User talk:Mike Christie/Archive19

Reference library

Mike, your reference library is very cool. But, not visible enough, imho; I only just found out about it from your link at FAC talk. I'm pretty sure I've run into a handful of these over the years, and you know what would be interesting? If we could link them from a common page (WP:List of user reference libraries?) and then link that page from WP:RX. Even better, run something like the archive page indexer that could generate one page, indexing everybody's list onto a single, global list; that would be super-handy.

Tangentially related to this, is a project I've been working on with a long-term goal of having references (that is, templatized citations to specific resources) be shareable, not only via named refs or short footnotes at a given article, but shareable across multiple articles. I've been tinkering with this idea, and I'm not ready to expose it yet at a centralized location, as I need more data and testing first, and feedback and ideas from people like you, maybe. Would you mind having a look at {{Reflib}} and see what you think? Thanks also for your feedback at FAC and related pages. Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi -- I had a look at {{Reflib}} and I'm not sure I completely understand it (I don't edit templates much myself; I have the right because there's one non-technical template I edit every now and then). As far as I can tell it's a way to pull in citations from a library, with different domains, so if experts in ancient seafaring came together to define a list of twenty or so basic references that often get used, one could use this to refer to them. It's a more general version of the citation -specific templates that are already used to cite specific sources such as the Encyclopedia Iranica. It's a neat idea, and I could see some active projects wanting to make use of it. One cause for concern as an article writer is that changes to the underlying template would be invisible to your watchlist, but that's probably not much of a risk. Does it generate consistent anchors for things like sfn? I don't use that myself but I know many do.

I'm not sure there are many projects active enough to make good use of this though. MilHist is the obvious one to try -- when you're ready to get this tested by users you could see if you get any takers there. As for my own library, I can't be sure I've ever had anyone ask for a reference from it -- I've been asked about information that is in those books, and perhaps that's because of the library link, but it could just as well be because I edit in those areas. I think the utility of library pages like mine is lower than it might be because WP:RX and the Wikipedia Library are such great resources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, re the check marks discussion at FAC, I think you may not be seeing that discussion the way some of the regulars there see it. I can't be certain I'm getting the sequence exactly right, but I believe it goes something like this. Two separate problems appeared early on (not sure which was first): the page loaded slowly so graphics of any kind were banned, and in some cases the PEIS limit was reached in the archive logs, so template use was discouraged. Users who wanted to use checkmarks tended to use {{done}}, because that's what they saw getting used elsewhere and because nobody would ever remember the individual entity codes, but that ran into both bans. The number of FACs in a given archive log page declined over time but the length of each FAC went up. Two or three (or perhaps more) years ago we ran into the PEIS problem again; investigation discovered that {{tq}} was causing the problem as it was becoming widely used to quote material in FACs. Because of the way it's written, {{tq}} costs twice as much PEIS as {{green}}, so we banned it but allowed the straightforward colour quoting templates. That solved the PEIS problem but had nothing to do with page size. I don't remember how much {{done}} costs in size but I imagine it's pretty small, even with the double-counting penalty that comes with every FAC; it certainly can't be as harmful as {{tq}} was. But it's unnecessary; as SchroCat says in the WT:FAC discussion, why not just use the word "done"? The long era with no {{done}} has led to a cultural preference among the regulars at FAC for not using the checkmarks. I've been at FAC so long that they look jarring to me, though as I said at the template talk page I can't really argue against them on any other grounds.

If (as appears to be the case) you find an HTML entity that has no effect on PEIS and doesn't add to page load time or length, none of the reasons above for banning checkmarks, except the cultural one, will apply. However, I think users and readers of the page won't like having to type in strings of characters such as ✅, and worse, few people will be able to understand them in edit mode. The natural result is that someone will want to wrap them in a template like {{tick}}. Which would defeat the purpose of finding the HTML entity. So I think you may run into resistance even if you prove that there's little negative impact on either of the two problems -- PEIS and load time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot ... thanks for all your work on this, as well as sorting the ArchiveN issue that has been festering for years. Re the sequence and the history, it went like this.

At FAC, the objection to "Done" tick marks came before the transclusion limits problem impacting FAC archive pages was discovered. On the template limits problem, when I was doing a month-end tally, I couldn't figure out why the total nominations listed in a file were off, until I realized the last FACs on the archive pages were dropping off, so the number of FACs promoted and archived didn't match what showed on the page. After I went through and deleted some of the tick marks, they dropped nominations re-appeared.

But before that, there was a problem with the "done" tickmarks, because they rendered the pages a) too long, and b) meaningless and jumbled for me (the only closer at the time) in terms of knowing what was actually done. For a nominator to take space on a FAC page to state that something is done isn't helpful; it's not "done" until the reviewer indicates they are satisfied. And back then, the way a reviewer indicated "done" was by striking the objection. So we were getting unhelpful and unnecessary "done" tickmarks, followed by reviewers striking, resulting in lengthy FACs and impossible-to-read jumbles. That's the background on the tickmarks.

The entirely separate, and cultural, issue leading to impossible-to-sort FACs also has several different components (and I suspect that Mike Christie and I define "regulars" on the page differently, as my list includes those who have been so alienated they won't return until the problems are addressed, and most of these problems are unknown to newer "regulars", who know nothing else but the system now on the page).

