Talk:Microformat/Archive 1

Archive 1

long line of underscores

why don't you use an HR tag, instead of the ong line of underscores in the example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.201.31.246 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use an <hr /> because I think it would make it more difficult for beginners to understand the example.

The example is suppose to show the reader how to use Microformats. I didn't want to confuse them with a bunch of extra HTML markup. And decided to just keep things simple. That's why I did all that markup inside a set of <pre> tags... and not a complex layout with <table>'s, <div>'s, etc.

--Charles Iliya Krempeaux 09:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And ASCII art on webpages is so much "more aesthetically pleasing". It irradiates that quaint early 80s feeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.10.194 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Singular page title

This page and the singular redirect to it should be swapped. Andy Mabbett 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

History

I've removed the following from the article:

"Microformats were anticipated in the original design of HTML. However, early efforts to create semantic links using the rel and rev attributes used a "separate, non-URL, name space and binding mechanism for link types similar to MIME, and this was a lot of overhead. The first proposals that allowed link types to be looked up online, with only a few hardwired defaults, much as plugins work, in early 1995, seemed to be misunderstood, with some HTML-WG participants incapable of differentiating the target from the type. The proposals originating at this time tended to emphasize presentation of the links, and stuck to a few static types that could be implemented in browsers, like "embed".

"As RDF evolved, it became clearer that the original rel and rev approach had merits: it was lower overhead, required no data type definitions or upper ontology."

It's partly uncited (and the citations given are to mailing list posts), overly technical, and seems to contain opinion. Andy Mabbett 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

class name conflicts

How are class name collisions handled? Where you want to use a microformat class name but not because it's part of the microformat? — Omegatron 03:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The likelihood of someone needing to use, say, "fn" inside a class of "vcard" is slight; but there are profiles which can be included in the head element. Further discussion of this issue is archived via the uFs wiki. Andy Mabbett 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you link? — Omegatron 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - it's scattered all over the place, including the mailing list archives (which are downloadable in Berkeley format) Andy Mabbett 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Example in intro

Messed up my edit summary, which should have said "not on the talk page".

I don't see the asserted requests for an additional explanation of microformats in the intro. Yes, the concept needs to be explained a bit, but code tags are almost always a bad idea in the introductory article summary. I'm not keen on the article being full of angle brackets anyway, but better in the body than in the intro. Chris Cunningham 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's one such example. I'm not sure what you mean by "geotags may be a pet project", or how that's relevant. Nor can I see why code tags (sic), or for that matter angle brackets, are a "bad idea" in an article specifically about a mark-up technique. Andy Mabbett 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that our articles on microformats seem to be too tightly integrated with the WikiProject on microformats; the two should be kept distinct. Extra examples, an example in the intro, how-to guides etc. would be helpful in the Wikipedia: namespace, but this article and the other articles in mainspace should stick to encyclopedic coverage only. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 01:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In what way do you think they're "integrated"? Examples of how to apply a mark-up technique in an article about that technique are "encyclopedic coverage". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As Krimpet said, there's a big difference between guiding people on how to use templates to improve articles in the project namespace and doing so in articles. Prescriptive information is extremely valuable, but it's not what the article namespace is for. As for the pet project stuff, I would think it obvious that comments on a template discussion page are not directly indicative of a flaw in the article's coverage. I couldn't teach myself Java using Java (programming language), but I wouldn't suggest that this is a problem with the article. Encyclopaedic does not mean all-encompassing. Chris Cunningham 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is and has been nothing on the article, about templates. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

how does it work?

