Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria and Malaika Arora: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Even if (version 1): add to opposition |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Unreferenced|date=May 2008}} |
|||
{| class="infobox" style="background: #F9F9F9" |
|||
{{Infobox_Actor |
|||
|- |
|||
| name = Malaika Arora Khan |
|||
|align="center" | '''[[Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png|40px|Archive]]<br />Archives''' |
|||
| image = Malaika_Arora_Khan.JPG |
|||
---- |
|||
| imagesize = 255px |
|||
|- |
|||
| caption = Malaika with her son Arhaan Khan |
|||
| style="font-size: 90%" | |
|||
| birthdate = {{birth date and age|1973|08|23}} |
|||
*[[/Archive 1]] |
|||
| birthplace = [[Mumbai]], [[Maharashtra]], [[India]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 2]] (size discussion) |
|||
| religion = [[Roman Catholic]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 3]] |
|||
| occupation = [[Actress]], [[model (person)|Model]], [[VJ]], [[Television presenter]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 4]] |
|||
| spouse = [[Arbaaz Khan]] (1998-present) |
|||
*[[/Archive 5]] |
|||
| salary = |
|||
*[[/Archive 6]] |
|||
| networth = Rs. 33 Lakhs |
|||
*[[/Archive 7]] |
|||
| website = |
|||
*[[/Archive 8]] |
|||
| birthname = Malika Arora |
|||
|} |
|||
| othername = Malika <br> Malika Khan |
|||
}} |
|||
'''Malaika Arora Khan''' (born [[23 August]], [[1973]]) is a [[Model (person)|model]], [[India]]n [[VJ (media personality)|VJ]] and a [[Bollywood]] actress. |
|||
== Comprehensive and extra-short FAs == |
|||
==Early life== |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive31#Notability, etc|Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive31#Very short FAs|Wikipedia:Very short FAs}} |
|||
Malaika was born to a [[Malayali]] mother, Joyce Polycarp and a [[Punjabi people|Punjabi]] father, Anil Arora. Her father worked in the [[merchant navy]]. |
|||
Malaika completed her tenth grade from Swami Vivekanand School in [[Chembur|Chembur (Mumbai)]]. Her Aunt Grace Polycarp was the principal of that school. She is also an alumnus of the [[Holy Cross High School Thane]] where she had studied until ninth grade. She lived in [[Borla Society]], opposite Basant Talkies before her modeling career. |
|||
{{quotation|A [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]] exemplifies our very best work and ... It is— |
|||
*(b) '''comprehensive:''' it neglects no major facts or details;}} |
|||
==Career== |
|||
Some editors interpret 1b to mean the article covers all available sourced information, even when major facts and details about the topic aren't available. |
|||
When [[MTV India]] started in India, Malaika was one of their VJs. She rose to an interviewer for MTV India, becoming the most prominent and non-movie, non-model female in urban India. |
|||
MTV India, recognizing her potential gave her plum roles co-anchoring with [[Cyrus Broacha]] the popular program ''Love Line'' and ''Style Check'', at Award Functions and concert telecast on the television channel. She then entered the modeling world. Her modeling career was equally successful. |
|||
GA was initially designed for short articles, but Wiki has moved beyond that concept. There are currently three articles nominated at FAC with around 500 words or less. If the intent of 1b is that ''our very best work'' covers articles for which there is little available information, there is potential for FAC to be flooded by super-short articles. |
|||
Malaika has appeared in many advertisements as well as cameos for song and dance sequences, such as ''[[Chaiyya Chaiyya]]'' in the film ''[[Dil Se]]'' and ''Maahi Ve'' in ''[[Kaante]]'' after that she earned the symbol of sex bomb. She has since then focused on her career as a model and television anchor. |
|||
Is a change in the criteria needed to redefine what is meant by comprehensive and what we want to represent our very best work, or are 300-word articles within the scope of our finest work? If we are moving to 300-word featured articles, FAC isn't likely to be able to handle the increased load. |
|||
In 2005, she did another item number, ''Kaal Dhamaal'' in the movie ''[[Kaal]]''. Recently she also did an item in Prince [[Mahesh Babu]]'s [[Telugu]] film. In 2007, she did a title song in [[Heyy Babyy]] directed by Sajid Khan and another popular song for [[Om Shanti Om]] whose director is the sister of Sajid, Farah Khan. Malaika also starred in the song ''Hoth Rasiley'' in the movie [[Welcome]]. |
|||
[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Personal life == |
|||
:FA reviewers appear to be a finite quantity, and there is only one FA assistant director, who has the laborious and often thankless task of administering all of these nominations. She also has to deal with FACs which are proposed as part of the editing process ("let's take it to FA and improve it there") rather than the culmination of that process, FARs which are often contentious, demanding editors who want their FACs to be considered but do not pitch in to review others, and others who do not fully understand (and who does outside of Sandy?) how much work is involved. |
|||
She is married to the Bollywood actor [[Arbaaz Khan]] whom she met during a coffee ad shoot. Together they have a son, Arhaan. Her sister is actress [[Amrita Arora]], and her brother-in-laws are actors, [[Salman Khan]] and [[Sohail Khan]] |
|||
:I make no judgments here on present FACs or their nominators. But given the finite nature of the the resources available, FA criteria should be changed to require a heightened standard of importance beyond mere notability, and perhaps a length requirment (without excess verbiage in the article) to tie into that. The FA process otherwise can grind to a halt, as the folks who spend hours a day handling that process will burn out. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for this very nicely written and persuasive comment, Kable. I'm working on a proposal now for an additional structural layer at FAC to encourage better prepration of nominations, shorter durations, shorter nomination pages, a shorter list, and faster throughput. This is in the light of the significant changes to the FAC environment over the past two years. As for the rash of stub-nominations, they should, in my view, be discouraged by additional text in the criteria. |
|||
Arbaaz said in an interview ''"She balances work, home and kid beautifully."'' Amrita said on the popular show ''[[Koffee With Karan]]'' that she doesn't know anyone in Bollywood who has maintained their body as well as Malaika, even after motherhood. |
|||
*1(b) '''comprehensive:''' it neglects no major facts or details<font color=darkred>, and is generally significantly longer than <s>500</s> 1000 words</font>; |
|||
==Filmography== |
|||
::Simple as that. The requirement that a nomination is "comprehensiv" ''and'' "exemplifies our very best work" both need to be satisfied. Just as FACs of gargantuan size usually fail the requirement for summary style and need to syphon off detail into daughter articles, nominations should fail if too small, since they cannot exemplify our very best work and there's always the suspicion that they're not actually comprehensive or the scope is too narrow. Analogously, they should be either (1) merged, (2) expanded in scope, or (3) not put up for nomination. The use of the word "generally" is on purpose, to allow the rare example through; but this should be rare indeed. A firm signal needs to be sent to nominators that collecting bronze stars on one's user page should not be pursued as a game that puts stubs into the "one in a thousand" status. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* ''[[Aaja Meri Jaan]]'' (1993) |
|||
<!-- Image with inadequate rationale removed: [[Image:Chaiyyachaiyya.jpg|thumb|The dance number of Chaiyya Chaiyya is remembered because it was shot on a moving train crossing mountain scenery.]] --> |
|||
* ''[[Dil Se]]'' (1998) ... Dancer on train (Song ''[[Chaiyya Chaiyya]]'') |
|||
* ''[[Bichhoo]]'' (2000) ... Kiran (Special Appearance) |
|||
* ''[[Indian (film)|Indian]]'' (2001) |
|||
* ''[[Kaante]]'' (2002) ... Lisa |
|||
* ''[[Maa Tujhhe Salaam]]'' (2002) ... Special Appearance |
|||
* ''[[Kaal]]'' (2005) ... Special Appearance (Song ''[[Kaal Dhamaal]]'') |
|||
* ''[[Hey Baby (film)|Heyy Babyy]]'' (2007) ... Special Appearance |
|||
* ''[[Athidhi]]'' (2007) .... Special Appearance-Song ([[Telugu]] film) |
|||
* ''[[Om Shanti Om]]'' (2007) ... Special appearance in song, ''Deewangi Deewangi'' |
|||
* ''[[Welcome]]'' (2007) ... Item Number |
|||
* ''EMI'' (2008) ... |
|||
=== Nach Baliye === |
|||
Malaika also appeared in the television show [[Nach Baliye]] as one of the 3 judges and the show aired on [[STAR One]] in mid-2005, and she continued as a judge in [[Nach Baliye 2]] that started airing in the last quarter of 2006. |
