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.

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 I saw where several sources on the Ukrainian article had not been archived (or hadn't had their archived copies logged in the citations), but I took care of them last night.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]

I'm thinking of working on List of performances by Josette Simon and then nominating it. Should it be titled "Josette Simon filmography" rather than the current title? (I'm looking at Peter Capaldi filmography which also lists non-filmed performances.) If you have nay other observations on the current article, please add them at its talk page. Thanks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that maybe the "Actor filmography", "Actor on stage and screen", and "List of Actor performances" should be standardized Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would something like Joe Biden's presidential campaigns be possible to get to FL? Its considered a set index article because it used to look like this. I ask as 2/4 of Biden's presidential runs are at GA and I was considering get the other 2 to GA for a GT Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: It's considered a set index article because it just presents short descriptions four things with similar names, so a disambiguation page with extra content. To be a list, it would first need sources talking about the concept of his presidential campaigns as a whole, rather than any particular one, and then some sort of direct comparison between them. It would not be eligible for FL, though, with only 4 items. --PresN 22:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a shame, oh well thanks anyways Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: I suppose it would be question for WT:GTC to see if it would qualify, but you might be able to request a PR on the index instead? TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you expand it to "electoral campaigns of Joe Biden" it could become an FL. TheUzbek (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Joe Biden is an article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: would Electoral history of Joe Biden be able to be FLCed? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty list-y to me, yeah. --PresN 18:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to start an open discussion about this as it is something I have picked up on and I'm not sure if it is breaking any rules but wanted to provide a space for a conversation. Cutesy ping to History6042, I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing you of anything or trying to devalue the work you've done but rather I have just noticed a pattern here and I'm not sure how to feel about it. Also pinging the reviewers of theses lists @MPGuy2824, ChrisTheDude, Expandinglight5, TheDoctorWho, Dylan620, Hey man im josh, OlifanofmrTennant, Arconning, and SounderBruce:. I've noticed that the Michelin-starred restaurants lists are being nominated in fast succession, often receiving very little feedback (in part probably due to their small size) and often contain a lot of repetitive material across pages. These lists include List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Toronto (review), List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Turkey (review), List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Dubai (review), List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Moscow (review), and List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Vancouver (review). As others have pointed out, these lists often don't include any information about the food scene in these areas and often prose is copy pasted from one article to the next. Again, I don't know if any rule breaking is happening here or if there needs to be a clarification in the FLC criteria but it's just something I've picked up on. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not personally see an issue as if they are passing then that means that the reviewers think it is fine. Also, they all do have stuff that isn't copy and pasted, Toronto has the Criticism section, Moscow has the exit of Michelin from Russia, Turkey has stuff about notable chefs with multiple awards, and Vancouver has the history of its guide and some minor criticsm. History6042 (Contact me) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should contain more context on the food scene. For example, I always include notes on the region's history for each of my NZ heritage lists. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima, I keep being told to add stuff about the food scene. However, I am fully sure what it means. Could you please give me a definition? History6042 (Contact me) 17:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an example for where I live. My city has a very prominent brewery scene and as extension pub food is very popular here. So if we had any Michelin star restaurants in my area one could say "Despite <insert name of my city> vast brewery scene, no local breweries were nominated". There could also be focuses on economics in the area such as how Michelin stars can help small businesses stay afloat in the post Covid economy. Even my small province/city has quite a few notable dishes that my area is "known for" that would certainty interest anyone wanting to learn about recognized cuisine in my area. I'm sure others could expand on this. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I understand, thank you. History6042 (Contact me) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the recent FLC don't have as much about the food scene as some other pages such as Washington, D.C.. Ideally there is information about history of certain cuisines, famous chefs from the specific region, etc. For the Moscow list, I was surprised it was promoted without a photo but ultimately multiple editors agreed it deserved promotion. Similar to some of the other recent approvals, I thought they would have more unique content specific to the region in order to be promoted, but again, editors felt they met the criteria for FLC.