I used the template:Infobox_Company at this article Paid On Results. The template:Infobox_Company talks about the support of the hCard microformat, so I added parameters like fn, street-address , locality, postal-code, county-name and tel to it. When I saved it, none of the parameters showed up. I checked the Infobox_Company template code and saw that it does not support any of those parameters. I assume the misleading description comes from an template that is used by the template. How is that whole thing supposed to work? Thanks --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The only attribute it seems to support is "org". So yeah, some work is needed on the templates. Chris Cunningham 11:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't need to add individual hCard properties as template parameters, as you did; the relevant properties are encoded in the template. Not all of the address properties are currently available, because there is no apparent way to apply a class to a section (i.e. several consecutive, but not all, rows) of a wiki-table,

Secondly, , somebody had removed the class="fn org" mark-up from the template, thereby disabling the hCard microformat. I've restored that. Lastly, the individual case still does not work, because an image, with no alt attribute, is used instead of a text value for the company name. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Infobox Company#No text display of name. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The bugs recently introduced to that template have now been fixed; and the template protected. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

removal of the critique section of the article

Recently, a contributor removed a section entitled "critique of microformats", this section summarized both potentially favorable and potentially unfavorable aspects of this technology. The edit summary provided was: rv OR (there are some valid criticisms of microformats, but this isn't the WP way of documenting them).

Please explain the supporting rationale for removing this content. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 11:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR & WP:VERIFY. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am already familiar with those. Bare WP policy links do not count as an explanation. In order to help you clarify your rationale (which you have yet to state) I offer you some simple yes/no questions.

• Does this article cite microformats.org as a reference?
• Is microformats.org a reliable source ?
• Did User:Pigsonthewing state in an edit summary: there are some valid criticisms of microformats ?

Please answer these questions with either a "yes" or a "no". Doing so will help support my continuing assumption that you are acting in good faith, and not attempting to waste the time of experienced WP contributors, or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 13:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I see this article has been flagged for cleanup and linked on WP:3O. Although that is not entirely unreasonable, an explanation (and not just bare links) for why the content is disputed would be helpful first.

As WP:3O states:

“If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active Disagreements section.”

Hopefully this matter can actually be discussed first, it may just be a misunderstanding that could be easily resolved by talking it through. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I came here in response to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here's what I see:

• The article has a criticism section containing statements that, at first glance, appear adequately sourced.
• However, the sources consist of two blogs and a forum. Those aren't acceptable according to WP:V.
• Moreover, the cited statements refer to original research from other people. This would be fine if the OR was performed by someone recognized as notable in the field, but after looking at the sources I don't see that this is the case (anyone can have a blog, after all).

Therefore, although I agree in principle with a Criticisms section, I must agree with Andy Mabbett's contention that this section shouldn't be retained according to WP:V and WP:OR. -Amatulic 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion

Thanks, Amatulic, for providing the additional input. Although the "third opinion" probably really only counts as a "second opinion" (since the other contributor has not yet discussed the matter with me here) anyway, your points are well-taken.

One difficulty that arises here, however, is that the subject matter of this article is largely discussed and documented in publicly-available Wiki and blog format. If you look closely at the references for this (and related) articles, one striking fact becomes clear:

   Nearly every factual aspect of the technology in this article is referenced
   only by publicly available wiki and blog sites.

If we are truly to rule out blogs and wiki sites under WP:V, then we'd have to delete from this article:

• the entire section "Live example" (referenced only by Wikipedia)
• the entire section "Microformat#Specific_microformats"; (referenced only by Microformats.org [a blog and a wiki])
• the entire section "Microformat#Proposed_microformats"; (referenced only by Microformats.org)
• the entire section "Microformat#Creation_of_microformats"; (ditto)
• the entire section "Microformat#Critique_of_microformats"; and (referenced only by blogs that are cited on Microformats.org)
• substantial portions of "Microformat#Accessibility_of_microformats"; (the only non-blog reference is to the Web Standards Project)

That leaves us with just the lead section and "Uses of microformats". Perhaps you can see the problem here. If we truly rule out all blogs and wikis, then practically the entire article would have to be removed.

Microformats.org itself is a blog (and wiki) website, and it is the site used to reference every single Microformat article here on Wikipedia. It is also the site from which I took *all* of the items mentioned in the "critique" section.

