User talk:Marskell/Archive 27

Hi Marskell,

Haumea has been cleaned up a bit since your comments, if you'd like to take another look. kwami (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bump Nergaal (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, Tim. It's not good form to fly-oppose an FA nom. Serendi^podous 09:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Tim. Now I feel bad for badgering you. Serendi^podous 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow is gone. The steps the community will have to take to deal with FAC and FAR closings and talk page templates are outlined at User:SandyGeorgia/FA work. Gimme was in the process of bringing me up to speed so that I could run the bot myself, but we weren't done, and I don't have the latest code. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, an out-of-process (today's TFA) FAR nom on Holloway, removed once and reverted once by the nom. Since it is so much work to build it into articlehistory without GimmeBot, I will suggest to Maralia (who is helping with the manual GimmeBot work) to just move it to archive and clear the redirect once you've dealt with it (in other words, not move to FAR archive since it was out of process and won't be botified, just moved to archive1). I hope that isn't Greek to you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to remove it again—less than 3 days since it was TFA, still loosely within the 3–6 months since promotion, and the nomination doesn't address WP:WIAFA at all—but I've had enough drama for one week. Waiting to see what you think we should do. Maralia (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from FAR and moved to archive1. Note I've used the generic archive templates for now, pending a proper closure. What next? Unfortunately, much of this is Greek to me because it's been so long since I did manual closures.

What a clusterfuck this week has been—and I'm not even editing that much. Marskell (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the redirect Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway and full-protected it for five days. Why don't I simply delete Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive1? Save us work. Marskell (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wouldn't—in fact, I would recreate Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway to prepare it for any future nom, and link /archive1 from it too, so that !voters at any future nomination will be aware of the nonsense the article has already been through. This is pretty common procedure at FAC for out-of-process nominations. I tried to do this for you, and to update the archive tags on /archive1, but you've (understandably) protected both pages. Maralia (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave the protections and deletion for at least 72 or 96 hours to discourage the point-y editor from restarting the FAR at 3 days + 1 second, as he's threatened on talk. As for whether to enter it in AH, I'll wait for Sandy's opinion. Marskell (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Oh, I was in no way disputing the protection; only explaining why I didn't (couldn't!) tweak the archive tags. Since I already wrote them up, here's the info:
{{subst:FAR top| result= '''kept''' by [[User:Marskell]] 10:51, 22 October 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&diff=246955389&oldid=246859532]}}
{{subst:FAR bottom}} Maralia (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I replaced the generic archive tags with the proper ones. Thanks Maralia. If you can't edit the page, perhaps we should get busy with an RfA!

Note I'll be out of action for the next 12+ hrs. Marskell (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have needed to get Maralia sysopped for quite a while now; so far, she's refused. She is the only other person who is fully versed in every step of GimmeBotification, btw. Marskell, I explained in detail at Talk:Natalee Holloway, but the precedent at FAC and FAR (and what Maralia and I have done in all previous similar cases) is to 1) move the file to the next open N archiveN, and 2) clear the redirect, leaving a link to "previous FAR withdrawn", 3) without recording it in articlehistory or adding it to the FAC or FAR archive (since it's not truly an "event"). A record is left in the cleared FAR page, prepped for the next submission. When the FAR page is unprotected, Maralia or I could recreate that, so there's nothing else you need to do now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, follow up at User talk:Dr pda#FAC and FAR templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme mentioned on my talk page that the irregularity of our closings is a drain on him. I don't want FAC to be too constrained for various reasons, but can we work around something along these lines? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, Physchim62 (talk · contribs) has requested the reversal of your protection on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway. - auburnpilot talk 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kreutz Sungrazers has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Ceran^(Sing) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've posted my revised edition of Watchmen in the main article space. Is there anything else I need to take care of for the FAR? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: directing others to the discussion here)