|||
===Zara Nachke dika=== |
|||
:Mike Christie's asked me to comment here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Space_Science_Fiction_Magazine&diff=241985494&oldid=241981675] because my argument is that a length restriction is unnecessary since criterion 2b requires "a substantial ... table of contents" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Space_Science_Fiction_Magazine&diff=prev&oldid=241981675]. Very short articles should have no more than one section, or no sections at all, or no table of contents, so they will fail on that basis rather than through the addition of an extra rule. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Malaika has also judged in the show zara nachka dikha as a judge along with the indian actor Chunky Pandey. |
|||
==External links== |
|||
::That seems like rather a lawyerish way to interpret '''appropriate structure'''. A structure appropriate for a short article would not necessarily be appropriate for a long article, and vice versa. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{imdb name|id=0037019|name=Malaika Arora}} |
|||
:::Agreed - it's better to just set a limit of words/characters/kb. Likewise using [[WP:LEAD]] as an opposing argument (catching on at the short FACs now). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 11:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[http://arora-malaika.blogspot.com/ Malika Arora Khan's Fansite] |
|||
:::Yep, Tony's suggestion works for me. A simple change that doesn't require any additional process-wonkery. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:1973 births]] |
|||
::::If the number is raised to 1500 (as mentioned in [[WT:Featured article candidates#Change in design required at FAC]]), I would agree. 500 words is too close to a stub or DYK page. --[[User:RelHistBuff|RelHistBuff]] ([[User talk:RelHistBuff|talk]]) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Indian film actors|Khan Arora Malaika]] |
|||
::::: I too would be happier with a bit higher number, 1000 or 1500 (And I say this as a person with a LOT of short articles on her watchlist and improvement list) [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 12:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Indian female models|Khan Arora Malaika]] |
|||
::::::I would support a 1000- or 1500-word minimum limit. I just can't see anything shorter as being Wikipedia's best work. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Malayali people|Khan, Malaika Arora]] |
|||
:::::::I'm open to a 1000-word limit, but what would happen to the existing articles that fail that criteria? –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 13:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:VJs]] |
|||
::::::::Usually when the criteria gets stricter, older articles keep their FA status for now. They could/can be brought to FAR and be demoted, though, but at least there would be an opportunity to expand the article first. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 13:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Punjabi people|Khan, Malaika]] |
|||
:::::::: (ec) I'm going to assume the same as what happened with the articles from 2004/2005 which don't have inline cites, grandfathered and eventually FAR if they aren't expanded. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Living people]] |
|||
:I'm not thrilled about a word count limit, though I understand we really need a bare minimum. I'd rather prefer to see something along the lines that if a short article can otherwise be covered at the same level of detail (which usually means that LEAD prose and the infobox can be dropped, but the rest of the prose and the references stay) in a larger topic without hitting [[WP:SIZE]] issues in the larger article, it should covered there instead. The maximum size where putting the text into a larger article would become a problem would be around the 1500-2000 word mark (approximately 7-10k of data), so once past that, it likely cannot be done. But anything smaller than that range should definitely at least be evaluated to see if it is possible to do so. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Indian actors|Khan Arora Malaika]] |
|||
:: Look at [[User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics]]; a 1,000 word cutoff is completely justified by our current statistics, as I can only find four of our 2300 featured articles below that cutoff. I'm fully behind Marskell's [[Wikipedia:Excellent short articles]], with a 1,000 word cutoff '''''roughly''''' enforced, and believe that option will go a long way towards resolving ''all'' of the current issues plaguing FAC (IRC fan support, too many FACs, and not enough indepth review time). Just look at the Dr pda stats. And I doubt we'd have to FAR anything; most of those articles would probably pad a few words given that I've made this suggestion. They'll probably be over the 1,000 word limit by the time others check :-) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Indian television presenters]] |
|||
:::So how many of the 2300 FAs are below the 1500-word cutoff? While my original 500-word boundary was cleary a misjudgement (I've now raised it to 1000 pending further discussion), I'm concerned that only four existing FAs are below the 1000-word limit. This suggests that the process is successfully weeding them out, but I'm guessing that this is at much cost. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: All that is discussed at [[WT:FAC]] and we're waiting to hear from Dr pda. (The four is an outdated number because it was generated in June, and we've more recently seen a rash of shorter articles. There may be over a dozen or so now that are under 1,000, and many more in the pipeline unless we decide how to deal with them.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::To note here, I'm more inclined to accept a 1,000 word criteria if that excludes the lead of the article. The lead is a summary of the entire article (not containing anything that shouldn't already be present in the body), and thus including it in the word count means you're including redundant material. Since this part of the article literally repeats everything else, in summary form, it should not be included when taking word counts into consideration. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 17:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: We don't have a tool that separately counts leads; we'd have to do that manually. And short articles have short leads. We do have data on entire articles that shows us that almost no FAs are less than 1,000 words; we can be consistent with that data and that tool. Separating out the lead creates a new beast. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 07:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Creating a new review setting (Excellent short articles or whatever it is called now) would stretch the reviewer pool further, so I'd strongly object to that proposal on those grounds, without even having to consider my philosophical objections to denying any article that can survive AFD the chance to be an FA. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
'''comment''' - on the whole I don't care for rigid rules for something like 'featured content'. That said, perhaps two types of featured content? FAC for full luxurious long articles, and 'ESA' for excellent short articles for the good stuff that is under some arbitrary limit? Mostly makes more work for editors who don't have time for it, but might be a compromise between a ''comprehensive'' and ''1,500 words NO LESS'' stance? I'm not really a fac regular so there maybe nuances to this that I don't understand. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 17:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: That is the proposal at [[WT:FAC]] (to resurrect [[Wikipedia:Excellent short articles]]), and like everything else at FAC, it would not be subject to a hard-and-fast literal word count cutoff, rather consensus and common sense. For example, if the cutoff is set at 1,000 but reviewers deem that a 975-word article represents ''our best work'', it could still be FA; Short articles provides a place to send the recent rash of 500-word articles, and we're even seeing FAC submissions at 400 words now. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Sandy mentions 1250 words over at WT:FAC. Would "generally significantly longer than 1000 words" or "generally longer than 1250 words" be clearer? I prefer the second, even if the number is changed; I think the "generally" gives us more than enough wiggle room, and will keep people from feeling like they got the rug pulled out from under them when they work hard, show up at FAC, and are told, "Yes, but it's not ''significantly'' more than x words". - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 18:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If we're going to have a number, let's make it a simple one (e.g. about 1000). 1250 sounds incredibly specific, and I worry people will misinterpret that as a number to try and beat. Around 1000 would be better I think. I also mentioned on another talk page, the issue with articles on the borderline. People padding out with unnecessary words to try and gain full featured article status is a risk. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how do you turn this on</span>]] 18:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:But you've got a fall-back: if a few reviewers think that it's borderline, then just punt it over to [[WP:FSA]], even if it has 1750 words, and no harm done. It will still be eligible for the bronze star. It won't be eligible for the main page, but only around half of FAs wind up on the main page anyway, and how likely is it that Raul would want to put something on TFA that people think is "too stubby", even if succeeded at FAC? - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[bn:মালাইকা অরোরা খান]] |
