Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted several reviews and declarations of support. Premature requests can be removed by any editor.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Fuchs16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. UndercoverClassicist20:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article poverty in ancient Rome has been nominated for GA, by a user with a couple of years experience and a few thousand edits (i.e. not a newbie). I've been doing some GA reviews recently, focusing on editors with no GAs who have been altruistic enough to go ahead and do a GA review already, and this editor is one of those. I'm hesitant to review it, though, because it looks pretty good and I'm not a subject matter expert. I know we have some editors at FAC who are knowledgeable about that time period, so I thought I'd post here in case someone is interested in picking up the review. I hate to see a potentially very good editor get discouraged by having to wait six months for their first GA review, after having done a review themselves already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request opinions regarding the archival of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1. After a passed source review and an oppose (which has been addressed), the FAC was suddenly archived without prior warning. As I've explained here and the next comment, I don't think this was fair, as I'm at a loss just because the opposer didn't see my response in time (and they're not forced to). Had I been warned, as I was in another FAC, I'd have pinged the opposer again and tried to gather more opinions. I was also completely committed to the FAC and responded to all inquiries within the same day they were posted, so this wasn't an issue. As such, I'd like to know if is possible to reconsider the archival or, at very least, ask permission to renominate right away, as the oppose's issues have already been resolved and the two-week wait period is not needed. Skyshiftertalk23:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although it was a bit abrupt, yes, I don’t see anything to be concerned about. Something I learned last year at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daytona USA/archive1 is that the coordinators expect to see supports in the first three weeks, at least one. Just because concerns were addressed doesn’t mean it should stay open if it’s not progressing toward being promoted, and I agree that three weeks seems like a short period to evaluate this, but I understand the premise that it has to be making measurable progress towards promotion in a reasonable amount of time so they don’t all sit for months on end awaiting more feedback. Red Phoenix01:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, I completely agree with everything you said, but at least you got a warning in your FAC before it was archived. I just wish this had also happened to my FAC. Skyshiftertalk03:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note addendum: usually a “support” on images or sources isn’t generally a “support” in that those reviews are required in all FACs and if it’s specifically on one of the two it’s usually taken as checking off that that review is complete and issues addressed, not a support of the whole article unless specified or if that reviewer discussed the article and not just images or sources. Red Phoenix01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinators leaving a warning note is not required but I do it in cases where there has been little to no activity - that wasn't the case here. It had been open for three weeks with no support and one valid oppose and given your knowledge of the FAC process, I don't think you should wait for a coordinator to leave a warning note for you to get active in terms of pinging reviewers and getting more participants. In any case, I don't think the prose issues have been fully resolved which is actually why I archived the nomination. The reception section, for example, is rather repetitive with opinions being lined up like a list without any coherent theme. FrB.TG (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think I have to agree with the closure here. No supports after three weeks isn't a good sign of progress. My suggestion is to take the next couple of weeks going back over the comments and make sure they're all sorted, then bring it back again. In the mean time, I suggest you review other people's article. Not only will it help you understand the general concerns and levels of FAC, it will also act as an encouragement for others to review yours when you return; there is no quid pro quo at FAC, but people do tend to review those who the see being active on reviews. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the close and reading through find it unsurprising: anybody who even half follows FAC knows the co-ords open/transparent approach wrt archiving. Skyshifter, in addition to Harry's advice on reviewing and goodwill, its not a sin to reach out and ask for help from potential reviewers. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FFAC Talk Page Template
I have just noticed that the boilerplate template for a not-promoted FA candidate reads as follows:
[Competitive turnip eating] is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.[emphasis mine]
As I remember, we generally avoid the term "failed" around here, for reasons that the co-ords will be better able to articulate: I've heard it said that an FAC judges whether promotion, or non-promotion, is the best thing for the article, so if the judgement is "not promote", that shouldn't be seen as a failure.
