Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Pages, tools and templates for |
Featured articles |
---|
![]() |
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 (April Fools 2005)
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Archives by topic: |
Image/source check requests
[edit]FAC mentoring: first-time nominators
[edit]A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
FAC source reviews
[edit]For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.
Tool for facilitating source spot-checks
[edit]Doing spot-checks in a pain in the posterior for so many reasons. Being a software guy, I'm working on a tool to at least simplify some of it. I've got a POC intermittently running at https://wikirefs.toolforge.org. My initial goal is to be able to tell it something like "pick a random N (or N percent) of the statements in the article and show them to me along with the references that support each one". I'm reasonably close to that now. A stretch goal would be to make this more like a code review tool where you can enter comments and the system will keep track of progress, but that's way, way, more complicated and will probably never happen.
For those not familar with with software POCs, that's code for "This is fresh out of the oven, so expect things to break all over the place. It's just intended to give you an idea of where things are going". Feedback is appreciated. You can drop it here, or on my talk page, or if you have a github account, feel free to file a bug report. RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for developing this! My opinion is that it's better to spot-check based on the text, rather than randomly. For instance, a common mistake people make is overgeneralisation / extrapolating from primary sourcing. Spot checking sentences that seem at risk from this gives a higher chance of finding errors. Similarly, highly technical sentences are another source of potential error, as it's easy to misunderstand a difficult source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree about starting from the text, which is one of the reasons I dove into this. I think what most people do is to sample some references and then work backwards to find the text they support. Starting from the text and then working forward seems to make more sense to me. The long term plan is to offer both options and let the reviewer pick which they want. RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Roy. I agree doing source-integrity/verification reviews are a time-consuming process, so it's nice to have some tool assistance. It seems like it'll be easiest to help out with web citations. I ran it on iMac G4 and it can't handle {{sfn}} well because the links can't be followed anywhere (maybe if it prints a list of references at the bottom?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I've added sfn support to my to-do list. RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a really cool idea. As David notes, it doesn't yet play well with SFNs, but I can see it being really useful for articles that use "normal" citation methods. In an ideal world, it would be able to "read" the SFN and extract the reference (like the Wikipedia software does?), but I'm sure that's far more complicated than it sounds. Can I suggest some sort of feedback once you click the "Do it!" button to confirm that the wheels are turning: it takes a little while on some pages to do anything for me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is amazing and is basically what I have been doing manually with a PRNG -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Sub-referencing
[edit]Just a heads up that sub-referencing is apparently making some progress towards implementation. It sounds like it's intended to be a replacement for {{rp}}. RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've read and reread that page several times now, and I'm still unsure what the problem is/was or how/why it's been solved.I trust the WMF sufficiently to know they would not 100% fuck something right up while chasing anything even mildly chimaeric. SerialNumber54129 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I dunno if that second sentence is serious, and I can't decipher what they're up to either, but if they're up to what I hope they are, I can see a use for it. And I'm on board for anything that gets rid of those horrid {{rp}}s. If I'm citing a very long source in Spanish, and need to provide quotes and translations per WP:NONENG, then if I have to stick, say, three or four quoted sentences and translations into one quote= parameter on a cite news template, I end up with a gynormous unreadable citation. If I can append the one sentence that applies to the one instance being cited (as in 1.1 and 1.2 and so on in their sample for each little bit that needs to be translated), it would be very useful. As an example, to see how I worked around a mess like that, scroll down here to Non-english news articles, which is what I did to get that mess of translations of individual sentences out of the way. If the WMF is fixing that, good -- I'm not sure what they are saying they are doing though. Maybe WhatamIdoing can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's one of WMDE's projects, not the WMF. I think Johanna Strodt (WMDE) follows it.
