This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Mike, your reference library is very cool. But, not visible enough, imho; I only just found out about it from your link at FAC talk. I'm pretty sure I've run into a handful of these over the years, and you know what would be interesting? If we could link them from a common page ( WP:List of user reference libraries?) and then link that page from WP:RX. Even better, run something like the archive page indexer that could generate one page, indexing everybody's list onto a single, global list; that would be super-handy.
Tangentially related to this, is a project I've been working on with a long-term goal of having references (that is, templatized citations to specific resources) be shareable, not only via named refs or short footnotes at a given article, but shareable across multiple articles. I've been tinkering with this idea, and I'm not ready to expose it yet at a centralized location, as I need more data and testing first, and feedback and ideas from people like you, maybe. Would you mind having a look at {{ Reflib}} and see what you think? Thanks also for your feedback at FAC and related pages. Mathglot ( talk) 02:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Mathglot ... thanks for all your work on this, as well as sorting the ArchiveN issue that has been festering for years. Re the sequence and the history, it went like this.
At FAC, the objection to "Done" tick marks came before the transclusion limits problem impacting FAC archive pages was discovered. On the template limits problem, when I was doing a month-end tally, I couldn't figure out why the total nominations listed in a file were off, until I realized the last FACs on the archive pages were dropping off, so the number of FACs promoted and archived didn't match what showed on the page. After I went through and deleted some of the tick marks, they dropped nominations re-appeared.
But before that, there was a problem with the "done" tickmarks, because they rendered the pages a) too long, and b) meaningless and jumbled for me (the only closer at the time) in terms of knowing what was actually done. For a nominator to take space on a FAC page to state that something is done isn't helpful; it's not "done" until the reviewer indicates they are satisfied. And back then, the way a reviewer indicated "done" was by striking the objection. So we were getting unhelpful and unnecessary "done" tickmarks, followed by reviewers striking, resulting in lengthy FACs and impossible-to-read jumbles. That's the background on the tickmarks.
The entirely separate, and cultural, issue leading to impossible-to-sort FACs also has several different components (and I suspect that Mike Christie and I define "regulars" on the page differently, as my list includes those who have been so alienated they won't return until the problems are addressed, and most of these problems are unknown to newer "regulars", who know nothing else but the system now on the page).
One component is that new participants, when first approaching FAC, wlll today find an over-complicated, indecipherable and at times unloadable page, and be put off. Reviews have declined; the off-puttting page doesn't help. Compare any FAC page today with, for example, a page at AFD, DYK, GAN-- any other forum-- and it becomes clearer why editors may avoid engaging. Page functioning and instructions are unclear, and the entry barrier is high. So a walled garden effect predominates, and those who have the long-standing presence or prominence in the process to attract their own reviewers are happy with the system because their articles are getting promoted, while overall the page is stalled and clogged. Current "regulars" have no reason to object to this dysfunction, because they are getting their bronze stars. So we are left with a self-perpetuating dysfunctional process, in decline. As one indication of the content areas in decline, the ( FAC stats tool, Long and short FACs, sort by supports) shows that three biomedical FACs historically had the most and fastest unopposed support (Tim Vickers and SandyGeorgia, see Tourette syndrome, DNA, Bacteria, and by the way, the top support count at Samuel Johnson). In my last medical FAC, I had to bring my own reviewers. Never mind that I spent years selflessly reviewing the most boring MilHist, ship, hurricane, pop culture, or any other kind of article possible; a MilHist regular declined to review a medical article because it was outside of their area. A medical article today can't buy a review. And yet, there was resistance when I suggested the process has become too MilHist oriented, and that once thriving areas of FA growth have gone completely missing.
Another cultural issue is the old mantra that "FAC is not peer review", has been replaced by the new culture, where FAC most clearly is functioning as peer review (to the detriment of the actual Peer review process, as "old-timers" used to go there, and they no longer do, as PR has moved to FAC). The FAC pages were simpler in the past (see my previous point) because you either Supported, Opposed, or entered limited commentary. If you had to engage the extended PR that is now happening on FAC, the convention instead was that you gave only a few examples of the deficiencies, suggested what was needed (a copyedit, better sourcing, whatever), and Opposed. Under that scheme, the process worked MUCH faster than it does today, as sub-standard FACs were moved quickly off the page (under two weeks was my goal), which allowed them to return faster and be promoted quicker than today. You can poke around in the FAC stats tool (eg, year summaries, average durations) that Mike developed (I believe partly in response to my long-standing concerns in this area), and you can see the evidence for these concerning trends. (I used to be attacked for "no evidence" for these statements I knew very well to be true, having read FAC top-to-bottom near daily for seven years-- Mike's stats show them clearly.) For ten years, we've had longer (but not necessarily better) FACs, of longer duration, with a higher promotion rate (ie, more sub-standard promotions being pulled through by brute force). "Old-timers" aren't going to engage a page where they are forced to return over and over again to address comments on sub-standard article nominations that should be archived with content re-worked via the peer review process.