Should this text be amended -- perhaps to something like "Please view the links under Article milestones below to view the nomination"? This might also be a more honest reflection of what the nomination page would show, given that they rarely set out in any authoritative terms (other than "consensus has not been achieved/is not likely to be achieved) what it was about the article that led to its non-promotion. UndercoverClassicist10:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps replace '... failed' with '... was archived' as nominations that don't proceed are closed as archived that'd be consistent with the term used on the FAC. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think that "former featured article candidate" or "former good article candidate" are good statuses for an article. Instead it could be noted that the article has never been recognized as good or featured. (t · c) buidhe23:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those notes have a practical purpose, similar to how a second FAC nom states that it is a 2nd nom. And anyway 99.999% of articles have "never been recognized as good or featured". As usual, I'm not sure what your point is. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think these are fairly well entrenched terms, although of course that doesn't make them ideal. As a coord I find it useful to know this without checking article history. In any case I fully agree the 'failed' term should go -- either UC's or Mr rnd's alternate wording works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'failed' should certainly go; it would take a lot of the bite out of noms that have lasped due to having timed out or need to run through a PR. i notice a lot of first time nominators who have articles on the verge but not quite there, see archiving as 'failed', and are thus hurt and often abandon the process. This change wont fix but might soften the blow. From a selfish pov, I see these people as badly needed future reviewers.Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At my most recent attempt at FAC closed a month and a half ago, I dug up a potentially valuable resource for Eternal Blue (album) (by Spiritbox). The source by itself would normally be reliable, but it has a unique accessibility problem which nobody at the FAC knew for sure was permissible. The source in question is an interview with frontwoman Courtney LaPlante conducted by Apple Music.
Here's the issue. Quoting myself on May 7, 2024: For whatever reason, the album ID on Apple Music for [this album] was changed at some point and didn't keep the interview. I found a cached version of the old ID interview on Google, but clicking the link gives me a [dead link]. I took said link to Wayback Machine, but the place I should find it is under a dropdown menu where the collapse button doesn't function. If I hit F12 to examine the page elements, however...it's there. I know this is a really far reach asking if this is admissible at FAC, but I think it would be invaluable coverage if it were permitted with the caveat that I include instructions on how to verify the information.
If this isn't granted, I'll pretty much be left to the commentary of critics for anything that isn't a single. What instructions should I put in the ref tag so someone can read this? mftp dan17:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen unpaginated ebooks referenced with e.g. search "John Smith". That link doesn't display anything for me, but I can see in principle something like search "Courtney LaPlante" in source code as a reasonable thing to do: Wikipedia doesn't mandate any reference style, only that the references should give enough information for readers to verify the information. However, there would be broader concerns -- if the information is on the page but the publishers haven't made it visible, how do we know that they stand by it -- and it's not, for example, remnants of a previous version that was deleted because it was found to be incorrect, or fraudulent, or otherwise somehow unsuitable for us to use? WP:RS, which is critical for FA sourcing, sets a great deal in store by the fact that reliable publishers with content-checking processes vouch for the information they publish, and that principle might be in question if the information has somehow been placed out of public