One component is that new participants, when first approaching FAC, wlll today find an over-complicated, indecipherable and at times unloadable page, and be put off. Reviews have declined; the off-puttting page doesn't help. Compare any FAC page today with, for example, a page at AFD, DYK, GAN-- any other forum-- and it becomes clearer why editors may avoid engaging. Page functioning and instructions are unclear, and the entry barrier is high. So a walled garden effect predominates, and those who have the long-standing presence or prominence in the process to attract their own reviewers are happy with the system because their articles are getting promoted, while overall the page is stalled and clogged. Current "regulars" have no reason to object to this dysfunction, because they are getting their bronze stars. So we are left with a self-perpetuating dysfunctional process, in decline. As one indication of the content areas in decline, the (FAC stats tool, Long and short FACs, sort by supports) shows that three biomedical FACs historically had the most and fastest unopposed support (Tim Vickers and SandyGeorgia, see Tourette syndrome, DNA, Bacteria, and by the way, the top support count at Samuel Johnson). In my last medical FAC, I had to bring my own reviewers. Never mind that I spent years selflessly reviewing the most boring MilHist, ship, hurricane, pop culture, or any other kind of article possible; a MilHist regular declined to review a medical article because it was outside of their area. A medical article today can't buy a review. And yet, there was resistance when I suggested the process has become too MilHist oriented, and that once thriving areas of FA growth have gone completely missing.

Another cultural issue is the old mantra that "FAC is not peer review", has been replaced by the new culture, where FAC most clearly is functioning as peer review (to the detriment of the actual Peer review process, as "old-timers" used to go there, and they no longer do, as PR has moved to FAC). The FAC pages were simpler in the past (see my previous point) because you either Supported, Opposed, or entered limited commentary. If you had to engage the extended PR that is now happening on FAC, the convention instead was that you gave only a few examples of the deficiencies, suggested what was needed (a copyedit, better sourcing, whatever), and Opposed. Under that scheme, the process worked MUCH faster than it does today, as sub-standard FACs were moved quickly off the page (under two weeks was my goal), which allowed them to return faster and be promoted quicker than today. You can poke around in the FAC stats tool (eg, year summaries, average durations) that Mike developed (I believe partly in response to my long-standing concerns in this area), and you can see the evidence for these concerning trends. (I used to be attacked for "no evidence" for these statements I knew very well to be true, having read FAC top-to-bottom near daily for seven years-- Mike's stats show them clearly.) For ten years, we've had longer (but not necessarily better) FACs, of longer duration, with a higher promotion rate (ie, more sub-standard promotions being pulled through by brute force). "Old-timers" aren't going to engage a page where they are forced to return over and over again to address comments on sub-standard article nominations that should be archived with content re-worked via the peer review process.

An entirely separate cultural matter is the leadership role, somewhat related to institutional memory (moi). The archiveN issue has surfaced several times over the years (mostly at FAR), and needed to be addressed. I am perhaps the only institutional memory who could have answered those questions, and the discussion needed to happen at FAC (rather than on a subpage) precisely for the reasons of institutional memory (keep it in FAC archives-- I'm not getting any younger, and that institutional memory needs to be preserved). Unfortunately, that long discussion happened to coincide with several others, and 60% of my posts over four days were dealing with deferred housekeeping, including discovering that no one was watching the page archivals and important threads had even disappeared from the archive search tool. Perhaps in hindsight, we might have moved that discussion to a subpage, but there's already a problem of institutional memory, so it's just unfortunate that Mathglot's query contributed to a perfect storm of page overload. (One of the Coord roles is to keep an eye on overall page functioning, and if that is done, we wouldn't have to overwork to catch up on problems.)

And then another cultural issue is that many "old-timers" did not pick and choose which FAC to review based on their personal topic preferences; they chose based on a desire to preserve the overall status of the bronze star overall (many also active at WP:FAR, doing selfless work, rather than reward-culture seeking via new personal stars at FAC only). To best help the process overall, they engaged the entire FAC page; they/we have no interest in viewing the page via a nomination viewer, whereby they can pick one FAC to review. They/we WANT to be able to read the entire page, see trends, spot problems, decide then where their engagement is most needed.

So, all of that combines to show how the dysfunction has accumulated towards the overall decline in the FA process, which has real consequences-- what brought me back temporarily to the page. We have excellent editors and reviewers, like Vaticidalprophet, caught in this "cultural war" and completely unaware of what other-functioning of FAC looked like. Vaticidalprophet says here, that they'd likely have no FACs if we went back to more expedient archivals. That they would have more FAs, better review, and quicker FAs if the page were functioning properly is something completely unknown to newer participants, as they have no experience of the page as it was before, with more engaged reviewers, and quicker turnaround.