Gimme mentioned on my talk page that the irregularity of our closings is a drain on him, and proposed a more regular schedule on FAC/FAR/FL closings, with us perhaps working around bot runs shortly after 23:59 Tuesdays and Saturdays. I can understand how draining it must be to have to do this bot work every single day; it also probably makes it hard for Gimme to find time to focus on his own article interests. For FAC, I can't commit to always following this schedule (particularly in the current environment of reviewer complaints about list size, even though I've held the list to around 30 by processing FACs daily), but in the interest of not overtaxing GimmeBot, I can try to stay as closely to that schedule as allowed by other constraints. I've done/proposed the following:

• updated the wording at WP:FAC/ar to hopefully educate editors that there may be delays
• updated the wording at Template:FAC-instructions and Template:FAR-instructions similarly
• asked more people to keep an eye on Category:ArticleHistory error
• asked Dr pda to rework the old templates in case we need to use them temporarily (which he did, beautifully):
  • {{facfailed}}
  • {{featured}}
  • {{FARpassed}}
  • {{FormerFA2}}
• trained Maralia (talk · contribs) in processing closed FACs and FARs
• written up all instructions at User:SandyGeorgia/FA work.

So, I have the following questions:

• Can FAR and FL work around Gimme's proposed schedule?
• Can GimmeBot still process the old templates in the event we have to promote several days in advance of a bot run, and should we use the old templates in those cases?

Perhaps on withdrawn FACs, Maralia and I will just botify them manually, as removing them as soon as they withdraw helps with list size; but, if Gimme says it works, we can also just use the old templates on the talk page for those cases. We need to convince Maralia to submit to RfA, too.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup sample, if I were to archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarah Geronimo ahead of the planned bot runs, would it be better to add the old {{facfailed}} template to the talk page and wait for the bot, or for Maralia and I to manually process the close? (Never mind that some editors are entering "quick fail" when we have no such thing at FAC; in this case, there are more than half a dozen opposes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another situation: this forces us to do articlehistory manually, because the job is half done and I believe that stalls the bot. Is that correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia is a machine: [1] But is that the best way to go on these? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to Scorpion, and we're okay at FLC with that. A couple of questions:

1. Is Gimmetrow asking that the projects close nominations only twice a week, or just saying that the bot will add gold stars and update article history twice a week. On the one hand leaving nominations open might encourage more reviews, but on the other, people might start getting impatient as to why their nom still hasn't been closed especially when it's so clear cut one way or the other. Another thing is that when there's 50 or 60 nominations open, reviewers, and especially any potential new reviewers, may be scared away by the volume.
2. To ease Gimmetrow/bot's workload, would it halt the bot if we manually closed FxC and moved to archive subpages, and just left the bot to update article history, or even vica verca (adding the star and updating article history, and letting the bot deal with the FxC archiving?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On 2) , if you do part of the process and not all of it, my understanding is that makes it harder for the bot (in fact, stalls the bot), but Gimmetrow would have to clarify. That is why Maralia and I are seeking clarification if it is better for us to add the old templates to the talk pages on those closings and then wait for the bot, or to just fully complete the process ourselves on any closes that aren't on schedule with the bot.
• On 1) the problem with closings too far in advance of the scheduled bot runs is that, as in 2), if someone does part of the work, or removes talk page templates or completes the job halfway, that stalls the bot (I believe, not sure). That will make Gimme's chore even worse. Gimme is proposing that we close on Tuesdays and Saturdays. I am raising the issue of, if we do any closings outside of that schedule, how is it best for us to handle them. Do we do the whole process manually, or can we add the old templates to talk and then wait for the bot. But ideally, Gimme is asking that we all get on one schedule so that he can do everything in two runs per week.

Regarding your concerns about the list size, I have the same issue at FAC (that I've weaned the list size down to between 30 and 40 by promoting daily), but I haven't detected any evidence that holding down the list size actually encourages more or better reviews. If Maralia and I can hold the list size down in between bot runs, by moving off a few here and there as needed, I think Gimme's proposal is doable. We just need to know the best way to proceed on those that fall outside of the Tuesday, Saturday schedule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Marskell; the question for you is 1) if you can do most closings sometime before Tuesdays and Sats, knowing that there will be scheduled bot runs, and 2) the general issue to follow is how Gimme wants us to handle earlier closings (use the old templates, or manually botify). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I should be closing not before Tues and Sat but on Tues and Sat because the bot run will begin in the first minutes of Wed and Sun. Correct? Correct.

