User talk:Mike Christie/Archive21

Review count

Hey, hope you're well! I've just noticed that my GA review count is slightly off—it currently says 24, but it should be 25. Looks like the bot changed my count when an article was moved mid-review. Any help would be appreciated, thanks! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look -- if it's what I think it is, it could take a few days till I have a block of time to fix it. I'll let you know when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is something to do with the sequence of moves. If you look at the move history, it got moved three times: once on 29 March by Qwerfjkl (bot), then it looks like you and Qwerfjkl collaborated on a round-robin move a few days later. Do you remember what happened? Normally when a move happens the bot tries to keep the database up to date, but the database record for this is crediting the bot with the review. There's something else odd, though, because although the GA bot/stats page has two records showing Qwerfjkl (bot) has done reviews, the ganfilter.toolforge.org GA stats page is somehow smart enough not to report them.

I think I can fix this by editing the database directly to add your name for the GA3 review, but I'd like to understand better what is going on first. If I don't have time to fix this today it's likely to be a week till I can get to it. Nag me if I haven't done anything about this by a week from today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

According to this discussion, it looks like Qwerfjkl (bot) struggled to move Talk:Doctor Who (series 2) → Talk:Doctor Who series 2 because of an existing redirect, but successfully moved /GA3 regardless, which caused some kind of disconnect and error, and then the bot removed my credit. I believe my move was to correct Qwerfjkl's move (which looked incorrect); the bot briefly gave me credit after my move but promptly removed it. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; this is helpful. I will let you know when I figure out exactly what happened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This is now fixed. I can't tell exactly what happened, but I've adjusted the database to reflect what should have happened. Let me know if you see other errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, it definitely seems to be related to the page moves, but otherwise I'm clueless. Thankfully, at least, it seems pretty rare, and in this case was caused by mass bot moves; we'll just have to keep an eye out for accounts like Qwerfjkl (bot) getting GA credits in future. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Billy Gallagher (businessman)

On 13 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Billy Gallagher (businessman), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Billy Gallagher's Times Square cabaret was open from sundown to dawn, with a mix of "reputable people" and those "who had practical reasons for circulating after dark"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Billy Gallagher (businessman). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Billy Gallagher (businessman)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Re. FAC stats tool

I hope you are well. I was wondering whether the January FAC reviewing statistics will be published together with the February figures, or later this month. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes - there’s someone new doing the stats this month so they are taking a little longer, but I’ll post them as soon as they’re ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I am presently in the middle of my school examinations, so I will not be able to help in the near future.

Could you please explain how the process works? Is it done manually, or does a bot count the declarations and the types of review provided? Thank you for your response. MSincccc (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Mike Christie/FACstats monthly data; that will probably answer most of your questions. The human element is the slow bit, and is shared between me and some of the FAC coordinators. It could be done by someone who is not a FAC coordinator, but ideally is someone with years of experience at FAC, since to do it right requires the same sort of judgement calls that the coords make. If you look at the January file you'll see it's been partially updated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

A final question. How are FAC coordinators elected? I have tried to go through archives and discussions but never came across any specific discussion. The same with the TFA coordinator election. Is it done privately between outgoing, present and potential coordinators? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I've never been a coord, so I can't answer definitively, but the general approach is that when a new coord is needed the existing coords make a suggestion on WT:FAC, and a positive response there is enough to make the decision. There's no formal process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick or not so quick question

Greetings, as the author of WP:RECEPTION, can I ask you for advice on Lake Tauca#Scenarios and research history which has a similar issue? I am not sure what the ideal fix is - especially since this seems to be a topic where everyone is using their own dating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Jo-Jo, not sure I'll have time as real life is quite busy at the moment. At a quick look I agree readability is an issue with this many numbers and ranges and qualifying statements. I will stop by if I can but can't promise anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

A question about closing a discussion due to it being 'premature'

Hello - I would like to ask you for a clarification on a discussion that you recently closed. I am wondering how this discussion could be closed as 'premature'?

The stated reason is "premature as per multiple commenters", and from their comments it could be inferred that (the topic of) the discussion is still open elsewhere - and thus opening another one would really be 'premature' - but that's simply not true. As far as I know, the discussion that I opened was the first and only instance of it.

So I'd really like to have some guidance on this ... If a discussion on a subset of a topic (say, "latin names of birds") is open, does that mean that opening a discussion of a broader set (say, "latin names of animals", or "names of birds") will be considered premature until the first discussion is closed?