The number of FAs has now declined to the point that FAC can't feed the needs of TFA, so saving older stars via FAR and URFA/2020 has had to fill the gap. Re-runs at TFA were once extremely rare; now they are essential, as there aren't regularly enough FAs to feed 365 annual TFAs without them. The overall process is failing, but the "currents" are happy as they are getting their stars, and critics are shunned. Hope this helps you understand why your archiveN lengthy discussion was appreciated by me-- if no one else-- and why your work to sort the load time problem is crucial and needed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Given ping: I want to clarify that statement. The thought was specifically about archiving FACs that are past a certain age regardless of other factors. Two of my three FAs had FACs in the "immediate archival under that proposal" time range when clearly headed to promotion -- there were just other reasons (e.g. getting more attention late in the FAC, me not being able to respond to reviews rapidly) that lengthened matters. There are many reasons it's desirable for the average length of a FAC to be shorter, but I don't think a flat archive date is that. Vaticidalprophet 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet ... I do agree with you on that point (discretion is needed, not flat time limits), but was more concerned to make you more broadly aware that, in all likelihood, you'd have more FAs with shorter archival time and better overall page functioning. And I'm truly sorry that the effort made by Mathglot and me to solve the ArchiveN issue was part of that perfect storm that overwhelmed you. I know from your medical content work that you are the sort of reviewer FAC values! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Mike and Sandy. This is a really good little intro, and answers a lot of my questions. Maybe it could even be the kernel of a chapter in a "History of FAC" page somewhere on the project. As Sandy (I think) mentioned somewhere, there is a lot of institutional memory among you on this topic, and maybe it's worth a brain dump at some point (in your copious spare time  ) and get some of that written down. What's clear, is that there's a lot of history that got us where we are, and the problems that are currently recognized and apparently have been for some time aren't going to yield easily to a simple solution. The PEIS, as Mike has mentioned earlier, is a hard limit, and the culture of a project that has been around as long as this one exerts a powerful tidal force as well. Having offered some ideas on the project page, and perhaps brought some renewed attention to a couple of longstanding issues, which as Sandy has said, have come up from time to time, I think my contributions there have probably gone as far as they can go for the time being, at least for this round, and I'll probably gracefully retire from those discussions except to tie up any loose ends, or respond to questions. I hope they have been helpful in some way, and not just needlessly wasted everyone's time. I still enjoy investigating and clarifying technical problems or complex procedural ones, and identifying possible solutions to them, and if I can be helpful at FAC in the future, I'd be happy to contribute whatever I can, so feel free to ping me there whenever. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm contemplating an essay. I'm also contemplating walking away entirely (again), as I (and others) are unsure if FAC can ever recover. If it can, Fuchs will be part of that recovery. Oh, and Karanacs and I also wrote that History of FAC page, back when we Coords (then called Delegates), along with the FA director, cared about such and considered it "our job". See {{FCDW}}-- another effort fallen by the wayside. A few more days of recovery, and I'll decide which way to go on this, but at least now I've apologized to Vaticidal, which in the big picture, is actually the most important thing on the page. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC nomination stats

Hi Mike, Do you know where I can find stats on the average length of time a nomination spends at FAC over the years? And if there is anything available on the average size of nominations? If anyone is likely to know this, it's going to be you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This might be what you're looking for for the durations. I don't have anything for size, though, but you could probably sample half a dozen months from the archive log and divide the html size by the number of FACs and get a few data points that way. The logs are Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You're a star: I knew you'd know where to find it! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the data and spotted an error; not sure if it'll make a difference to whatever you're looking at, but FYI there was an incorrect duration in the February 2023 list. The average duration for promotion for that month should be 33 days, not 19 days. (I had a year wrong, which gave one FAC a duration of -319 days, which threw off the average.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I just presumed it was one of the slightly rogue stats that crop up in all datasets at some point, but looks more in line now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There's also this page (pick promoted or archived and hit submit) which gives you exact data by year (number of FACs of each possible length) if you need that level of detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust a random sample on size for several reasons. First, we used to re-start long FACs; the longest would be missed. Second, you have to know which ones are the outliers (eg Catholic Church). Third, we routinely moved off-topic to talk, which is no longer done. I don't see how a meaningful size comparison can be done-- too many moving pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You reminded me that I did once collect this data. See here; I give caveats there too but I think the trends shown there are basically accurate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool. SchroCat another interesting change can be seen at WP:FAS; scroll down the Peer review column to see how PR has fallen out of the picture as FAC duration has increased. (I still think size can be a tricky thing to analyze because of all the variables). (Mike more activity today at that damn archiveN thread, where there are still archive headaches to be resolved and to make sure they don't affect FAC stats, but that's for another day.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 59

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

• Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
• Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WT:Featured article candidates/Daisy Bacon/archive1

Edits and comments on the blurb are welcome. I'm thinking of running this at TFA on January 7; does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Do we not use red links on TFA blurbs? Romantic Range is a plausible redlink -- e.g. see here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not on the Main Page, per WP:REDNO. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Boulton and Park

I was asked to create an infobox for the article - so I did. In my humble opinion it looked more encyclopedic with one than without. I have virtually no interest in this type of topic anyhow, so am indifferent as to whether it is reinstated or remains removed. Thanks for the edit explanation. Kieronoldham (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sadly infoboxes can be quite controversial, particularly in cases like this where their utility is marginal and reasonable opinions can differ on whether they're useful. Can I ask what you mean by "was asked to create an infobox for the article"? Seems an odd thing to ask another editor to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see the request on your talk page (and many more from the same editor in your archives) so no need to reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Argosy (magazine)

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Argosy (magazine), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Importing your Sci-fi library citations