- The general idea is to replace the current
<ref name="Miller" />{{rp=2}}
with a built-in wikitext code for the page number:<ref name="Miller" page="page 2"/>
. - Obviously – or it should be obvious, but I remember an editor struggling with this concept when it was first discussed some years ago – if you don't want to use it in a given article, then you just don't use it. (Simple, right? But that doesn't stop people from going on about "the WMF [who isn't doing this] cramming things down our throats that nobody ever asked for" [except in multiple rounds of the Community Wishlist]) That said, I believe that @SMcCandlish mentioned once years ago that, if it were ever implemented, and after a suitable delay to get used to the new system, he would eventually like to send {{rp}} off for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I attended a session on it at Wikimania 2024. It is just a proposal. I personally prefer our {{sfn}} form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing and Hawkeye7: There's another potential/draft/alpha approach to something this, buried somewhere (I think perhaps at the MediaWikia site). But we've been wating years for it, to no avail. See my separate post below about my (presently stalled) steps toward an interim solution. I put it on my own plate, since I'm actually the one to blame for
{{Rp}}
's existence. Way back in the day, we did not have a simple means like{{sfnp}}
,{{harvp}}
(and their variants) to cite the same source a whole bunch of times without either a whole lot of citation-detail repetition, or single citations with a useless number of pages cited all at once. I introduced this template to solve the single problem of "I need to cite this source 100+ times in the same long article" (specifically a glossary), and did not expect it to catch on in regular usage. But it has turned into a @#$*ing cancer, and needs to be excised. "The best of plans mislaid", AKA "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". We have such better tools now, already, even if neither of the "build this into the<ref>
tag" ideas ever pans out. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing and Hawkeye7: There's another potential/draft/alpha approach to something this, buried somewhere (I think perhaps at the MediaWikia site). But we've been wating years for it, to no avail. See my separate post below about my (presently stalled) steps toward an interim solution. I put it on my own plate, since I'm actually the one to blame for
- I attended a session on it at Wikimania 2024. It is just a proposal. I personally prefer our {{sfn}} form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but {{rp}} currently supports what you seem to be asking for—you can cite the same source different times and add different
|quote=
text in different instances of {{rp}}. TompaDompa (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- I think rp sticks the page numbers next to the superscripted ref number in the body of the article, rather than in the footnote, creating clutter within the article, so I don't use it. Hate it, hope it is submitted for deletion if the proposal goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa, the use of
|quote=
in{{rp}}
violates MOS:NOHOVER, so it should certainly not be used anywhere near FA. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- Genuine question: is MOS:NOHOVER meant to apply to references (rather than only article content)? TompaDompa (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean... I think the quote "do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information" in a broader policy on accessibility makes clear that it would apply to references. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes it entirely clear, which is why I asked. For one thing, a straightforward reading of that quote in isolation would seem to preclude using e.g. tables that are collapsed by default, which I'm guessing is not the intention (or is it)? For another thing, it's in the "Text" section (I'm guessing that's text in the sense of "the text on the page" as opposed to e.g. images, not "the text of the article" as opposed to e.g. headers and references, then?). Furthermore, as I understand it the reason for this is screen readers, and I don't really have a firm grasp on how screen readers treat references (or other things, for that matter), so I'm not sure how different the use of the {{rp}} template is in this instance compared to, say, a quote in a reference template that is in turn referred to by a {{sfn}} template. And finally, it's not obvious to me that quotes in references are "information" in the sense that is meant here (they are in my experience typically there for verification purposes, not really for the benefit of readers of the article text). TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have occasionally made use of the
|quote=
in{{rp}}
before (though have stripped it out for FAC), primarily out of inexperience with other templates. I agree with you in that my understanding has always been that|quote=
isn't intended to provide information for a general reader—that information is, of course, in the sentence that the citation is appended to. The quote is to make corroboration easier (via ctrl-f, etc.) than just providing a bare page number. — Penitentes (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have occasionally made use of the
- I don't think it makes it entirely clear, which is why I asked. For one thing, a straightforward reading of that quote in isolation would seem to preclude using e.g. tables that are collapsed by default, which I'm guessing is not the intention (or is it)? For another thing, it's in the "Text" section (I'm guessing that's text in the sense of "the text on the page" as opposed to e.g. images, not "the text of the article" as opposed to e.g. headers and references, then?). Furthermore, as I understand it the reason for this is screen readers, and I don't really have a firm grasp on how screen readers treat references (or other things, for that matter), so I'm not sure how different the use of the {{rp}} template is in this instance compared to, say, a quote in a reference template that is in turn referred to by a {{sfn}} template. And finally, it's not obvious to me that quotes in references are "information" in the sense that is meant here (they are in my experience typically there for verification purposes, not really for the benefit of readers of the article text). TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean... I think the quote "do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information" in a broader policy on accessibility makes clear that it would apply to references. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Genuine question: is MOS:NOHOVER meant to apply to references (rather than only article content)? TompaDompa (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Awww... I've always had a quiet affection for {{rp}}. Cremastra (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- SN, here's another sample of what I think they're up to. I wrote Tourette syndrome before sfn templates, and I hate rp templates. So over a decade ago, that forced me to manually writing short footnotes to indicate page numbers from book sources. Later, when I learned the sfnp template, I switched over the books only, while the rest of the sources use cite templates. Search the page for "Sukhodolsky" as an example; I think under the new system, I could just use my normal cite book for Sukhodolsky, and then each of the pages cited would be grouped together under the main Sukhodolsky citation, making it easier to see how often and where I use that book source. And I wouldn't even need the separate listing of book sources in the references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I dunno if that second sentence is serious, and I can't decipher what they're up to either, but if they're up to what I hope they are, I can see a use for it. And I'm on board for anything that gets rid of those horrid {{rp}}s. If I'm citing a very long source in Spanish, and need to provide quotes and translations per WP:NONENG, then if I have to stick, say, three or four quoted sentences and translations into one quote= parameter on a cite news template, I end up with a gynormous unreadable citation. If I can append the one sentence that applies to the one instance being cited (as in 1.1 and 1.2 and so on in their sample for each little bit that needs to be translated), it would be very useful. As an example, to see how I worked around a mess like that, scroll down here to Non-english news articles, which is what I did to get that mess of translations of individual sentences out of the way. If the WMF is fixing that, good -- I'm not sure what they are saying they are doing though. Maybe WhatamIdoing can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, it will essentially be a new footnoting style, see the mockups in "How it works". I'm not convinced it is superior to
{{sfn}}
and similar templates popular on the English Wikipedia, but it should be great for places like German Wikipedia that typically do not use citation templates. If Visual Editor offers it, we will see it used quite a bit. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the ping and the discussion. I'm replying below the thread, hope that's okay.
- Yes, sub-referencing is a project by Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team. And as WhatamIdoing already pointed out, it has also been wished for internationally quite a lot over the years.
- Some reasons why sub-referencing was requested have already been described in this thread. More can be found at "The problem we are solving".
- Yes, the feature will be optional. You won't have to use it, but you will most likely encounter it in articles.
- How the feature works specifically is laid out in the section "How it works" on our project page. It's still a work in progress for the Visual Editor part. I would really appreciate any pointers on what’s unclear or missing.
- Please note that the wikitext syntax is different from the example brought up in this conversation; the page numbers will go in between the ref tags. Here's why.
- We're planning to announce our plans for this feature broadly on all wikis this week.
- To make sure we build the right things, everyone, regardless of experience level, is invited to test the feature in its current state.
Have a good start into the new week, -- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is exactly what I have been waiting for, and will be much easier to use than the sfn templates. However, I wonder why this cannot be even simpler; e.g., why not just <ref name="Miller" page="page 2"/> as suggested above? And why cannot duplicate page numbers be detected and grouped automatically? Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Jens Lallensack. Other syntax options have been discussed, and we have laid out why we are moving forward with this option in our FAQ: m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing#Why did you choose this wikitext syntax?.
- Detecting duplicate page numbers and grouping them automatically is an interesting idea, not only for sub-references but for references in general. It is, however, currently out of scope for us, as we are focusing on the essentials first. But for now, you will be able to group manually, by re-using a sub-reference. Hope that helps, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am just worried that the new approach is still way too complicated – I need several steps in order to add a simple page number. Our {{rp}} templates are much easier to use, and, in my opinion, still superior for this reason. A much simpler syntax could be <ref name="Miller" page="page 2"/>, i.e., just include the extension within the ref, which would work if duplicates would be grouped automatically. This would be as simple as adding a {{rp}} template. But if I am not mistaken, such basic design decisions would have to be made now, not later? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{rp}} is simpler, but that doesn't mean this doesn't have its place; I can think of a few articles where this will be useful in articles I've worked on extensively; Myst heavily relies on a recording of a conference talk that is hours long, and so the various quotes/timecodes could be made subrefs (putting them in rp would have been an unacceptable breakup of text). Likewise Art Deco architecture of New York City uses {{rp}} for the books as it's primarily mixed references, and using subrefs would be a cleaner presentation that's easier for readers.) rp and {{sfn}} will still have their places, but I think especially for articles primarily cited to websites and magazines rather than longform materials, it'll be a nicer way of integrating the latter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, {{rp}} is just for page numbers, and the new feature will certainly have its uses. But I thought the idea was to have a solid upstream solution that can, in the long run, replace our various existing workaround solutions like rp and sfn templates, which are really not great. I just fear that this will not happen, because the new feature is too complicated in terms of syntax and usability, especially compared to rp templates. I do believe that it is not impossible to arrive at such a unified approach that is as simple as an rp-template. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: Your question and suggested syntax was specifically answered at the link Johanna gave: "The main issue with this approach is, however, that it causes problems with templates and is very likely to cause errors. Another problem with this syntax is that it does not allow to re-use a sub-reference, because the name attribute has already been used to refer to the main reference and cannot be used a second time." Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I know; the second issue would be solved with the automatic grouping of duplicate sub-references as suggested. As for the issue with the broken templates: I do personally think that it would be worth the effort to fix the templates to make that work, because the long-term benefits of a much simpler syntax would be immense. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The first version doesn't do everything we want, but perhaps if this small improvement proves useful, we might see another small improvement in the future. We don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's definitely an improvement either way, and I am going to use it. Hope that the Visual Editor implementation will be good and easy to use. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Jens, most of your questions have already been answered by others (thanks!).