Sorry to bother you (this is my first deeper dive into Wikipedia), and thanks - _zmajizmaji^zmaji(talk) 13:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No problem; happy to reply and I hope I can answer your question. In one sense, the main reason I closed it was because the comments all suggested it should be closed -- that is, there was consensus to close it. But that doesn't help you much. The commenters themselves gave reasons why they thought it was premature. You might take a look at WP:RFCBEFORE, which I think was a big part of the objections. Before we spend editors' time on an RfC it's sensible to make sure there is a coherent and unbiased way to frame the RfC. Wording that sounds good to you may sound biased to someone else. Getting the wording of an RfC right is very important if you want a usable result. In this particular it's also a contentious area, and I think it would make more sense to have a non-RfC conversation asking what would be a good next step. But before that I think I would suggest waiting for any other relevant RfCs to end, as any consensu on those would presumably be relevant to any related RfC. I am not knowledgeable about the topic you raised, and you can ignore me if you want, but I think you're going to find this is a difficult area to get consensus in as many editors have strong feelings about these country names in this period. I don't think you'll find it a productive use of your time to debate this, but it's up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

I will try again - but slowly, so I will begin the discussion at the Teahouse (as WP:RFCBEFORE suggests). Best regards! :-)

- _zmajizmaji^zmaji(talk) 14:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you.

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you for all the work you do in maintaining ChristieBot and the FAC and GAN stats tools, all while writing quality articles in the background and of course moving with real life. MSincccc (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I look forward to the final draft of Thurber's article when ready. For now, even I have my lessons and other on-Wiki stuff. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Real life has been very busy, so I'm been slower getting back to Thurber than I expected, but I hope to work on it in the next week or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

ChristieBot

On Special:diff/1342400254 for some reason the bot only added single brackets and didn't actually transclude the {{User}} template correctly like normal. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 22:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I've fixed that instance and fixed the bug in the bot too, so it shouldn't happen again. I'll check to see if it made this mistake anywhere else today -- the bug was introduced earlier today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 73

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Mike Christie and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Siege of Mandalore GAN

Hey, I tried entering the article Siege of Mandalore as a good article nominee a few hours ago. There was a previous review which failed because I wasn't on Wikipedia at the time to respond to the questions, so I wanted to submit another one. You reverted the nomination, I'm not sure exactly why, but I just did exactly the same thing as last time. Is there a rule that you can't submit it again, or was it formatting issues or something? Ladtrack (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi -- it's fine to renominate, but there was a problem with the way you set up the nomination. I'm going to guess you made a copy of the old nomination template and added that to the talk page? The reason I think that is that the page= parameter in the template was set to page=1. That parameter is supposed to increment every time you nominate, so the second review should be page=2. If you follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I that happens automatically, without you realizing it, but of course if you copy the old nomination template it'll have the same page number. That means the link in the template is pointing to the existing review, not asking the reviewer to create a new review. So by all means go ahead and renominate it, but do it via the instructions and then the parameters should come out OK. It didn't help that I made two mistakes when I reverted you; I mistakenly wrote "review" when I meant "remove" in the edit summary, and I thought the mistake was by the reviewer, not by you, so my edit smmmary was very unhelpful. Sorry about that! Anyway, go ahead and renominate, and if you run into problems with the instructions let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I see Vestrian24Bio has done the renomination for you now, so no need to do anything. In future if you do need to nominate or renominate, it's best to follow the instructions rather than doing it manually, to avoid this sort of problem. Good luck with the nomination! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheddar Man's skin colour

Can you take a look at Cheddar Man. I am in a dispute with an editor who insists that it is wrong to describe him as black because the word means someone of African ancestry, not someone coloured black. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I just had a quick look and this seems to be resolved already -- let me know if I'm misreading it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

having my review/GA count fixed

hi mike! pasting this 1:1 with the GAN talk page: i changed my username from 9koyami to Kinnimeyu a couple weeks ago and it seems to have reset my review/GA count. i've reviewed 1 (Stardust (Danny Brown album)) and have 2 GAs (Minecraft Manhunt and Ruben Sim). can my numbers be fixed? thank you! Kinnimeyu (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Done; the next time the page updates it should show the corrected numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for GAN new username sync

Hey @Mike Christie, I made this talk page post back in March and could use some assistance connecting my nominations from my old username to my new one. Let me know if/when you're able to help me out, thanks. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi -- as it happens I noticed your post and made the relevant change a couple of days ago. If you check the stats again you should see they are now against your new username. Let me know if anything looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Just checked and the data is synced between both the old and new username. Thanks for your assistance! PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