Hi, Mike. Following up on our previous discussion about Template:Reflib: thanks to your Reference library, I've copied the science fiction citations and imported them into the template as a new reference library, which you can view at Template:Reflib/Science fiction. This means that one can import up to 20 citations at a time into the References section of an article with a single line of template code. I'd like to announce the availability of this function to WP:WikiProject Science fiction, but since you've done all the hard work of compiling the citations, I'd like to offer you the opportunity to be the one to make the announcement. I do recall from our previous discussion that you didn't feel too comfortable with templates, so we could also co-announce it, or if you prefer, I could draft and publish the announcement myself and credit you with creation of the content. I just wanted to make sure to give you the option to be involved in any way you wish, so please lmk what your preference is. Thanks again for this great resource, which should now be even easier to use in this new format. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi -- just had a look and that's a cool gadget you've assembled. Go ahead and announce it yourself -- I appreciate your thoughtfulness but you should take credit for it. You might also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/References, which was assembled in the last year or so; it includes many of the books in my library, since I was part of the conversation that recommended it, but also quite a few I don't have. I wonder if other projects have a similar resources page? And one other question: how about an optional parameter on Reflib to add "ref=none" to all the citations? That would allow these references to be used in articles that don't use sfn without generating harv errors (I don't use sfn myself). Not a big deal though, since to be honest I usually just copy the existing citation from another article where I know it already exists, and it'll take a while to break myself of that habit. Have you announced the other library sections elsewhere? What kind of response have you had? Is this being used in articles yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll drop a note at the project sometime soon. Thanks for linking the Projects reference list; I should take a look at that first, and add them to the list before announcing the tool. That is a great question about whether other projects have such lists, and I'm going to go poke around to see what I can find, and please do let me know if you find any. I have made limited announcements to a few individuals (like yourself) but not yet to other projects; I wanted to hold off making a general announcement until I had ten or a dozen different domains handled by the template, so it had a bit more "meat" and didn't look like a toy, and also to make sure it scales well. So when you linked your list for me, that was hard to pass up, because you had already done all the hard work, and it just involved some standardization and importing into the template library. I'm still looking for another half dozen domains I can include, and if you have no objection, I might do so with your A-S history or mathematics libraries, unless you know of projects that have better lists than yours, either on those subjects, or any other.

As far as your method of copying citations from some article where you know it exists, by all means, that's a great solution, keep on doing that. The Reflib template is not intended to be a replacement for a process that already works for you or anyone else; rather, it's intended to be a one-stop shop where someone who doesn't know or remember what article might have the needed citation (that was my own case, and what got me started, with Vichy citations) or who is starting in on a topic new to them and has no idea what citations are out there or where they might be located (like me and ancient seafaring). And you don't have to use the template as a template: it can just function as a handy repository the same way as your library page does for you: you can just go there, and copy-paste the citations you want into your article. It the idea catches on and gets big enough, instead of having to hunt down libraries like yours all over user space, people can hopefully just come to Reflib and find a collection of citations there all ready to go (which they can also expand and improve, which they're more likely to do there than at someone else's user subpage). For those editors (like me) that don't like the tedium of maybe copy-pasting a dozen or more individual citations, or who want to make sure that citations across multiple articles remain in sync and always get the best, latest version of a citation, they can retrieve them via the template. But your method is fine, and there's no reason to move away from what works for you.

About your request for a |ref=none option: I've added this discussion to the Template talk page as an enhancement request. There are some technical issues involved which you may enjoy reading about it (or maybe it will make you gag ). There's also a slight XY problem here, because if I'm not mistaken, what you would like is to no longer see annoying harv errors when you include certain citations; the "ref=none" is an attempted solution for that problem, is that right? I.e., if there are other solutions that suppress unwanted harv errors just as well, you'd be open to that, I presume? There is one solution that might work for you, if you want to suppress all such errors everywhere, and not just for certain citations, or certain errors. I mentioned it at the linked discussion. I see that you are using User:Ucucha's script in your common.js page to create these warnings and error messages. That script is somewhat outdated; a more up-to-date one is at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, and you might consider using that one instead. It offers the opportunity to fine-tune the colors and other appearance of the generated warning and error messages (there are four of them) including turning them off individually. The point being, rather than turn warning messages on by importing the script, and then overriding that later with |ref=none later in order to disable the warning, maybe just generate the ones you want in the first place? Trappist's script gives you more flexibility to do that than Ucucha's script. Even if that doesn't work for you, there may be other solutions, such as using {{sfn whitelist}}, which gives you the ability to fine-tune the warning/error display citation by citation.

Sorry this ran on so long; I wanted to make sure to address each one of your points. And do lmk about importing your Math or Anglo-Saxon library into the template (or anything else that occurs to you). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply; I really appreciate it. I wouldn't worry too much about the ref=none option; as you say there are other ways to skin that cat, and since I myself am likely to just keep copying and pasting, it's not going to be a problem for me. I think you should wait till you get a more urgent-sounding use case. I will definitely look at the updated harv errors script you link to. Mostly I use that script to stop myself doing things that will annoy *other* users; it's not something I need for myself most of the time.

