesore”. Neither has clarified what or why. I will assume both are referring to the box and the words “External image”. My view is that we must focus firstly on the image itself, and what it contributes to the article. The box and the words “External image” are of secondary importance although presumably they could be re-designed if the Wikipedia community wished to do so.
Wikipedia has advice that is relevant to the views expressed by Ahunt and Nimbus227. At Template:External media it says:
At this stage, my inclination is to look for a high-quality external image to support any article that lacks a suitable high-quality image, and to insert that external image in the main body of the article. However, I’m always willing to discuss these things. Dolphin ( t) 04:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we direct anyone interested in this thread to hop over to the Aircraft Project and join the discussion there.I think you just did! - Ahunt ( talk) 12:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)