User:Proteins/Sandbox3

See User:Proteins/Sandbox4 and User:Proteins/Sandbox5 for simpler tests. A script should pass those tests first.

Real-world test

The following is an example of unspaced, multiply indented text that does not reverse its indentation level. It proceeds uniformly from indentation level 2 up to level 6; level 1 is skipped. The script works great on this text and on a spaced version, one in which the indented paragraphs are separated by line spaces.

In light of the ongoing discussions, and considering I've seen multiple instant re-noms lately (within three or four days, sometimes within only one day after archiving), I added this to the FAC instructions. Please review my addition. It takes four edits minimum to remove a premature re-nom, and usually results in a longer discussion with an angry nominator; having something in the instructions may help. There have always been exceptions: as an example, suppose I were to misread a nomination and completely miss Supports (haven't done that yet, but it could happen); then we would allow a re-nom right away. There could be other extenuating circumstances. I read the discussions and concerns about FAC being stretched thin above as asking for more time between noms to better address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vague "several weeks at least" be replaced with a concrete, say, "two weeks at least"? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think two is "several"! The moment you add a number, you can forget about "at least". It might be worth adding that the Director and delegate can remove any nomination that is clearly not ready, or not sufficiently changed since the last FAC. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats my point "several" should be defined in terms of time. Also, maybe a peer review can be made compulsory before the next FAC.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be dealt with case-by-case, in which articles can be renominated once the issues from the previous FACs are sufficiently addressed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Compulsory peer review has been disapproved by the FAC community many times, for good reason. Almost everything at FAC, in fact on Wiki, is dealt with case by case; the wording should allow that flexibility. I don't disagree with Johnbod's suggestion, although I can't envision every doing that except in the cases already allowed (significant contributors not consulted and premature re-nom), so I'm not sure we need it. If a FAC is clearly badly unprepared, a few quick opposes will solve that; I archive almost daily. Actually, "several" probably should have been "two". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the spaced version for comparison:

In light of the ongoing discussions, and considering I've seen multiple instant re-noms lately (within three or four days, sometimes within only one day after archiving), I added this to the FAC instructions. Please review my addition. It takes four edits minimum to remove a premature re-nom, and usually results in a longer discussion with an angry nominator; having something in the instructions may help. There have always been exceptions: as an example, suppose I were to misread a nomination and completely miss Supports (haven't done that yet, but it could happen); then we would allow a re-nom right away. There could be other extenuating circumstances. I read the discussions and concerns about FAC being stretched thin above as asking for more time between noms to better address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vague "several weeks at least" be replaced with a concrete, say, "two weeks at least"? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think two is "several"! The moment you add a number, you can forget about "at least". It might be worth adding that the Director and delegate can remove any nomination that is clearly not ready, or not sufficiently changed since the last FAC. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats my point "several" should be defined in terms of time. Also, maybe a peer review can be made compulsory before the next FAC.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be dealt with case-by-case, in which articles can be renominated once the issues from the previous FACs are sufficiently addressed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Compulsory peer review has been disapproved by the FAC community many times, for good reason. Almost everything at FAC, in fact on Wiki, is dealt with case by case; the wording should allow that flexibility. I don't disagree with Johnbod's suggestion, although I can't envision every doing that except in the cases already allowed (significant contributors not consulted and premature re-nom), so I'm not sure we need it. If a FAC is clearly badly unprepared, a few quick opposes will solve that; I archive almost daily. Actually, "several" probably should have been "two". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indented lists per se seem fine

This is unindented text, just before an unordered list.

• This is an unindented list item (simple asterisk)

  This is another list item indented (asterisk, colon)

  This is another list item doubly indented (asterisk, colon, colon)

Here's the same thing with reversed order of asterisk and colon.

• This is an unindented list item (simple asterisk)

• This is another list item indented (asterisk, colon)

• This is another list item doubly indented (asterisk, colon, colon)

Reversal of indent level in unspaced multiply indented text breaks the script

The following is an example of spaced, multiply-indented text. This does not break the script.

• I'm not too happy with it as a summary, as per RelHistBuff. It seems to put the cart before th horse. A minimum length for FAs is a very easy thing to introduce; any new scheme or mechanism for short articles will involve plenty more discussion. A large number of the responses on a "new way" were extremely tentative, including my own. To start the statement "We need to define a way to recognize short, high quality articles ...." doesn't seem to reflect the thrust of the comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have now messed up the numbers by adding my comments! I've been too ill to comment here until now. :( Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How about putting it this way:

There is not sufficient consensus for a word minimum for Featured article candidates but there would be if short articles were recognized in some other way.

It's a bit of a conundrum, but I think that's it. Marskell (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Mike's summary is not bad, but says a bit too much, and provides more of a steer than the level of consensus really supports thus far. This short summary, however, is spot on. Geometry guy 08:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The following is an example of unspaced, multiply-indented text. This does break the script.

• I'm not too happy with it as a summary, as per RelHistBuff. It seems to put the cart before th horse. A minimum length for FAs is a very easy thing to introduce; any new scheme or mechanism for short articles will involve plenty more discussion. A large number of the responses on a "new way" were extremely tentative, including my own. To start the statement "We need to define a way to recognize short, high quality articles ...." doesn't seem to reflect the thrust of the comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have now messed up the numbers by adding my comments! I've been too ill to comment here until now. :( Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How about putting it this way:

There is not sufficient consensus for a word minimum for Featured article candidates but there would be if short articles were recognized in some other way.

It's a bit of a conundrum, but I think that's it. Marskell (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Mike's summary is not bad, but says a bit too much, and provides more of a steer than the level of consensus really supports thus far. This short summary, however, is spot on. Geometry guy 08:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The quotes are now out of order.

Check for cross-section pathologies

In some versions of the script, a pathology in an earlier section can disrupt later sections. This section is included to check this possibility.

In light of the ongoing discussions, and considering I've seen multiple instant re-noms lately (within three or four days, sometimes within only one day after archiving), I added this to the FAC instructions. Please review my addition. It takes four edits minimum to remove a premature re-nom, and usually results in a longer discussion with an angry nominator; having something in the instructions may help. There have always been exceptions: as an example, suppose I were to misread a nomination and completely miss Supports (haven't done that yet, but it could happen); then we would allow a re-nom right away. There could be other extenuating circumstances. I read the discussions and concerns about FAC being stretched thin above as asking for more time between noms to better address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vague "several weeks at least" be replaced with a concrete, say, "two weeks at least"? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think two is "several"! The moment you add a number, you can forget about "at least". It might be worth adding that the Director and delegate can remove any nomination that is clearly not ready, or not sufficiently changed since the last FAC. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats my point "several" should be defined in terms of time. Also, maybe a peer review can be made compulsory before the next FAC.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be dealt with case-by-case, in which articles can be renominated once the issues from the previous FACs are sufficiently addressed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Compulsory peer review has been disapproved by the FAC community many times, for good reason. Almost everything at FAC, in fact on Wiki, is dealt with case by case; the wording should allow that flexibility. I don't disagree with Johnbod's suggestion, although I can't envision every doing that except in the cases already allowed (significant contributors not consulted and premature re-nom), so I'm not sure we need it. If a FAC is clearly badly unprepared, a few quick opposes will solve that; I archive almost daily. Actually, "several" probably should have been "two". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)