As I say, this will be no problem. The only issue for earlier ones is emergency closings, such as I just did with Holloway. I'm inclined to use the generic archive templates, {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}, to shut discussion and then wait to include them with the regular batch. There are no emergency removals at FAR, of course. Will the bot be confused if I also remove the FAR template from talk? Yes, if you do part of the job, my understanding is that messes up the bot, and we need to do all the job. Maralia and I can handle the rare "Holloway" situations. The only reason I didn't handle Holloway is because I don't want the COI of removing FARs when I promoted the FAC. As long as the FAR page isn't protected, Maralia or I can complete the work. And, if we get her to submit to RfA, she can complete any "emergency" Holloway type withdrawals if you've had to protect the page. We need someone besides me to remove and botify those cases because of my COI. If it's not an FA I promoted, I don't mind removing the premature FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on a post at WT:FFA#FFA -> which class about Assessments post-FAR, and restored a blanked articlehistory at Talk:A Tale of a Tub. When I restored it, I thought it was an issue coming from confused WikiProject members attempting to re-assess, and asking GimmeBot to do that. The discussion continued, and followup revealed otherwise. Another task that Gimmetrow routinely does is make sure the talk page tallies on FAs and FFAs agree with our tallies, so this is another thing he has to watch for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on this page. Please reply. :) _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of littering the article with reference needed tags, perhaps you could copy the most needy statements to the talk page... - Mgm|^(talk) 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put up the notice five days ago: [2] Do you want me to ping you in the future? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need more bots? No one is nice to my favorite bots, how are we going to get more?  :-)) Schutzbot (which bolds the mainpage) is busted again. I notify him a couple times a month. I think I'm going to sit on my fingers this time and see if anyone besides me does that task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe they should be in articlehistory. First, they aren't really an "event" and second, why create the work? Actually, the GimmeBot steps are at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#GimmeBot steps, but you don't have to do all of that on the premature withdraws.

1. Remove transcluded FAR page from WP:FAR; do NOT move to the FAR archive file, as it doesn't need to be botified and isn't a true "event".
2. Add the subst headings as in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive1 (but what is there now is incorrect, the "Kept" should be changed to "Withdrawn"). The substs are {{subst:FAR top| result= '''withdrawn''' by Marskell (date) diff }} and {{subst:FAR bottom}}
3. Move the FAR page to the next open N, /archiveN , lowercase a, sample. GimmeBot looks for the next open N on its next archive, so it doesn't care if a previous number is used but not in history.
4. Re-open the original FAR page,(sample) to (a) remove the redirect, (b) prep it ready for next submission by adding the page header ===[[Article name]]=== and a link to previous FAR withdrawn (no uppercase p all uppercase FAR, this is for some other scripts) New bot procedure. Just maintenance delete the old page now.
5. Go to the article talk page. (a) Remove the {{FAR}} template from the article talk page, (b) leave a comment on the talk page in a new section noting that the FAR was withdrawn, with a link to the archive file.
6. If necessary, notify the nominator.