view. UndercoverClassicist19:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least two songs noted in this interview ("Hurt You" and "Constance") which are discussed with the same themes I have already done on the Wikipedia article, but with different reliable accounts. Because of this, I have little reason to doubt this is authentic, if that's what you're questioning. I hadn't thought of that angle, and it's a good first guess, but after reading it, I do not find it likely that's the reason. mftp dan22:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, you'll have to convince the FAC reviewers of the source's reliability. If the information is conveyed in other reliable sources, I'd suggest citing those: if you have something that only exists deep in the source code of an Apple Music page, that's probably going to need a bit more explanation and justification as to why we should consider it reliable. UndercoverClassicist22:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up to it. I've made FAC buy sketchier-looking (but obviously acceptable) sources. Thank you for the suggestion on formatting though, that's what I was looking for. mftp dan22:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, if you inspect the page elements of the link in question (default for me is F12), search in the source code for "Courtney LaPlante". You should be directed to the beginning of the interview which should be displayed under the drop-down button which doesn't work. mftp dan11:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is the full text of the notes at the top -- you'd normally be able to click "show more" or similar, but can't on an archived version of the page for some reason? UndercoverClassicist13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the archiving process doesn't always work on every aspect of a page, particularly on those that use things like Java. Annotating the location of the information is not a problem - it can be flagged up for anyone who wants to see it (this falls within WP:VERIFIABILITY. My concern is why the information is no longer available on the site and why they no longer show it on the current page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we behave any differently when any other link rots for whatever reason? I was asking if this was acceptable for accessibility reasons and how to note that, not any other reason. I think this is nothing to really worry about in terms of reliability; it's not like I'm going to source an entire section with it. mftp dan15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. SerialNumber5412916:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. :-) Ed03:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the ping and the discussion. I'm replying below the thread, hope that's okay.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
{{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 Fuchs14:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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." Ed16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for July 2024
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)[reply]
Reviewers for July 2024
# reviews
Type of review
Reviewer
Content
Source
Image
Accessibility
Generalissima
1
3
12
Nikkimaria
1
13
SchroCat
12
2
Jo-Jo Eumerus
11
2
Tim riley
9
750h+
7
1
UndercoverClassicist
7
1
Aoba47
6
1
Gog the Mild
7
Joeyquism
6
1
ChrisTheDude
6
Heartfox
5
1
Matarisvan
5
1
RoySmith
6
Draken Bowser
5
Z1720
4
1
AirshipJungleman29
3
1
Hog Farm
4
Hurricanehink
3
1
Kusma
2
2
LunaEclipse
4
Pseud 14
3
1
Wolverine XI
4
Ajpolino
3
BennyOnTheLoose
2
1
Buidhe
3
Dugan Murphy
2
1
Dylan620
3
Jens Lallensack
3
MaranoFan
3
MyCatIsAChonk
2
1
Premeditated Chaos
3
Sawyer777
2
1
Vacant0
3
AryKun
2
Aza24
1
1
Boneless Pizza!
1
1
Borsoka
2
David Fuchs
2
Dudley Miles
2
Esculenta
2
FunkMonk
2
Graham Beards
2
Hameltion
2
Harper J. Cole
2
PerfectSoundWhatever
2
Phlsph7
2
PSA
2
Sammi Brie
2
Serial Number 54129
1
1
SusunW
2
Therapyisgood
1
1
TompaDompa
2
Vaughan J.
2
Voorts
1
1
100cellsman
1
12george1
1
Artem.G
1
BOZ
1
Ceoil
1
Choliamb
1
CosXZ
1
Cukie Gherkin
1
Darkwarriorblake
1
Elmidae
1
Felix QW
1
FrB.TG
1
Gerda Arendt
1
GRuban
1
HAL333
1
Hawkeye7
1
Iadmc
1
IanTEB
1
Iazyges
1
Igordebraga
1
J Milburn
1
Jmabel
1
KN2731
1
Lee Vilenski
1
LEvalyn
1
LittleJerry
1
Mike Christie
1
MSincccc
1
NegativeMP1
1
PanagiotisZois
1
Panini!