|||
I'm not concerned with focusing on a number until 1) we get a sense if the entire notion is going to fly, and 2) we get some data from Dr pda. The number will result naturally when we see data. But I am adamant that any number will only be a guideline, subject to consensus on any given FAC, just as anything else is. No hard and fast limits, no need to pad articles, common sense. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[de:Malaika Arora Khan]] |
|||
[[it:Malaika Arora]] |
|||
I don't really see this as the best solution to any of the problems it's trying to resolve. An absolute length requirement is unrelated to selecting articles that "exemplify our best work," in my opinion; an excellent, comprehensive article of 950 words isn't improved by adding 50 more words. Aside from being unrelated to the overall mission of the process, the change would be detrimental to the role of FA in Wikipedia as a whole as the status would no longer be a target for all articles but only for the subset of eligible ones. If in fact these articles overwhelm FAC, I think the problem lies more in the structure of FAC, which scales very poorly. Scale problems in the past, in my experience, have best been resolved by structural changes rather than altering the scope of the process. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: ''... in my opinion; an excellent, comprehensive article of 950 words isn't improved by adding 50 more words ... '' Did you read that the proposal specifically is to avoid this, and not apply a hard-and-fast limit, rather use consensus and avoid padding? FAC doesn't even respect [[WP:SIZE]]; I would see this being applied similarly. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC): |
|||
:::Padding isn't the point; whether the rule is hard and fast or not, the proposal still presumes that longer articles better exemplify our best work. That presumption is wholly arbitrary. Making the criteria more capricious is not in my view a positive development and I think damaging to the role of FA within Wikipedia as a whole; this should be a status to which all articles can aspire. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 05:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I really like the idea of a 1000 word minimum for FACs. I feel like the work of the FA writer is diminished when someone shows up with an article with five sources that can be read without scrolling. 1000 is not too much to ask (quite a few articles would be demoted with something higher) and it solves the new problem instead of trying to fix what was not considered broken a week ago. –'''[[User:thedemonhog|<span style="color:#ff6600">thedemonhog</span>]]''' <small>''[[User talk:thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">edits</span>]]''</small> 00:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Crossposting from [[WT:FAC]]; sorry if this is spam, but I thought that was where the discussion was, and now I find this page I think this is the most active discussion. Anyway, here's what I said over there: if I understand correctly this is a proposal for a separate process, which would hand out featured article status to short articles. The process would have its own page, director, review queue, and so forth. |
|||
If that's right, it seems to me there's a simpler and much preferable version. (And apologies if someone else already suggested this; I'm not sure I've read every discussion linked.) Make all these short articles go through the existing FAC page, process and director. At the end, a promoted article is allocated to be a "short FA" or an "FA" '''strictly''' on word count (1250, or whatever) '''unless''' reviewers specifically support a status one side or other of that line, and the FA director agrees. I'd assume short FAs could not go on the main page; that's Raul's call but I would think he'd listen to a consensus there. Advantages of this approach: |
|||
*No need to get Raul's approval for another delegated director |
|||
*No new process page; little to no new process |
|||
*No splitting of the reviewer group into two communities |
|||
*No need to have any separately maintained FA criteria. |
|||
*No problems caused to an editor with a borderline article who doesn't know where to submit it -- they don't have to choose, fail to get promotion at one page, then go the other. |
|||
I don't really see a downside to doing it this way. What am I missing? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Actually, there are several different proposals. One is to simply put a lower bound on FACs; the other is to put a lower bound on FACS *and* create a separate process to recognize Excellent short articles. |
|||
:I did not envision the Excellent short article process as producing "featured" articles, hence they wouldn't need a Raul-appointed director any more than featured sounds or featured pictures do; they're off doing their thing, unrelated to FAs. I don't believe the reviewer group would be split; there is a core group of editors who are interested in shorter articles (largely hurricanes, roads and music now, but that could grow), and a core group who does not have the same orientation; I think the Excellent small articles would generate its own staff and followers, as FLC has for example. I don't see any problem with not knowing where to submit; moving a trascluded file to the other page will be easier than what we're dealing with now with the volume at FAC. There is a very big downside to running what will become an increased volume of short noms through FAC if the criterion doesn't change and this trend takes hold; reviewer burnout, FAC backlog and decreased quality of our core FAs. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::The criterion has been as it is for years and we haven't seen this "increased volume of short noms"; it's not clear why you believe that it is suddenly an impending wave. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: This week, we had four submitted at once, and six (or seven) running at once. I hope that makes it more clear. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::If four or seven extra noms is making the difference between FA being functional or broken, there are structural problems that will quickly emerge again as the process grows even if this measure is enacted. When that happens, I wouldn't want to have established the precedent that scale problems with FAC are addressed by arbitrarily disqualifying certain types of articles. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Perhaps you weren't following the discussions as the suggestion came up to test the system with shorter FAs, and three new noms appeared instantly. Why would structural problems suddenly emerge again? FAC has rolled along for years without anyone thinking to nominate 500-word articles; it was a new and recent hurricane and road issue and rather likely to be one-time issue that needs to be resolved. I suggested resolving it by taking a closer look at 1b; we could still do that. At any rate, the issue of Excellent short articles has been bouncing around for years, so it was time to look at it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree with Christopher. If FAC could be broken by whatever increase in volume might come about with short articles going to FAC, then we need a fix that does not work by disqualification but instead expands the capacity of the process. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 23:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, I agree. The focus should not be on how to restrict the list so a process that has worked for years, but is possibly outmoded, will not get broken. Considering the growth of Wikipedia, it seems strange not to at least consider how to expand the capacity of the process anyway. It only makes sense that with the greater volume of articles on Wikipedia, access to FAC should not be restricted by a system invented when Wikipedia was much smaller. —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: <s>OK. I contend that capacity is constrained now by two factors: lack of reviewers, and reviewer reluctance to Oppose the ill-prepared noms. How can we address those two factors? </s> [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Moving this to the bottom, since Tito raised similar. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I formally propose either of the following: |