By all means take my AS as the start of domains; I doubt my maths listings are going to be worth much for reflib. For AS history you should talk to Dudley Miles who has written quite a few articles on AS kings, and for maths you could try David Eppstein, one of the most prolific maths editors. Maths might be hard to do as an entire domain though; it's huge. You might have to do subdomains. I do also have a fair number of books on archaeology but they mostly focus on pre-Roman UK archaeology so again subdomains might be good. Dudley has some knowledge there too I think. Palaeontology (particularly dinosaurs) and hominid development are two other possibilities you could look into -- FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack would be good places to start though there are plenty of others who work in those areas. And how about birds?

I do also have quite a few books on magazines in general and pulp magazines in particular, many of which have nothing to do with sf. A book like the Tymn & Ashley encyclopedia Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines really falls into two categories, sf and magazines, so you might find the same book showing up in multiple domains. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

These are great tips, thanks! I'll start looking into these. Anytime you think of any others, either drop them here (I'm subscribed, so I'll notice) or if this discussion is archived, drop me a line at my Talk page any time. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The first version of a ref library for Anglo-Saxon history is now live, and linked in (from the top row of the table) to the main template {{Reflib}}; have a look. I'll mention it to Dudley, also. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference library

Hi Mike: A Wikifriend just pointed me towards your reference list as an example of what we could do for a task force we're both involved with. I'm intrigued! I'm thinking about adding such a list of my own (I have a huge reference library) but am wondering how people would learn that it's available. How do people find your list? Or is it only stumbled across by accident? MeegsC (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi -- as it happens I was just thinking about these questions too. I built the page listing my books years ago but I don't think anyone's ever asked me for anything from it, so I haven't kept it up to date. Mathglot's reflib idea, which I'm guessing is how you heard of my page, seems a great way to make use of this sort of resource. I think what would be helpful would be a combination of the reflib template that Mathglot is building with a list of which editors own (or have online access to) which resources. A bibliographic database, of sorts, in other words. Then if you are researching a topic, looking at the reflib for that topic would not only give you a list of sources that you might want to consult but would also tell you which Wikipedians have access to them. There's always WP:RX but it would be good to spread the burden of looking up resources so that the people who help out at RX don't have to do so much work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Mathglot in case they're interested in the above thoughts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, yes! Hi, MeegsC, can we work on this together? Are you talking about a physical library of print books, or a digitized list? If the former, have you ever tried to inventory it into a digitized list? There are some apps out there that can help—it's been some time, but I had one that worked off my phone, and scanned something, maybe the isbn bar code, maybe the book cover, can't remember, and extracted the bibliographic information from its database and made me a list on my phone that I could then process. The apps are probably even better now than when I tried it, and would save you a ton of work inventorying your library, and such a list of your holdings would be invaluable and serve a double purpose, as Mike points out: one, as a resource for the WP:RX project, and two, possibly for importing corresponding citations into {{Reflib}}, if the list falls naturally into some defined topic areas.

As far as WP:RX, I've had good success with it before, and can recommend it. If we follow Mike's idea and set up some kind of linkage between Reflib and RX, that might provide benefits all around; I can envision an enhancement to Reflib which, as Mike indicates, would lessen the burden on RX folks as well as the seekers who go there looking for stuff, by linking from a digitized citation library (such as Reflib incarnates) to a list of holders of that work, thus skipping the search process for books we already know have holders via RX, and which have corresponding citations in Reflib. Great idea, Mike.

In the meantime, MeegsC, have a look at the {{Reflib}} doc if you haven't already, and if you think your library holdings correspond naturally to one or more "article domains" that we could import into Reflib, I'd love to get a digitized list of your library and do so. I'll maybe make a separate overture to RX about the possibility of linking the two, unless you'd like to, Mike, as this is your idea. Thanks so much for the ping! Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you go ahead -- that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

MeegsC, I had a quick search for Home library apps, and there seem to be lots of good ones out there. The names "Library Thing" and "Libib" seem to be mentioned by all the "Best of" websites for home library apps, and after that MyLibrary, iBookshelf, and BookCrawler, and several others. Mike, thanks; will do. Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record: linking WT:RX discussion. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! And the same wishes to you; here's to a productive 2024. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guallatiri/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm busier than usual off-wiki at the moment but will see if I can take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎

And happy holidays to you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Mike Christie! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jen -- and the same good wishes to you too! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Mike Christie: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks, Ganesha; happy holidays to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

My GAN stats

Hi Mike. I was pointed to this post of yours regarding updates to GAN stats. The stats show that I have 17 reviews (see number 7 under albums), but I've only reviewed 16 GANs. Is there a way to fix my stats? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I have in the database with you tagged as the reviewer -- can you tell me which of these is incorrect? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Stony Point railway line was moved to Stony Point line during the GAN process, leading to it being double counted. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll have to see if I can figure out a systematic way to clean up double counted reviews like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Article	#	Review date
This Stupid World	1	2023-06-03 23:30:55
Love or Loved Part.1	1	2023-06-24 02:54:39
Sybil (cat)	1	2023-06-25 01:25:31
Outram Park MRT station	1	2023-07-02 14:03:45
Peter III (cat)	1	2023-07-06 22:10:41
Peter II (cat)	1	2023-07-08 14:02:35
Nelson (cat)	1	2023-07-15 13:07:34
Charles H. Jordan	1	2023-08-04 19:18:43
Joanne (album)	2	2023-08-04 19:50:10
Money Shot: The Pornhub Story	1	2023-08-06 15:26:29
Stony Point railway line	1	2023-08-09 23:12:09
Stony Point line	1	2023-08-09 23:12:09
Bipartisan Cafe	1	2023-08-27 22:02:08
Hollis v Vabu	1	2023-08-28 02:56:00
Loosey LaDuca	1	2023-09-24 14:03:44
The Redbury New York	1	2023-10-06 18:17:02
Cookie	1	2023-11-24 20:41:45
Let's All Go to the Lobby	2	2024-01-07 17:51:48

Surgery

I'm glad to see it was successful! I hope the recovery process is as easy as it possibly can be. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- me too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review?