As long as the FAR page isn't protected, and there isn't a COI, Maralia or I can do these for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a diff with a complete sample of how it's done: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, there's a mismatch in your archives today; what you entered in archive [4] [5] is different than what you entered at WP:FA. [6] [7] Are you still on? It appears that you intended to delist United States Constitution instead of Menstrual cycle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow botified according to what you listed in the FAR archive, as that looked correct. If that is correct, then the entries at WP:FA and WP:FFA (on Menstrual cycle and US Constitution) are the only corrections needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Ruslik have agreed that he will do the sourcing and I will do the copyedit. I'll jump in if he needs it, but I want to avoid us both doing it at the same time so we don't do duplicate work. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where this came from: it was likely one of Tony's rewrites, but it's misleading and wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checked history, there since the earliest days. Who knew: well slap my hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crab Nebula has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 14:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been postponed. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 14:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to try and copy edit through this slush, I'll start ASAP. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marskell; I saw your name on WP:PR/V, so I came to ask if you'd be willing to help copyedit Christmas 1994 nor'easter. I'd really appreciate it if you could. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me a note when you put up your list for Nancy? So I can compare notes, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Whoarewehuntington.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Primate has been floating around the bottom of the page for a while, and really needs an animal-person review, in case you have time for a quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the tag-end of this discussion, I asked Sandy if there was a list of FAR saves anywhere. I said I'd ask you, so do you know of any such list? Carcharoth (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow has suggested that a category could be populated. Would you and Joel be happy with that? One thing I want to do is see if there was any substantial change before and after the FAR. i.e. distinguish between frivolous FARs and those where a lot of work was done to save it (are there lots of frivolous FARs). That would be more complicated I guess, and would be better handled by a list. I was also looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log and Wikipedia:Featured article statistics, and was wondering where FAR stats and logs fit in. The number of demoted articles is a FAR measure, but the number of FAR saves is that as well. Again, the frivolous FARs would skew any stats, but some measure of the overall rate of FARs and how that has varied over the years would be nice. Only if there's time of course. I'm aware that something like that is more time-consuming than simply populating a category. I would be happy to help out though. Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Gimmetrow found an old category and has triggered ArticleHistory to populate it. See Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed). Sandy says she knows which ones are the trivial FARs (closed without need for action), and there might be a need to find articles removed after a second (or more) FAR (how common is that?). But I have what I need now. Sorry to have split the discussion over three different talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have confused you. I'll try and explain what happened. I was talking to Sandy about one of those 2004 FAs that got extensively rewritten this year (2008) at FAR (the article in question was Shrine of Remembrance). I'm always very impressed when someone makes the effort to save an article at FAR (I'm sure you mentioned this vital aspect of FAR yourself in one of your 'Dispatches' for the Signpost). This led me to wonder if there was a list anywhere of the articles that have been 'saved' at FAR. Hence my question to you above. I then had the idea that this information could be extracted through the {{ArticleHistory}} template (rather than manually going back through the FAR archives). So I went and asked Gimmetrow, who suggested a category and made this edit.

This is where it does get slightly confusing. I thought Gimmetrow had created that category, but it turns out that Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) has existed since June 2006 (when you created it - which is why I'm asking you about the history of what happened here). At the time, it appears to have been populated by {{FARpassed}} (see the note left on the category page in July 2006). Presumably the FARpassed template was in use from July 2006 until sometime around January 2007. As I said, I don't know the full history here and you (as the category creator) are far more likely to know. The reason I mention January 2007 is that this is the date of this discussion (titled 'FAR and the FAC bot'), started by Gimmetrow. In the final section of that discussion (the process), you said "BTW, keeps are categorized at Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) (a bit of a clunky category name) and removes under Category:Wikipedia former featured articles." What happened after that, I don't know.

Moving forward to yesterday (7 November 2008), Gimmetrow said, when I asked, that the FAR closed category was empty (except for one Wikipedia page). So at some point, Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) got depopulated. My guess is that this happened when Template:FARpassed (not in use today) got replaced with ArticleHistory. See the discussion at Template talk:ArticleHistory/Deprecation and at this TfD debate (from December 2007, where Gimmetrow said "FARpassed and FormerFA2 would be used if FAR needs to do things by hand"). Indeed, in August 2008, Sandy removed the 'historical' tag from FARpassed with the comment Remove historical, with GimmeBot on vacation, I'm going to need to use this temporarily.

So the key points are that Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) used to be populated, then got depopulated at some indeterminate point, and then Gimmetrow repopulated it with his edit to 'ArticleHistoryoutput' yesterday. The questions for you (as you created the category) are probably: what do you do with that category, and do you want it populated or not?