|||
*1(b) '''comprehensive:''' it neglects no major facts or details<font color=darkred>, and is generally significantly longer than 1000 words</font>; |
|||
or |
|||
*1(b) '''comprehensive:''' it neglects no major facts or details<font color=darkred>, and is generally at least 1200 words long</font>; |
|||
I could live with either, but am leaning towards the 1200, given Dr pda's data at the bottom of [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Wikipedia:Excellent_short_articles|this section]]. I no one objects, I intend to insert one of these in the next few days. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 05:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I will be happy if either of those make it, but I do prefer the first one just because 1000 is such a clean number. –'''[[User:thedemonhog|<span style="color:#ff6600">thedemonhog</span>]]''' <small>''[[User talk:thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">edits</span>]]''</small> 05:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I repeat here what I've said elsewhere: I Strongly Support a wordcount provision (prefereably 1200)... both on the (admittedly vague) grounds of notability and on the (more tangible) problem of potential flooding FAC with tiny articles. Next we'll have FAStubs? Leave short articles to GA; that's what it was originally designed for. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]—[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|WP:3IAR]])</sup> 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: I support 1,000; I don't want to go to 1,200 because several of those articles are fine, and I don't want to start sending existing FAs to FAR. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If this goes ahead, it should be added to 4 not 1b. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 07:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Drat. We've got a cross-posting issue now. I'll leave responses to the Featured short article proposal at WT:FAC. |
|||
As for this, the argument I gather is to simply have a word count limit and leave it at that. Only Titoxd raises the philosophical point: we would be saying that certain articles ''cannot'' be featured. Indeed, a ''majority'' of the articles on the encyclopedia if I had to guess. That doesn't seem right to me at all, notability issues be damned. All content should be featurable. |
|||
Anyway, I'll post over there. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 07:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I support 1200 although I prefer 1500. Dr pda said that he had to manually do the work to count the readable prose as his script counts only wikitext. However, I assume he counted the lead section which does not provide any unique content. That can pad around 20% on the smallest article. --[[User:RelHistBuff|RelHistBuff]] ([[User talk:RelHistBuff|talk]]) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think that's a misunderstanding. He manually added word counts to the list (meaning he used the Dr pda script to check and add each article word count manually to the list page, because the other script, that generates the list, only generates KB size). Yes, his script counts the lead. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 09:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, I know he manually added word counts to the list. I am saying that since the lead section is counted, I support 1200/1500 rather than 1000. --[[User:RelHistBuff|RelHistBuff]] ([[User talk:RelHistBuff|talk]]) 09:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not sure what debate is happening where, but since word count is mostly being discussed here, I'll post here. I've no problem with a word count limit being used as a divider, but I would prefer not to see a limit on what can be featured. I agree completely with Marskell; all content should be featurable. Hence as it stands I would not like to see Tony's suggestion pass. I'd be fine if it were combined with something such as a version of the short featured articles proposal, so long as the result was division of featured articles, rather than the establishment of an independent process. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 09:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Right. This word count proposal is more revolutionary than it sounds. Sure, few FAs are below 1200 now but we have never said that categories of article cannot pass through the FA gate, which is what we'd be doing here. This needs to be combined with some version of recognizing short articles under the FA banner. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 10:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*What is so sacred about every type of article that it must be capable of promotion at FAC? I say merge or expand a small article so it has sufficient substance to be among "our best work". In that respect, any article ''is'' potentially promotable material. It just depends on how it's packaged WRT scope. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PS I agree with Dr Kiernan that Cr. 4 is a better place for it.[[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 11:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**Scope should be tailored to best meet the needs of the reader, not to meet arbitrary requirements at FAC. I also contest the notion that articles below a certain length aren't among our best work. What measure of value are you using to support that assumption? It's easy to understand why one would find a comprehensive article better than an uncomprehensive one; it's not easy to understand why, all else being equal, you would find a long article superior to a short one. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 12:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
***Yes, and not everything can be merged or expanded, hence the title of this thread: ''comprehensive'' and extra-short FAs. To use the animal example, editors do not merge species into genera. Red links are left on lists or stubs created (even bots have created Tree of Life stubs). So I take an understudied species, gather papers in the single digits, and sqeeze out 900 words. How would that be less worthy of FA consideration than 1900 words on a Simpsons episode? It makes no sense to me. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Does that not fall under Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and has a notability guideline? –'''[[User:thedemonhog|<span style="color:#ff6600">thedemonhog</span>]]''' <small>''[[User talk:thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">edits</span>]]''</small> 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::You'd need to unpack what you mean a little more before I can answer. Yes, V has something to do with my argument: I can't verify what has not yet been researched. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
** The issue is that it has been repeatedly shown that getting an article to featured status is a strong incentive to improve the article. If you remove that ability for any subset of articles, then you are giving editors less of a reason to improve and maintain that subset, thus decreasing the average quality of the encyclopedia. Besides, this proposal doesn't do anything to solve the [hypothetical] "FA flood" problem that originated this discussion, as it just postpones solving FAC's existing scaling issues. These have to be fixed if we ever want to meet the goals of [[WP:100K]]. Aside from that, I personally prefer three small, high-quality articles than one incomprehensible rambling mess. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have zero-point-zero desire to meet the goals of [[WP:100K]] if they conflict with [[WP:I'MASHAMEDOFFAARTICLES]]. :-) [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]—[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|WP:3IAR]])</sup> 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
***OK. I contend that capacity is constrained now by two factors: lack of reviewers, and reviewer reluctance to Oppose the ill-prepared noms. How can we address those two factors? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**** I'm not sure how we can address lack of reviewers, aside from randomly recruiting people. Unfortunately, that probably won't be a good idea because Wikipedia is, after all, a project in which people voluntarily perform tasks they like. However, adding a new review arena is something that would cause the reviewer pool to split even further, so I cannot support that. ESAC/FSAC or whatever it is being called now would meet a fate similar to [[WP:RFD]]: Rarely looked at unless there's something explosive going on. An alternative would be to institute a hard cap for simultaneous nominations by an editor or WikiProject. |
|||