Hi Mike, happy new year. I'm considering taking "The Day Before the Revolution" to FAC; despite my initial difficult in finding sources, it has filled out quite well, and is at a point where more material would really need to be new before I'd want to add it. Would you be willing to take a look beforehand? If you have the time, I'd particularly appreciate feedback on the organization of the themes and reception. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely like to take a look. I'm in hospital at the moment recovering from surgery and have time on my hands but it'll depend on the drugs whether I'm able to do a useful review. So it could be a few days before I comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry to hear you're in the hospital: I hope you recover quickly and easily. Please take your time, I am not in a rush. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year to you. Hope you're not too busy to nominate again this year; I like reviewing your articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to nominate at FAC any time soon - I think my time is better spent at GA and just in general doing articles. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Cyprus photos

Hi Mike, just wanted to say a massive thank you for the priceless photos of Cyprus you have been uploading from your family collection. I haven’t quite seen the like of some of them (colour photographs, even!) in Cypriot sources. File:Turkish rally Nicosia 1950s.jpg is especially fascinating to me as someone whose grandfather was there on the day. I can help pinpoint when this was taken, and can provide exact coordinates too. Going by the description, it would be after the Ford garage was set on fire. That was on 27 January 1958 (as per). The clothes confirm this is winter, and there is a large number of students in the photo. This can then only have been taken on 28 January 1958, the final day of the Turkish Cypriot protests of 27-28 January 1958, and it is just inside the Kyrenia Gate. Truly one of the best photos I have seen of this foundational event. I’ll share with some fellow Cypriots. Many many thanks! GGT (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm so glad! It's been a labour of love converting these from slides and picking the ones to upload. (I have hundreds of baby photos of my sister who was born in Nicosia but I'm not uploading those!). My father worked for the UK Ministry of Defence and he was posted to Cyprus in the late 1950s. The earliest date I've found for the Cyprus pictures is April 1956, and I know we were back in the UK by late 1959, so these pictures are all in that three year span. I hope the pictures are useful! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And FYI I have updated the date on the Commons file per your comments. I wonder if your grandfather is in the photo somewhere! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

FAC review?

Hey, I remembered that you were one of the experienced FAC reviewers back when you did a GA review for me last year. I'm just wondering if you could have a look at my first FAC nomination if you have the time. It's my first, but it's co-nominated with someone who has experience with the FAC process. If you don't have the time or interest, no worries. -- ZooBlazer 01:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm currently taking a break from FAC as I'm recovering from surgery, but I'm finding some time every day to edit, and should be back at FAC inside two or three weeks. Your article isn't the sort of thing I know a lot about but when I get back to it I'll at least take a look. Best of luck with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hope your recovery goes well! -- ZooBlazer 02:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

TFA calling

Evening Mike, how are things going? Argosy (magazine) has been scheduled for March and I wondered if you fancied having a crack at the blurb? Cheers. Seeing the comment above, if not, do say so, and I'll have a thumb-fingered attempt. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a go. What's the limit again? 1100 words? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

925-1,025 characters including spaces. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Have done some trimming on the FAC talk page; am on my iPad and don't have a good byte counter but I think that's probably still a sentence or two over, if you want to cut some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I've trimmed a bit more. I'll have a go at the last 100 characters in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Down to size. Feel free to play with it further. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That looks fine. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you and all who helped today for Daisy Bacon, about "the editor of Love Story Magazine for most of that magazine's life. (This is new territory for me, as I've never before nominated a biography of anyone born in the last 1,000 years.) Love Story was the most successful pulp of them all, reaching perhaps 600,000 readers, more than any of the western, detective, horror, or science fiction magazines. I found out about Bacon when researching Doc Savage and The Shadow, since she edited them for a few issues right at the end of their run."!

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible - Best wishes for your recovery! Perhaps music helps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong place?

Hello, I have recently reviewed this nomination Talk:James New York – NoMad and when I passed it, I may not have directed it to the right spot. It is a hotel building in Manhattan and I listed it under architecture as a building. If this is an issue, can you let me know if you can help? Bruxton (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That looks like the right spot to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Argosy (magazine)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oriental Stories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Owen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Keith Vining

The article Keith Vining has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnotable novelist

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jaguarnik (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Update for the Football description at WP:GAN

Mike Christie, you requested a rewording for the Football section description at WT:GAN, and the following was provided back on February 2 (and since archived): This includes association football (soccer), Australian rules football, Gaelic football, gridiron football (including American football, arena football, and Canadian football), international rules football, rugby league, rugby union, and historical forms of football. Do you think you can make the update soon? What's there now is insufficiently comprehensive to describe what belongs in the Football subcategory. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Done -- thanks for the reminder; I hadn't realized I hadn't made that update. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

