defeaturing造句

• :: : Thanks for building a reasoned argument for defeaturing based on comprehensiveness and language.
• To avoid defeaturing articles under active maintenance, Talk 18 : 57, 14 June 2006 ( UTC)
• By removing unnecessary detail, Defeaturing simplifies the model, a process that typically is done manually at significant cost.
• ;Defeaturing : Defeaturing automatically identifies and removes small features that CAE analysts typically want to eliminate from the 3D model prior to meshing.
• ;Defeaturing : Defeaturing automatically identifies and removes small features that CAE analysts typically want to eliminate from the 3D model prior to meshing.
• I'm tempted to resolve the problem by " defeaturing " it and renominating it on FAC, along with a paragraph explaining the situation.
• It was my impression that the defeaturing was based on detailed lists of concerns by some other editors acting as FA reviewers, concerned mainly with NPOV and formatting.
• As far as I know, we haven't yet moved to the stage of defeaturing articles for a deficiency in footnotes ( many FAs don't have " any " ).
• If not being in whatever is this week's fashionable referencing style per FAC is a defeaturing reason, then go right ahead-David Gerard 16 : 17, 29 September 2007 ( UTC)
• Though the featured articles I named were both from 2004, defeaturing is something that exists for a reason-if these articles didn't deserve their positions, they would probably not be featured right now.
• :: There is no move towards automatic defeaturing : Joel was allowing extra time in FAR, Marskell allows extra time in FARC, both work towards the same goal-saving articles when work is progressing.
• I'm going to be traveling and might not get back to this article, so unless someone comes up with a new problem, I'm OK with closing this without FARC-I don't see anything that warrants defeaturing or further review.
• Mind you if there really is a 97 % correlation, perhaps we should just set a bot on the job of proposing / approving featured articles and concentrate on defeaturing as a manual process .-- Talk 01 : 09, 9 May 2008 ( UTC)
• I remain very disappointed that minor, technical issues that could ( and in my view should ) have been addressed on the talk page, instead appear to lead to the automatic defeaturing of an excellent article . jguk 12 : 19, 11 December 2006 ( UTC)
• I can't say about all of wikipedia, but I can definitely say we will not be promoting any featured article with trivia sections, and having a trivia section is grounds for defeaturing an article ( although in almost every case they are simply folded in as prose or deleted ).
• Many of the tags appear to be based on a failure to take the whole article into context; it doesn't make sense to tag a particular sentence with when everything in that whole paragraph is corroborated by a couple of footnotes at the end of the same paragraph . ( I've removed the apparently invalid ones . ) As I said before, there has been a strong consensus built only very recently among those involved in defeaturing not to defeature an article as long as it is clear that there is ongoing work on the article . ( The main problem with FAs is not that they do not meet the FA criteria anymore, but that they don't have anyone actively interested in bringing them up to par.