**** As for the the reluctance to oppose ill-prepared noms, you have two problems here. You have nominations that are nowhere even close to meeting [[WP:WIAFA]]. These should probably be quick-failed in a way similar to how it's done at GAN. Then, you have nominations that meet WP:WIAFA sans one part of one criteria. Examples of this include articles that are properly sourced but require a light copyedit, or requests for clarifications during an FAC. These occur because there is still a lingering perception that [[WP:PR]] is not doing an adequate job in reviewing articles, so nominators just decide to bypass it altogether. To address this, we have to beef up PR, and maybe even make it mandatory prior to an FAC. |
|||
**** Eventually, though, some sort of devolution of tasks will be necessary, as centralized review processes have their limits. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Parham says: |
|||
*"Scope should be tailored to best meet the needs of the reader, not to meet arbitrary requirements at FAC." |
|||
**I agree, but this has no bearing on the notion of FA, unless you have some desire to see stubs promoted and held up as "our very best work (even though in their small frame, they may be good work). |
|||
*"I also contest the notion that articles below a certain length aren't among our best work. What measure of value are you using to support that assumption? It's easy to understand why one would find a comprehensive article better than an uncomprehensive one; it's not easy to understand why, all else being equal, you would find a long article superior to a short one." |
|||
**When the notion of "comprehensiveness" is satisfied not by integrating information smoothly and cogently into an article, but almost entirely by constricting the scope. All else is usually ''not'' equal at all, and there's now a cottage industry building to churn out bronze stars for what are quick, dirty jobs by identifying tiny topics that can get through the "comprehensiveness" loophole we currently provide. I might add a little to the essay on [[User:Greg_L/Sewer_cover_in_front_of_Greg_L’s_house|the sewer cover in front of Greg L's house]] and nominate it: we could add a small section on the vintage, manufacture and installation of the cover, and the tools required to prize it out, largely borrowed from existing articles, and there we have it, a spanking new bronze star. What is the limit? I could write a beautiful stub on my front doormat, too, but the same applies. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
***Inappropriate scope is certainly a problem, but the proposal you've made has to do with word count, not scope. For many topics the appropriate scope is obvious (for instance, most biographies have an obvious scope), and that scope may or may not result in an article of 1200 words when brought to a comprehensive state. I don't think your solution applies well to the problem you've identified. To your first point, stubs by definition are not comprehensive, so that concern does not worry me. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 03:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
So you don't agree that size and scope interact in an undesirable way, especially when either is small/narrow? That was my point. How do ''you'' propose to deal with the increasing proportion of smallish FAs that are either uninteresting or unremarkable (to most readers, I make an assumption here). Do we want to damage the status of FA by admitting superb little articles on my front doormat? Or every little back street? Or every storm that has ever been? I'd be delighted if you could inject a more constructive layer into your comments; rather than sitting back and pot-shooting at good-faith attempts to address these issues, can you come from the opposite end as well? To start with, you state that "innapropriate scope is certainly a problem"; but since scope as such is almost impossible to quantify or draw a boundary for, the next best quantum is length. Since my point is that length typically ''does'' correlate with scope, it's the tool at hand. If FAs went to a panel of assessors who had ultimate and unbridled power to apply their subjective will, scope might be a functional issue. But this is not the case, and where there's a problem, we must make do with the best boundaries we have. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 10:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Tony, pardon me if I am misunderstanding you, but would you explain the comment about your front door mat? Surely the notability bar would eliminate such an article? And surely, if such a topic were in fact to be notable, you would not automatically oppose it at FAC if it were 3,000 words, though you might oppose for specific reasons? So isn't your concern really about length, not notability and interest? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 11:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::And Tony, a proposal has been made: take the small FAs to a separate nomination page. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Tim, if you're referring to the proposal for a short-FA process, separate to the existing one, I'm sorry to say that I think it's the very worst thing that could happen: it would siphon off scarce reviewing resources, and give the imprimatur to the star collectors who want easy pickings. I have to oppose it strongly. |
|||
:::Mike, yes, you're right in a way about notability. I still want Parham's take on addressing the problem of short FAs on minor cyclones that might, strictly speaking, pass on notability, but are likely to bore the nuts off our readers (male, anyway), such as [[Tropical Storm Erick (2007)]] (I think it's still listed at FAC). [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Tony, I think you're conflating issues now. You're suggesting there's necessarily a correlation between length and how interesting an article is. There isn't. Hundreds of the current FAs of every size bore my nuts off. It has little to do with length and everything to do with individual interest. If all of the cyclones that didn't make landfall in 2007 were grouped into, say, a 3000 word article, you'd still be bored with it—''more so.'' FA has never had an importance requirement and you're hinting at introducing one; don't let the video gamers know. |
|||
::::As for a short article process, don't underestimate the degree to which it could bring in new reviewers, particularly GAN people who find FAC punctilious and intimidating. Given that Sandy is in favour of some form of it, I don't see why we don't do a trial. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 13:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Marksell, I was in favor, but I think G-Guy's idea of accomplishing the same thing by putting a few Good Articles in the main page's [[WP:DYK]] section has the potential to reach a wider set of people in a more comfortable way, and over time, produce a lot of new FAC reviewers. I invite everyone to weigh in at [[WT:WGA#DYK]]. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Scope in my view is already dealt with by existing guidelines including [[WP:SUMMARY]] and [[WP:LENGTH]]; articles that reflect aspects of another topic should not be spun out of the parent unless the parent is growing too long. Looking through current FAs, I am not sure that some of these meteorological history article pass muster on that account. I don't think we need new solutions to address scope issues at FAC. |
|||
:To answer your other point, we do want excellent articles on every storm that has ever been, at least those that pass our inclusion requirements. Part of the reason I offer few recommendations for changes is that I don't feel there's a problem in this area; if in the next year we create a thousand new storm FAs, we've added to Wikipedia a thousand comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced articles on notable topics. That's a great achievement. The fact that some readers, including yourself apparently, aren't interested in them is unfortunate - but I think that lack of interest has little to do with the scope of the articles, and it's hardly reason not to acknowledge their quality. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=== Break 1 === |
|||
