FlightGear wiki talk:Quoting Guidelines
Guidelines exist, and articles should be rewritten to follow them
TL;DR summary: There are already quoting guidelines, and work on systematically rewriting articles to use less excessive quoting should be organized.
Having read through FlightGear wiki:Manual of Style#Quotations I have realized that this page is basically moot. Sorry. There are obviously already quoting guidelines and there need not be a conflicting or double standard (pun intended).
Further it is quite clear that in most cases the use of Instant-Cquotes have been have been outside and sometimes way outside those guidelines.
We should probably instead set up a page to organize a systematic rewriting of at least the pages that need it the most. I suggest we list the pages using Instant-Cquotes in a sortable table, rate them after priority and also how much they need rewriting, and of course also show the progress. Unfortunately the page counter is gone. It would have been most helpful.
As there are so many articles, there should probably be a table per category (watch out for pages in more than one category) and probably a separate table with the very most important pages.
As so many pages are involved, this work would take "some time".
Table of articles with Instant-Cquotes
Here is hopefully the full table of pages (Vim, sort, regular expressions and substitutions for sure helps a lot).
Just to clarify: A low "Effort" rating represents that it is estimated that the article need little or no work to comply with the existing quoting guidelines, and a high effort rating that they need a lot of work to comply with the guidelines. Things adding to the "Effort" rating is, in order of influence: The amount of quotes, the length of the article, the length of the quotes, and the complexity of the article subject.
- I am now done rating the articles and assessing the work required took about five hours in total.
- I feel I should probably clarify that articles rated 1 (one), those requiring the least work, is the ones not really requiring any work. The articles rated 5 (five) I would suspect could take several hours to work days (each) to get in line with the manual of style and into good articles (in essence concise yet comprehensive and without redundant statements or repetitions, and of course also correct and interlinked with other articles).
- Even with a small team dedicated only to getting these articles in order it would take a long time. I am a bit frustrated with myself for not raising the issue a long time ago.
- Regarding the priority, what criteria should there be? Often used features, much linked articles, closer to core and/or other aspects?
- Also, I am considering splitting this article in two parts: One part as part of a much needed wiki quality improvement project, and one larger part that should probably be merged into the FlightGear wiki:Instant-Cquotes article.