- Regarding the issue with the broken templates: This is not so much about individual templates that need to be fixed. What we mean is: Communities can (and probably will) decide to use templates for sub-references. And with a syntax where details are inside the reference tag, you would have to add the template there, between the quotation marks, like
<ref detail=”{{…|p=”…”}}/>
. However, that would put conflicting syntax characters like quotation marks and angle brackets inside the ref tag, making it hard for the parser to process. And if you decided to escape those characters, the wikitext would become much harder to read. Another thing to consider is consistency with the current way references are working: Right now, the content of the reference (including details like pages) is between the ref tags, and anything else goes inside the ref tag. - I can see why the rp template would be a better option for some cases, and to my understanding, WP:CITEVAR would give the flexibility to keep using it. It might be easier to use for wikitext; on Visual Editor, however, it does not work properly (you can’t insert or edit the rp template via the citation button). Which might be even more significant because our user tests have shown that a surprisingly large number of wikitext users like to switch to Visual Editor for working with citations in general. – Wishing you a good weekend and again, thanks for taking the time to test and comment, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Johanna, and thanks for the explanation. I didn't thought about the issue of using templates within the references tag. Yes, that makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack. Thanks for your reply. -- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Johanna, and thanks for the explanation. I didn't thought about the issue of using templates within the references tag. Yes, that makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's definitely an improvement either way, and I am going to use it. Hope that the Visual Editor implementation will be good and easy to use. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The first version doesn't do everything we want, but perhaps if this small improvement proves useful, we might see another small improvement in the future. We don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I know; the second issue would be solved with the automatic grouping of duplicate sub-references as suggested. As for the issue with the broken templates: I do personally think that it would be worth the effort to fix the templates to make that work, because the long-term benefits of a much simpler syntax would be immense. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: Your question and suggested syntax was specifically answered at the link Johanna gave: "The main issue with this approach is, however, that it causes problems with templates and is very likely to cause errors. Another problem with this syntax is that it does not allow to re-use a sub-reference, because the name attribute has already been used to refer to the main reference and cannot be used a second time." Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, {{rp}} is just for page numbers, and the new feature will certainly have its uses. But I thought the idea was to have a solid upstream solution that can, in the long run, replace our various existing workaround solutions like rp and sfn templates, which are really not great. I just fear that this will not happen, because the new feature is too complicated in terms of syntax and usability, especially compared to rp templates. I do believe that it is not impossible to arrive at such a unified approach that is as simple as an rp-template. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{rp}} is simpler, but that doesn't mean this doesn't have its place; I can think of a few articles where this will be useful in articles I've worked on extensively; Myst heavily relies on a recording of a conference talk that is hours long, and so the various quotes/timecodes could be made subrefs (putting them in rp would have been an unacceptable breakup of text). Likewise Art Deco architecture of New York City uses {{rp}} for the books as it's primarily mixed references, and using subrefs would be a cleaner presentation that's easier for readers.) rp and {{sfn}} will still have their places, but I think especially for articles primarily cited to websites and magazines rather than longform materials, it'll be a nicer way of integrating the latter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am just worried that the new approach is still way too complicated – I need several steps in order to add a simple page number. Our {{rp}} templates are much easier to use, and, in my opinion, still superior for this reason. A much simpler syntax could be <ref name="Miller" page="page 2"/>, i.e., just include the extension within the ref, which would work if duplicates would be grouped automatically. This would be as simple as adding a {{rp}} template. But if I am not mistaken, such basic design decisions would have to be made now, not later? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm excited about it. In it's current iteration, it seems like the syntax will be slightly more complex than sfn, but the benefit to the reader is, I think, worth it. As an editor and reviewer, it's helpful to have a sense of which source are being cited the most, which this simplifies. I join with the rp haters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't 100% adore the implementation in the RefList, but it is a move forward -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the interim, I've been incrementally working on some script-assistance tools for replacing