If a very short FAC passes, it's going to cause trouble. Many people will believe that it was a case of clever wikilawyering to get around the rules that apply to everyone else, or a case of trading reviewing favors (which would almost certainly be an unfair suspicion, but the suspicion will certainly arise). Also, FAC has no mechanism for encouraging work on the pages that get read the most, and that's fine, we can build that mechanism into other review processes; but surely we don't want FAC to be ''discouraging'' work on the subjects that have the most coverage in secondary sources, by applying a double-standard of requiring these featured articles to be much longer than featured articles on minor tropical storms and roads. (This is not a criticism of these shorter articles, just a plea for fairness.) - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:That's right: an important part of our admiration for an article—indeed any work of art or intellectual product—is that it was hard to do; this includes the ''amount'' of work involved. Similarly, the boundary between cleverness and diligence, between technique and artistry, has always been difficult to define. This is why very small FAs will undermine the status of the badge. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed wording changes to 1b == |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Proposed change to 1b, comprehensive|Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive31}} |
|||
As a result of many conversations, here, at [[WT:FAC]], and elsewhere, I suggest criterion 1b needs some clarification. 1b currently says of a featured article that it is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details". The debate has been over whether "major facts or details" might include information which is not available in reliable secondary sources. One interpretation of 1b says an article fails 1b if it omits important information, even if that information is unsourceable. This interpretation implies that some articles are inherently not featurable. The other interpretation says an article that uses all reliable sources is by definition comprehensive and passes 1b. This implies that such an article might be very short indeed and still pass. |
|||
I propose that we change 1b to one of the following, depending on which is the correct interpretation. |
|||
'''Version 1: "even if"''' |
|||
::(b) '''comprehensive'''; it neglects no major facts or details, even if no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details; |
|||
:-- or -- |
|||
'''Version 2: "unless"''' |
|||
::(b) '''comprehensive'''; it neglects no major facts or details, unless no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details; |
|||
I phrased it as "thought to exist" to allow for reviewer judgement as to the existence of a source; if someone asserts that a bio of [[Magic Johnson]] doesn't need a birthdate because no sources exist, scepticism would be reasonable, and this phrasing allows for that. |
|||
I'm a proponent of the second version, so I am probably not the best person to make the case for the first one. In summary, I believe the case for "even if" to be that an article missing significant information does not represent our best work, and FA represents our best work -- a subset of all our work. The case for "unless" is that FA should represent the best that any tertiary source can do; there's no value in withholding FA from an article if it can't be done better. |
|||
I suggest a straw poll, with comments, to see if either of these can gain support. I feel either is better than the status quo. |
|||
===Even if (version 1)=== |
|||
Change 1b to read "(b) '''comprehensive'''; it neglects no major facts or details, even if no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details;" |
|||
*<s>Second</s>Third choice. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Last choice. Prefer to have some reviewer descretion so that we are not cutting off our noses to spite our faces ... as this, on a strict reading, would severly hamper articles on ancient sources. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Oppose - clearly disasterous for articles on medieval & older subjects. We don't even know the name of the subject of several of the biographies I work on, in [[:Category:Anonymous artists]], but many have had several books written on them. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per Ealdgyth. Additionally, it sounds as if we're promoting the inclusion of unsourced material. –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' If no sources are thought to exist they are not facts. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham <font color="blue">Colm</font>]] [[User talk:GrahamColm|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support.''' third choice. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - I am a subscriber to the "unless" option - [[User:Rst20xx|rst20xx]] ([[User talk:Rst20xx|talk]]) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''', as explained by Ealdgyth, Johnbod and doesn't resolve the current comprehensive issues raised. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Even if (version 2)=== |
|||
Change 1b to read "(b) '''comprehensive'''; it neglects no major facts or details expected in coverage of a topic of its class, even if no sources are thought to exist for currently neglected information, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to fill those gaps". |
|||
*Second choice. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* First choice - [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Oppose - (ec) still seems to exclude Plato, and too convoluted. You can write an incomplete article on the grounds that at some point in the future better information will be available? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*No it doesn't - that was the whole point of "expected in coverage of a topic of its class" (please see discussion below). [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::*It is convoluted - I agree with that - I'm still trying to think of a better way to phrase it. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::* Leaning support, but I don't think the wording is quite fleshed out, and I'm not certain the wording resolves the issues that led to this discussion. I'd much rather see a discussion of the wording before a straw poll is launched; this poll was launched simultaneously with proposed wording. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]''' ([[User talk:Rschen7754|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|C]]) 19:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support.''' second choice. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - I am a subscriber to the "unless" option - [[User:Rst20xx|rst20xx]] ([[User talk:Rst20xx|talk]]) 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Unless=== |
|||
Change 1b to read "(b) '''comprehensive'''; it neglects no major facts or details, unless no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details;" |
|||
*First choice. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>First</s>second choice I can deal with this, as it allows reviewer descretion, but yet at least removes some ambiquity. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. NB however, I do think that this could be usefully combined with a minimum length: otherwise we could have one-sentence FAs on Anglo-Saxon priests... --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per Jbm [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - This is exactly what leads to incomplete articles that have been opposed such as [[Space Science Fiction Magazine]] and [[Peter Wall]]. I do not think that manifestly incomplete articles should be promoted as "Wikipedia's best work". Let's find a way to define "comprehensive" that is reasonable, not drastic. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. Adopting the proposal with "even" will lead to really bizarre results. So my choice is this proposal. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 18:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support this''' I think that this is a good wording that ensures that objections on the basis of comprehensiveness will be actionable. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per Ruslik0. –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' This one will be the fairest and not give rise to un-actionable opposes. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham <font color="blue">Colm</font>]] [[User talk:GrahamColm|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' Seems to be the most reasonable option. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Only sensible choice from those on offer IMO, although I can't really see it making much difference. My concern is that it's impossible to prove that something ''doesn't'' exist, so this seems to put the onus on the reviewer to prove that available sources which contain missing major facts or details have been neglected, which seems impractical. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support.''' first choice. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' - [[User:Rst20xx|rst20xx]] ([[User talk:Rst20xx|talk]]) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''', rather than resolving the comprehensive issue, this option passes on the problem. I also '''oppose''' this straw poll as premature, as the wording on the other options hasn't been fleshed out yet. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===No change=== |