1
PCN02WPS
1
Penitentes
1
Pickersgill-Cunliffe
1
SafariScribe
1
Shooterwalker
1
Skyshifter
1
SnowFire
1
Sohom Datta
1
Ssilvers
1
The Morrison Man
1
Tim O'Doherty
1
TrademarkedTWOrantula
1
Trainsandotherthings
1
Vanamonde93
1
Worldbruce
1
ZKang123
1
Totals
208
43
36
'
Supports and opposes for July 2024
# declarations
Declaration
Editor
Support
Oppose converted to support
Struck oppose
Struck support
Oppose
None
Total
Generalissima
2
14
16
Nikkimaria
1
13
14
SchroCat
10
1
1
2
14
Jo-Jo Eumerus
13
13
Tim riley
7
2
9
750h+
3
1
4
8
UndercoverClassicist
3
3
2
8
Gog the Mild
6
1
7
Joeyquism
5
2
7
Aoba47
5
1
1
7
RoySmith
2
4
6
Heartfox
2
2
2
6
Matarisvan
5
1
6
ChrisTheDude
6
6
Draken Bowser
5
5
Z1720
4
1
5
Kusma
2
2
4
LunaEclipse
4
4
Hog Farm
2
1
1
4
Wolverine XI
4
4
Pseud 14
3
1
4
AirshipJungleman29
2
1
1
4
Hurricanehink
2
2
4
Dylan620
3
3
Jens Lallensack
2
1
3
Vacant0
2
1
3
Premeditated Chaos
3
3
Dugan Murphy
1
2
3
MyCatIsAChonk
2
1
3
Buidhe
3
3
BennyOnTheLoose
2
1
3
Sawyer777
2
1
3
Ajpolino
2
1
3
MaranoFan
2
1
3
AryKun
2
2
Sammi Brie
2
2
Dudley Miles
1
1
2
Vaughan J.
2
2
Voorts
1
1
2
PSA
2
2
Boneless Pizza!
1
1
2
Serial Number 54129
1
1
2
Aza24
2
2
Graham Beards
1
1
2
David Fuchs
2
2
FunkMonk
2
2
PerfectSoundWhatever
1
1
2
Phlsph7
2
2
TompaDompa
1
1
2
SusunW
2
2
Hameltion
2
2
Therapyisgood
2
2
Harper J. Cole
2
2
Esculenta
1
1
2
Borsoka
1
1
2
Choliamb
1
1
Hawkeye7
1
1
Ssilvers
1
1
SafariScribe
1
1
PanagiotisZois
1
1
Pickersgill-Cunliffe
1
1
12george1
1
1
Jmabel
1
1
Trainsandotherthings
1
1
Worldbruce
1
1
TrademarkedTWOrantula
1
1
J Milburn
1
1
100cellsman
1
1
Panini!
1
1
The Morrison Man
1
1
Tim O'Doherty
1
1
LEvalyn
1
1
Felix QW
1
1
NegativeMP1
1
1
Vanamonde93
1
1
Cukie Gherkin
1
1
ZKang123
1
1
LittleJerry
1
1
HAL333
1
1
CosXZ
1
1
IanTEB
1
1
Iazyges
1
1
SnowFire
1
1
GRuban
1
1
Skyshifter
1
1
Penitentes
1
1
Artem.G
1
1
BOZ
1
1
Iadmc
1
1
PCN02WPS
1
1
Shooterwalker
1
1
Mike Christie
1
1
KN2731
1
1
FrB.TG
1
1
Sohom Datta
1
1
Elmidae
1
1
Lee Vilenski
1
1
Ceoil
1
1
Gerda Arendt
1
1
MSincccc
1
1
Igordebraga
1
1
Darkwarriorblake
1
1
Totals
140
2
1
'
20
124
287
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)[reply]
Nominators for May 2024 to July 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
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 that usage of this template should be extremely vetted. I think, translated to FACness, that means... never. SerialNumber5412917:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
<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)[reply]
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. SerialNumber5412920:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Ed17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were also concerns (e.g. see the deletion discussion Sandy linked to) about vandalism in Wikidata, which would would 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A request for additional reviewers for 2022 Tour de France Femmes?
Where (if not here) would I place a request for additional reviewers of 2022 Tour de France Femmes? I've made changes as requested by nominators, and I believe the article to be in an excellent position, especially now the major sticking issue has been resolved – the length of the lead. Even if there is not a consensus to promote, comments would be welcomed for the future! Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that - that's obviously not my intention, for which I blame 7:45am! I'll rephrase my title, if that's okay. Turini2 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
