User talk:Anne drew

Did I mess up? Need help with something? Start a conversation

Annotated links

I'm probably being dim but I installed your javascript and...? now what? I guess I expected an entry in the 'tools' section of the left hand column, like "RefRenamer" and "expand citations". What have I missed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey JMF! The button will show up in the editing toolbar when you enter edit mode on an article with a "See also" section. I've improved the docs and added a screenshot - let me know if that helps! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back.

Well the good news is that I can see the FSA button and, on clicking it, pop-up asks if I want to resort alphabetically. But there is no evidence that it applies the {{anli}}. See (history of) Polish constitutional crisis, for example? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC) revised to remove "history of" because, as there were no changes, my 'edit' wasn't published. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey JMF! The script skips certain links - for example links to articles without short descriptions or disambiguation pages - to avoid cluttering the markup. In Polish constitutional crisis, several links are redirects, which get skipped to prevent showing irrelevant descriptions (since redirects often point to different topics or article subsections). I've updated the script's notification to show exactly how many links were skipped and why. Hope that helps! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you are being too strict (sic?). I have just added ANLIs manually to that article and the results seem fine. The only one I changed was Polish Ombudsman to use the long title instead. This is a fairly typical level of intervention required when annotating a See Also – it can't (shouldn't ) be done blindly.

Redirects should be annotated too. Any that redirects to a section should have its own SD (if it doesn't, that's an error). So maybe you should flag any redirect articles found as needing a check? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I hear ya, omitting redirect links from formatting might help avoid inaccurate descriptions, but there should be a way to include them anyway when it makes sense. I'll work on it, might take me a few days though! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Have fun, I suspect that "this one will run and run". I never expected it to be easy. Thank you for doing this work.

I've been using {{annotatedlistoflinks}} quite a lot since its release and found that most redirects are fine. It is usually obvious when the displayed SD seems irrelevant: occasionally that's just a bad SD but more often it identifies a redirect to section without its own SD (which I have then had to fix).

There was some discussion at the anli talk page about identifying SDs inherited from Wikimedia and how that is a Bad Thing™. I mention it now only because that is maybe a featurette you might include in a future release. It may be helpful to be aware of it, to pre-empt the "now he tells me" syndrome. No obligation. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I made a bunch of updates! Thanks for all your input, interested to hear what you think of the latest version. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, still not working for me. I tried Bill of Rights 1689. It offered to change two redirection names (to their primary targets): I chose one (the Toleration Act, which had the wrong date) and left one as a control. Nothing in the preview suggested that the {{anli}} had been applied (nor that the date of teh Act had been corrected), but I 'published' anyway. But, as you can see from the article history, nothing was published. Doing it again and clicking Changes says that nothing has changed... ? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey JMF, I think I understand the confusion. That redirect modal allows you to wrap redirect links in {{anl}} templates - it doesn't replace the redirect links with direct links to the target page. I've updated the modal text and layout to clarify this behavior. Not sure I intend to support replacing redirect links entirely - that feels like it runs counter to WP:NOTBROKEN. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, definitely do not replace a redirect article link. Though if it is a "redirect to section" without its own SD, it would be great if you would highlight that fact, as it is an error. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Although if the script isn't making changes at all, that certainly is a problem. It seems to be working as intended for me now - see diff (I selected just the "UK constitutional law" link in the modal). Is it possible you misclicked the newly added "undo" button (which reverts the section back to its initial state)? Or if it's really not working, can you let me know the browser you use and the version? Thanks Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

No, not working for me at all, although it seems to start out ok (example this time is Act of Settlement 1701) and I'm editing the See Also section [not the whole article]:

• First I get Sort Links {{|}} Sort links alphabetically? {{|}} Yes No [replied yes]
• Next I get Review descriptions for redirect links {{|}} These links are redirects. Their descriptions may come from the target page and could be misleading. Select which to format with descriptions: {{|}} Link text {{|}} Description {{|}} List of New Zealand monarchs {{|}} New Zealand sovereign and head of state from Monarchy of New Zealand
  • Is this a beta-test diagnostic phase? I don't see why this is needed – in general, a redirect to the top of an article is no more misleading than SDs in general. The most I would do is identify it as redirect, without further comment. BUT IF, as I remarked above, it is a redirect to section without its own SD, that certainly should be flagged.
  • I suggest that you positively identify articles that have no SDs rather than simply ignoring them. The major advantage of using {{Annotated list of links}} [and presumably your.js] is to identify such omissions and motivate fixing them. (List articles generally don't have SDs but no harm done.)
• I chose Format selected then... nothing. No further messages, no anl{ prefixes, zilch.

No,definitely didn't use your revert key. I'm using Chrome Version 139.0.7258.164 (Official Build) (64-bit) [aka current live version]. I have other javascripts installed which all seem to work (are you allowed access to User:JMF/common.js, to see if there is anything odd? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

ps I enabled "show JavaScript errors": no errors reported. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey JMF, I figured out the source of the issue. Turns out wikEd is incompatible with scripts like FormatSeeAlso that interact with the editing area. For now, you can follow these instructions from the documentation:

Many of these scripts will still work if wikEd is temporarily turned off by pressing the button, making the changes, and re-enabling wikEd.

I will look into making the script compatible with wikiEd this weekend. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Well that was just so obvious How could we have missed it until now?? <tease emoji>

I ran it again on Act of Settlement 1701 and it worked with one serious exception: Royal Succession Bills and Acts is a simple redirect to Royal succession bills and acts, so it is entirely legitimate and necessary to inherit the latter's SD and show it. That is a show-stopper for me.

[I didn't save, so that we can continue to use it as a test bed.] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's working! You should be able to select the Royal Succession Bills and Acts row in the redirect modal and click "Format Selected". This "See also" section is a good example of why the confirmation step is needed, because we don't want to format the List of New Zealand monarchs link with the description New Zealand sovereign and head of state, which doesn't match. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

And that's a great example to show why the correct response would be for you to report that List of New Zealand monarchs is a redirect to a section but does not have its own short description. Short description not inherited and link not annotated. In this case, you should not even offer to inherit the SD from the redirect target. (It needs an SD=none but let it stand until we've finished testing.)

(I"m on mobile right now so the retest will be later.)

And if you were being a real stickler for precision, you would report Royal Succession Bills and Acts is a redirect. Annotation inherited from target article. But that's just a nice to have. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Back on desktop, may I question this popup:

Review descriptions for redirect links
These links are redirects. Their descriptions may come from the target page and could be misleading. Select which to format with descriptions:

• If the redirect is unqualified, then the short description is not misleading, by definition. (or if it is, that's a broader problem and so 'out of scope'). So there is no need to request confirmation. Just do it.
• If the redirect is qualified (because it is a redirect to section and does not have its own SD), the annotation is misleading, also by definition. Therefore you should not even offer to attach it, though ideally you should say why not. [Although I said that "ANLs should not be done blindly", I'm sure that you have seen as many cases where some people do use these tools blindly and carelessly, so let's code defensively.]

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "qualified" in this context? Just that it redirects to a section? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. (I'm using "qualified" in the sense of "with conditions or cautions attached". Best word I could come up with.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. I don't think this is a safe assumption: If the redirect is unqualified, then the short description is not misleading, by definition.

As I've been using the script, there have been numerous examples of redirects from related topics or sub-topics which do not point to a section. This is allowed by WP:RPURPOSE: Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include... Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.) – emphasis mine.

There might, however, be some specific cases where we can assume the unqualified redirect description is accurate, like if the only difference is capitalization/casing (e.g. Some Topic → Some topic). Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow?