{{Rp}}
with{{sfnp}}
,{{harvp}}
, and related templates. It's been rather gruelling work (the most complex regex stuff I've ever done, and it's not finished yet). I put it aside for a while, but if there's demand for it I can see about getting back into it soon-ish. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
This is also being discussed on the wikitech mailing list. RoySmith (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for July 2024
[edit]Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewers for July 2024
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Supports and opposes for July 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Nominators for May 2024 to July 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- fucking Go Me Mr Ratioman, second only to J-J 'The Rock Reviewer'. In your face, Gore Vidal 😀 honk honk! SerialNumber54129 13:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Cite Q
[edit]Is anyone writing Featured or Good articles with {{Cite Q}}? I've only recently become aware of it, and the issues, and missed the Deletion discussion when Mike Christie brought it forward here in 2017. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've never seen it before so it's safe to say it's not commonly used. (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- That has been my impression as well (since I had never seen it either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Don't recall ever seeing it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's Qompletely Qretinous and should be deleted. It relies by the skin of its teeth on an absolutely Houdini-esque piece of self-justification:
While Wikipedia does not regard Wikidata as a reliable source, citations using Cite Q are not citing Wikidata
. Yeah, of course. The fact that it's the same individuals who wouldn't know an RS if it kicked them up the arse filing the bloody information in the first place is completely irrelevant, of course. Until Jehosophat Jumps once again and the day dawns when we are warming our toes on Cite Q, we must obey the TfD closure and ensure thatusage of this template should be extremely vetted
. I think, translated to FACness, that means... never. SerialNumber54129 17:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)- According to this tool it is currently used 52,403 times. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe someone who knows how to tweak such info out of a Petscan can figure out if it has ever been used on an FA (in which case there will probably be inconsistent citations). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- According to this tool it is currently used 52,403 times. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- That has been my impression as well (since I had never seen it either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- 29, although that includes secondary uses like {{Academic peer reviewed}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nikki. I spotchecked only, and found a boatload of them were the Academic peer reviewed template. (That's a whole 'nother can of worms.) But ...
- Solar System passed FAR in 2022, and a Cite Q was added post-FAR ... inconsistent citation formatting.
- Planet, same -- passed FAR in 2022, Cite Q added post-FAR ... inconsistent citation formatting.
- Samuel Johnson (which Ottava and Malleus stuck my name on only because I wrote the TS portions) has a Cite Q in Further reading, inconsistent formatting (and all of that Further reading should be cleaned up by someone who knows Johnson-- I only know his health).
- I guess I'm not watching that FA closely enough. And it looks like astronomy articles could develop citation issues down the road if the trend continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shackleton–Rowett Expedition, Brianboulton, can't find the Cite Q or Academic peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Japanese battleship Yamato, two Cite Q templates added that look messed up; The ed17, are you still watching this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, that's an easy fix. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- And, I checked a bunch more, and all have inconsistent citation formatting ... and noticed that the use of Cite Q could be a tipoff to poorly watched FAs. And most of those coming from Academic peer review also introduce inconsistent citation formatting. For example, Hippocampus is no longer maintained, but it uses vancouver authors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm. I can't find the use in Shackleton either - anyone else? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Blitzed - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- <grrrr ... silly me > I think I was searching on uppercase C only. I would be eternally grateful if some literary type would review the Further reading at Samuel Johnson. Well, eternally as long as my aging memory endures that is ... with Mally and Ottava gone, I can't pretend to know what is needed there in Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Blitzed - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm. I can't find the use in Shackleton either - anyone else? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nikki. I spotchecked only, and found a boatload of them were the Academic peer reviewed template. (That's a whole 'nother can of worms.) But ...