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criteria would be WP:FLCR #2: It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. My two cents: the subjects are Michelin-starred restaurants, so there is zero expectation that the lead should cover broader food scenes. For instance, readers of List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Toronto can go to Cuisine of Toronto for more information about the city's food. That being said, I think the fact that the lists feel repetitive is a sign they've been split up more than necessary, and I would support merging lists to cover larger geographical regions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently they are done as Michelin reviews them so I do not think they should be merged. History6042 (Contact me) 00:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the lists be too cumbersome if they were grouped by country? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that's not entirely true; as I noted at the FLC for List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Iceland, the Nordic countries are a single guide split into multiple lists here. But even so, we don't have to match the way Michelin groups them. I think moving all of the entries for the United States (maybe excluding NYC) is reasonable, as would be a Canadian list and a Chinese list. Other merger options include a Nordic countries list and a Middle East or Arabian Peninsula list (List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Doha has only two entries, is that really worth a standalone list?). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen is notable for is concentration of restaurants in the guide. However, the 3 in Iceland don't seem like enough for a stand alone list -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If needed I can go merge the Nordic list if the Michelin WikiProject members agree. History6042 (Contact me) 13:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of the lists have only a few entries. I think these lists would be better off done by country (excluding maybe the US as i believe that have more Michelin restaurants.IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also could fall under 3c In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. (emphasis added) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend merging lists wherever possible. Just because they are often published as city guides doesn't mean we have to divide them that way as well, especially when many cities don't have very many restaurants and these tables are quite small and simple. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with this is if they become to big they may be maintained less. For example, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, which are all large countries with lots of Michelin starred restaurants are the ones that don't have articles. History6042 (Contact me) 13:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new pages is indeed a good bit of work, but these are the some of the simplest tables there are. To think that a Spanish list would be any less maintained than separate lists for Madrid, Barcelona, etc. makes no sense. Merging existing lists is easy and then these are easy to update for a new guide. I'd say bigger lists of this type are more likely to be maintained when you have more eyes on them, rather than a smaller number of people looking at multiple pages. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with some of the suggestions being made here. I do not think having a lot of detail about the local food scene outside the context of Michelin stars should be required, nor do I think we should be merging lists by country, etc. To the extent possible, the list names and geographic scopes should reflect the guides. Also, you can't really have it both ways -- including more info about local food scenes + merging lists by country/region. I am so glad to see lists of Michelin-starred restaurants being promoted and encourage History6042 to keep up the great work! If there are ways to make lists better, great!, but I think those discussions are more appropriate for individual list talk pages and the Michelin Guide task force (instead of FLC). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I posted to the FLC talkpage is because there is some indication that they may not fully meet the FLC criteria. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many of the suggestions above. Content about the dining scene and chefs are may what adds to making a list unique and "featured" but should not be required. Furthermore, I do not agree with merging short lists by country or other methods of combining. Ideally the lists are presented how Michelin publishes the guide/region. I think there is some small opportunity for combining some of the lists but I think these all should be discussed and agreed upon by the Michelin Guide task force. I have a few ideas but I haven't yet had the opportunity to raise them for discussion on the talk page of the task force. I encourage anyone interested to post ideas on the relevant talk pages or on the talk pages of the Michelin Guide task force. This task force has only been around for a short while and has accomplished significant improvements on Michelin Guide-related pages.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Content about the dining scene and chefs are may what adds to making a list unique and "featured" but should not be required I don't think anyone is saying that this is required for the lists but as you pointed out, for a featured level article a little more is expected. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my oppose !vote on the Vancouver list, which provides little prose context for the selection of the Michelin-starred restaurants within the greater food scene. There is no explanation of the geographic concentration, the choice of cuisine types, and the general history of the attempts to lure Michelin to the city, which are all covered in various sources. This would not be overstepping the Cuisine in Vancouver article (which does not exist yet), but would provide sufficient context to allow readers to not have to split their window and cross-reference to figure out that the Michelin list only includes in-city restaurants and has a relatively high concentration of Japanese restaurants relative to the rest of the food secene. The frequency of the nominations and sameness of these lists is very much verging on gaming the system, and I frankly am seeing myself stepping back from FL reviewing if this becomes even more of a trend. SounderBruce 05:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]