Wikipedia talk:FAC coordination

Formatting sources

At Yoshi's New Island the source reviewer wrote "there should be consistency with the |publisher= parameter, some references use it, some don't" and the nominator responded "I have removed the publisher from every citation. Going forward, I will omit this parameter for consistency." Personally I don't find this acceptable at FAC. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say for most video game articles omitting publisher info from {{cite web}} is reasonable. The website is the most relevant element for considering the reliability of the sourcing. You still need it for books and periodicals (and it's used for the manual) but for the most part I'm not sure what additional information the publisher is giving you outside of whether or not certain networks are overrepresented (but that's not a ton of help either as the media landscape shifts so often that it's very unlikely the publisher information is going to be up-to-date and stable.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs

Allowing second nominations

While there is a degree of subjectivity around this, I think we are all agreed that we wouldn't ok a second nom unless the first one had at least three decent general supports, and image and source passes. But how long does it need to be open for? I usually work on a simple cut off at exactly 14 days, but we probably need to standardise this. Or have we already and I have simply forgotten? Thoughts? (Or just point me to the past discussion.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep, we permit second noms when prima facie the current one has reached the minimum for promotion, which generally means three comprehensive reviews in support, plus successful image and source reviews (and spotcheck for newbies). My rule of thumb has always been not to promote before a fortnight, even if it seems like a snow close -- people are busy and we should allow for a potential dissenting voice. This is a somewhat long-winded way of saying that I'm in accord with your method! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a reasonable benchmark. I've probably been a bit more lenient if it's a FAC regular whose nominations are in good shape even if not yet at a promotion threshold. I like giving 4 weeks too in most cases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

David, is "4" a typo? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

More GTG?

• On a skim Proceratosaurus is ready for one of you to look at.
• Truce of Malestroit may also be. It has four supports after four weeks from solid reviewers.
• Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) also seems ready for a check through.
• Through the Looking-Glass is 25 days old with 11 supports.
• Dirty Dick has four solid reviews and the trimmings.

@FAC coordinators: I have just updated the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounder commuter rail

I have just read through Roy's comments on this and am perturbed. I am tied up with a couple of other FACs at the moment, but perhaps one of you would care to review them. I didn't notice the requirement that sources be high quality being mentioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Attracted by David's ping I was going to chip in in support of archiving but the page has - obviously - closed. Let me know if it is spotted re-emerging. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, would have been helpful if I had seen this before archiving. But I had the same thought, and I wonder if it's worth reiterating on WT:FAC that opposes are a lot more useful than bringing up potential critical issues but then sitting back. I think it helps feed into an idea of FAC as rubber-stamping rather than a serious (if hopefully relatively simple) appraisal versus more stringent standards. At the same time I'm wondering how best to bring this up before archiving so that editors feel more prompted to engage with them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Updated GTG?s

• Through the Looking-Glass is, I believe, what the young folk call a slam dunk.
• 2021 World Figure Skating Championships also looks ready. A first-timer it has had spot checks by a subject specialist - and a prose support - a plagiarism check (by me), an image review and a total of four general supports. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I was trying to have the final comments on Through the Look-Glass resolved, but I suppose that can be addressed on the talk page since most reviews don't seem to echo them. I'll take a look tomorrow. Sorry for not pulling my weight recently, I've been busy with work and travel but should be back up to a more regular cadence of staying on top of things soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed J-J doing their misunderstanding plain English thing. Don't worry David; that's why we have four coordinators. I have been a bit off the boil myself, with scheduling August's TFAs and trying to create some content. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

And yet more!

• SMS Yorck?

Cheers David. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Eve Cone recusal

Today I put a 'timing out' warning on Eve Cone. I may have got a little overheated in a follow up comment - opinions are welcome - and on a better-safe-than-sorry approach I have recused. So could someone else keep on eye on its ticking clock in four or five days? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's my nom, but ...

... Siege of Utica looks GTG to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoted by FrB. Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)