Going further, it would be nice to work out exactly why that category got missed out when the transition was made from FARpassed to ArticleHistory, but I'm confused as to exactly what happened there, so it might be best to leave that. And to address the points about 'make work' that Sandy and others have raised (Sandy made several comments in edit summaries and posts yesterday about 'make work' that I had to try mightily to avoid being discouraged by), my initial questions here might have been aimed at creating a list that it would take work to maintain, but let's be clear - I wasn't asking anyone else to do that work. It was my own personal interest (I would probably eventually have identified the FARs where a long period of time had passed between original promotion and the FAR, and where 'substantial' changes had been made to save the FAR). All rather subjective of course, but if I want to spend time on that, I don't think people should be discouraging me with 'make work' comments (that's not directed at you, Marskell - and in fairness I will leave Sandy a note pointing her to what I've said here).

And it would be nice to get an acknowledgement that even if my initial questions might have been to 'make work', that I do have a fair point when asking about this category that was created by you, depopulated, and then repopulated. It's really unclear what happened there. I hope that what I've written above has made things clearer. If it hasn't, I can extract the key points if you ask me to. I'll drop a note off to Gimmetrow and Sandy to keep them informed about this. If, as they said, they deal with template stuff and ArticleHistory, and not you (at least I think that is what Sandy meant when she said: "Gimmetrow and I deal with such things"), then I'll talk to them and not you. But as the creator of the category in question, I think you might have some insight into what it was used for and what it could be used for. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would all be easier to understand if you could explain why you want this category: what will be done with it. The reason no one noticed that it was depopulated is most likely that the category isn't useful for anything. That's why I characterize it as make work. For example, the category isn't useful for knowing what articles may need review: for that, Dr pda and Gimmetrow run scripts that look at dates, not just articles in a category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The honest truth is I created that category and forgot about it. We have WP:FFA; we have the FAR archives; we have AH.

The one thing that might be one your mind is acknowledging people's work? This we all understand and have discussed at FAR. The main savers don't care much for prizes but it never hurts. If you want to do that, I'd actually suggest manually going through the archives and seeing who saved what. But that will take hours of your time. Marskell (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm careful to track the "savers" (as best as I can) at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles (a list generated by Dr pda, more useful than categories, because it looks at date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that you track URFA. But those not coming from the list as well? Marskell (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, only those on the list and only when it's not regular editors. Because it depends on how one defines a "save". To me, it's those who are saving someone else's work (i.e., getting no credit themselves at WP:WBFAN). I think regular editors of an article restoring an article that was submitted to FAR are just doing what they should have been doing all along, but needed a little push ... very different from restoring uncited or abandoned articles from the list. No, I haven't tracked others, but there aren't many. Our lists encompass most of the articles that need restoring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy, for pointing out Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles#Brought to standard is exactly what I was looking for. (I thought it was clear that is what I was looking for when I was talking about "FAR saves", but obviously I wasn't clear enough). I was completely unaware of Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. It is not actually linked from many "main pages" at all (mostly from user talk pages and archive pages), so probably some others that only follow FAC/FAR sporadically are not aware of it either. Would a link to URFA be a useful addition somewhere? Maybe in the blurb at Wikipedia:Featured article review and maybe even at WP:FA itself (it is currently linked from there only because it is linked in a review transcluded on FAR (namely Wikipedia:Featured article review/H.D.)? Or maybe in the sidebar template (Template:Fapages?) Also, if Dr pda and Gimmetrow run scripts to identify things like this, could that be documented somewhere (apologies if it already is) so that people don't try and re-invent the wheel? As for the category, I suspected that the depopulation went un-noticed because it was unused, but I hope you will agree that keeping a category is not 'make work' (it is populated automatically). If at some future point, someone wants to use the category contents, they can, and meanwhile it is useful as a resource. Marskell, I may well go through the FAR archives manually at some point. I should do that at the least before making any more proposals! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Well, I can't resist one - seeing as Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles got a major update in October 2008, why not make that the subject of a future "Dispatches"? I've briefly scanned the past list and can't find anything. I'll suggest something at Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop - done.[reply]