An entirely separate cultural matter is the leadership role, somewhat related to institutional memory (moi). The archiveN issue has surfaced several times over the years (mostly at FAR), and needed to be addressed. I am perhaps the only institutional memory who could have answered those questions, and the discussion needed to happen at FAC (rather than on a subpage) precisely for the reasons of institutional memory (keep it in FAC archives-- I'm not getting any younger, and that institutional memory needs to be preserved). Unfortunately, that long discussion happened to coincide with several others, and 60% of my posts over four days were dealing with deferred housekeeping, including discovering that no one was watching the page archivals and important threads had even disappeared from the archive search tool. Perhaps in hindsight, we might have moved that discussion to a subpage, but there's already a problem of institutional memory, so it's just unfortunate that Mathglot's query contributed to a perfect storm of page overload. (One of the Coord roles is to keep an eye on overall page functioning, and if that is done, we wouldn't have to overwork to catch up on problems.)
And then another cultural issue is that many "old-timers" did not pick and choose which FAC to review based on their personal topic preferences; they chose based on a desire to preserve the overall status of the bronze star overall (many also active at WP:FAR, doing selfless work, rather than reward-culture seeking via new personal stars at FAC only). To best help the process overall, they engaged the entire FAC page; they/we have no interest in viewing the page via a nomination viewer, whereby they can pick one FAC to review. They/we WANT to be able to read the entire page, see trends, spot problems, decide then where their engagement is most needed.
So, all of that combines to show how the dysfunction has accumulated towards the overall decline in the FA process, which has real consequences-- what brought me back temporarily to the page. We have excellent editors and reviewers, like Vaticidalprophet, caught in this "cultural war" and completely unaware of what other-functioning of FAC looked like. Vaticidalprophet says here, that they'd likely have no FACs if we went back to more expedient archivals. That they would have more FAs, better review, and quicker FAs if the page were functioning properly is something completely unknown to newer participants, as they have no experience of the page as it was before, with more engaged reviewers, and quicker turnaround.
The number of FAs has now declined to the point that FAC can't feed the needs of TFA, so saving older stars via FAR and URFA/2020 has had to fill the gap. Re-runs at TFA were once extremely rare; now they are essential, as there aren't regularly enough FAs to feed 365 annual TFAs without them. The overall process is failing, but the "currents" are happy as they are getting their stars, and critics are shunned. Hope this helps you understand why your archiveN lengthy discussion was appreciated by me-- if no one else-- and why your work to sort the load time problem is crucial and needed. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Do you know where I can find stats on the average length of time a nomination spends at FAC over the years? And if there is anything available on the average size of nominations? If anyone is likely to know this, it's going to be you! Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Edits and comments on the blurb are welcome. I'm thinking of running this at TFA on January 7; does that work for you? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I was asked to create an infobox for the article - so I did. In my humble opinion it looked more encyclopedic with one than without. I have virtually no interest in this type of topic anyhow, so am indifferent as to whether it is reinstated or remains removed. Thanks for the edit explanation. Kieronoldham ( talk) 01:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. Following up on our previous discussion about Template:Reflib: thanks to your Reference library, I've copied the science fiction citations and imported them into the template as a new reference library, which you can view at Template:Reflib/Science fiction. This means that one can import up to 20 citations at a time into the References section of an article with a single line of template code. I'd like to announce the availability of this function to WP:WikiProject Science fiction, but since you've done all the hard work of compiling the citations, I'd like to offer you the opportunity to be the one to make the announcement. I do recall from our previous discussion that you didn't feel too comfortable with templates, so we could also co-announce it, or if you prefer, I could draft and publish the announcement myself and credit you with creation of the content. I just wanted to make sure to give you the option to be involved in any way you wish, so please lmk what your preference is. Thanks again for this great resource, which should now be even easier to use in this new format. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 10:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
|ref=none
option: I've added
this discussion to the Template talk page as an enhancement request. There are some technical issues involved which you may enjoy reading about it (or maybe it will make you gag
). There's also a slight
XY problem here, because if I'm not mistaken, what you would like is to no longer see annoying harv errors when you include certain citations; the "ref=none" is an attempted solution for that problem, is that right? I.e., if there are other solutions that suppress unwanted harv errors just as well, you'd be open to that, I presume? There is one solution that might work for you, if you want to suppress all such errors everywhere, and not just for certain citations, or certain errors. I mentioned it at the linked discussion. I see that you are using User:Ucucha's script in your
common.js page to create these warnings and error messages. That script is somewhat outdated; a more up-to-date one is at
User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, and you might consider using that one instead. It offers the opportunity to fine-tune the colors and other appearance of the generated warning and error messages (there are four of them) including turning them off individually. The point being, rather than turn warning messages on by importing the script, and then overriding that later with |ref=none
later in order to disable the warning, maybe just generate the ones you want in the first place? Trappist's script gives you more flexibility to do that than Ucucha's script. Even if that doesn't work for you, there may be other solutions, such as using {{
sfn whitelist}}, which gives you the ability to fine-tune the warning/error display citation by citation.Hi Mike: A Wikifriend just pointed me towards your reference list as an example of what we could do for a task force we're both involved with. I'm intrigued! I'm thinking about adding such a list of my own (I have a huge reference library) but am wondering how people would learn that it's available. How do people find your list? Or is it only stumbled across by accident? MeegsC ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | |||
Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from
Krampus!