• "Redirect to section" is entirely valid, no question. Not inly allowed but encouraged, I must have created over a hundred of them. And "redirect to anchor", even better.
  • Such "qualified" article should have their own SDs, but only because it is good practice, not because of any policy.
    • If it does, then we can use it with anli but if it does not, then we can't use the SD from the target article – because we know that in all probability it will be inaccurate.
• "Redirect to article" (at the top level) is also entirely valid, there are thousands of them. Almost always they are alternative spellings or alternative names (e. g., "period" v "full stop". So there is no good reason for the redirect to have its own SD and every good reason to inherit the SD from the target. This kind of redirect is saying that theses are two names for the same thing, they are identical.

Does that make sense? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"Redirect to article"... This kind of redirect is saying that theses are two names for the same thing, they are identical.

This is where I disagree. Both according to the redirects guideline and certainly in practice, there are unqualified redirects that don't point to an exact synonym. I'll grant that usually they do redirect to exact synonyms, but that isn't always the case. For example Environmentalist redirects to Environmentalism, and would be given the description Philosophy about Earth protection which doesn't make sense.

As another example, formatting the redirect links in Influence peddling § See also would result in Money trail being formatted with the description Catchphrase involving political corruption from Follow the money, which isn't accurate.

I'm more open to your feedback about qualified redirects - let me mull on that a bit. Not sure exactly how that should work. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. I forgot about cases like Environmenalist/Environmenalism. And yes, there are a lot of those, it is not a rare exception that we can declare de minimis. Money trail is another good example. Rats.

So what can we do about it? Well the only solution I can come up with off the top of my head is, when the user selects no, to throw up a dialogue box inviting them to key in a local annotation. Maybe I'll have a better idea tomorrow.

---

By the way, what made you choose the word format rather than annotate? The latter is the long-standing term. To me, 'formatting' implies something like using bold or serif, SMALL CAPS, w i d e r   spacing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I made a few updates to the script, including:

• Making it compatible with wikiEd
• Handling links wrapped in quotes like "[[1984 (novel)|1984]]" properly
• Using the word "annotate" instead of "format" in the redirect modal
• Removing the confirmation step for redirects that are just differences in casing/punctuation

The idea of a custom UI for entering manual descriptions is interesting. I'll think about implementing that, but for now I don't find it too cumbersome just to key them in manually. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking good so far! Great work, I already love this tool! Sorry, {{annotated list of links}}, it was nice knowing you but we need to move on in our lives.

Anomalies I discovered on a random walk:

• At End of World War II in Europe, the entry Allied Commissions [sic] was not processed. There will be a lot of these "pluralisations". They need to be converted into {{anl|Allied Commission|Allied Commissions}}. (At Template:Annotated link/doc, a number of these special cases are described (and I can see you correctly handle the most common case, the ones where italics are needed. Applause!). The others are a lot more complicated so maybe keep for the next release?)
• When an article has no SD (as opposed to SD=None), you really should flag it up for attention, not just skip it without explanation.
• When the link is a "redirect to section or anchor" without its own SD, this needs to be flagged more 'vigorously' than "could be misleading". IMO, it is better to refuse to annotate than to offer the SD from the whole article.
• At Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II, the article Russian Monument (Liechtenstein) is a redirect to section. (It didn't have its own SD, it does now, I have added it: {{anl|Russian Monument (Liechtenstein)}} correctly produces Russian Monument (Liechtenstein) – Memorial to Russian soldiers in the Wehrmacht, given asylum in 1945.) Erroneously, the script ignored the new SD and fetched the SD from the target. Not good. (I have left it unchanged so that you can use it to test the fix.).

I hope you find this useful. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey JMF! Thanks, that is super useful. A few more updates for ya:

• Agglutinated links like [[Allied Commission]]s are now handled properly
• Redirects with their own descriptions are automatically accepted - not shown in the redirect dialog
• Redirects without their own descriptions pointed to a section are automatically skipped - not shown in the redirect dialog
• Abbreviations like [[United States]] (US) are now properly converted to {{anl|United States|abbr=US}}

I'm still thinking about how to flag links that are missing descriptions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can distinguish between articles missing descriptions and those that have it intentionally set to "None" - they both appear the same in the Mediawiki API. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, we can just check if the article contains {{Short description|none}}. Simple enough. I put up a new version of the script that alerts you of any pages truly missing a short description. There might be some bugs still - it's hard to account for every possible scenario, so let me know if I've missed any! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That's great work. I did a few dozen more yesterday and didn't discover any new anomalies. (But did find it super easy to use, which is why it was a few dozen and not just a few!)

