Quick comment Why did you choose to only include the timeline of the aftermath in this list? The title implies a complete timeline. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an issue that crossed my mind during the preparation for the FL nomination. The timeline began as a split of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Timeline of events, which listed events in the aftermath of Flight 370's disappearance. At the time, I was preparing the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article for a GA nomination; it seemed reasonable to split the unwieldy aftermath timeline but retain the timeline of events during the disappearance because the latter was integral to understanding the sequence of events during the disappearance. That explains the origin of the article's scope.
- A tremendous amount of conflicting and erroneous information concerning the details of Flight 370's disappearance was released/published in the aftermath of its disappearance (an interim report in March 2015 finally set the record straight on a number of details). I believe that the disappearance timeline—Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Timeline of disappearance—is a necessary part of that article's "Disappearance" section (the heart of that article) and should not be removed. I don't think this carries any weight here, but for what it's worth, the parent article has received 591841 page views in the last 90 days versus a paltry 7718 for the timeline article. The disappearance timeline could be added to the timeline article, but then the content would be duplicated in both articles (an unacceptable content fork). So, if necessary, I would prefer that the article be moved to Timeline of the aftermath of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. AHeneen (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that you add more info to this article, I just think the title may be a bit misleading and should be changed. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in policy that you have to remove the information from the main article to include it here. If such important information is missing, it's a 3A violation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am concerned that duplicating the disappearance timeline in both articles would be considered a content fork. As explained above, I think the timeline of the disappearance is necessary in the parent article, which I'd like to bring to FA status someday. I would rather the timeline article (the FL candidate) be renamed to focus on the aftermath than to include the disappearance timeline in both and see it removed from the parent article in the future (if the issue is raised). AHeneen (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd recommend you read the first paragraph of the page you linked to. First, content forks are defined as duplicated articles (not sections). Second, there's this pair of sentences: "... as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." WP:SPINOFF likewise allows a more detailed discussion of the timeline of the flight itself in this article (with a summary in the main article). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the last sentence I am concerned about...that the presence of the content in this article would lead to the disappearance timeline in the parent article being reduced to summary style. That said, I will add the disappearance timeline to this article. I should be done in a couple hours. AHeneen (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If a summary is done properly, there shouldn't be any issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the section "Disappearance (8 March 2014)" to the article, which should (hopefully) address the above comments. I have asked the editor who recently performed a copyedit of the article to please copyedit the newly-added section. Aside from that, there is one reference that should be changed: Ref #13 (CNN) is one webpage that contains several documents from the preliminary report...I don't have time right now, but I will change these refs to link to the individual documents (which I recall are available on a Malaysian government website). AHeneen (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Littlecarmen:, @Crisco 1492: I think I've addressed the concerns you two raised and would appreciate further comment. AHeneen (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from Littlecarmen
- Link magazines, newspapers, websites, publishers etc. the first time you use them in references.
- De-italicize publications that aren't magazines or newspapers and italicize those in some of the cases you haven't. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will link the references as suggested. (Done) Italics, however, have been formatted by the templates used for the citations—mainly Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web—so the only way to de-italicize publications would be to change the citation template (if appropriate) or override the template formatting (if that is possible). I don't see anything in the MOS concerning citation formatting. The WP:CITE guideline doesn't provide instructions on reference formatting and links to WP:CITE/ES, but the latter is not a guideline or policy. The Cite News template italicizes the name of the "work" (eg. BBC News, CNN). The Cite Web template italicizes the website name (eg. Malaysia Airlines, Joint Agency Coordination Centre). I would assume that the formatting implemented by the citation templates is compliant with the MOS, or at least it should be acceptable. AHeneen (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed the first concern about wikilinking the first occurrence of a source in the references. I have also formatted the references consistently (same name, eg. "Joint Agency Coordination Centre" and no use of "JACC"), fixed some bad links (per External Links tool, only issue is the Journal of Navigation paper that does not require a subscription but the tool says it does), and removed one duplicate ref. Diffs AHeneen (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually de-italicize publications by using the publisher parameter instead of the work or website parameter. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But is that necessary? AHeneen (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's just a fact that only magazines and newspapers are italicized, you can also see that in the naming of Wikipedia articles. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I had fixed all the references in the article to use the appropriate Citation Style 1 template: Template:Cite news, Template:Cite web, and a couple others. Per WP:CITEVAR, what matters is that an article uses a consistent formatting style. Per WP:CITECONSENSUS: "If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values in order that the template will be rendered to the reader as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style)." It is not appropriate to place, for example, the name of a website in the publisher parameter. The article is internally consistent in that it applies the Citation Style 1 formatting to the refs. AHeneen (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked for some advice about this topic here and if the website and company name are the same, the publisher parameter can be used. Radio and TV stations are also seen as publishers so the publisher parameter can also be used here. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have adjusted all of the references to match the suggested formatting if accurate (refer to above quote from WP:CITECONSENSUS), but there are exceptions where the website is kept (and thus italicized) because the publisher has a different name:
- There is also the case of an interview, where the title is italicized (Inmarsat breaks silence on probe into missing jet) by Template:Cite interview but it is not a major work that should be italicized. Again, I will refer to the previous comment about the accuracy of citation parameters and the fact that the text formatting that doesn't match is MOS is produced by the templates for the most common citation style on Wikipedia. I have made adjustments when accuracy is not affected, but it is not appropriate to omit a parameter because of the formatting style. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is now the oldest FL candidate. It would be great if another editor or two commented. Since the preceding saga about the italicization of websites, I came across this at MOS:TITLE#Major works (emphasis added):
- "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."
I believe the above covers the remaining websites in the previous comment. Thus all of the issues raised by @Littlecarmen: have been resolved, except for the italicization of the title of the interview used in one reference. I will again affirm that a properly used CS1 template is acceptable as WP:CITEVAR & WP:CITECONSENSUS (part of the same page) are Wikipedia guidelines on equal footing with the MoS and common sense should be applied. Hopefully another editor will comment and agree with this reasoning. I've worked to resolve the outstanding issues and don't want to see this archived. AHeneen (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