- 29, although that includes secondary uses like {{Academic peer reviewed}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- No one has questioned the number of times it is used? And you don't need toolforge; the number of uses is estimated at the top of its page. Anyway, that could just be a testament to certain parties being obsessive. I really don't know. SerialNumber54129 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's quite horrible to work around when trying to build content, but I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment and can't worry about it now and don't want to create a side distraction. Sorry I missed the deletion discussion. In case it comes up again, a workaround is to put the Wikidata code thingie in the cite template id= parameter, rather than use the Cite Q. That should help satisfy those pushing for this fixed citation style, although I'd be quite surprised to see it show up at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've always used the sfn template. How did you come across this one? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Working on a current event article, where there are no editors who have ever engaged content at the FA-level (best I can tell), or even GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have used it once (not in a GA), and it worked fine for me. Cremastra (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I modified Nikki's petscan to run on GAs, and found only 72 (one of those being the article with a faulty "academic peer review" that brought that can of worms to my attention, but I digress). So with 40,000 GAs, this citation template (fortunately) doesn't seem to have caught on even after seven years. And now having to edit an article with it, I'd say that's not surprising, for all the reasons given in the deletion discussion and the problems listed at the template talk page. Editing around it is difficult, and I can't often figure out how to correct the errors it introduces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- GA Rapaza is a short article (less than 2,000 words) written by one editor (other content editing only by the GA reviewer) in less than a week that uses only Cite Q, so has consistent citations. So perhaps on obscure topics written by one editor, the idea works; that situation doesn't describe most of Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- GA Chrompodellid, same author as Rapaza, almost no one else has touched the article, similar situation, uses cite Q but mixed with other cite templates, and has inconsistent citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem here appears to be more about formatting issues and less about the use of Wikidata, as it's just a middle man here providing citation details like a publication date. (I also don't know why the citations link to the Wikidata item.) Theoretically/as I understand it, there are benefits to having a central database of citations to draw from. Wikimedia proposals about that go back years—see d:WikiCite/Shared Citations, although those efforts may be stalled. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- There were also concerns (e.g. see the deletion discussion Sandy linked to) about vandalism in Wikidata, which
wouldwould not show up on the watchlists of editors on enwiki; and about ease of use. I don't think article space should be dependent on Wikidata anywhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC) - In the rendered citations, I agree the problems appear on the surface to be only minor formatting issues, but trying to edit around invisible citation data on a fast-moving topic involving many editors is an impediment to content building. I've wasted too much time trying to sort invisible citations from an edit window. And if I can't decipher how to address some of the issues, I'm not sure how a random or new editor will be able to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The template feels like a solution in search of a problem --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Formatting citations is a nuisance and roughly 1/4 of why I haven't written any articles recently. The other 1/4 is exhaustion of topics to write about. 1/2 is the fact that this list of articles to maintain has become overly burdensome. Difficulties in fixing formatting issues are something I run in frequently even if the citation is hosted on Wikipedia, and I've heard of concerns about subtle spamming during e.g archiving too. While using cite q and other cite templates together is an inconsistency and this XKCD should always be kept in mind when making new citation styles, most of the problems referenced above with cite q are non-unique to cite q. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree, Jo-Jo; a unique problem with Cite Q is that the citation data is not hosted within the article, so that when you are in edit mode, adding or modifying content, you can't see information about citations (is the citation already in use so you don't readd an already used, who is the publisher vis-a-vis reliability, how old is the citation re datedness) You have to have two windows open to be cross-checking. On a fast-moving topic with many editors, it's a supreme pain, and none of those real concerns relate to minor formatting. Those problems are less of an issue if the article has only one editor and they know what sources they are using and have already added, but that's not the usual case on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thing is, I've encountered this problem with on-wiki citations too where one has to read separate sections of an article to evaluate a reference. Sometimes it's easy to get lost during scrolling. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree, Jo-Jo; a unique problem with Cite Q is that the citation data is not hosted within the article, so that when you are in edit mode, adding or modifying content, you can't see information about citations (is the citation already in use so you don't readd an already used, who is the publisher vis-a-vis reliability, how old is the citation re datedness) You have to have two windows open to be cross-checking. On a fast-moving topic with many editors, it's a supreme pain, and none of those real concerns relate to minor formatting. Those problems are less of an issue if the article has only one editor and they know what sources they are using and have already added, but that's not the usual case on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, a change made to the data that Cite Q is pulling wouldn't be visible to the average en.wiki editor, who presumably doesn't have the associated wikidata item watchlisted? Surely this creates a bit of a maintenance issue? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, correct; that is one of the issues brought forward during (I think) the deletion discussion. There are other complaints on the template talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
So, this may be premature, but if some GAs are using them, they could show up at FAC. This discussion raises the question of whether WP:WIAFA should be modified from:
- consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
... to:
- consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required, but citation template data must be hosted on en.Wikipedia.
