Talk:Phineas Gage

Ready for GA?

I note that this article is in a pretty good state for a GA candidate, if rather heavy on notes and images. I have "boldly" removed disputed claims - some of many months' standing - to make way for a possible GA nomination. I am aware that this trimming may feel uncomfortable to some editors, but I suggest that the changes are really very minor (mainly to notes, not the main text), and leave the article in a cleaner and more defensible state. I'd also remind everyone that it is not the role of a Wikipedia article to speculate or to take sides in disputes about content or historical fact, but just to describe the evidence: this I think the article now does. Given the amount of work that has gone into the article, it should really not find GA much of a hurdle this time around. My tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits—they look good. Re cleaning the wikitext: there are still 37 {{hyp}} and 5 {{hyphen}}—I think they should be replaced with hyphens as well in order to give simple wikitext that editors expect. On that line, why not replace {{ndash}} and {{mdashb}}? Are all the {{nbsp}} and {{zwsp}} needed? There are still a few page number ranges using a hyphen (some using a template) rather than an en dash. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done some more. I think the nbsp chars are probably all right; the zwsp chars are likely not needed but a matter of opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It does look massively better, I fully support the Wiki markup corrections and note that there is a clear consensus for those changes, previously I and other editors have removed them only for it to be repeatedly restored. As part of the GA matter, I still believe there are some significant issues here related to improper OR and such. The "CavendishVermont_1869Map_Beers_AnnotatedPhineasGageLocations.jpg" is an OR created by EEng that does not exist in any published source. I see no reason to use quotations like "abrupt and intrusive visitor" instead of appropriate writing. The article still needs a copyedit by most means and there is still an issue of the omission with his known appearances and return to New Hampshire. The issue of the date of death needs to be covered properly because Macmillian's actual book makes an error in the details itself. Also, despite evidence and several accounts that say Gage was buried with the tamping rod, the sources didn't come from Harlow's text. The names and circumstance of the exhumation were given and how Harlow came to possess the item - things which Harlow did not recount. Quotes being used without citation as per WP:MINREF are an issue to. Nevermind the Notes section issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I also support making a lot of the formatting more standard, per typical good Wikipedia pages, and even some paring back of the footnotes. If GA review will improve this page in those ways, then I think that it will be a good idea. I also feel the need to point out the possibility that such changes to the page may end up being contentious, and so anyone seeking to be bold may need to be prepared for that eventuality. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, please see Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD for a lengthy list of issues that ought to be fixed as part of a GA review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've restored the removed material, with cites where they had been missing.
• I've also reverted most of the markup changes. As MOS says, "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." Making the markup more like "typical" pages (read: what certain editors happen to be used to seeing) is not a good reason -- otherwise there would be only one way to do things, which there isn't; and note that WP:Good_article_criteria has nothing at all to say about formatting. MOS explicitly encourages use of many of the elements that were removed e.g. {{mdashb}} and {{thinsp}}.

EEng (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• And EEng continues to repeatedly return all the faults to the article. Apparently, EEng does not care that templates within cite templates messes up the data. Also it seems that EEng's invisible comments, like that of what he finds "attractive formatting", are supposed to be allowed to remain despite not performing a usable function. EEng seems more content to let editorial comments and other issues like Template:Shy matter remain indefinitely. Gosh, this is a bad case of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT which is highlighted by EEng's continued ignorance of the matter despite numerous attempts to inform, by myself and others. Not only that, despite three editors in this very discussion, EEng chose to revert them again and continue the matter from many months ago. It seems EEng has a big problem with MOS and I'll place a formal notice that the MOS is also under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom because it seems the problem is continuing on the actual discussion pages as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, EEng was already made aware and the filter seems to have noted that it has not been one year since last posting, or so it seems. I also noted this in July. Though I am not keen on going through more of this MOS and other issues with EEng. It is like SSDD and not even pointing out that the templates being used offer any advantage to readable characters, or even function, seem to give pause. @Chiswick Chap:, another editor, @Bgwhite: further highlighted the problem with EEng's persistence of using templates within cite templates and removed them. Discussions with EEng have been useless and this is becoming a problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to agree that removing most of EEng's peculiarities is a good thing. Other users will be editing this page, not just EEng. Having strange and unnecessary formatting only complicates things. From MOS:MARKUP, "The simplest markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable." Majority of the zwsp, nbsp, ndash templates should be removed. There are cases where it is needed. nbsp just before ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS for example. Just because {{nbsp}}, {{mdashb}} and {{thinsp}} can be used, doesn't mean they have to be used. In the case of this article, over used. EEng reverts of mine goes directly against cite template documentation. It appears EEng is editing against consensus. If this is the case, ANI or other forum should be used. Bgwhite (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap, Bgwhite, and ChrisGualtieri: EEng, just reverted me as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

They also reverted all changes made by Frietjes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Contrary to what ChrisGualtieri says, I don't have "a big problem with MOS". What I have a problem with is editors who clothe their personal preferences in the aura of nonexistent MOS provisions:

In that regard, how amusing that Bgwhite invokes MOS:MARKUP, which says "An HTML entity is sometimes better than the equivalent Unicode character, which may be difficult to identify in edit mode" i.e. MOS recommends against the most widespread of the changes being pushed here -- the substitution of literals for symbolics.

• I've looked in vain in Help:Citation Style 1 for anything about not using templates in citations. Maybe it's somewhere else -- can you point us to it?
• Hidden comments are specifically endorsed at Help:Hidden_text Many of them simply ask that page numbers be confirmed and so on; if you don't have time to do that yourself, why remove the note so others can't either?
• Chiswick Chap's changes were made under the color of "GA", but as noted the GA criteria have nothing at all to say about formatting, much less the markup that achieves it. Against that (again repeating what I said in my earlier post) is the directive at the top of every MOS page not to change from one format to another without good reason. Good reason requires reasons. Even several editors saying "I like it better this other way" isn't a good reason -- in fact it's not a reason at all. This is even more manifest when one considers that almost none of the changes changed the rendered page at all -- just changed to equivalent markup which does the same thing.

Beyond My Ken wrote a very insighful passage on this some time back:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just because the markup here isn't like markup you're used to doesn't mean it's inadmissable or inferior. Maybe it's better. Or maybe some of it's better and some of it's not. Where would you like to start the discussion?

EEng (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)