If I find anything else, I'll let you know.

In my edit summaries, I've learned that it is wise to say why exposing SDs is a good idea, that it helps readers identify which articles will be of interest to them. It has meant a lot less knee-jerk reversions and long explanations. Is it possible to expand the tool's automated edit summary to include the reason why? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey JMF, glad to hear its working well! Yes, the edit summary can be improved - I will work on that next. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Alphabetic sort: move list articles to end?

Usually list articles go last but your code is sorting them into the middle under L. I think that you need add some code to sort them separately, Otherwise all going really well. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that convention. Ideally we would first get that guidance added to MOS:ALSO – I want to avoid having the script simply enforcing my/our own opinions. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It is just something I've observed and makes sense to me. (The other way might be to ignore the "List of" prefix and sort by the subjects that they are lists of, but that would be a lot more work for little reward.)

I'll open a question at the MOS talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

After reading the MOS section

The section should be a bulleted list, sorted either logically (for example, by subject matter), chronologically, or alphabetically.

I think now it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. But maybe, in the dialog box where you ask the user if they want to sort the list alphabetically, perhaps it be wise to remind them that another sort sequence may be in use. And just copy that quote? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If it can go wrong, it will. Even when it hasn't!

I'm just mentioning this for you to file away to deploy for when somebody else does it. I thought briefly that the tool was broken. It turned out that I had clicked the pencil icon next to > Advanced > Special characters on my edit controls. Suddenly nothing was happening. "Pilot error". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

After many successful invocations, I finally found an article where there is something wrong. At Ursula von der Leyen#See also, the FSA button is not visible...! Any ideas? (It is the first case I have come across so you may prefer to leave it until another case turns up so you can get a 'fix'.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up JMF! That is quite strange. I'll take a look some point this weekend. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No rush. At least you can see it too, it's not just an artefact of my preferences like last time. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed! Turns out there was a space after the ==See also== which was jamming things up. The script should now handle cases like that correctly. Thanks again for reporting! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Amazing! Thank you.

Are you ready to announce the tool at Wikipedia talk:Short description? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Good idea! Posted. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

FormatSeeAlso.js

I note that you've been formatting "See also" sections using FormatSeeAlso.js. However, not every link in this section needs a description attached to it, nor does it always make sense to list the links alphabetically. So, it would be appreciated if you discussed on the article's talk page first. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Assadzadeh, thanks for the note. I only annotate links where I think it's useful, and sort "See also" sections that aren't already sorted by some other criteria (like chronologically). Such formatting is encouraged by MOS:ALSO. If there's a particular edit you disagree with, feel free to revert it and we can discuss. Cheers, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:NOTSEEALSO states "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous.". One of the annotations made to National Football League was "National Football League controversies – Controversies involving the National Football League. I think it's obvious from the title of the link that it's about controversies. So, I don't understand what additional clarity was provided by adding the annotation. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, point taken. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh, I think you may be shooting the messenger. The real problem here was that National Football League controversies has a pointless wp:short description. It should say 'None'. If that had been the case, {{annotated link}} (aka {{anl}}) would not have had any annotation to display and your concern would not have arisen.}} 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Anne drew decided which of the bulleted items should be annotated, rather than the script automatically annotating all the bulleted items. If so, then my point was that more scrutiny should have been applied to choosing the items. For example, one of the other items that was also annotated was "National Football League Cheerleading – Professional cheerleading organization for the NFL," which was also unnecessary.