|
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guallatiri/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ― Buster7 ☎
Hello, Mike Christie! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 07:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I was pointed to this post of yours regarding updates to GAN stats. The stats show that I have 17 reviews (see number 7 under albums), but I've only reviewed 16 GANs. Is there a way to fix my stats? Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I have in the database with you tagged as the reviewer -- can you tell me which of these is incorrect? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Article | # | Review date |
This Stupid World | 1 | 2023-06-03 23:30:55 |
Love or Loved Part.1 | 1 | 2023-06-24 02:54:39 |
Sybil (cat) | 1 | 2023-06-25 01:25:31 |
Outram Park MRT station | 1 | 2023-07-02 14:03:45 |
Peter III (cat) | 1 | 2023-07-06 22:10:41 |
Peter II (cat) | 1 | 2023-07-08 14:02:35 |
Nelson (cat) | 1 | 2023-07-15 13:07:34 |
Charles H. Jordan | 1 | 2023-08-04 19:18:43 |
Joanne (album) | 2 | 2023-08-04 19:50:10 |
Money Shot: The Pornhub Story | 1 | 2023-08-06 15:26:29 |
Stony Point railway line | 1 | 2023-08-09 23:12:09 |
Stony Point line | 1 | 2023-08-09 23:12:09 |
Bipartisan Cafe | 1 | 2023-08-27 22:02:08 |
Hollis v Vabu | 1 | 2023-08-28 02:56:00 |
Loosey LaDuca | 1 | 2023-09-24 14:03:44 |
The Redbury New York | 1 | 2023-10-06 18:17:02 |
Cookie | 1 | 2023-11-24 20:41:45 |
Let's All Go to the Lobby | 2 | 2024-01-07 17:51:48 |
I'm glad to see it was successful! I hope the recovery process is as easy as it possibly can be. Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike, happy new year. I'm considering taking " The Day Before the Revolution" to FAC; despite my initial difficult in finding sources, it has filled out quite well, and is at a point where more material would really need to be new before I'd want to add it. Would you be willing to take a look beforehand? If you have the time, I'd particularly appreciate feedback on the organization of the themes and reception. Best, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike, just wanted to say a massive thank you for the priceless photos of Cyprus you have been uploading from your family collection. I haven’t quite seen the like of some of them (colour photographs, even!) in Cypriot sources. File:Turkish rally Nicosia 1950s.jpg is especially fascinating to me as someone whose grandfather was there on the day. I can help pinpoint when this was taken, and can provide exact coordinates too. Going by the description, it would be after the Ford garage was set on fire. That was on 27 January 1958 ( as per). The clothes confirm this is winter, and there is a large number of students in the photo. This can then only have been taken on 28 January 1958, the final day of the Turkish Cypriot protests of 27-28 January 1958, and it is just inside the Kyrenia Gate. Truly one of the best photos I have seen of this foundational event. I’ll share with some fellow Cypriots. Many many thanks! GGT ( talk) 23:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I remembered that you were one of the experienced FAC reviewers back when you did a GA review for me last year. I'm just wondering if you could have a look at my first FAC nomination if you have the time. It's my first, but it's co-nominated with someone who has experience with the FAC process. If you don't have the time or interest, no worries. -- Zoo Blazer 01:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Evening Mike, how are things going? Argosy (magazine) has been scheduled for March and I wondered if you fancied having a crack at the blurb? Cheers. Seeing the comment above, if not, do say so, and I'll have a thumb-fingered attempt. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you and all who helped today for Daisy Bacon, about "the editor of Love Story Magazine for most of that magazine's life. (This is new territory for me, as I've never before nominated a biography of anyone born in the last 1,000 years.) Love Story was the most successful pulp of them all, reaching perhaps 600,000 readers, more than any of the western, detective, horror, or science fiction magazines. I found out about Bacon when researching Doc Savage and The Shadow, since she edited them for a few issues right at the end of their run."!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible - Best wishes for your recovery! Perhaps music helps? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have recently reviewed this nomination Talk:James New York – NoMad and when I passed it, I may not have directed it to the right spot. It is a hotel building in Manhattan and I listed it under architecture as a building. If this is an issue, can you let me know if you can help? Bruxton ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!— Wehwalt ( talk) 03:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oriental Stories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Owen.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Keith Vining has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unnotable novelist
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Jaguarnik (
talk) 21:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Mike Christie, you requested a rewording for the Football section description at
WT:GAN, and the following was provided back on February 2 (and since archived): This includes association football (soccer), Australian rules football, Gaelic football, gridiron football (including American football, arena football, and Canadian football), international rules football, rugby league, rugby union, and historical forms of football.