Or some such ... to ensure the citations can't be easily vandalized and remain consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the vandalism issue would apply to any imported content (not just this template), but with regards to consistency, would an article using cite q exclusively also be problematic? The issue in most of the examples from the search above is that usage is mixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Using Cite Q exclusively can result in inconsistent citations; in the article I'm working on now (which will never approach GA much less FA), some Cite Qs are used that have news and journal source titles italicized rather than in quotes, and since those errors reside somehow in WikiData, I can't figure out how to fix them. And some are missing publishers. And some have alternate date formats. The citation formatting is externally controlled, and there are consistency breaches over there that can't be fixed in here. I can override some of the parameters to fix, for example, author name formatting, but not all of them. Just go to the current event I'm working on now and ctrl-f on Wikidata; you'll see faulty italics, missing publishers, and mixed author name formatting; I can override only the author name by adding that parameter to the Cite Q template, but can't fix the rest. So the editor of an article that uses only Cite Q doesn't have control over citation consistency on en.Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Found another problem: besides the messed up formatting here, this source is also a Wordpress, and Cite Q using WikiData meant that the reliability flagging scripts weren't red-flagging it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- And in this one, the main title is stored in WikiData in English rather than Spanish (and is translated wrong in English). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
High-quality reliability question at WP:RSN
[edit]See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think your reply resolved my question. Thanks. Anybody else is welcome to weigh in, though.--NØ 01:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was concerned you'd only get a lot of "yes, reliable" at that noticeboard, when your question was targeted specifically to WIAFA. As an example that will be better understood on this page, FA J. K. Rowling rarely cites the sources you mention -- even though newsy-focused editors want to add certain terms or current topics every time JKR hits her keyboard and clickbait or niche news sources report on it -- because of the abundance of much higher quality and scholarly sources such that a survey of best sources can help assign weight. For JKR, those high-quality and scholarly sources are available to provide an idea of how to weight content: YMMV. So, it depends on what you're citing, and what a thorough survey of the relevant high-quality sources shows; there well may be content for which those sources are the highest-quality sources-- in the case of JKR, they aren't, and the same content is covered by scholarly and other top sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- And JKR doesn't cite People (magazine) either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was concerned you'd only get a lot of "yes, reliable" at that noticeboard, when your question was targeted specifically to WIAFA. As an example that will be better understood on this page, FA J. K. Rowling rarely cites the sources you mention -- even though newsy-focused editors want to add certain terms or current topics every time JKR hits her keyboard and clickbait or niche news sources report on it -- because of the abundance of much higher quality and scholarly sources such that a survey of best sources can help assign weight. For JKR, those high-quality and scholarly sources are available to provide an idea of how to weight content: YMMV. So, it depends on what you're citing, and what a thorough survey of the relevant high-quality sources shows; there well may be content for which those sources are the highest-quality sources-- in the case of JKR, they aren't, and the same content is covered by scholarly and other top sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
FAC-level copy editor needed
[edit]See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Thomas C. Hindman/archive1 for some background. There were prose concerns raised in 2022 after the initial rewrite. I've been referred to GOCE, but I don't trust the average GOCE copyeditor to do FA-level work. Hog Farm Talk 16:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- All of my GOCE nominations wait in the queue for months and then a very competent copyeditor picks them up. (t · c) buidhe 04:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Script to abbreviate author names?
[edit]Here at FAC, we are required to be consistent with author name formatting in citation templates. In science articles, this usually means that we need to abbreviate all names since it is often impossible to find out the first names in every single case. (I personally think that we are doing readers a disservice when removing the full names; we gain a consistent look, but at a price!) This rule has been a major nuisance for me when writing articles, as doing this manually can be very tedious. Therefore, does anybody know about a script that can abbreviate the given names of authors in citation templates (for example: "first=John dos H." should become "first=J.d.H.")? Thanks! Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- In a source review, if I noticed variation between initials and first names, I'd ask why, but I'd accept "initials only when I can't find the first name" as a consistent rule. And "use whatever appears on the article published" also seems consistent enough to pass. Converting them all to initials is fine, of course, but I don't think it's necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So much ease of use is lost when first names are all abbreviated! We need to form a mutual support group so that we're not tempted to ever do this to another bibliography ever again. Remsense ‥ 论 02:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Mike -- it's rule 0 that we ignore any "rule" that would make the article worse, and I would always advocate for usefulness over uniformity. I've always gone for full names where possible, and as close to that as possible where not, and never (yet) had an issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks all, I will follow that approach in the future, then! Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Mike -- it's rule 0 that we ignore any "rule" that would make the article worse, and I would always advocate for usefulness over uniformity. I've always gone for full names where possible, and as close to that as possible where not, and never (yet) had an issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- See as an example PMID 9651407. For decades, that was the author format on PubMed, hence that's the author style used on most medical content. Looking at more recent articles on PubMed, I see they've gone to including full names (I don't know when that switch occurred). I'll continue to write and maintain medical content with that (consistent) format, using the Diberri citation filler. It's nice that PubMed now includes full names, but I don't want to edit around that much clutter in a citation template, or go to the effort now to switch over all old articles, which in the medical suite, are consistent. @Ajpolino, Colin, Graham Beards, and Spicy: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- So much ease of use is lost when first names are all abbreviated! We need to form a mutual support group so that we're not tempted to ever do this to another bibliography ever again. Remsense ‥ 论 02:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Another nomination okay?