As for National Football League controversies, I deleted its short description, but it was added back by @Sammi Brie. Perhaps my mistake was deleting it rather than changing it to 'None'. Assadzadeh (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

True, when we apply {{anl}} to every item in a See Also, we should do a sanity check (and Anne's .js is very good at pre-warning of the more embarrassing pratfalls). In a perfect world, she would have spotted that the SD was pointless and corrected it before committing. Do as I say, not as I do! . It was a cockup, not a conspiracy. But a {{Short description|None}} safety net would have avoided it in the first place.

But I see that National Football League controversies is a redirect to NFL controversies. So obviously the former needed a {{Short description|None}} and I've just done that. I'll leave it to your judgement as to whether the same should be done at the target article (but I guess anybody interested in that topic already knows what NFL means, so it probably is appropriate here too). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Although you added the SD to the redirect in this case, I don't believe most redirects have an SD. So, when the .js annotates a list that contains a redirect, does it grab the SD from the redirect or the target article?

For what it's worth, I changed the SD for NFL controversies and NFL cheerleading to 'None'. Assadzadeh (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

First and most important, the .js doesn't annotate. All it does wrap the link in an {{annotated link}} wrapper: it is this that fetches the SD. Of course the .js is clever and fills in the {{anl}} correctly so that handles italics, plurals, and the like correctly. It takes a few seconds and is making it practical to annotate the See Alsos on hundreds of pages (still have to be sanity checked, it will never be a bot). The advantage of this is maybe not so obvious when you deal with well-known concepts like football but there are topics that have their own obscure names that are impenetrable to mere mortals haven't been inducted into the Illuminati To me, the greatest achievement of Wikipedia is to have restored serendipity, accidental discovery of a related topic you didn't know existed.

Most redirects are simple, just redirect to the top of the target article and the {{anl}} can just inherit the SD from the main article. Anne's .js invites the user to check if they really want to do that as it may not be appropriate. The example that Anne cites above is Money trail being formatted with the description Catchphrase involving political corruption from Follow the money, which isn't accurate.. But in general you are right, this kind of simple top-level redirect doesn't need its own SD.

But redirects to sections or anchors certainly do, as Anne and I discuss above. Again the .js alerts you to the risk and if you don't fix it first, it won't annotate (inherit the target article's SD).

Finally, annotations are not mandatory and using the SD is in a way the lazy option (sometimes a tailored annotation is better given where you are coming from.) But they are a big help to our readers.

I hope that helps. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I work from User:Uhai/Pages without short descriptions by view count, so it probably ended up there without any short description (including None). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Which is good in principle but you really need to consider when {{short description|none}} is the best answer, because you aren't adding any value to the title. But that is rather rare. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2024 United States drone sightings is under review

Your good article nomination of the article 2024 United States drone sightings is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2024 United States drone sightings is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article 2024 United States drone sightings has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

See my edit summary here. Normally I would fail at this point, but I understand that the problem here has nothing to do with you. You will need to go through the article references and confirm them, one by one. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Since we know the problem at hand has to do with User:Basaatw, it may be easier to just focus on this small set of edits.[1] Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

One way to approach this is to start with a clean baseline prior to their edits here. You'll then need to diff compare with the current version, but that's going to be tricky as one bad ref already made it's way into the current version (which I removed). The question is how many other problems are you going to find? Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, thanks for the heads up. Let's put it on hold for another week or so, and I'll go through and verify all the references of the sections he touched. I'll also do a broader check of the article. Sorry about this, it's a frustrating situation. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2024 United States drone sightings has passed

Your good article nomination of the article 2024 United States drone sightings has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thank you so much, Viriditas, for the incredibly thorough review and all the insightful guidance. I learned a lot about refining article structure and improving my writing style during this process. I'm excited to continue developing the article to make its coverage more comprehensive and its prose more professional, with the goal of eventually achieving FA status. All the best and happy editing! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Peer review for Drone Sightings article ... exchange PRs?