Do you think you can make the update soon? What's there now is insufficiently comprehensive to describe what belongs in the Football subcategory. Many thanks.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 03:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Congratulations to a new FA! - Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I noticed that this GAR is showing up as a reassessment under the "Other Sports" subtopic. Shouldn't it be under the "Football" subtopic? "Australian rules football" is one of the areas specifically listed under Football on the GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Australian rules football has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteriarather than
Australian rules football has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. I don't think that template knows of football as a parameter. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I've recently nominated Cross-site leaks for FA. Would you be interested in taking a look and providing some comments/doing a review? The article is a fair bit technical, and it would be great for somebody with some programming background to take a look at it :) Sohom ( talk) 20:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Would it be relatively straight forward to add the nominators names to individual GAN pages via ChristieBot in the future? So at Talk:Ernest Fanelli/GA1 it said both Reviewer: Aza24 & Nominator: Wretchskull.
Has this ever been proposed before to your knowledge? Seems rather logical to include—I've frequently had to do many extra clicks to figure out the nominators of old GANs, and particularly when multiple people are commenting on a page, it can get confusing. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike, been away for a bit so I don't remember what exactly is happening. Is there a reason your edit here doesn't work? CMD ( talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey Mike, if you have time, could you have a look at my FAC nom? It already has multiple supports, but because it is my first nomination, Gog said on his talk page that he felt it needed more reviews, including possibly from experienced reviewers. -- Zoo Blazer 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for being the guy that keeps GAN running smoothly. I really appreciate all the hard work you do on the tech side. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
Bless you MC. Well deserved. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't figure out the technology anymore to find a comment and thank you on it. The times on the page, no longer match the times on the history and I just cannot figure it out. I appreciate very much that you heard me. That doesn't often happen in WP, so I sincerely thank you. SusunW ( talk) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander J. Clements (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I've been checking the WP:GAN page around midnight in order to determine the total nominations and total needing reviews for the GAN backlog drive, and have noticed some odd behavior.
One example, tonight, had Felipe VI taken for review at 23:53, 31 March 2024, and the failure posted at both review page and talk page at 23:56, three minutes later. ChristieBot transcludes the review on the talk page at 00:03, 1 April 2024, adds the nominator information to the review page, also at 00:03, posts the review failure to the nominator's talk page at 00:03, updates the GA bot/stats at 00:05, but does not update the GAN page to remove Felipe VI from the list of nominated articles. It also didn't update on the run twenty minutes later, though this was an odd one since although the Yakub I of Germiyan had passed, it didn't pass until 00:21, presumably after ChristieBot started its run at 00:20, which may be why only the article was given the GA icon and the nominator was notified of passage. The next promotion, DiDa Ritz, occurred at 00:22, and processed through at 00:41, again only doing the article icon and the nominator talk page notice. I had expected this to end once a review or other non-pass/fail occurred, but that wasn't the case: the next set of changes, a fail of Dedebit Elementary School airstrike at 01:21, and the beginning of a review for Talk:Worlds (Porter Robinson album) at 01:23 (page was created at 01:15), didn't cause an edit to the main WP:GAN page.
The other one I had previously noticed is Phoenix (1980 video game), which was passed at 01:54, 31 March 2024 (this one had been under review since 28 March 2024, so a different situation from Felipe VI). At 02:00, the GA icon was added to the article, and at 02:01, the nominator was informed of passage, yet similarly to the others no update was made to WP:GAN. It was slipped into the next revision of the page at 02:26.
I thought you might want to know; it looks like the articles aren't always being removed from the GAN page after a GA or FailedGA is posted to the article talk page, or that every review gets there. Thanks for all the work you do to keep GAN humming along. I hope these are easy to track down. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dearest Wikipedian, I don't know that except when you told me on the bit's talk page. I just believe it will be easier now since I have made some there.
I renamed from User:Otuọcha to User:SafariScribe and will want my GA statistics be taken to my present name. Thanks! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Mike Christie! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
Hi Mike Christie, apologies for this (I hope you don't mind this) but could you possibly review this this article about the Aston Martin Rapide for Good Article status? Best, 750h+ | Talk 12:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Mike Christie. I saw from the archive of the Talk page for this article that last year you were involved in helping catalyse its development. On the active Talk page, I've been having a go at redrafting the current lead. Grateful for your thoughts on both the content and how to move forward towards a consensus. Thank you. — Protalina ( talk) 20:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike. Both Munsey's Magazine and The Spider (magazine) are up for TFA in June. Do you fancy having a crack at draft blurbs? Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bright Idea Award | |
By the authority vested in me by myself I present you with this award in recognition of your numerous bright ideas. This award must have been invented just for you. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
Hey Mike, can I get a quick opinion from you? I wrote Blackrocks Brewery awhile back and fixed it up/updated it over the last few days. Does it have any FA potential? I've only written warship FAs previously, so I'm not sure if this is up to the standards there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Mike, your reference library is very cool. But, not visible enough, imho; I only just found out about it from your link at FAC talk. I'm pretty sure I've run into a handful of these over the years, and you know what would be interesting? If we could link them from a common page ( WP:List of user reference libraries?) and then link that page from WP:RX. Even better, run something like the archive page indexer that could generate one page, indexing everybody's list onto a single, global list; that would be super-handy.