Make no mistake, I am more than happy to try to provide more "authoritative" references, as WP:V and WP:RS recommend, but if that is the absolute threshold for inclusion on this particular topic, then it would appear that every single Microformat-related article on Wikipedia would have to be put up for deletion. I don't think anyone here wants to see that happen, so what is to be done? dr.ef.tymac 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the sidelines: if it's not encyclopedic, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. — Athaenara ✉ 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, but then someone might want to tell the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. dr.ef.tymac 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to dismiss my concerns are unacceptable. Parts of the microformats website may use wiki software, but it's not (and the specifications in particular are not) open to editing by any passer-by, in the same way. Even then, http://microformats.org/ is not a wiki; and WP:V does not prohibit blogs or wikis per se. There are also a number of book references. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

Please, Andy, aka User:Pigsonthewing, let's try and keep the discussion as productive as possible Ok? In no way am I attempting to "dismiss your concerns"; quite the opposite, I'm working quite hard to understand them. Since this is the first time you've actually responded to me (other than with bare links to policy pages) I haven't had much to go on.

Now that you've finally expressed some concerns, I can finally address them:

Andy said: http://microformats.org/ is not a wiki

It's not? Please look again, especially since the website plainly identifies itself as a "blog" and a "wiki"?

File:00junk.gif

Andy said: it's not (and the specifications in particular are not) open to editing by any passer-by, in the same way.

It's not? Please look again, in less than five minutes I created an account on the website and made the following edit to the draft specification for hResume:

left a comment requesting help

I also made the following edit to the specification for hCalendar:

minor changes to spacing

I have absolutely no affiliation with microformats.org, and no one asked for my credentials or expertise as a prerequisite for making the edits. Unless you want to clarify, your statement here seems completely incorrect.

Andy said: WP:V does not prohibit blogs or wikis per se.

I never claimed there was a strict prohibition against blogs or wikis. You must be referring to Talk:Microformat#Third_opinion written above by User:Amatulic. Personally, I have no problem with the fact that microformats.org is a blog and a wiki, but the fact that it is one is pretty obvious.

If your point is that the entirety of microformats.org is not a publicly-editable wiki, that's a bit beside the point. All of the draft specifications and all of the specifications (used as references here on Wikipedia) come from the "wiki" section of the site. [If I am mistaken on this, please provide the counter-example(s)].

Besides, even sections of Wikipedia itself are "closed" to editing based on the level of user privilege (e.g., the "Main Page" and "Disclaimer" pages), and I've never seen a website that is entirely 100% open to editing to the general public.

Andy said: There are also a number of book references.

So far I've not seen a single book reference that substantiates the microformat specifications listed in this article, and written about in other articles here on Wikipedia. Quite frankly, I wouldn't expect to, especially since the "draft" specifications are subject to change and refinement. However, if you have some, it would be great if you could indicate the links here in discussion so people could verify and review the book references as well.

Conclusion: For now, I've commented-out the "critique" section of the article simply as a gesture of good faith, and to wait for more feedback, but let's be blunt. The references for that section are no less authoritative or reliable than all of the other blog and wiki links used to substantiate the content in the Microformat-related articles here on WP.

Someone needs to decide:

• if blogs and wikis are appropriate substantiation for the Microformats articles on WP, because clearly they are being used heavily for references;
• if it's okay under WP:NPOV that the Microformats articles contain essentially *nothing* in the way of critical review of the technology, (such as limitations and shortcomings identified by people who have commented on the subject).
• if it's okay to use content from blogs and wikis that speak favorably about microformats, but exclude similar content that happens to be critical of the technology (e.g., an apparent "cherry pick" style of referencing).

I don't want to dismiss your concerns, but I also don't want to see a double-standard applied where WP policy is invoked only when it suits a particular "side" of article content. Hopefully, we can work together to prevent that from happening here. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"the "third opinion" probably really only counts as a "second opinion"..." seems very much like dismissing my concerns. the policies with which you claim to be familiar (and which your additions breach) have plenty for you to "go on". The image you provide does not disprove my statement that http://microformats.org/ is not a wiki. It is not a wiki; neither is it a blog. Adding an inappropriate comment and removing spaces to microformat specs does not equate to being "open to editing by any passer-by, in the same way" as Wikipedia. The words "If we are truly to rule out blogs and wiki sites..." appear to be yours, not Amatulic's. What books you have or have not seen are irrelevant. Your "someone needs to decide" list is full of red herrings. Which particular "side" do you think I'm taking? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true, I do not rule out blogs as sources. Sometimes it's appropriate to cite a blog, for example a recognized expert in a particular field might have a blog, which would be appropriate for citing in an article about that field. It didn't seem to me that this was the case here, but that's just my impression coming from someone who has no knowledge of microformats until reading this article and the cited sources.