[edit]Howdy, coords. Would it be okay if I put up another FAC now that Meehan's gotten a source review? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
RFC on citing leads
[edit]... here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
MOS change
[edit]We've updated (shortened) WP:LEADLENGTH. It will no longer be possible to "comply" with LEADLENGTH merely by removing a line break between paragraphs. We are hoping that this will encourage better and more thoughtful writing.
If you find that this is confusing FAC nominees, please post on the guideline's talk page. In particular, if people start telling you stupid things like "It says that 'most' FAs have a lead of 250 to 400 words, and that's a secret code phrase for saying that anything outside that range is banned", then I would like to hear about it. Other editors would probably be more interested in the opposite (e.g., "That's only 'most' FAs, and my extra-special FA needs a 750-word-long lead"). Whatever the problem is, if the change is really causing confusion, please let us know so we can try to do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where "we" = six (and, really four) other editors :) 2.28.124.91 (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just to confirm what the IP says, the thread discussing the change can be found here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for August 2024
[edit]Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewers for August 2024
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Supports and opposes for August 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Nominators for June 2024 to August 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Google Books web archive links and IABot
[edit]IABot adds web archive links to source templates with an url parameter to ensure that the information remains accessible even after links die. For example:
− | {{cite web |last1=Burris |first1=Stanley |last2=Legris |first2=Javier |title=The Algebra of Logic Tradition |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/algebra-logic-tradition/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=22 January 2024 |date=2021 }} | + | {{cite web |last1=Burris |first1=Stanley |last2=Legris |first2=Javier |title=The Algebra of Logic Tradition |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/algebra-logic-tradition/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=22 January 2024 |date=2021 |archive-date=29 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129081715/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/algebra-logic-tradition/ |url-status=live }} |
While this behavior is usually good, it has been pointed out to me several times (for example, see the source reviews here and here) that web archives are not useful for references that link to Google Books, as in
− | {{cite book |last1=Artamonov |first1=V. A. |editor1-last=Hazewinkel |editor1-first=M. |title=Handbook of Algebra |date=2003 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-08-053297-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sLDGY4Hk8V0C&pg=PA873 |language=en |chapter=Quasivarieties |access-date=January 21, 2024 }} | + | {{cite book |last1=Artamonov |first1=V. A. |editor1-last=Hazewinkel |editor1-first=M. |title=Handbook of Algebra |date=2003 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-08-053297-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sLDGY4Hk8V0C&pg=PA873 |language=en |chapter=Quasivarieties |access-date=January 21, 2024 |archive-date=January 29, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129081616/https://books.google.com/books?id=sLDGY4Hk8V0C&pg=PA873#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }} |
I was curious to hear what other people think. Should all web archives to Google Books links be removed? Should something be done to IABot so that it ignores Google Books links to prevent it from re-adding removed Google Books links? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect any consensus decided on this page would be comparatively weak to a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or even a (well-advertised) discussion at User talk:InternetArchiveBot. In any case, I agree that neither feature seems beneficial since the previews don't even appear to work on the IA. Aza24 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this would (unfortunately) a case of the tail wagging the dog, and that's never popular. Too many other projects use IABot for a consensus here to be enforceable. Still, on the merits of the question, "Yes and yes", per Nikkimaria: it might be useful in the first instance to link to IA (although never to GBooks, which just provides free advertising/hits), but when the link changes, the bot doesn't update. I would argue that, for our readers, that's worse than useless. SerialNumber54129 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I brought this up because several reviewers commented on it. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to start a bigger campaign on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- In case anyone else is struggling with this problem, one way to solve it is to move Google Books links for page previews to the page parameter in the cite template or to the short footnote templates. IABot ignores urls in these places and does not archive them. This way, the url parameter in the cite template can be removed and web archives are not readded when IABot runs. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I brought this up because several reviewers commented on it. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to start a bigger campaign on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Quick coord question
[edit]I normally wouldn't be too concerned about this, but due to the Wikicup I want to ensure I haven't been missing something silly with regards to the review; is there anything currently holding up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Silva Meehan/archive1 from promotion, or is it just a matter of seeing if anyone else is going to give feedback? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)