Tangentially related to this, is a project I've been working on with a long-term goal of having references (that is, templatized citations to specific resources) be shareable, not only via named refs or short footnotes at a given article, but shareable across multiple articles. I've been tinkering with this idea, and I'm not ready to expose it yet at a centralized location, as I need more data and testing first, and feedback and ideas from people like you, maybe. Would you mind having a look at {{ Reflib}} and see what you think? Thanks also for your feedback at FAC and related pages. Mathglot ( talk) 02:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Mathglot ... thanks for all your work on this, as well as sorting the ArchiveN issue that has been festering for years. Re the sequence and the history, it went like this.
At FAC, the objection to "Done" tick marks came before the transclusion limits problem impacting FAC archive pages was discovered. On the template limits problem, when I was doing a month-end tally, I couldn't figure out why the total nominations listed in a file were off, until I realized the last FACs on the archive pages were dropping off, so the number of FACs promoted and archived didn't match what showed on the page. After I went through and deleted some of the tick marks, they dropped nominations re-appeared.
But before that, there was a problem with the "done" tickmarks, because they rendered the pages a) too long, and b) meaningless and jumbled for me (the only closer at the time) in terms of knowing what was actually done. For a nominator to take space on a FAC page to state that something is done isn't helpful; it's not "done" until the reviewer indicates they are satisfied. And back then, the way a reviewer indicated "done" was by striking the objection. So we were getting unhelpful and unnecessary "done" tickmarks, followed by reviewers striking, resulting in lengthy FACs and impossible-to-read jumbles. That's the background on the tickmarks.
The entirely separate, and cultural, issue leading to impossible-to-sort FACs also has several different components (and I suspect that Mike Christie and I define "regulars" on the page differently, as my list includes those who have been so alienated they won't return until the problems are addressed, and most of these problems are unknown to newer "regulars", who know nothing else but the system now on the page).
One component is that new participants, when first approaching FAC, wlll today find an over-complicated, indecipherable and at times unloadable page, and be put off. Reviews have declined; the off-puttting page doesn't help. Compare any FAC page today with, for example, a page at AFD, DYK, GAN-- any other forum-- and it becomes clearer why editors may avoid engaging. Page functioning and instructions are unclear, and the entry barrier is high. So a walled garden effect predominates, and those who have the long-standing presence or prominence in the process to attract their own reviewers are happy with the system because their articles are getting promoted, while overall the page is stalled and clogged. Current "regulars" have no reason to object to this dysfunction, because they are getting their bronze stars. So we are left with a self-perpetuating dysfunctional process, in decline. As one indication of the content areas in decline, the ( FAC stats tool, Long and short FACs, sort by supports) shows that three biomedical FACs historically had the most and fastest unopposed support (Tim Vickers and SandyGeorgia, see Tourette syndrome, DNA, Bacteria, and by the way, the top support count at Samuel Johnson). In my last medical FAC, I had to bring my own reviewers. Never mind that I spent years selflessly reviewing the most boring MilHist, ship, hurricane, pop culture, or any other kind of article possible; a MilHist regular declined to review a medical article because it was outside of their area. A medical article today can't buy a review. And yet, there was resistance when I suggested the process has become too MilHist oriented, and that once thriving areas of FA growth have gone completely missing.
Another cultural issue is the old mantra that "FAC is not peer review", has been replaced by the new culture, where FAC most clearly is functioning as peer review (to the detriment of the actual Peer review process, as "old-timers" used to go there, and they no longer do, as PR has moved to FAC). The FAC pages were simpler in the past (see my previous point) because you either Supported, Opposed, or entered limited commentary. If you had to engage the extended PR that is now happening on FAC, the convention instead was that you gave only a few examples of the deficiencies, suggested what was needed (a copyedit, better sourcing, whatever), and Opposed. Under that scheme, the process worked MUCH faster than it does today, as sub-standard FACs were moved quickly off the page (under two weeks was my goal), which allowed them to return faster and be promoted quicker than today. You can poke around in the FAC stats tool (eg, year summaries, average durations) that Mike developed (I believe partly in response to my long-standing concerns in this area), and you can see the evidence for these concerning trends. (I used to be attacked for "no evidence" for these statements I knew very well to be true, having read FAC top-to-bottom near daily for seven years-- Mike's stats show them clearly.) For ten years, we've had longer (but not necessarily better) FACs, of longer duration, with a higher promotion rate (ie, more sub-standard promotions being pulled through by brute force). "Old-timers" aren't going to engage a page where they are forced to return over and over again to address comments on sub-standard article nominations that should be archived with content re-worked via the peer review process.
