Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Timeline of Macintosh models/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:23, 15 August 2009 [1].

Timeline of Macintosh models[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: Grm wnr, Mac128, WikiProject Macintosh, WikiProject Computing

A 2006 promotion, this does not meet current FL standards. The lead is too short and does not have professional-standard prose. Images need alternative text. The message "Invalid image map generated by EasyTimeline" at the top of the timeline is not professional. I think the textual timeline would look better if the tables were merged, so that each table contained one decade, instead of one table for each year as it is now. Lastly, the sources need to be formatted, and what makes http://lowendmac.com/profiles.htm, http://apple-history.com/, and http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/ reliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These problems are all fixable. Alt text is irrelevant. Those are indeed reliable, well-reviewed sources. Have you raised these concerns anywhere else before nom? You are using the words "conflated" and "comprised" very incorrectly and your meaning is unclear. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is not irrelevant; it is part of the FL criteria, and people who cannot see need it to understand the images. How do you know that the sources are reliable? To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Sorry for the typos and bad word choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FL? says "alt text if necessary. In this article, the alt text would always be identical to the captions which are always visible. Anyway, the illustrations are just pretty pictures.
The sites are well established and have had many years to apply corrections from thousands of readers to their relatively small databases. News sites, in contrast, are often incorrect as they rush to break news.
If your word choice was bad, why not try repeating what you said? Potatoswatter (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt choice is always necessary unless the image is decorative – see WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are decorative. That's what I meant by "just pretty pictures."
Would you like to clarify your conflation of "conflation" or should we strike the text out? Potatoswatter (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fear our alt text discussion is going nowhere, so I will ask someone else to take a look. I thought I refactored my rationale so "conflation" is no longer there. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you changed the wording. My bad. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a enough sources to prove the article is true, i personal do not think th source are particular realible but if they have ben reviewed theni accept they are :) but i think it certainly should be Remove as FL--Andy (talk - contrib) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the alt-text questions above. The phrase "purely decorative" comes from the W3C accessibility guidelines, and is a technical term that means that the image has no function and that if you remove it from the article you won't lose any content. An example of a decorative image would be a " Done" message containing a check mark with no link; the check mark is decorative because it conveys no information and has no function. None of the images in Timeline of Macintosh models are purely decorative in that sense. The image maps convey a huge amount of information to the reader that is present nowhere else in the article, and definitely need alt text. The images of individual computers are functional (something happens if you click on them) and therefore need alt text. The individual images are designed to convey to the user the visual appearance of each computer (that's the point of the images, no?) and so the alt text should describe that appearance, for the benefit of visually-impaired readers. Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thing: alt text typically has little in common with captions. Alt text is for people who can't see the image; captions are for both sighted and visually-impaired readers. Typically a caption will not discuss visual appearance (that's what the image is for), whereas alt text talks only about visual appearance. Please see WP:ALT for more. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added alt tags using grep. An image of a Mac looks like an image of a Mac. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And for someone who is visually impaired, what does an image of a Mac look like? Now that we have the ability to share what we can see with those less fortunate, by simply taking the time to describe in words what is displayed by an image, what sensible reason can you put forward for not doing it? --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's insane. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To make this a lil more productive, I challenge you to find a single illustration of a mundane object, anywhere on WP but preferably in a featured list, with alt text that describes what the pictured item looks like. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of cutaneous conditions is a featured list that has alt text for every image. For the mundane image Image:Akne-jugend.jpg, for example, the alt text is "Adult forehead with scattered red pimples".