The "someone needs to decide" list isn't exactly "full of red herrings" but the points are easy to address:

• Blogs and wikis aren't appropriate for references, unless those sources are recognized as authoritative - and if you can find books written by such authorities, then you'd be citing the books, not the blogs anyway.
• Articles don't need a "criticism" section to meet meet WP:NPOV requirements. All the article must do is describe the technology neutrally, without promoting it. If the only criticisms are non-notable blogs and forums written by non-notable critics, then the criticisms aren't encyclopedic, any "controversy" has no notability, therefore no criticism section is necessary in the article. Limitations and shortcomings that are obvious and objective facts don't need citing, just like we don't cite 2+2=4.
• Third point is a red herring. It isn't okay to use content from blogs and wikis that speak favorably about microformats. We don't write Wikipedia articles to speak "favorably" about any subject. Just describe the technology. -Amatulic 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Still looking for a "yes" or a "no"

Ok, my goal is definitely not to introduce "red herrings" if the third point can be taken off the table, then that's great, one less issue to worry about, and one step forward. For another step forward, I'd be more than happy with a simple "yes" or "no" answer to any of my "yes" or "no" questions (which Andy has yet to provide, but perhaps Amatulic or someone else can):

Yes or No:

Is the website http://microformats.org a "reliable source" under WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR ?

Hopefully someone can provide a "yes" or "no" answer. dr.ef.tymac 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you want a definitive answer: NO for the blogs, wiki, and forum. The only part I see as acceptable is the "code" section of that web site, if cited as an example of code. As someone else wrote below, the web site contains material authored by people unverified as experts on any particular field. Nothing suggests that these contributors have any greater expertise than a common person, and no external evidence exists to suggest that these contributors have any expertise or notability in the field, therefore the views of the contributors are not acceptable as a source for citation in Wikipedia. Is that clear enough? -Amatulic 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes it is pretty clear, but I don't know if it really addresses the issues at play here. For an explanation of what I mean, please see Talk:Microformat#It_seems_there_are_deeper_issues_here included below. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Andy

Andy said: the policies with which you claim to be familiar (and which your additions breach) have plenty for you to "go on"

Obviously we have different interpretations of policy. I knew that before you even gave me the links to WP policy, which is why asked in advance of you giving me those links: please have detailed discussion points ready.

When policy interpretations differ, people must provide specifics in order to substantiate their interpretations, discuss, and reach consensus. Bare links to policy with zero specifics don't help. From the very beginning I asked for details, not bare links to policy pages we've already read numerous times.

Moreover, I've voluntarily removed the additions, pending further discussion. That doesn't strike me as "dismissing your concerns"?

Andy said: The image you provide does not disprove my statement that http://microformats.org/ is not a wiki .. "in the same way" as Wikipedia

As far as I know, there is no WP policy that distinguishes wikis based on "how dissimilar" they are from Wikipedia. I've demonstrated that it is possible to edit content on microformats.org simply by creating an account, logging in and editing away. I've made an edit to a draft specification and a specification, despite having no affiliation with the website. The image is just for convenience.

The site itself plainly identifies itself as a wiki and a blog. I've personally made edits to the site; directly editing a specification (which is used as a reference here on WP). If you disagree that all of that counts as "proof" ... we will simply have to agree to disagree. I won't split hairs over this, it's more than proof enough as far as I'm concerned.

Andy said: The words "If we are truly to rule out blogs and wiki sites..." appear to be yours, not Amatulic's.