Hi. I noticed you have a PR request for 2024 United States drone sightings. I also have one for Bridge. Are you interested in exchanging PR reviews? I think we are both looking to nominate our articles at FAC. You don't need to be a bridge expert: I mostly want input on prose and Manual of Style issues. Let me know. Noleander (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Noleander, thanks for reaching out! I'm definitely interested in an exchange and would welcome your input on the drone sightings article. As a heads-up, you might notice some gaps in the coverage of its legacy and 2025 developments - I'm in the process of rectifying that now. That will be my main focus for the next few days, but I'd be happy to start reviewing your article next week. Thanks, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks.... sounds like a plan. I'll start on the drone article within the next couple of days. Noleander (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anne drew - I completed the Peer Review. It is an excellent article, I really enjoyed reading it .. bit of a cliff-hanger. Regarding PR of Bridge, I know you said "next week" ... so I'll be working on polishing that article between now and then. Noleander (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind! I should be able to start reviewing Bridge as soon as this weekend. I'm looking forward to it and I hope I'm able to give you some useful feedback. Cheers, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 United States drone sightings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shared delusion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

x

Sincerely sorry I made your shit list, for multiple reasons. I stand by my actions that got me there, except for the one that I struck upon request. Best of luck with your future editing! ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 14:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Mandruss, sorry it came to this. A guiding principle of my life is that people are multifaceted; you obviously have great qualities (your willingness to contribute to this project being one example). But when you act in anti-social ways, it’s not surprising if people don’t want to work with you. I hope in time you’ll realize that fostering a positive environment here, free from ableism and homophobia, is important. And when people raise their concerns with you, they are speaking genuinely, not just trying to stifle your speech. Until then, I've lost whatever motivation I had to work on that script idea. The script specification you put together remains in my talk archives - I hope you’re able to find someone to pick up that work. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I once read that Bill Clinton wanted everybody to like him (as president). I'm not Bill. Being liked is not unimportant to me, but it's about number four on my priorities list. Anyway, I can assure you I'm one of the least homophobic persons you have ever met. I provided some tangible evidence of that fact in the pre-ANI discussion, but that was ignored due to confirmation bias (to put it politely). My actions were twisted by paranoid liberals (I identify as a non-paranoid liberal) to look like they were homophobic. (I was a little homophobic until I outgrew that about ten years ago.)

These people have an extremely narrow worldview, as if it's the only valid worldview. To them, tolerance means tolerating what they want tolerated and attacking the rest as morally bankrupt. Like they own the effing world. They are extremists, and extremism is never a good thing. Never. And they get away with it a lot in today's political climate. (From where I sit, you were complicit in the twisting by buying into it and supporting it. But that's minor.) That's really the crux of the problem right there, what I referred to as "spin" at ANI.

I knew you were done with the script, but it didn't hurt to confirm. I aspired to knowing your gender at some future date (you know mine), but that's lost too. lol. See you around, ex-friend. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 15:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for being a normal and reasonable person. from one internet stranger to another, i appreciate you. ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hasan Piker

There's a specific discussion section on potential sources at the bottom of the RfC. It could use a summary at this point.

Do we really need links to RSN discussions given the requirements of BLP for high-quality sources and consensus for inclusion? --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Linking those discussions you mentioned in your reply to me would have been helpful, for myself, other discussion participants, and the closer. A wise person once told me, "It's not what you know, it's what you show." And yes, if you're arguing the sources are low quality, you should provide some evidence of that. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Given BLPs requirements, I think we should expect that editors trying to include content give evidence that the content meets the requirements. Sorry, but it's gotten beyond tiresome pointing out why clearly unreliable sources are clearly unreliable. I appreciate that with you we're talking about something not so straightforward. Let me dig up some links. --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145#Jill_Valentine, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_152#Maximillion_Cooper, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Sasha_Grey

There's more, but I cant recall the trick I used to weed past all the irrelevant usage of "complex".