ChristieBot edit summaries say "Errors listed!" but no errors on WP:GAN page

Mike Christie, the ChristieBot edit summaries for WP:GAN have been starting with "Errors listed!" for over 24 hours at this point, but there is no actual error noted at the bottom of the WP:GAN page, where such errors are usually displayed. (There wasn't one displayed when this started, nor when I checked about 8 hours ago.) I thought you'd want to know about this issue, and hopefully be able to fix what's wrong. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It's caused by a nomination that has two GA nominee templates on the same talk page. This used to appear in the errors section at the end of the GAN page, but I recently got rid of that, and didn't realize this was another way an error could show up. I'm about to change the code so this will take the first template on the page, assume it's correct, and display it on the GAN page as normal, but with an error message indicating the problem. I think that's the most sensible way to do it. If I get the code change done this morning it should start showing up in an hour or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This is now addressed, though not quite the way I described above -- I'll leave a note on WT:GAN explaining it, but basically the GAN page edit summary now links to an explanation of the error. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Mike Christie, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 07:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy first edit day!!!

Hey, Mike Christie. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Dragonhawk12 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Dragonhawk12 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Question

Apologies for troubling you. I was not sure where to ask. I started to use GANfilter tools, which are great. For GA-related stuff is the way to go with keeping an accurate record of contributions, rather doing this manually. However, for FA-level it is not as I was expecting and I do not know whether I am doing something wrong or there is something that I do not understand. So in FA stats, it shows only one contribution, but I have done more than one, e.g., USS Missouri (1841) and Amalthea. Also, do the FAC peer-reviews count here, because I have done seven of them? No rush but any input would be wonderful. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 16:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi -- the numbers are updated at the end of the month, and only for FAC reviews where the FAC has finished (i.e. it's been archived or promoted). This month another editor has done the statistics analysis for the month of March, but I've been very busy IRL and have not had time to upload them. So the data coming from the tool only includes reviews done on FACS completed by the end of February. I hope to get the data uploaded this week but it may not happen. Also, peer reviews for articles destined for FAC don't count in those stats, only actual FAC reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the answer. It really helped for me to understand the process. It is clear to me how different FAC is from GAN. A.Cython(talk) 03:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

FAC stats question

Hi Mike, hope everything's fine with you. I was wondering if you had any statistics on the average length of time FACs take to get promoted or archived? It's seemed to get noticeably longer in the past months. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I can easily generate that sort of statistic from the data I have. The old facstats tool, here, has that data up to the point I cut over, but I didn't reimplement the queries because as far as I could tell there wasn't much interest. Next time I'm at the right computer I'll run something and post the results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's the data -- sorry, too busy to reformat this. If you get the raw wikitext into Excel and copy and paste it into VE it should turn into a wiki-formatted table. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Do you mind adding the last month's data as well when you upload it to the FACstats tool? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure -- I might make this a query on the new tool, in fact. When I can get to it! I still haven't uploaded March stats, even though FrB.TG did them a week or two ago. More when I have a bit more time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

FAQs at FAC

I and user Noleander have been drafting a revised FAQ page for FAC newcomers. A proposal has been made at WT:FAC as well.

Well, your opinion will be appreciated and feel free to add additional questions that we may have missed. Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Help with FAC FAQ please

Hi. User MSincccc created a draft FAQ for editors new to the FAC process. I just added a Question/answer to the FAQ that addresses the WP:FIXLOOP scenario. If you have time, can you look at the "answer" and correct any mistakes I made? The specific question/answer is here. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks OK to me, but I don't feel I have any ownership of how the idea of a fix loop is discussed -- I just happened to be the person who put a widely-understood idea in writing so people could reference it. So no need to check with me, but as I say it does look sensible to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Noleander (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Essay / essay collection

The Wikipedia article is on the essay, not the entire collection. They are not, in fact, the same thing. I don't want to seem underhanded so I'm leaving this with you. Thmazing (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't follow you -- The Language of the Night is an article about the whole collection. It starts "The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction is a collection of essays ...". What are you seeing that I am not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Julia Alvarez

Julia Alvarez has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the FAC statistics tables - question

Thanks for posting the FAC stat tables ... that data will be super useful if FAC ever decides to use some QPQ or review/nomination ratios as discussed at WT:Featured_article_candidates#Reviewers_needed.

Small technical query: in the new table Nominators for February 2026 to April 2026 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months I don't see my username Noleander, yet the Nile nomination was active March-to-May at WP:Featured_article_candidates/Nile/archive1. I'm not asking out of vanity :-) .... merely mentioning it in case it indicates a bug in the table-generation software. Or, maybe that table only includes nominations that closed between Feb-April (Nile did not close until May)?

