Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/James Hood Wright/1
Collapsing comments
[edit]AirshipJungleman29 I'm not following why commentary here is being hatted (also at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joseph Dart/1); pass me a cluestick, pls ? @GAR coordinators: if this is some sort of (odd?) custom for GARs, I'm not following why or what it is accomplishing, particularly when the hatted sections contain unresolved issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, I've just been doing it for a while to avoid very lengthy GAR's, especially DCGAR's, from completely overwhelming the main GAR page, which were pretty much 90% DCGAR and 5% many other articles (EDIT: I've just done a very unsophisticated measurement using my hand and my computer's scroll bar—the Joseph Dart on, fully expanded, is around 50% of the page, and this one is around 15% I think?). If it's a problem, feel free to revert; I don't really mind. Thanks for pinging the GAR coords; perhaps they could weigh in? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Would using a WP:NOINCLUDE work? CMD (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation; I was just at a loss as to why it was occurring :) One alternative is to have the Coords move anything that is clearly resolved, per a neutral Coord, to this talk page, leaving a link and summary on the main GAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perfectly honestly, I don't know why the items at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment are transcluded, rather than links to the specific items. I don't have an issue with hatting items that are completed, but as above, we need to be clear to everyone what is actually happening (not that I think what's been done isn't transparent). Like at WP:FAC, we are fixing an issue that shouldn't really be a problem by having so many transclusion of potentially large pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- But FAR has much higher volume, and longer reviews, than this page, and does not ever collapse. In the one very very very long review recently (Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1), I did establish with all participants early on that I would move completed portions to the archives on the talk page, unless anyone objected, and I checked in regularly with them on doing that. With the small number of GARs, I'm not seeing why collapsing is needed. On the Joseph Dart GAR, there seems to have been a problem. On this GAR, perhaps the Coords would move the now resolved image section to here on talk, leaving a link saying something like "Resolved image issue moved to talk"; the rest is ongoing work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perfectly honestly, I don't know why the items at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment are transcluded, rather than links to the specific items. I don't have an issue with hatting items that are completed, but as above, we need to be clear to everyone what is actually happening (not that I think what's been done isn't transparent). Like at WP:FAC, we are fixing an issue that shouldn't really be a problem by having so many transclusion of potentially large pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)