Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gas metal arc welding
Self nom, second in a who-knows-how-long series on welding-related topics. This went through peer review a few weeks ago, and all the suggestions have been implemented, I believe. Anything else? --Spangineer (háblame) 02:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 04:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support Its really well done. Spangineer has taken a lot of trouble to do this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looking forward to see a techinical article on FA. This one is really good as the explanations are comprehensive. Unsigned comment by Deryck Chan at 09:07, July 20, 2005. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Please change inline citations into endnotes so they are visible without going into edit mode. Neutralitytalk 00:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Even though there are 25 of them? Lots of FACs make it without any inline citations (visible or otherwise), so I'm not sure why adding a long section of notes is necessary. If you insist and others don't mind, I can make the change, however. Or perhaps turning only the most important inline citations into endnotes would be acceptable? --Spangineer (háblame) 10:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Support I almost wish I hadn't read the above objection, but it appears valid. Why would one hide the citations/footnotes in the "edit" mode to begin with? If I can figure out how to switch'm, I'll try to do a few.Sfahey 19:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Basically, because there are 25 of them and the current footnote system that allows for automatic numbering and mentioning page numbers requires alot of space. See the reference section of the Bill Clinton article and then imagine it another 50% longer. The current citation format has been used in numerous featured articles, including Welding, BC Rail, Civil Air Patrol, and Geology of the Grand Canyon area. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- There. I did a couple the way I've done'm on other FA's. I'll stop here for now, since there are other formats that work. This article is otherwise a "slam-dunk". Sfahey 19:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Notes in that format will require manual renumbering throughout the article if one is added to the top of the article. I don't consider that acceptable. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- There. I did a couple the way I've done'm on other FA's. I'll stop here for now, since there are other formats that work. This article is otherwise a "slam-dunk". Sfahey 19:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Basically, because there are 25 of them and the current footnote system that allows for automatic numbering and mentioning page numbers requires alot of space. See the reference section of the Bill Clinton article and then imagine it another 50% longer. The current citation format has been used in numerous featured articles, including Welding, BC Rail, Civil Air Patrol, and Geology of the Grand Canyon area. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I also had a problem with the inote citations in this article as citations are an important part of the text and users shouldn't have to go into edit mode to see them. To remedy the problem, I created a script to convert from the inote convention to the ref/note convention. The script is called a inote.pl and it is in the public domain. Cedars 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- OK, seems like inline notes are taboo these days. For consistency's sake, I hope you guys will join me in arguing that all FAs need inline citations, now that you've insisted that they be visible in an article that already had them. I've renamed the notes that Cedars's tool generated so that they are slightly more useful and not numerical, and moved some of the references to a further reading section since they aren't explicitly referenced. Anything else? --Spangineer (háblame) 05:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I will definitely support a move to make all FAs use visible citations. I've also updated the script to make use of the second argument of the inote tag. If such an argument is provided the script will now use that argument instead of automatic numbering. Thanks for respecting our viewpoint, even though you may not have agreed with it. Cedars 05:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be edgy, and it doesn't matter that much to me either way. The article isn't that long, so another fairly long section won't hurt much. It just seems to me like it's splitting hairs to give an article that already has inline references this much attention (over formatting) when most of the other current FACs don't have any inline references, visible or otherwise. But I appreciate the interest in improving this article. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I will definitely support a move to make all FAs use visible citations. I've also updated the script to make use of the second argument of the inote tag. If such an argument is provided the script will now use that argument instead of automatic numbering. Thanks for respecting our viewpoint, even though you may not have agreed with it. Cedars 05:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- OK, seems like inline notes are taboo these days. For consistency's sake, I hope you guys will join me in arguing that all FAs need inline citations, now that you've insisted that they be visible in an article that already had them. I've renamed the notes that Cedars's tool generated so that they are slightly more useful and not numerical, and moved some of the references to a further reading section since they aren't explicitly referenced. Anything else? --Spangineer (háblame) 05:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)