Anyway, thanks for doing that important job! . Noleander (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, anything that had not closed as of 30 April is not included in the bot's data. You should see it when the May stats get posted. Re the talk page discussion; I did get a consensus years ago for adding reviewed/nominated counts to the top of FACs, but it was long enough ago that I think I'd have to get a fresh consensus. It might be better in the nominations viewer, though; or perhaps in both places. I might get to that in the next few weeks -- I have a couple of other bot-related cleanups that I'm working on so I might see if I can fit it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't suggesting that you do anything. FYI I tried the Nominations Viewer (for the first time) a couple of months ago: I had it enabled so it shows at the top of WP:FAC. But I turned it off after a week because it caused the page-load to really slow down. I'm not sure if it was re-building itself every time I visited the page? I'd probably prefer a cached version that loads faster but might be 20 minutes out of date. But that is another topic altogether. Noleander (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

That's surprising -- I wouldn't have thought the viewer would add any load time; the slowness should be just down to the page size. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I dunno. When I removed the Viewer, loading WP:FAC immediately returned to its (for me) original fast load time. But if no other users are seeing the slow-down, it might be that I have something screwed up in my preferences, or something. Noleander (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article icon

Hi, I just want to ask you some minor question. When your bot adds {{Good article}} template, it does it in all lowercase ({{good article}}). But could you include capital letter in initial alphabet ({{Good article}})? It's because the templates placed in the top usually are written in sentence case, and I've also seen several users changing a "g" to "G" sometimes. I hope this can be addressed. Thank you! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 16:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can make that change. It'll have to wait till the next time I update the bot for some other reason, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For being one of the 5 sane people in the room.

Kinopiko ^{in solidarity with Esperanza} 22:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

RM on Template:GA nominee

I've closed this RM as moved, and I've also written a patch that should fix any issues with ChristieBot: (Just using Github since the diff interface is nice there) msk 01:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I should be able to make the code change later this week; so long as nobody changes the instructions away from using GAN rather than Good article nominee, it should be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I think it's this edit that broke the bot, as it changed what GAN outputs. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Olivaw-Daneel you're correct; if that edit is reverted then the bot should operate normally again (assuming the GA nominee *is* moved) msk 17:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Are there any updates concerning the bot that I should be aware of? Thanks in advance. msk 17:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

At some point I will have to reimplement the moves but with luck there will be no impact on end users so you won't know it's happening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 74

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 74, March–April 2026

• New partnership: Swissdox
• User survey results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Mike Christie and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Forever under review?

I had the review page for one of my GA nominations deleted a few days ago because the reviewer never made any progress. However, the GA/FA tool still show the article as under review. I am just curious if it'll reset once someone else picks up the review since it'll still be /GA1, or will it always show that article as under review in my stats? -- ZooBlazer 03:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay replying. I see someone else has picked it up. I think it will be fine now. I will look into fixing this -- the most recent nomination status ought to be what shows up in that tool. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey Mike, sort of partially related, but did the tool forge stats stop being updated/is there an error? I realized that most things from at least the last week haven't been updated, whether its GANs or reviews. -- ZooBlazer 17:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a separate piece of the bot that updates historical data, and it looks like it was stuck because of a particular article that was too large for it to process. I've fixed that and am rerunning it now. Let me know if that doesn't seem to have fixed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thanks! -- ZooBlazer 17:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(reposting an earlier question)

Way back in February I asked if - as the author of WP:RECEPTION which has a similarly structured issue - for advice on Lake Tauca#Scenarios and research history. I am not sure what the ideal fix is - especially since this seems to be a topic where everyone is using their own dating - and was wondering if you had time to take a look. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That does look similar. Assuming all the research you quote is equally high-quality, the ideal solution would be a recent survey article that assesses all the previous research. Without that, I wonder if some of the data could be presented in a table? E.g. one row per research paper, with columns for dating, maximum depth, age of paper, and authors, and perhaps a comments column? It's hard to keep track of the sequence of different estimates without something like that. Then the prose could be reserved for information that won't easily fit into such a table. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think such a source exists. What I think is more likely is that folks have settled on a rough dating scheme, averaged from all older sources. That's the assumption I wrote the preceding section under, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 75

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 75, May–June 2026

• New partnerships: The Telegraph, Marg, The Tribune newspapers
• Tech tip: Expired partnerships

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 14:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Mike Christie and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