An entirely separate cultural matter is the leadership role, somewhat related to institutional memory (moi). The archiveN issue has surfaced several times over the years (mostly at FAR), and needed to be addressed. I am perhaps the only institutional memory who could have answered those questions, and the discussion needed to happen at FAC (rather than on a subpage) precisely for the reasons of institutional memory (keep it in FAC archives-- I'm not getting any younger, and that institutional memory needs to be preserved). Unfortunately, that long discussion happened to coincide with several others, and 60% of my posts over four days were dealing with deferred housekeeping, including discovering that no one was watching the page archivals and important threads had even disappeared from the archive search tool. Perhaps in hindsight, we might have moved that discussion to a subpage, but there's already a problem of institutional memory, so it's just unfortunate that Mathglot's query contributed to a perfect storm of page overload. (One of the Coord roles is to keep an eye on overall page functioning, and if that is done, we wouldn't have to overwork to catch up on problems.)
And then another cultural issue is that many "old-timers" did not pick and choose which FAC to review based on their personal topic preferences; they chose based on a desire to preserve the overall status of the bronze star overall (many also active at WP:FAR, doing selfless work, rather than reward-culture seeking via new personal stars at FAC only). To best help the process overall, they engaged the entire FAC page; they/we have no interest in viewing the page via a nomination viewer, whereby they can pick one FAC to review. They/we WANT to be able to read the entire page, see trends, spot problems, decide then where their engagement is most needed.
So, all of that combines to show how the dysfunction has accumulated towards the overall decline in the FA process, which has real consequences-- what brought me back temporarily to the page. We have excellent editors and reviewers, like Vaticidalprophet, caught in this "cultural war" and completely unaware of what other-functioning of FAC looked like. Vaticidalprophet says here, that they'd likely have no FACs if we went back to more expedient archivals. That they would have more FAs, better review, and quicker FAs if the page were functioning properly is something completely unknown to newer participants, as they have no experience of the page as it was before, with more engaged reviewers, and quicker turnaround.
The number of FAs has now declined to the point that FAC can't feed the needs of TFA, so saving older stars via FAR and URFA/2020 has had to fill the gap. Re-runs at TFA were once extremely rare; now they are essential, as there aren't regularly enough FAs to feed 365 annual TFAs without them. The overall process is failing, but the "currents" are happy as they are getting their stars, and critics are shunned. Hope this helps you understand why your archiveN lengthy discussion was appreciated by me-- if no one else-- and why your work to sort the load time problem is crucial and needed. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Do you know where I can find stats on the average length of time a nomination spends at FAC over the years? And if there is anything available on the average size of nominations? If anyone is likely to know this, it's going to be you! Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Edits and comments on the blurb are welcome. I'm thinking of running this at TFA on January 7; does that work for you? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I was asked to create an infobox for the article - so I did. In my humble opinion it looked more encyclopedic with one than without. I have virtually no interest in this type of topic anyhow, so am indifferent as to whether it is reinstated or remains removed. Thanks for the edit explanation. Kieronoldham ( talk) 01:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. Following up on our previous discussion about Template:Reflib: thanks to your Reference library, I've copied the science fiction citations and imported them into the template as a new reference library, which you can view at Template:Reflib/Science fiction. This means that one can import up to 20 citations at a time into the References section of an article with a single line of template code. I'd like to announce the availability of this function to WP:WikiProject Science fiction, but since you've done all the hard work of compiling the citations, I'd like to offer you the opportunity to be the one to make the announcement. I do recall from our previous discussion that you didn't feel too comfortable with templates, so we could also co-announce it, or if you prefer, I could draft and publish the announcement myself and credit you with creation of the content. I just wanted to make sure to give you the option to be involved in any way you wish, so please lmk what your preference is. Thanks again for this great resource, which should now be even easier to use in this new format. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 10:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
|ref=none
option: I've added
this discussion to the Template talk page as an enhancement request. There are some technical issues involved which you may enjoy reading about it (or maybe it will make you gag
). There's also a slight
XY problem here, because if I'm not mistaken, what you would like is to no longer see annoying harv errors when you include certain citations; the "ref=none" is an attempted solution for that problem, is that right? I.e., if there are other solutions that suppress unwanted harv errors just as well, you'd be open to that, I presume? There is one solution that might work for you, if you want to suppress all such errors everywhere, and not just for certain citations, or certain errors. I mentioned it at the linked discussion. I see that you are using User:Ucucha's script in your
common.js page to create these warnings and error messages. That script is somewhat outdated; a more up-to-date one is at
User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, and you might consider using that one instead. It offers the opportunity to fine-tune the colors and other appearance of the generated warning and error messages (there are four of them) including turning them off individually. The point being, rather than turn warning messages on by importing the script, and then overriding that later with |ref=none
later in order to disable the warning, maybe just generate the ones you want in the first place? Trappist's script gives you more flexibility to do that than Ucucha's script. Even if that doesn't work for you, there may be other solutions, such as using {{
sfn whitelist}}, which gives you the ability to fine-tune the warning/error display citation by citation.Hi Mike: A Wikifriend just pointed me towards your reference list as an example of what we could do for a task force we're both involved with. I'm intrigued! I'm thinking about adding such a list of my own (I have a huge reference library) but am wondering how people would learn that it's available. How do people find your list? Or is it only stumbled across by accident? MeegsC ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | |||
Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from
Krampus!
