Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hello, my fellow FLC community members. Once again, that time has come when real life becomes busy for the next two-and-a-half months. Most of the time I will have for the FL process will go towards keeping up with TFL blurb creation, and any FLC/FLRC closures I can manage will be a bonus. The process has two other closers who have both been kicking butt on closures lately, so I expect FLC to continue operating normally. Cheers and see you on the other side (otherwise known as mid-April :-). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to clarify/codify something that's been true for a long time, Josh and I have updated the sentence that previously said "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." to say "Nominators who have previously successfully nominated a list may have two concurrent featured list nominations only if the first active nomination has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.".

Basically just trying to make it more clear when its okay to have a second nom at the same time, since it's been coming up a few times in the last few months. Let us know if there are any concerns. --PresN 17:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where else to ask this. I am having trouble running this bot because I continually get a Gateway Timeout message. Does anyone have any suggestions? (The article I am attempting to work on is U.S. Figure Skating Championships.) Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: This occasionally happens to me if IA Bot has a large backlog. When this happens there's usually a notice at the top of that page, which I'm not currently seeing. I attempted to run it for you and got the same issue. Typically whenever this happens it works again if I try again in a day or two, otherwise it may require opening a Phab ticket. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had this problem for several days. I don't know what a Phab ticket is, but I'll look into it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phabricator is where some developers track issues with software/bots/etc. You'll probably have to login first, but you can fill out this form describing your issue and it'll essentially start a task that goes to IA Bot's maintainers so they can look into it. The same link can also be accessed by following the "report problem" > "report other problems" > "report it on Phabricator" buttons beginning on IA Bot's interface. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IABot is not working for me, I've been spending some time this afternoon manually archiving sources – which, that sucks, by the way – but the Internet Archive cannot access articles I've added via Newspapers.com or the New York Times. I have a NYT subscription (for the puzzles) which grants me access to their archived articles. How do we deal with these? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctorWho, do you know the answer to this? I've seen you do source reviews before. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Are you referring to the "Sorry, you have been blocked" message that pops up when you attempt to archive a source? I've never personally seen that issue before, I've only ever had URL's that are "excluded from the WayBack Machine".

I thought it might be a similar issue and attempted to archive using other methods I've had luck with in the past (archive.ph and ghostarchive.org), and while they did "archive" it, they didn't bypass the paywall so it's probably not of much use to you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume then that when an article is source-reviewed here, it's just understood that some source aren't able to be archived? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: guessing you already noticed but I ran the IABot on the list a bit earlier today with the option selected to add archives to all live links too and it only really edited one ref I think though I noticed there's still a few refs missing archives. Maybe this might be something to bring up with Cyberpower678 given they're the bot operator and could modify the bot operating params to help out. Dan the Animator 04:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that; thank you! It actually was a different article I was working on. I saw where several sources on the Ukrainian article had not been archived (or hadn't had their archived copies logged in the citations), but I took care of them last night. It didn't take long, and now all of the sources are archived. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: I can't speak for others, but I would personally pass the source review under the understanding they can't be archived; especially if all the other information generally expected of a source is there. I would just be prepared to mention that to whoever does the source review and potentially link to this talk page section. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Doctor, you did more than enough with the refs :) Dan the Animator 04:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, is there any policy for FLs against having multiple table-headers in the middle of a sortable table? I added in multiple table headers to keep the list List of Ukrainian placenames affected by derussification sortable and organized though Bgsu98 said it's not standard. I really think having the in-table headers adds a lot so would prefer to keep them. Thanks in advance for the help! Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe MOS:COLHEAD advises against it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one. Pseudo-headers like that look like headers, but that's not the way screen-reader software interprets them because they aren't actually headers. I'll make a more detailed post on the nomination. --PresN 01:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have two pending FLCs now, one has 3 support votes and one has 2 support votes. Am I allowed to go for a third nomination... Vestrian24Bio 07:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, the answer has always been "wait for one to them to become an FL". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no @Vestrian24Bio. We're fairly strict on the two nominations, otherwise I myself would be taking advantage of this, as would a couple other regulars who quickly get support on their noms. The one exception may be if you had two FLCs already and someone nominated something with you as a co-nom, in which case, it would apply to your two-FLC limit once one of the original two was promoted. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]