List of editors by GAs and GANRs

Hi there,

On the WP:GAN page, ChristieBot says how many reviews and GAs each person has. I am trying to compile a list of all editors with more than one GA or GANR so that I can advertise the upcoming RfC to them, but Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations only has those with 18+. Is this data available somewhere? Thanks, (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 13:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

User:GA_bot/Stats has the review list, and the GA list is at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_good_article_nominations. I think that's too many to mass-message, though. And some of those have been inactive for years or even decades. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way of using ChristieBot's database to help get a list that accounts for who is active today, for example everyone who has had an ongoing nomination or review within the last 12 months? I could somewhat do this manually by using oldids of the WP:GAN page but that would be a lot of work. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 20:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I could pull a list with parameters like that. I’ll see if I can do something tomorrow, but I’m pretty busy this weekend and all next week so I can’t tell you when I can get it done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, both lists are in my sandbox. These are nominators and reviewers since 8/1/25. I still think this is a lot of people for a mass message; you might discuss on WT:GA what subset of these would be appropriate to message. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing this. There are 528 people who have more than one GAN in the past year, more than one GANR in the past year, or subscribe to the Good Article Gazette. Is that too many? (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 13:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That might be OK. I would suggest asking at WT:GAN, where others with more experience with mass messaging might express an opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Re. FAC stats

Hi, Mike. I hope you're doing well. The FAC statistics have not been published for May, June and July. Any thoughts on when we can expect the next set of statistics?

Also, thanks for all your assistance in the past. It helped me achieve my first FA this past week, and I look forward to seeing you back as a nominator as well. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, been moving house so have been too busy (and only just got my computer back running). Stats will be late this month, I hope. And thanks for the kind words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The All-Story Magazine scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that The All-Story Magazine has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 August 2026. 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/August 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you today for The All-Story Magazine, "about an influential early pulp magazine. All-Story published many writers who were either already famous or went on to become famous, but it is best remembered for launching the career of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Under the Moons of Mars, better known by its book title of A Princess of Mars, was his first sale; he followed this up almost immediately with Tarzan of the Apes. All-Story wasn't a science fiction magazine, but it did publish a lot of sf and fantasy. At the end of the 1930s these stories (and those in Argosy, its sister magazine) were hard to find for fans of the genre, so two more magazines were launched with the sole purpose of reprinting these old classics." - I brought three sopranos to the same page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

(but Ileana Cotrubaș left before archiving, and Felicity Lott came today) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts?

It was great to see one of your articles on the Main Page after some time. I hope you are doing well.

By the way, is there any way I could contribute to your suggested automation for the FAC stats page, even at a basic level (e.g. data checks)? I've been looking for a way to apply my school-level programming skills to a real project. Best, MSincccc (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; yes, doing well -- just busy! I just emailed Roy per his comment at WT:FAC to say I am going to do some code clean up on my end, and then I'm going to talk to him about whatever synergy there might be between the work he's done and what I've done. I don't know when we'll get to that, but I expect the code will be publicly available eventually, if we do end up collaborating. If there are easily separable tasks, that's something we can ask you (or, I suppose, anyone interested) to do, but I don't know if that'll be the case. What languages are you familiar with? Python and SQL are the two that would be most relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I know basic SQL along with Python (on IDLE) and Java. MSincccc (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Help with a RECEPTION-like problem

Greetings, I recall that you wrote WP:RECEPTION a long time ago or at least commonly cited it in FACses. I have run into an analogous problem in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Algorithmic amplification/archive1 which I was reviewing; can you take a look? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo; I took a quick look and I can see why you thought of the X said Y issue; it would be good if the sources permit more than that. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of moving house and don't have time for more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Small poke again in case you are interested in Lake Tauca, which I plan to bring to FAC after Aucanquilcha. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I currently have limited time on Wikipedia, and I'm trying to get an article up to FAC standards myself for the first time in a year, and any spare time I have on that I should probably put towards fixing a couple of outstanding ChristieBot bugs. But if you have a specific question about a particular section or paragraph, let me know and I can at least take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

'k. What article are you working on? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

History of UK science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1965. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Any way to connect to active accounts?

If so, can you connect this account and User:Wikipedian12512(alt) for Christiebot? Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 17:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the code I have in place for name changes can do this. I won't have access to the PC where I can make changes to this code till Thursday evening, but I'll see if I can figure out if this can be done using the name change code, and I'll let you know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 18:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Done; it should take effect the next time the bot runs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Your excellent bot work has not gone unnoticed! Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)