Talk:Hasan_Piker#Sweet_n_Sour_Podcast_Hiatus

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_421#Hello_Magazine

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Hello!_magazine_(again) --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Podcasts are generally treated as opinion pieces and/or primary sources. See WP:JEFFSNEIDER (noting that the exception to the rule is an expert opinion), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_260#Podcasts_as_Reliable_sources_to_establish_notability. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duangphet Phromthep (2nd nomination)

Hiya! You were right in the first place - redirect now consensus, could have been so when you first nominated it. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hah, should have stuck to my guns! Thanks for the update, Alexander. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Metaphorical super thanks

I am a baby editor who doesn't even know how to give a super thanks(sigh) This is about touching up on the Nelson Mandela effect legacy. Mrannymousanticapitalism (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

No prob, glad I could help. Happy editing! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Oh my I have wanted something like Veracity for soooo long but I didn't have the coding ability to create it properly. Thank you so much!! IAWW (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Ooh a barnstar! Haven't gotten one of these in a while. Thanks IAWW! Glad you like the script. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts

Hi @Anne drew, thank you so much for creating this! It will be so useful!

I have a dream tool idea which sort combines the ideas of Earwig's copyvio detector with spot checking/Veracity and I would love your thoughts. The idea is that an article name could be entered into a box, and a table with the following columns would be generated:

[supported text] [source text] [copy prompt button]

The "copy prompt" button would copy an AI prompt for each citation, like:

Is the following text entirely supported by the source text? Answer yes or no, and if not, provide a explanation of exactly which parts are not supported:

[supported text]

Source text:

[source text]

I drafted a tool like this, which worked only for newspapers.com URLs and had limited ability to extract references, but I found that it was extremely good and fast at catching even the smallest TSI issues. The problem is I am terrible at coding and I couldn't get past a basic prototype.

One question is: Do you think the Veracity code would be sufficient for extracting the supported texts and citation information in this context? I would love any of your thoughts on the best approach to actually creating something like this. IAWW (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi IAWW, thanks for the suggestion! I'm a little hesitant to add a feature like this due to the community's apprehension to the use of AI tools for article reviews. Incidentally, in a recent review I did, I asked Google Gemini whether this claim:

Their jazz-themed free dance was nearly perfect, receiving their only deduction for their choreographic twizzles.

was verified by this source, since I was unsure. Gemini gave a resounding "no", but it actually got it wrong - the claim was verified. The inverse would be especially problematic - an LLM saying a claim is verified when it actually is not.

You are, of course, welcome to take and adapt the Veracity source code however you want (with proper attribution), but I'm not sure this feature is something I personally want to prioritize. Hope that makes sense. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem at all! Thanks for your thoughts :) IAWW (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Some test results (Veracity)

Moved from User talk:Anne drew/Veracity

Excellent tool!! Thanks for taking the time to create it. I ran it on Bridge article and saw a few enhancements/issues you probably would be interested in.

• Test configuration: Ran on Windows OS; article Bridge; "all cites" (did not choose a % or quantity); Did not check the "use WP icons" box.

• Issues/enhncements:

1. Bug: The very first row displays .mw-parser-output .plainlist ol,.mw-parser... in the "Source" column. This is the only row that shows that unusual text.
2. Enhancement: The tool does not detect cites inside image captions
3. Enhancement: The tool does not detect cites inside "efn" footnotes.
4. Enhancement: The tool broke the table up into groups of ten, which is fine. But those groups were put into subsections like this: == Sources 12-21 == so when I pasted the entire table into an existing section it was not "within" the target section. Can you make it so the group subsections are deeper e.g. ==== Sources 12-21 ==== That will permit pasting within 2 or 3 deep sections.
5. Enhancement: Source column truncates some longer citations. Example in Bridge article, cite [2] is Bennett 2000, pp. 1–3. Bennett 1999, pp. 9–11. Brown 2005, pp. 12–13. Brunning 2001. ; but the tool is displaying only the first 40 chars or so: Brown 2005, p. 25.Cruickshank 2010, pp. 71.... It would be helpful to simply enlarge the max text size from about 40 chars (?) to 100 or so.