|
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guallatiri/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ― Buster7 ☎
Hello, Mike Christie! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 07:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I was pointed to this post of yours regarding updates to GAN stats. The stats show that I have 17 reviews (see number 7 under albums), but I've only reviewed 16 GANs. Is there a way to fix my stats? Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I have in the database with you tagged as the reviewer -- can you tell me which of these is incorrect? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Article | # | Review date |
This Stupid World | 1 | 2023-06-03 23:30:55 |
Love or Loved Part.1 | 1 | 2023-06-24 02:54:39 |
Sybil (cat) | 1 | 2023-06-25 01:25:31 |
Outram Park MRT station | 1 | 2023-07-02 14:03:45 |
Peter III (cat) | 1 | 2023-07-06 22:10:41 |
Peter II (cat) | 1 | 2023-07-08 14:02:35 |
Nelson (cat) | 1 | 2023-07-15 13:07:34 |
Charles H. Jordan | 1 | 2023-08-04 19:18:43 |
Joanne (album) | 2 | 2023-08-04 19:50:10 |
Money Shot: The Pornhub Story | 1 | 2023-08-06 15:26:29 |
Stony Point railway line | 1 | 2023-08-09 23:12:09 |
Stony Point line | 1 | 2023-08-09 23:12:09 |
Bipartisan Cafe | 1 | 2023-08-27 22:02:08 |
Hollis v Vabu | 1 | 2023-08-28 02:56:00 |
Loosey LaDuca | 1 | 2023-09-24 14:03:44 |
The Redbury New York | 1 | 2023-10-06 18:17:02 |
Cookie | 1 | 2023-11-24 20:41:45 |
Let's All Go to the Lobby | 2 | 2024-01-07 17:51:48 |
I'm glad to see it was successful! I hope the recovery process is as easy as it possibly can be. Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike, happy new year. I'm considering taking " The Day Before the Revolution" to FAC; despite my initial difficult in finding sources, it has filled out quite well, and is at a point where more material would really need to be new before I'd want to add it. Would you be willing to take a look beforehand? If you have the time, I'd particularly appreciate feedback on the organization of the themes and reception. Best, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike, just wanted to say a massive thank you for the priceless photos of Cyprus you have been uploading from your family collection. I haven’t quite seen the like of some of them (colour photographs, even!) in Cypriot sources. File:Turkish rally Nicosia 1950s.jpg is especially fascinating to me as someone whose grandfather was there on the day. I can help pinpoint when this was taken, and can provide exact coordinates too. Going by the description, it would be after the Ford garage was set on fire. That was on 27 January 1958 ( as per). The clothes confirm this is winter, and there is a large number of students in the photo. This can then only have been taken on 28 January 1958, the final day of the Turkish Cypriot protests of 27-28 January 1958, and it is just inside the Kyrenia Gate. Truly one of the best photos I have seen of this foundational event. I’ll share with some fellow Cypriots. Many many thanks! GGT ( talk) 23:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I remembered that you were one of the experienced FAC reviewers back when you did a GA review for me last year. I'm just wondering if you could have a look at my first FAC nomination if you have the time. It's my first, but it's co-nominated with someone who has experience with the FAC process. If you don't have the time or interest, no worries. -- Zoo Blazer 01:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Evening Mike, how are things going? Argosy (magazine) has been scheduled for March and I wondered if you fancied having a crack at the blurb? Cheers. Seeing the comment above, if not, do say so, and I'll have a thumb-fingered attempt. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you and all who helped today for Daisy Bacon, about "the editor of Love Story Magazine for most of that magazine's life. (This is new territory for me, as I've never before nominated a biography of anyone born in the last 1,000 years.) Love Story was the most successful pulp of them all, reaching perhaps 600,000 readers, more than any of the western, detective, horror, or science fiction magazines. I found out about Bacon when researching Doc Savage and The Shadow, since she edited them for a few issues right at the end of their run."!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible - Best wishes for your recovery! Perhaps music helps? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have recently reviewed this nomination Talk:James New York – NoMad and when I passed it, I may not have directed it to the right spot. It is a hotel building in Manhattan and I listed it under architecture as a building. If this is an issue, can you let me know if you can help? Bruxton ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!— Wehwalt ( talk) 03:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oriental Stories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Owen.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Keith Vining has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unnotable novelist
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Jaguarnik (
talk) 21:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Mike Christie, you requested a rewording for the Football section description at
WT:GAN, and the following was provided back on February 2 (and since archived): This includes association football (soccer), Australian rules football, Gaelic football, gridiron football (including American football, arena football, and Canadian football), international rules football, rugby league, rugby union, and historical forms of football.