That's right, I said *if* ... I've never asserted that WP:V strictly prohibits "blogs or wikis per se", I still don't make that assertion. The words of mine were in response to User:Amatulic. If blogs and wikis are to be excluded (as Amatulic implied), then that has implications for the entire article, and all of the microformat articles on Wikipedia not just the one sub-section that you chose to dispute.

Andy said: Adding an inappropriate comment and removing spaces to microformat specs does not equate to being "open to editing by any passer-by"

The point is very simple: I freely made edits (of my own choosing) to a draft specification and a specification on microformats.org with absolutely *zero* oversight or outside verification of my credentials as a prerequisite. All this despite that I have no affiliation with the website or the technology, and absolutely no obligation to contribute to the website in the future.

You can dispute whether that counts as "passer-by editing" or not, but that is one hair that I will not help you to split.

Andy said: Which particular "side" do you think I'm taking?

Good question, now that you're apparently willing to discuss specifics with me (instead of just providing links without explanation) I might have a chance to actually find out if you have a "side". I've answered plenty of your questions, you've yet to answer mine. Please take a moment to do so.

Unanswered questions by Andy

Here, Andy, are some simple "yes or no" questions. Please answer these questions, as they will help me to better understand your position, and help keep the discussion on track. They are formulated as "yes or no" questions to help avoid any ambiguity or misunderstanding.

• Does this article cite microformats.org as a reference?
• 1) Is microformats.org a reliable source that meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS?
• 2) Did User:Pigsonthewing state in an edit summary: there are some valid criticisms of microformats ?
• 3) Does WP:NPOV indicate that it is appropriate to include "valid criticisms" of a subject in an article on that subject?
• 4) If valid criticisms of a subject are included in a reliable source that meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS, is it appropriate to include those criticisms in an article on that subject?

Thank you in advance for not "dismissing my concerns" by answering these simple "yes or no" questions. dr.ef.tymac 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, and consider whether your additions comply with those policies (Hint: see the "third opinion", above, for assistance), rather than asking "straw man" questions. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done that already. As I've already stated previously, the additions have already been removed, pending further discussion. This is the part for "further discussion."

I've answered numerous questions of yours, you've yet to answer mine. Please consult WP:OWN, WP:CONS and WP:AGF for why it might not be appropriate to totally disregard legitimate questions posed on a talk page. All you have to do is provide a simple "yes" or a "no" ... it doesn't get any easier than that.

It is important for you to answer, because so far you are the only one between us who has deleted content from this article without providing direct clarifying answers and explanations.

Will you answer the simple "yes" or "no" questions? If so, thank you in advance for not "dismissing my concerns". dr.ef.tymac 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion - Initiated

I posit that blogs authored by nonexperts in the particular field on which they are writing, that is, that they do not or cannot:

• possess greater expertise than the common man

and

• provide either documentation of some credible type supporting this declared expertise or exhibit renown for such expertise, even if such expertise is not adequately documented

should not be permissible as a source for citation in Wikipedia.

It is not the duty of Wikipedia to provide access for all material. It is, however, the objective of Wikipedia to showcase facts and verifiable opinions of prominent and noteworthy individuals. Should these limitations make it difficult or impossible to compose an article with any substantial amount of information on a particular thing, event or topic, that thing, event or topic should not be the subject of an article. The fact that there are many articles describing things, events or topics that do not meet these criteria does not at all lessen the limitations imposed by Wikipedia policy. Hope this helps :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reiteration for emphasis.

Should these limitations make it difficult or impossible to compose an article with any substantial amount of information on a particular thing, event or topic, [it] should not be the subject of an article.

— Pointed out by DRosenbach, reiterated by me. — Athaenara ✉ 07:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)        

Request for information (yes or no answer will do just fine)

Perhaps someone out there in WP-land can answer "yes" or "no" to one or more of the following questions:

• is http://microformats.org a blog?
• is http://microformats.org/wiki a wiki?
• is http://microformats.org a "reliable source" under the terms of WP:RS and WP:V?
• is http://microformats.org/wiki a "reliable source" under the terms of WP:RS and WP:V?