FA review

I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

February music

story · music · places

Congratulations to a new FA! - Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

GAR of Australian rules football

Mike Christie, I noticed that this GAR is showing up as a reassessment under the "Other Sports" subtopic. Shouldn't it be under the "Football" subtopic? "Australian rules football" is one of the areas specifically listed under Football on the GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember offhand where the GARs get their subtopic from. I've updated the AH template to say "football" instead of "sports", but I'm not sure that will do it. If it doesn't I'll see if I can find time to look this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems to have worked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing the {{ArticleHistory}} to have topic football here seems to affect the talkpage note on that page, as it now just says Australian rules football has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria rather than Australian rules football has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. I don't think that template knows of football as a parameter. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Joseph2302, I've posted a note at the AH talk page, which is where it appears a change needs to be made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

FA review

Hey, I've recently nominated Cross-site leaks for FA. Would you be interested in taking a look and providing some comments/doing a review? The article is a fair bit technical, and it would be great for somebody with some programming background to take a look at it :) Sohom (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look -- not sure how much time I'll have for reviewing this week, but I might have a bit of time tomorrow. It's not an area I know a lot about, but if I think I can be helpful I'll have a go at reviewing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Mike Christie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ojos del Salado/archive1.
Message added 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Will try to find time this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, I see you have four supports; do you still want me to review? I'd be happy to review your next FAC instead if you like, which is probably not far off once you get the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Up to you; it's been waiting for a source review for quite a while and David Fuchs said that it needs that and more input. My next FAC will be Mount Hudson, which is a bit of a borderline case in some aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

David, are you looking for another review for that FAC? If so I'm happy to jump in but otherwise I can review something that needs it more, and save a spot for reviewing Jo-Jo's next one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie The main sticking point for that one is just a source review, rather than a full one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Jo-Jo, you already have a source review promised so I'll pass on this; let me know when your next FAC goes up and I'll review it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ChristieBot Question

Would it be relatively straight forward to add the nominators names to individual GAN pages via ChristieBot in the future? So at Talk:Ernest Fanelli/GA1 it said both Reviewer: Aza24 & Nominator: Wretchskull.

Has this ever been proposed before to your knowledge? Seems rather logical to include—I've frequently had to do many extra clicks to figure out the nominators of old GANs, and particularly when multiple people are commenting on a page, it can get confusing. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't been requested, but I think it could be done. We'd need to decide exactly where it should go so the bot can always place the string in the right place, and in theory that might not always work if the reviewer does something to screw up the page layout, but that would be very rare. Could you suggest this at WT:GAN? I can't imagine anyone would object, but I'd like to run it by the GA community and see whether there are comments. I don't think I'll have time to make code changes for a week or two, but this would probably be a fairly easy change to make. As it happens I could do a run to make it happen for most old GAs too, but that would be much more problematic -- both for watchlist flooding and unreliability of layout -- and I'd want to do another bot approval pass for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, yeah I can suggest it at WT:GAN. I'm thinking I'd start with a proposal for adding the function, then maybe at a later date consider the updating for old GANS. Probably best to separate the proposals since the latter is likely up for some debate. Aza24 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Football GA parameter

Hi Mike, been away for a bit so I don't remember what exactly is happening. Is there a reason your edit here doesn't work? CMD (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Eventually that worked, if you look at the next edits; the remaining issue is here. I think that's the only outstanding problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, so just an issue with Article history? It appears only that page and another AFL one have ended up in Category:Good articles without topic parameter. Is there actually any reason to list "Football" rather than "Sports" or some other alias in the Article history template? I don't think it has any impact outside of the template display. CMD (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the GAR was not displaying correctly -- see above. That was what prompted me to make that edit. I think it would be better if AH could be kept in sync, if only for that reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't know the GAR didn't define its own topic. Thanks, CMD (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

FAC review

Hey Mike, if you have time, could you have a look at my FAC nom? It already has multiple supports, but because it is my first nomination, Gog said on his talk page that he felt it needed more reviews, including possibly from experienced reviewers. -- ZooBlazer 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some time this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for being the guy that keeps GAN running smoothly. I really appreciate all the hard work you do on the tech side. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Bless you MC. Well deserved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Just saw that you already implemented the nomintator/reviewer change—nice work! And thanks for everything! – Aza24 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I can't figure out the technology anymore to find a comment and thank you on it. The times on the page, no longer match the times on the history and I just cannot figure it out. I appreciate very much that you heard me. That doesn't often happen in WP, so I sincerely thank you. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your comments are always thoughtful, and I have a lot of respect for the work you do. There are others who write more than they review, but to me you're the poster child for why we need to support writers why don't review much. That doesn't mean we don't need to support reviewers, as I know you know, but you (and others) convinced me we have to find another way to do it. Thanks for stopping by. Oh, and by the way, the difference in the timestamps on the page and in the history is that the ones on the page are UTC (basically, UK time) whereas the ones in the history are whatever time zone you're in. So if you know how many hours away from the UK you are you can usually figure out what timestamp in the history corresponds to the page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I used to just try to look for a timestamp with the minutes that were the same, but now not even the minutes are the same, so it makes no sense to me. I agree both sides need to be supported, but a lot of the discussion seemed to be missing the point that it is quality we are after, not numbers. As they say, if it were easy, we would have solved it by now. I try to divide my reviewing time for both GA and FA. My GA review stats are the opposite of my FA stats, where I have reviewed more than I have ever nominated. There just aren't really enough hours in the day to write and review and do a good job of it, or at least to the standard that I hold myself. I appreciate the work you do. SusunW (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Tomorrow Speculative Fiction