Do you think you can make the update soon? What's there now is insufficiently comprehensive to describe what belongs in the Football subcategory. Many thanks.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 03:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Congratulations to a new FA! - Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I noticed that this GAR is showing up as a reassessment under the "Other Sports" subtopic. Shouldn't it be under the "Football" subtopic? "Australian rules football" is one of the areas specifically listed under Football on the GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Australian rules football has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteriarather than
Australian rules football has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. I don't think that template knows of football as a parameter. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I've recently nominated Cross-site leaks for FA. Would you be interested in taking a look and providing some comments/doing a review? The article is a fair bit technical, and it would be great for somebody with some programming background to take a look at it :) Sohom ( talk) 20:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Would it be relatively straight forward to add the nominators names to individual GAN pages via ChristieBot in the future? So at Talk:Ernest Fanelli/GA1 it said both Reviewer: Aza24 & Nominator: Wretchskull.
Has this ever been proposed before to your knowledge? Seems rather logical to include—I've frequently had to do many extra clicks to figure out the nominators of old GANs, and particularly when multiple people are commenting on a page, it can get confusing. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike, been away for a bit so I don't remember what exactly is happening. Is there a reason your edit here doesn't work? CMD ( talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey Mike, if you have time, could you have a look at my FAC nom? It already has multiple supports, but because it is my first nomination, Gog said on his talk page that he felt it needed more reviews, including possibly from experienced reviewers. -- Zoo Blazer 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for being the guy that keeps GAN running smoothly. I really appreciate all the hard work you do on the tech side. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
Bless you MC. Well deserved. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't figure out the technology anymore to find a comment and thank you on it. The times on the page, no longer match the times on the history and I just cannot figure it out. I appreciate very much that you heard me. That doesn't often happen in WP, so I sincerely thank you. SusunW ( talk) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander J. Clements (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I've been checking the WP:GAN page around midnight in order to determine the total nominations and total needing reviews for the GAN backlog drive, and have noticed some odd behavior.
One example, tonight, had Felipe VI taken for review at 23:53, 31 March 2024, and the failure posted at both review page and talk page at 23:56, three minutes later. ChristieBot transcludes the review on the talk page at 00:03, 1 April 2024, adds the nominator information to the review page, also at 00:03, posts the review failure to the nominator's talk page at 00:03, updates the GA bot/stats at 00:05, but does not update the GAN page to remove Felipe VI from the list of nominated articles. It also didn't update on the run twenty minutes later, though this was an odd one since although the Yakub I of Germiyan had passed, it didn't pass until 00:21, presumably after ChristieBot started its run at 00:20, which may be why only the article was given the GA icon and the nominator was notified of passage. The next promotion, DiDa Ritz, occurred at 00:22, and processed through at 00:41, again only doing the article icon and the nominator talk page notice. I had expected this to end once a review or other non-pass/fail occurred, but that wasn't the case: the next set of changes, a fail of Dedebit Elementary School airstrike at 01:21, and the beginning of a review for Talk:Worlds (Porter Robinson album) at 01:23 (page was created at 01:15), didn't cause an edit to the main WP:GAN page.
The other one I had previously noticed is Phoenix (1980 video game), which was passed at 01:54, 31 March 2024 (this one had been under review since 28 March 2024, so a different situation from Felipe VI). At 02:00, the GA icon was added to the article, and at 02:01, the nominator was informed of passage, yet similarly to the others no update was made to WP:GAN. It was slipped into the next revision of the page at 02:26.
I thought you might want to know; it looks like the articles aren't always being removed from the GAN page after a GA or FailedGA is posted to the article talk page, or that every review gets there. Thanks for all the work you do to keep GAN humming along. I hope these are easy to track down. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dearest Wikipedian, I don't know that except when you told me on the bit's talk page. I just believe it will be easier now since I have made some there.
I renamed from User:Otuọcha to User:SafariScribe and will want my GA statistics be taken to my present name. Thanks! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Mike Christie! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
Hi Mike Christie, apologies for this (I hope you don't mind this) but could you possibly review this this article about the Aston Martin Rapide for Good Article status? Best, 750h+ | Talk 12:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Mike Christie. I saw from the archive of the Talk page for this article that last year you were involved in helping catalyse its development. On the active Talk page, I've been having a go at redrafting the current lead. Grateful for your thoughts on both the content and how to move forward towards a consensus. Thank you. — Protalina ( talk) 20:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike. Both Munsey's Magazine and The Spider (magazine) are up for TFA in June. Do you fancy having a crack at draft blurbs? Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bright Idea Award | |
By the authority vested in me by myself I present you with this award in recognition of your numerous bright ideas. This award must have been invented just for you. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
Hey Mike, can I get a quick opinion from you? I wrote Blackrocks Brewery awhile back and fixed it up/updated it over the last few days. Does it have any FA potential? I've only written warship FAs previously, so I'm not sure if this is up to the standards there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)