Lack of a "yes" or "no" answer to these questions may hold up much-needed cleanup on this and related articles, so a "yes" or "no" answer is greatly appreciated by anyone who can provide such.

Feel free to "qualify" the "yes" or "no" answer(s), but please do not feel free to omit a simple yes or no, as there is a need to keep the matter focused and unambiguous (if that's possible). Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered in order asked: Yes, it's a blog, and yes, it's a wiki (both sections exist on that site, as well as a discussion forum). No, these aren't reliable sources under WP:RS and WP:V, although the "code" section may be acceptable. No, the wiki isn't a citable source; we don't cite other wikis here. We can put a link to it in the "External links" section, however. -Amatulic 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers: Amatulic, now, assuming your answers are the "consensus" view (I can only guess, since you are the only one who has answered so far) do you have a proposal for how to treat the content that relied or relies on citations to Microformats.org?

For example, the section Microformat#Specific_microformats is currently in need of citations. In a previous revision of this article [1] there were some footnotes, but they all pointed to the specifications listed on microformats.org, which is by far the most authoritative source for the specifications (and draft specifications) that are discussed in this and other articles.

If and when I put this article up for candidacy under "Good Article" review, one issue that is bound to come up is that there is a section in the article that is not supported by references. Do you any advice on how to proceed? Thanks for any input you can provide. dr.ef.tymac 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to "guess" whether my answers reflect the consensus view. Wikipedia policies and guidelines reflect the consensus view, and my answers derive from those.

That which isn't a blog, wiki, or forum, is (in my opinion) fair game for citing (specifically http://microformats.org/code/). The validity of the cite depends on the way you phrase a statement in the article. For example, it would be valid to write "Specific microformats include(cite page here): (then follow with a list of microformats and short descriptions)." That way, you don't claim the list is comprehensive and you still have a sourced statement.

A cursory search for microformats on news.google.com reveal some articles about microformats from reliable sources such as Wired and MacWorld. A bunch are blogs, however. Anyway, news searches may reveal other sources to cite. -Amatulic 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are deeper issues here

Respectfully Amatulic, I wasn't second-guessing your analysis of policy when I mentioned the possible need to "guess" here ... my statement reflects a possibility that the issues here are quite sophisticated, and it is not entirely obvious (to me anyway) that everyone would interpret policy the same way on this issue; especially among people who have read some of the references and are familiar with the subject matter of this article.

For example, you've said that (http://microformats.org/code/) would be okay to cite, because it is not a blog or a wiki. In "cursory" terms, that makes sense, however if you look closely at that "code" page, you'll see it references the Microformat specifications, and the specifications originate from the (more authoritative) Microformat wiki.

(Note: For a full discussion of details: Click here for more details ).

Thanks for your input, but I think the issues here are a tad more involved than people seem to be recognizing. dr.ef.tymac 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citation is not merely an issue when it comes to Good Article candidacy...it is grounds for deletion of any otherwise speculative (i.e. noncited) content. Without proper reference, information included in an article must be entirely benign and not within the confines of that which would be considered by reasonable individuals as far-reaching enough to raise eyebrows. Think of Wikipedia articles as 9th grade history reports. If one wouldn't get away with asserting that "Abraham Lincoln was an accomplished banjo player" without proper citation in a 9th grade history term paper, one shouldn't get away with including it in a Wikipedia article. While few articles here comply entirely with this policy, similar violations in other articles can serve as no substantiation for subsequent violations in this article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion

The words "to attach metadata to web pages"re added in this reversion do not appear to be supported by the cited ref. microformats are explicitly about the re-use of existing content as metadata, as detailed at almost all of the other refs given. This concept is fundamental to microformats. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was in the process of a major edit (including copy editing, referencing, and cleanup). The content you are disputing has already been removed. Moreover, content describing the fundamental design principles of microformats (reduce, re-use, and recycle) have already been directly added, and cited. You apparently appear to be disputing language that was already corrected, as well as re-emphasizing material that is already directly documented in the article, and is entirely consistent with the cites.