  • Obviously it's counterproductive to give File:Macintosh 128k transparency.png the alt text "image of Macintosh 128K". That doesn't help the visually-impaired reader a bit. I suggest reverting that edit, as useless alt text is worse than no alt text.
  • Good alt text is not "insane". It's not even that hard to write. Please give it a try.
Eubulides (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. However medical conditions make better illustrations than computer cases. "A plastic box." "A tall plastic box." "Plastic box with monitor in." There are many lists of tallest buildings and other architecture, which I checked before issuing that challenge, and they uniformly don't include alt text. It would be far more interesting to describe the different buildings than "fix" this article. Would you recommend demoting them on this basis? How about List of cast members of The Simpsons or List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes which would make interesting picture-worth-a-thousand-words fodder. The vast majority of FL's do not contain "alt=" at all.
Anyway, the FL requirements do say "when necessary," and this is seriously twisting those words to interpret as "when possible." Potatoswatter (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not true that lists of tallest buildings "uniformly don't include alt text". All the building images in List of tallest buildings in Singapore have alt text.
  • Alt-text requirements were recently added to WP:FACR and WP:FL? and it's not surprising that old featured articles and lists don't satisfy the new requirements. There is no need or plan for mass article demotions on alt-text grounds; all that's intended is that articles going through reviews should satisfy the criteria in effect at the time of reviews. This is standard practice when criteria change.
  • WP:ALT spells out when alt text is necessary. It follows the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 in saying that alt text is needed for all Wikipedia "thumb" images. There are exceptions for non-"thumb" images, but they don't apply here. All the images in Timeline of Macintosh models are "thumb" images and they all need useful alt text, as per WP:ALT.
Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should've found a chronological list of additions rather than relying on random sampling, I guess. I'm starting not to see your point, then. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that this article's images need useful alt text, as per WP:ALT. The arguments to the contrary aren't flying. Eubulides (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Tables is not necessarily the best solution. There are a significant number of models which are not represented on this timeline yet by year. The resulting decades would be massive tables and unable to be indexed by year at a later date.--Mac128 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid image map generated by EasyTimeline I think the article clearly states at this point that this is Wiki, problem and a recent one at that, for which no explanation has been proposed. To suggest that as a reason to remove FA status would be to say it should be removed because it is not compatible with Internet Explorer browsers. It doesn't change the nature of the article though however unfortunate a reality it is.--Mac128 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and I should mention that doesn't really have to do with the FLRC at all; I just wanted to make a mention of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just internet explorer, it fails miserably on firefox as well. Is there a browser it does display on? --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed now. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I agree the sources can be further delineated where possible, but the point is made that many of those listed cross reference each other for confirmation where there is very little available published material available, particularly for discontinuation dates which often go unheralded by the manufacturer and must be tracked by the end-user community. Ultimately these are not claims being made that need exact verification. Some are product introduction dates, some are actual retail shelf dates, some are pre-release press dates from verifiable "Wiki" sources which are simply wrong. In the end they present an aggregate for historical research purposes, in much the same way some historical personalities have unverifiable estimated birth and death dates, often in conflict among scholars. This article presents a summary of information, not available anywhere else and while further verification might be performed, the net result will not significantly alter the information provided in this article.--Mac128 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The database of Everymac in particular is built by user-submitted computer self-diagnostics. It is essentially the best source, and as for expert historians, you're talking to them. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be the best source, but it doesn't meet the standards for WP:RS. Simply put, if information can't be verified by reliable sources, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail RS? It sounds like you have an axe to grind and aren't thinking about your assertions. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even come close to RS. Compare:

Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

(from WP:RS) with:

EveryMac.com does not monitor all content posted and transmitted by members

from Everymac. I would recommend knocking off the personal invective, and spending more time trying to understand basic Wikipedia policies. --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can find a similar disclaimer at any newspaper site. Of course they monitor (indeed, exclusively maintain) their spec database. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything at the New York Times site saying anything like "The Times does not monitor all content published in the Times by its reporters." Eubulides (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/agree.html#discussions attempts to pass liability to commenters and warns against misbehavior. That's another theory on unruly crowds. The spec database is no more posted by EveryMac members than NYT articles are posted by NYT members. Or maybe you have just imagined a system where submissions via http://www.everymac.com/articles/admin/contact_qa.html are not monitored by the site admins… but I think then the site would be empty! Potatoswatter (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody on Wikipedia would attempt to use content from NYT that had been user-submitted, other than as demonstrating the opinion of a named individual. That sort of content is not a RS for any other purposes, so this is a crimson cleupid. I admit I am having difficulty in imagining where the content on EveryMac comes from. You stated first it is "built by user-submitted computer self-diagnostics", now you seem to be saying that users make submissions, but those are always monitored by site admins (although the disclaimer seems to contradict that notion). Are you relying on the expertise of the site admins to produce accurate content, or does the accuracy originate from somewhere else? In either case, the burden is to show: (1) that there is "a reliable publication process"; and (2) "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Perhaps the best way forward is to show that EveryMac is authoritative on this subject, by some other reliable source acknowledging that. I see that the site is well-established with a Google page rank of 5, so I expect that ought to be a possibility. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall from some time ago, when I used the executable program called EveryMac, which I believe predated the website, that it had a feature to submit a diagnostic self-report to its creators. That is what I was referring to: not users of the website at all.
Yes, they've been around for a long time and they make it their business to report facts on Apple models. They are very much not a Wiki.
The disclaimer refers to members, ie users of their webforum, which is separate from the feature database. Note that the database info submission page doesn't ask for a member ID, but instead asks for more personal identifying info than would go into a membership account. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist It's been two weeks, and there have been no substantial efforts made to address sourcing and lead issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't WP:!VOTE on your own nom.
I fixed the lead when it was brought up. What concerns do you have with it now?
The sourcing issue was addressed above, although it was never clearly stated. The sources are maintained by dedicated editors of a shareware-funded organization. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, and I can express whether I want it to be delisted or not. When an editor brings a list to FLRC, that doesn't mean they are automatically intending for it to be delisted; I wanted it to be improved to FL standards and kept, not to have it delisted.
The lead is certainly better than when this was brought here, but it still needs work. Things that can be improved:
  • "This timeline of Macintosh models" FLs no longer begin in this self-referential way. See recently promoted lists as for examples of more engaging starts.
  • WP:FL? says that a featured list should have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject" (bolding mine for emphasis). That means providing context for the reader about what a Macintosh model is and a brief history about the model.
  • Finally, like all other articles, the lead must summarize the body of the list. What was the first model? The last? I'm not a Mac user, but I know about some of the more well-known families of models, such as the iBooks, Powerbooks, iMacs. Talk about them.
More on sources and other stuff later. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A !vote is not a vote.
If you bring up new concerns, you should also allow more time to fix them. The first sentence is presently: "This timeline of Macintosh models lists all major types of Macintosh computers produced by Apple Computer in order of introduction date." I believe that provides sufficient context, and the next step in providing context would be to explain what Apple Computer is, which would be unnecessary.
It would help to explain 68K vs PPC vs x86, but that doesn't seem relevant to WP:FL? and it shouldn't be a matter of bringing new complaints as you argue for immediate closure. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FLRCs will continue as long as work is ongoing, so you don't have to worry about immediate closure. In the past, FL leads were not required to explain the topic as much (if at all) as they are now. Things have changed; see List of cutaneous conditions for an extreme example of an FL lead (not saying you have to put in that much). Explainations of key differences and families are exactly what we look for in FLs these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/Issues
    • The lead should state about timeline of Macintosh models, as well.
    • The timeline itself is really long obviously, so I strongly suggest using {{wide image}}.
    • The tables can be merged by decades. Also, the rowspans/colspans can be removed to make the tables sortable.
    • Where are the headings for the 1990s and 2000s tables? The headings should be added when the tables merged.
    • The references need to be cited, so that the reader can easily verify the info they need. Right now, there are 4 general references and it's hard to know what info is taken from any of them.

--Crzycheetah 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The graphical timeline cannot be printed (click "Printed version" in the toolbox, then "File > Print Preview" in your browser), thus fails WP:ACCESS for those using a printed version of this page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been looking at this today; it seems like the first priority. I can't find any kind of fix. Even if the scrollbar is removed, the image still cuts off around 2002 in the printable version and gets miniaturized in the PDF version. Is there another featured list with a long timeline? (Seems possible, as lists and timelines go together…) Basically, how do I tell it to scale the image to the page? Then, I should be able to conditionally pass that directive to apply when printing. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you can force the image to scale to the width of a page when printing, at least not with CSS; it can probably be done with JavaScript, but we don't have access to that here. It is also possible to remove the image only when printing the article, but I don't know if that's acceptable or not. Gary King (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's been nominated here long enough. In the last ten days, there are no improvements. The issues are clear here and I think we need to let the main contributors comfortably work on this list without any pressure from this nomination. When all issues are resolved, it can always be re-nominated at WP:FLC.--Crzycheetah 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/Timeline_of_Macintosh_models/archive1&oldid=1144461742"