Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Israeli citizenship law/archive2
Israeli citizenship law details the conditions by which a person holds citizenship of Israel. The two primary pieces of legislation governing these requirements are the 1950 Law of Return and 1952 Citizenship Law. Every Jew has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen. Those born in Israel receive citizenship at birth if at least one parent is a citizen. Non-Jewish foreigners may naturalize after living there for at least three years while holding permanent residency and showing proficiency in Hebrew. Naturalizing non-Jews are required to renounce their previous nationalities, while Jewish immigrants are not. The territory of modern Israel was formerly administered by the British Empire as part of a League of Nations mandate for Palestine and local residents were British protected persons. The dissolution of the mandate in 1948 and subsequent conflict created a set of complex citizenship circumstances for the non-Jewish inhabitants of the region that continue to be unresolved. (Full article...)
FAC instructions[edit]
@Horserice and A455bcd9: please have a look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. The {{tq}} template is not used at FAC as it causes template limits problems in FAC archives, and slows down the entire FAC page for everyone. Right now, the rest of FAC is not accessible to all readers, so I have removed some of the templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @SandyGeorgia,
- Thanks, I didn't know.
- Btw, the instructions don't say clearly that "The {tq} template is not used at FAC" but "Other templates such as {done}, {not done}, {tq}, {tq2}, and {xt}, may be removed." If {tq} is really prohibited then it should be more explicit. And a bot should replace them automatically. But...
- Still, I'm highly skeptical of this claim. I understand that "Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." but {{tq}} is neither graphic nor complex. Per {{tq}}: "the template changes the given text to serif typeface and green color". This is an extremely simple modification. You replaced {tq} with {green} which does essentially the same thing (see {{green}}, without the serif typeface change). So if {tq} is prohibited, there's no reason to allow {green} by the same reasoning.
- So I would suggest removing that part about {tq} in the FAC instructions. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Re 2, yes, there have been recurring problems in getting attention paid to adherence to the instructions on this and other matters, and very long discussions at FAC talk about how and why these templates-- among many other things-- are stalling the FAC page. Re 3, they definitely are a problem that has been known and demonstrated for years. It has to do with how the transclusions work; you can find multiple discussions going back more than a decade in FAC talk archives. Another problem stalling the FAC page, though, is reviewers conducting peer reviews on FAC rather than either a) opposing the FAC and suggesting the article needs to be withdrawn and reworked off-FAC, which is often a faster route to promotion, or b) entering long peer review commentary on article talk or the talk page of the FAC. FAC is for opposing or supporting that an article meets FA standars-- not for reworking articles until they do. This section is an example of why the FAC page is stalled, independently of the template tranclusion limits problem; when commentary becomes so long, ic can be an indication that either the article wasn't FAC-ready, or the minor comments might have been better placed on talk. I suggest discussing these process items on talk here or on FAC talk, as this FAC is already bloated, and that discourages other reviewers from engaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- A455bcd9,
Example text
, Example text, and Example text ({{tq}}, {{xt}}, and {{!xt}}, respectively) all cost four bytes per character, whereas the colour templates only cost two. You are allowed to be sceptical if you wish, but the coding does bloat a page with bytes. It's not a problem on individual pages, but on the main FAC page where all the reviews are shown, there are problems with page loading times (and sometimes the page falling over for some users). Please avoid {tq}, and if reviewers do it on your review, please replace it with {green}. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)- @SandyGeorgia: moving discussions to the talk page is a sensible solution indeed, but I assume not everyone agrees...
- @SchroCat: Thanks a lot for providing an explanation as it wasn't obvious to me. Should I be bold and edit the instructions to say explicitly that {tq} should not be used? Also: why are all reviews shown on the main FAC page? How come it's not just links like WP:GAN? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think changes to the FAC instructions are best discussed first (they've been hammered down by consensus over the last ten years or so, so discussion would be best).FAC isn't GAN - the processes are entirely different. A single reviewer will manage the opening, comments and closing of the review and no-one else needs be involved. With FAC it's different, with multiple people needing to see the entire page, including the co-ords, who are the only ones who can decide how and when to close a nomination. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with SchroCat re editing the instructions directly, as long discussions went into them (I pointed out in the last round that the instructions were not at all clear, and did not say what others thought they said, but my concerns were ignored, so we are where we are). Regardless, it only takes one reminder for reviewers and nominators to be aware of the problem, so if Coords start doing their job, and reminding new reviewers, that would solve it. At least the instructions do give anyone the ability to address the templates themselves, as the Coords aren't doing that job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok I won't edit :)
- Still, I don't understand how the differences in process between FAC and GAN imply that we need to bloat the page with the whole nominations. I use User:A455bcd9/nominations viewer.js and I at least 2 co-ords use a nominations viewer (the other being User:Gary/nominations viewer.js) so in any case all they see are... links. Unless I misunderstood something? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is asking you not to edit or suggesting that would be a desired outcome :) I'm unwatching now, so please ping if further followup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with SchroCat re editing the instructions directly, as long discussions went into them (I pointed out in the last round that the instructions were not at all clear, and did not say what others thought they said, but my concerns were ignored, so we are where we are). Regardless, it only takes one reminder for reviewers and nominators to be aware of the problem, so if Coords start doing their job, and reminding new reviewers, that would solve it. At least the instructions do give anyone the ability to address the templates themselves, as the Coords aren't doing that job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think changes to the FAC instructions are best discussed first (they've been hammered down by consensus over the last ten years or so, so discussion would be best).FAC isn't GAN - the processes are entirely different. A single reviewer will manage the opening, comments and closing of the review and no-one else needs be involved. With FAC it's different, with multiple people needing to see the entire page, including the co-ords, who are the only ones who can decide how and when to close a nomination. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)