No, it shouldn't be linked widely, because editors misunderstand it. Read the disclaimers. It's not a proxy for FAR, it's an estimation, but others overinterpret its usefulness and purpose. Marskell and I have been discussing a Dispatch and plan to get to it. I'm afraid, however, that make work keeps me from doing work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I said at the link I provided? I said: "It should be noted, though, that Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles is not a proxy for FAR, so mentions of it should be precise on this point." Deciding on the subject of Dispatches is the point I raised elsewhere at WT:SIGNPOST. You want writers to write stuff, but then you (quite rightly) insist on editorial control on what is written about. If people come up with ideas on stuff they want to write about (or see others write about) and put suggestions there, then at least read what they said before telling them to read the disclaimers. Carcharoth (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insist on editorial control, I did tell you that Marskell and I have already been planning that Dispatch for some time. Dispatches are coordinated at WT:FCDW, it's been covered there. You're spreading work everywhere without catching up on issues. It's tiring. And here's the part you're missing: whichever Dispatches I have undertaken, they've happened. Almost every time another editor has requested a slot, they've dropped the ball, leaving me to scramble to put something together at the last minute. Those are the facts of "editorial control", which boils down to those who do the work. That's why your suggestion that Ral315 should be replaced is offensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's tiring for me too. One of the most dis-spiriting things that can be said in response to a spontaneous post is "this is make work". It might be true, but unless you put it diplomatically, you will just discourage people instead of pointing them in the direction of productive work. For what it is worth, I enjoyed reading Wikipedia:FCDW/November 8, 2008, even though it hasn't been published yet. Carcharoth (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) You are now saying that I suggested Ral315 be replaced? You need to get your facts straight. It was User:How do you turn this on (HDYTTO). I'm really extremely annoyed at what you've just said here Sandy. You accuse me of not reviewing the history of things, and then you get things completely wrong yourself. I acknowledged that HDYTTO had a point, and Ral acknowledged that himself by apologising for his absence, and if anything I calmed things down by saying that HDYTTO should wait a bit until Ral replied. I went to the trouble of e-mailing Ral to let him know what was going on, and Ral turned up and responded (whether because of my e-mail or not, I don't know). If you wanted me to walk away from the computer in disgust, Sandy, then you've succeeded. I'll check back in later this evening, after I've calmed down a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct (and struck above), with my apologies for the sloppiness in my statement: you didn't suggest it, you just added on to HDYTTO's suggestion that the issue was with Ral315, implying that a deputy was needed, when what is needed are people who assume and uphold the writing (not editorial) responsibility, day in and day out.[8] Ral asked for more help from writers; pushing the buttons to publish is easier if people will do the work of writing. You and HDYTTO both missed that point, and your posts suggested that the problem was with Ral (similar to what we see on the Dispatches). Now, I've struck above. If this isn't finished, pls take that to my talk page, as we're beyond what belongs on Marskell's talk now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and taken to Sandy's talk. Apologies for getting off topic on your talk page, Marskell. Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, I see that the link I provided to what I said at the Dispatches workshop was added (by me) after you comment above (I had popped back here to add a link, and replied to what Gimmetrow said below, and didn't notice your comment until after I saved the edit). There was no way you could have known that I had read the disclaimers and specifically mentioned them somewhere else (though I did make the edit about the disclaimer before reading what you had written). Sorry about that, Sandy. My other points still apply, though. Anyway, we've all wasted enough time on this, so I'll move on now. But when people show interest, I hope they get more than "make work" comments, or "please go and review a FAC or FAR". Suggesting other things people could do to help out might be an idea. Carcharoth (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To cut to the chase on the category: when templates were combined into AH, some categories were dropped because nobody was using them. I suspect this "FAR pass" category was among those trimmed at the time. Gimmetrow 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks again for repopulating it. I may use the category from time to time, but as I'll be copying and pasting the contents into a spreadsheet, the "use" may not be apparent until anything useful emerges from the analysis. I know such "uses" of a category can't be detected, so just letting you know here. If there is an easier way to request such lists, let me know (I'm also interested in a list of all FARs, even the frivolous ones, but I can get that here). In case the "analysis" bit above gets queried, a previous "playing around with numbers" by me resulted in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25/Dispatches. I'm not specifically aiming for anything like that (though it would be nice), but as long as I don't distract too many people, I hope no-one minds me playing around with the numbers for FAR to see what comes out. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bsharvy is back, deleting referenced material from the Anti-Americanism article. No prizes for guessing the name of the sock....Clues: newly created user who strangely, despite this, seems well-versed in wikipedia procedure and has homed straight for the Anti-Americanism article, to which he is devoting exclusive attention, deleting material and engaging in edit wars... Colin4C (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, I have replaced the Aztec picture, added wording to article text to help with cultural exchange concerns and added quotes from our Western Civilization university textbook to the special page you set up for me to show you that what you are asking for in the history section regarding Church atrocities against the Indians is not covered by scholars and why. I am wondering if you have missed our coverage of this issue in another section of history here (first paragraph)[9] that is separate from the Spanish missions because it occurred much earlier. I enhanced that section per your concerns. Please see again. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember all the work you and I put into the Microsoft FAR a year ago?[10] Look at it now.[11] Gutted, destroyed, needs major cleanup. The lead's gone! Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing is scary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Want To Get It Done :-) Next Dispatch is Wikipedia:FCDW/ElectionTFA, and we should plan FAR for two weeks out. Do you want to co-write it, or do you want me to structure it as an interview of you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a lesson from the Johnson FAC book: after seven weeks, editors got down to work and solved their differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathise and am grateful to you and Ealdgyth for joining in the task of moving this article somewhere in the direction of WP:NPOV. Geometry guy 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marskell, I suspect that there are now two Bsarvy socks operating at Anti-Americanism. Could you check? Colin4C (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, thanks for your note and continued offer to help, I answered you on my talk page. I am writing here to give you a gift [12] and to ask you what you meant when you wrote that you were disappointed in the comment that Christopher Columbus discovered America - were you just saying that it should have been reworded as something like "the first European contact with Americans occured in 1492 when Christopher Columbus landed at ... " ? I did not understand your comment which was presented in a very negative and insulting way. I am normally not so thin skinned but since it was the first thing I read after just receiving word that my FAC had failed, I was a little bit unnerved by it. NancyHeise ^talk 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Marksell probably meant it should be reworded to something like you said, rather than it was outright wrong. Saying "Columbus discovered" basically isn't PC. The other forumlation is preferred in historical writing nowadays. You can still say "so-and-so discovered" when the spot was not inhabited. Does that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I hoped was the case. Thank you. NancyHeise ^talk 16:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, I just saw this comment at the FAC talk page "It is hard to be all things to all people, admittedly. If the RCC editors want to pass the article the first thing they should do is radically shorten it. Nancy's habit has been to add, add, add. This is not the way to go. Marskell (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)" I want you to know that just prior to submission to FAC, with the help of Ealdgyth, Johnbod, myself and Ottava Riva, the article was significantly trimmed to a reasonable size. When opposers asked for more content, I responded positively to their requests and added content. I did this for Vassyana, Taam, Ioannes Pragensis and even some supporters. I would like to have a nice concise article but every time we go to FAC, we get so many opposers who want us to add information - you yourself asked for additions. What can a FAC nominator do when faced with this situation? I can't just tell opposers "sorry, the article length would be too long". Also, whenever I add info, those who oppose still don't strike their oppose - this has happened at each FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• ... at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight, and more specifically at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight. The article clocks in at about 1670 words; I dunno if that warrants mention of your proposal for a Short Articles process.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd also really like to see your thoughts on OutRiggr's idea, explained on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight. I consider it a refinement of yuor own idea about a Short Articles process. I said at least once and perhaps more than once: I like your idea, but we don't have enough reviewers to implement it! OutRiggr's idea would not suck FAC reviewers into a new process, would instead shunt shorter aticles to an existing process.
• Thank you for your time and attention! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]