Thus, the issues you mention have already been addressed. There may be other snafus in the article though, ones that have not yet been corrected, so your continued constructive criticism and review are of course more than welcome. Thanks for your comment. dr.ef.tymac 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that, on Wikipedia, the lede is meant to "[emphasize] material that is already directly documented in the article", with the emphasis on the "fundamental principles". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the question is, what is the order in which those "fundamental principles" are introduced, given that we are writing for a "general audience" (the target readership of Wikipedia).

Introducing concepts that are familiar only to web-developers or "technology savvy" readers, prior to introducing the introductory material upon which those concepts are based seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

I don't dispute that fundamental "design principles" and fundamental "technological principles" are important to include in the artice, nor do I necessarily dispute that they are appropriate somewhere in the lead. The only concern for me is that they be introduced after the "rudimentary basics" necessary to orient readers who may not even know what "HTML" is ... let alone the '"rel", "rev" and/or "class" attributes'. dr.ef.tymac 21:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion from single ref

The assertion that microformats "[use] simple extensions of the standard [(X)HTML] tags", while a direct quote from the ref given, is incorrect. It's a throw-away and unsupported comment in the ref, and is given undue weight in the article as it stands at the time of writing. No supposedly "extended" tags are cited; (X)HTML does not have the capacity for "tag extension"; nor do the ref or this article explain what is meant by such "extension". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be applying a "technical" definition of the word "extend", instead of the basic ordinary English language definition as would be recognized by a General Audience. Nevertheless, my main objective is to substantially improve this article, (through references and content) and not get bogged down in unreferenced semantics.

Therefore, despite the fact that you've provided no alternative citation to substantiate your complaint, nor any documentation suggesting the credibility of the cited reference should be questioned, I will change the text simply to accommodate your concern and as a gesture of good-faith. Thanks for your comment. dr.ef.tymac 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a coincidence. My main objective is to substantially improve this article, too. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, let's start with the lead section. Is there any reason to use the term (X)HTML (which is a link to a disambiguation page) instead of the standard terms HTML and XHTML? Is there a reason to assume General Audience readers are going to realize this is a reference to two separate-but-related technologies? Is there a reference or cite to establish that the former usage is more standard than the latter? dr.ef.tymac 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Improving lead section

Follow up: The references (recently provided) on the (X)HTML disambiguation page are a perfect case in point, one reference uses (X)HTML, another uses X(HTML), none of them indicate that the "parenthesized" usage is preferred or more clear to a General Audience. In fact, the references provided appear to be geared exclusively toward web developers. (Please see also Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible). dr.ef.tymac 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All three use (X)HTML. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please look again, the following is directly from the Adobe Dreamweaver reference: File:01junk.gif.

Also, none of these references indicate that the "parenthetical" usage is more clear or preferred usage when writing to a general audience. Do you have a reference that indicates these usages are preferred and more clear for general audience readers? dr.ef.tymac 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/css_best_practices_pt2.html substituted. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You realize you're basing your usage on a pun? The adobe one is pretty clearly referencing the X files, and putting html in parentheses to emphasize that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for specific improvements to lead section

  In web development,(i) a microformat (sometimes abbreviated μF or uF)is
  a data formatting approach that seeks to re-use existing content as metadata, by adding 
  only XHTML and HTML classes(ii) [1] and/or rel (and in one case 
  the deprecated-for-microformats rev) attributes [2].(iii)

• (i) Microformats apply to more than "web-development" (e.g., RSS, Atom feeds, contributing articles on Wikipedia). Not everyone who writes a blog or WP article is doing "web development"
• (ii) this could be made clearer for a general audience. Instead of referring to "classes" immediately in the lead, a more accessible overview could be:

    by adding using only the existing markup of HTML or XHTML 

• (iii) more content that seems appropriate for the "technical overview" and not the lead section of the article "rel" and "rev" are attributes that are probably not even well-known to web developers, let alone a general audience. dr.ef.tymac 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means suggest a more widely-encompassing term than "web development". I don't think any of the other terms you query are overly technical for an article of this nature; especially as [[HTML] is linked. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Please reformat all the references to use Template:cite web or Template:cite news. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)