|||
Leave 1b unchanged. |
|||
*Last choice. There's clearly ambiguity (just look at the tens of thousands of words of discussion on this topic). We need to clarify this. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>Second</s> third choice, I'd rather take this choice than wade into waters where [[Plato]] can't become a FA. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support.''' fourth choice. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
Some examples to consider: [[Space Science Fiction Magazine]], [[Peter Wall]], [[Plato]], [[Mounseer Nongtongpaw]], [[Barack Obama]]. While at the [[WT:FAC]], reviewers overwhelming decided to define "comprehensive" as "all published material", when it came to reviewing, they started to oppose to ''Space Science Fiction Magazine'' because it simply did not contain enough information (despite covering all of the published material). The same happened with the Peter Wall article. So, while defining "comprehensive" one way on the talk page, many reviewers were actually using another definition in practice. I have long thought that it is a problem to promote articles that are manifestly incomplete (even if that incompleteness is a result of a lack of sources). "Mounseer Nongtongpaw" would be a good example - not enough scholarship has been written on this piece of literature to write a full article on its themes, genre, etc. Different problems arise with an article like Barack Obama, which is constantly changing. Should we promote articles which we ''know'' are incomplete in a substantial way? Obama's biography will change dramatically, especially if he becomes president of the United States. This article will not remain "the best of Wikipedia" as it changes every week. Further problems in arise in articles like Plato, however, which will always remain incomplete in terms of expected biographical information. The article will never be thin or short, but it will always be lacking information basic biographical information. The biggest problem I see here is separating the Platos of the world from the Nongtongpaws of the world. Nongtongpaw is waiting for scholarship to be done - Plato is not. However, how can we convey this difference in the definition of "comprehensive"? [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 16:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:If something like "or are likely to exist in the future" is added, that would exclude Peter Wall, whose obituaries will presumably one day give secondary sources for the basic biographical information, but retain the medieval & ancient subjects. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Let's try that. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Is scholarship on Nongtongpaw "likely to exist"? How about on ''Space SF''? I agree, this does deal with Plato, so that's a step in the right direction. "Likely" sounds like a case for reviewer discretion, again. Is that OK? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::We will always have some reviewer discretion and the entire point is that scholarship ''can'' be done on these topics and considering how much scholarship advances, I would say it is entirely likely. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(reply to Awa) Awadewit hit the problem on the head here. How do we make sure that modern timeframe articles get comprehensive coverage without drawing the criteria so tight that we can't cover antiquity and medieval time frames well? On top of her examples, I'd add [[New York State Route 174]], where I tried to get some additional coverage on the surroundings of the road (something I would consider mandated by comprehensive) but was told by the nominators that it wasn't required. Or [[Alien (movie)]] which is at FAC right now, where it has garnered some opposes based on a lack of mention of it's feminist interpretations (I happen to agree that that if it's covered in significant feminist scholarly sources, then yes, it should be included. I couldn't possibly judge if it is or not, though). Those are modern articles, where Awa's points hold well. HOwever, it falls severely flat with the older historical articles. We don't know Plato's birthdate with any certainty. Or look at [[Stigand]], we don't know much about him, but I think I've assembled every single fact available as well as most significant discussions of him. The problem came up at the FAC though, that someone wanted to give a guess on his birth year, but I couldn't do that because it's not something speculated in the sources, probably because most scholars assume we will do the math and get something around 1015 or so, so they don't discuss it. Do we shoot down the possibility of folks such as Stigand getting covered by an FA because one (albeit important) fact isn't covered in secondary sources? We obviously need to get a handle on things because not having a good working definition that all reviewers are following is definitely leading to inconsistency, but it's a hard problem to get a handle on. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Some of this comes down to reviewer discretion - to fail an article as substantial as Stigand because of one fact would be absurd. We need some kind of comparative definition for "comprehensive" as well, obviously. What would one expect of an article of Stigand's kind, given the its timeframe, for example? I always ask myself that when reviewing, but that is a hard thing to define. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 17:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*"it neglects no major facts or details for coverage of that topic; that is, the article must cover all expected areas for its particular subject - if there are insufficient published sources to cover all expected areas of the topic, the article cannot become featured" - would some wording like this work? [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 17:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*: |
|||
:*:How about "'''comprehensive'''; it neglects no major facts or details, even if no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to address those facts or details;"? The repetition of "facts or details" needs to be eliminated, but does that cover it? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*::How about "'''comprehensive'''; it neglects no major facts or details expected in coverage of a topic of its class, even if no sources are thought to exist for currently neglected information, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to fill those gaps" (revise again, please) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*:::Can we cut "expected in a topic of its class"? Seems like that's automatically implied, and concision is good. If you're OK with that I suggest we edit the section heading above with that wording. |
|||
:*:::Once that's done, is there any reason for me not to notify those who've participated in the various earlier parts of this discussion? I am optimistic that this discussion is the right one to have, so I think it would be good to maximize participation. I'll drop a note on the talk page of everyone who has posted at one of the main discussion locations. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*::::I was trying to use that as a way to avoid the Plato problem - as a way to introduce sane comparisons. So, for example, we would not expect any articles about ancient people to have solid birth dates because it is impossible, however we ''would'' expect literature articles to discuss themes of the works because that is important to ''all'' literature. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*:::::You're right, something like that is needed. Are we ready to change the heading? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 18:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*::::::Let's do it. :) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*:::::::Done. I decided it made more sense to make it another option than replacing one of the existing ones. Hope that's OK. Any reason for me not to start notifying people? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*:::::::::Notify away. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Although I understand <math>\exists x s.t. \forall \epsilon>0 \exists N s.t. \forall n\geq N |x_n -x|<\epsilon</math>, I'm having some trouble parsing the meaning of the new option. Can an article which needs (expected) future sources to complete it be featured or not? Is there a shorter and clearer way to word this? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 19:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Note''': I'm encouraged that this discussion has finally come back around to the original issue raised: a discussion of 1(b). I'm concerned though that we've moved quickly to a straw poll without yet examining the link between 1(b) and 2(b) with respect to the issues that led to this discussion. A "substantial" TOC has always been present in some form of this page; I'm concerned that a straw poll about 1(b) that doesn't also examine 2(b) may leave us with an unsatisfactory and uncertain conclusion. A "substantial" TOC assures that there is enough material about the topic to write a significant article. (I've had equal concerns in the past about 2(b) overwhelming TOCs, as they can be an indication that Summary style isn't adequately employed.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*Considering people are !voting to support the definition that is usually overturned in actual reviewing, such as [[Space Science Fiction Magazine]] and [[Peter Wall]], does this mean the straw poll is meaningless or that our reviews are poor? :) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I think the two things are inconsistent; and that that's because 1b is ambiguous. Sandy, I thought about delaying the straw poll but the !voter exhaustion that's already evident, plus the very extensive discussions that have already taken elsewhere, some of which directly addressed this point, seemed to justify a quick move. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: I'm also concerned that editors are already weighing in while there is still a "convoluted" factor in the wording; I haven't finished catching up on my watchlist yet this morning, but I haven't yet sorted what each option says. Might it be better to hold off on declarations until the wording is better nailed down? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: You mean, not go at wiki-speed? Take several ''days'' to work out the precise wording of each option? Wow, that would be wonderful. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Ouch. Sorry if this went too fast; I thought it was OK to do so -- see the note on my talk page for a response to Sandy on this. In the meantime, I'll try to put a gloss together on the version Awadewit worked on; perhaps that will help. (And Awadewit, I was careful to get a "Let's do it!" from you above before I started -- I thought we were close enough.) I'll work on a gloss for the newest option. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: LOL ! Well, I woke up this morning and spent quite a while just sorting archives at FAC, my watchlist is going off like crazy because someone is notifying every editor talk page that I have watched, and I haven't yet sorted how any of the proposals above resolve the extra-short hurricane/road/music/album issues. Can someone pass me a fast clue so I don't have to engage my brain? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I don't like any of the proposals, so I'm abstaining. To Sandy: I can't give you an answer because one doesn't exist. Hence why I'm not voting for any of the above proposals. Tell me again why a minimum word count was a bad idea? '''[[User:Giants2008|<font color="blue">Giants2008</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Giants2008|<font color="red">17-14</font>]]) 20:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Because it is arbitrary. It basically says "we don't like short articles therefore they will not be featured". There is no real argument there, I'm afraid. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Well, on the albums one, it could be that we'd need more beefed up themes and reception sections. On roads, I'd start pushing for more inclusion of information on the terrain/etc. in the area. No clue on hurricanes, sorry. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The thing is, a word count doesn't have to be arbitrary. If a page is a little short of the minimum, Raul or Sandy can make a judgement call on it. I just refuse to believe that 400-500 word articles can represent our best work. My college essays haven't been any longer than that. '''[[User:Giants2008|<font color="blue">Giants2008</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Giants2008|<font color="red">17-14</font>]]) 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Can someone explain to me why concerns about short FAs are being addressed through changes to criteria 1b and not criteria 1a? Or am I missing the point entirely? [[User:Plasticup|<b><font color="#0080FF">Plasticup</font></b>]] [[User_Talk:Plasticup |<font color="#2A8E82"><sup><small>T</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Plasticup|<font color="#2A8E82"><small>C</small></font>]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Pertinent=== |
|||
Just a thought from an outsider: How about… |
|||
#*(b) '''comprehensive:''' it neglects no major facts or details that are [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pertinent pertinent*] to a quality article. |
|||
<br> |
|||
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki> thefreedictionary.com: ''“Having logical precise relevance to the matter at hand.”'' |
|||
: That’s my 2¢. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 20:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:16, 13 October 2008
 |
Malaika Arora Khan | |
|---|---|
| File:Malaika Arora Khan.JPG Malaika with her son Arhaan Khan | |
| Born | Malika Arora |
| Other names | Malika Malika Khan |
| Occupation(s) | Actress, Model, VJ, Television presenter |
| Spouse | Arbaaz Khan (1998-present) |
Malaika Arora Khan (born 23 August, 1973) is a model, Indian VJ and a Bollywood actress.
Early life
Malaika was born to a Malayali mother, Joyce Polycarp and a Punjabi father, Anil Arora. Her father worked in the merchant navy.
Malaika completed her tenth grade from Swami Vivekanand School in Chembur (Mumbai). Her Aunt Grace Polycarp was the principal of that school. She is also an alumnus of the Holy Cross High School Thane where she had studied until ninth grade. She lived in Borla Society, opposite Basant Talkies before her modeling career.
Career
When MTV India started in India, Malaika was one of their VJs. She rose to an interviewer for MTV India, becoming the most prominent and non-movie, non-model female in urban India.
MTV India, recognizing her potential gave her plum roles co-anchoring with Cyrus Broacha the popular program Love Line and Style Check, at Award Functions and concert telecast on the television channel. She then entered the modeling world. Her modeling career was equally successful.
Malaika has appeared in many advertisements as well as cameos for song and dance sequences, such as Chaiyya Chaiyya in the film Dil Se and Maahi Ve in Kaante after that she earned the symbol of sex bomb. She has since then focused on her career as a model and television anchor.
In 2005, she did another item number, Kaal Dhamaal in the movie Kaal. Recently she also did an item in Prince Mahesh Babu's Telugu film. In 2007, she did a title song in Heyy Babyy directed by Sajid Khan and another popular song for Om Shanti Om whose director is the sister of Sajid, Farah Khan. Malaika also starred in the song Hoth Rasiley in the movie Welcome.
Personal life
She is married to the Bollywood actor Arbaaz Khan whom she met during a coffee ad shoot. Together they have a son, Arhaan. Her sister is actress Amrita Arora, and her brother-in-laws are actors, Salman Khan and Sohail Khan
Arbaaz said in an interview "She balances work, home and kid beautifully." Amrita said on the popular show Koffee With Karan that she doesn't know anyone in Bollywood who has maintained their body as well as Malaika, even after motherhood.
Filmography
- Aaja Meri Jaan (1993)
- Dil Se (1998) ... Dancer on train (Song Chaiyya Chaiyya)
- Bichhoo (2000) ... Kiran (Special Appearance)
- Indian (2001)
- Kaante (2002) ... Lisa
- Maa Tujhhe Salaam (2002) ... Special Appearance
- Kaal (2005) ... Special Appearance (Song Kaal Dhamaal)
- Heyy Babyy (2007) ... Special Appearance
- Athidhi (2007) .... Special Appearance-Song (Telugu film)
- Om Shanti Om (2007) ... Special appearance in song, Deewangi Deewangi
- Welcome (2007) ... Item Number
- EMI (2008) ...
Nach Baliye
Malaika also appeared in the television show Nach Baliye as one of the 3 judges and the show aired on STAR One in mid-2005, and she continued as a judge in Nach Baliye 2 that started airing in the last quarter of 2006.
Zara Nachke dika
Malaika has also judged in the show zara nachka dikha as a judge along with the indian actor Chunky Pandey.