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Tomorrow Speculative Fiction, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations! A good way to start the month. Anyway, I came to your talk page to say (if you hadn't seen already) that WT:GAN#Survey looks pretty clear already; I don't know if it needs to run the full 30 days, but if it doesn't, how quickly will you be able to revert to the old system? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If I remember the way I set it up, I think it's just a one-line change -- I have the various possible sort orders prebuilt and just need to set a flag to say which one to use. I'd rather wait till the RfC is actually closed, but if you think it's ready to be closed you could ask for a closer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Congratulations, and thank you today for Argosy (magazine), "about one of the most influential magazines in American history. Argosy was the first pulp magazine and spawned hundreds of imitators and an entire industry that lasted almost sixty years. It was the first brick in the publishing empire built by Frank Munsey, an often-reviled publishing mogul of the early 20th century. It outlasted Munsey, who died in 1925, but the magazine eventually succumbed in 1978, though it has been revived several times since then."! - I was on vacation, pictures to be found under "places", - enjoy. I enjoyed not to have time for infobox discussions. Look at my recent stories: many composers, and most have infoboxes installed without any problem, sooner or later:

1. Bach (2015)
2. Max Reger (2016)
3. Arvo Pärt (2017)
4. Aribert Reimann (2017)
5. Mozart (2023)
6. Wolfgang Fortner (2024)

Why do we seem to get problematic only when it comes to a few FAs by a few editors? Can we perhaps establish some walled garden for them and leave the rest in peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The image - from last year's vacation on the same island - stands for missing Vami-IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexander J. Clements for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander J. Clements is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander J. Clements (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A couple of oddities re ChristieBot and GAN

Mike Christie, I've been checking the WP:GAN page around midnight in order to determine the total nominations and total needing reviews for the GAN backlog drive, and have noticed some odd behavior.

One example, tonight, had Felipe VI taken for review at 23:53, 31 March 2024, and the failure posted at both review page and talk page at 23:56, three minutes later. ChristieBot transcludes the review on the talk page at 00:03, 1 April 2024, adds the nominator information to the review page, also at 00:03, posts the review failure to the nominator's talk page at 00:03, updates the GA bot/stats at 00:05, but does not update the GAN page to remove Felipe VI from the list of nominated articles. It also didn't update on the run twenty minutes later, though this was an odd one since although the Yakub I of Germiyan had passed, it didn't pass until 00:21, presumably after ChristieBot started its run at 00:20, which may be why only the article was given the GA icon and the nominator was notified of passage. The next promotion, DiDa Ritz, occurred at 00:22, and processed through at 00:41, again only doing the article icon and the nominator talk page notice. I had expected this to end once a review or other non-pass/fail occurred, but that wasn't the case: the next set of changes, a fail of Dedebit Elementary School airstrike at 01:21, and the beginning of a review for Talk:Worlds (Porter Robinson album) at 01:23 (page was created at 01:15), didn't cause an edit to the main WP:GAN page.

The other one I had previously noticed is Phoenix (1980 video game), which was passed at 01:54, 31 March 2024 (this one had been under review since 28 March 2024, so a different situation from Felipe VI). At 02:00, the GA icon was added to the article, and at 02:01, the nominator was informed of passage, yet similarly to the others no update was made to WP:GAN. It was slipped into the next revision of the page at 02:26.

I thought you might want to know; it looks like the articles aren't always being removed from the GAN page after a GA or FailedGA is posted to the article talk page, or that every review gets there. Thanks for all the work you do to keep GAN humming along. I hope these are easy to track down. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This turned out to be quite entertaining. The problem, at least for Felipe VI and I think in all such cases, is that the bot crashed after the talk page updates and before rewriting the GAN page. As a general rule if it appears the bot didn't fully complete its tasks, it probably crashed before whatever tasks were not done. Here the crash was because Thebiguglyalien has set up an April Fool's Day redirect for their userid that goes to User:Thebiguglyalien/April Fools' Day 2024. This caused a problem because when the bot sees a redirect on a user page, it assumes it's because of a rename, so it follows it to give credit for the review to the user at the other end of the redirect. (Some editors redirect their user page to their talk page, which is fine too since the user for their talk page is the same.) Then the bot checks the edit count for that user, but if you call the editcount query using a page name that is a subpage of a userpage, it produces an error. That's what caused the crash. I've just updated the bot to ignore user page redirects to subpages, so that should fix it; it should clean up the page in a few minutes if so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Name change

Hello Dearest Wikipedian, I don't know that except when you told me on the bit's talk page. I just believe it will be easier now since I have made some there.

I renamed from User:Otuọcha to User:SafariScribe and will want my GA statistics be taken to my present name. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added the name change to the bot's list, so the next time the GAN page updates it should correct your review statistics by including the reviews you did as Otuọcha. I'll keep an eye on it and make sure it goes through correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)