Thanks again ... great tool!! Noleander (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Noleander, so glad you find it useful! The issue with the weird output in the "Source" column should now be fixed. I also removed the sectioning logic - it was adding some complexity without much benefit.

I'm aware of the issue with references inside footnotes, captions, etc. It's proving to be a little tricky to solve but I'll keep plugging away on that. If you have any more feedback please keep it coming! Cheers, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured the captions & footnotes would be tricky. Maybe the "page size" tool has some logic you can repurpose, because it generates a "prose word" count that excludes footnotes & captions, so it must have logic to identify them. Noleander (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Added #5 in list above. Noleander (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Continuous diffamation and breaking of WP policies

Hello @Anne drew, this particular user Badakhshan ziba won‘t stop personally attacking me, calling me a liar, accusing me of using generative AI to come up with answers and overall having a very WP:DISRUPTIVE demeanor towards me and the discussions in general. Even though you warned them in the very discussion we have at the NORN right now (and other users warned him too in previous discussions) he won‘t stop it, and I can‘t let that happen anymore, because that‘s super destructive and makes the whole discussion very frustrating if one user is constantly attacking the other personally all the time. So something has to be done about it. Please let me know if there is a sanction mechanism for that. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Edit: The user now suggestively repeats accusations of me sympathizing with the Taliban and other Afghan nationalists as they have done in past discussions already. They also try to emotionalize the debate with catchphrases like "terrorists" to catch the attention of other users (also something that they do since the very beginning over 3 months ago). When is it enough to justify a ban of said user? SdHb (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Ping: @Xan747.

Hi SdHb, sorry to hear this. I'm not an administrator nor am I particularly experienced in handling problematic editor behaviour. That said, I recommend you start by reading WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL. If you decide to take it to WP:ANI, my recommendation would be to compile a list of 4 or 5 of the most egregious personal attacks made by the user. Keep it brief, and include a diff and direct quote of each personal attack or uncivil remark. You should also link the diff of each past warning the user has received for their behaviour. If you post to ANI, remember to notify Badakhshan ziba on their talk page. Hope this helps. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SdHb (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the Veracity tool

		The Tool Creator Barnstar
		For inventing the Veracity tool to assist GA and FA reviewers. Not only does it make the review process much more efficient, it indirectly improves the quality of FA and GA articles, and the encyclopedia as a whole. Noleander (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Noleander! Really appreciate it :) Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Veracity tool format suggestion

I'm making a final pass thru Bridge article before FAC, and using Veracity tool on 370+ citations. I spend most of my time inside the WP page editor, editing the WP markup of the table, changing the "?" status to "Y". It is not easy on the eyes (the ideal would be a toggle button on the rendered HTML page). Currently, the status column is the rightmost column, so within the WP editor the "?" could be located anywhere (horizontally) because the fields to the left vary in width; plus there is line-wrap happening for longer cites. So, my eyes have to hunt for the "?" hundreds and hundreds of times. My head hurts :-)

I realize that the status column perhaps make some sense on the right (a conclusion, or result); but editors using Veracity will spend must time inside the WP page editor changing that column. Suggestion: I think editing the table would be a lot easier if the status column were the first (leftmost) column: that way it is always at the left edge within the WP edit page, and it is much easier for the eyes to find it (always at the same horizontal location within the window). Noleander (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Noleander, thanks for the feedback! I see what you mean about the symbols not being aligned in the wikitext markup. Before I start changing things, have you tried using the VisualEditor to update the table? I've found that workflow pretty smooth, personally. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I've never used the visual editor. I'll give it a try for this task, I suppose it will be easier. Thanks for the tip. Noleander (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually I realized we can get the best of both worlds by placing the status on a new line in the wikitext so it's always left aligned, while keeping it right-aligned in the actual rendered output. See User:Anne drew/Bridge for the example output. Lmk your thoughts!

Also I noticed that when there are multiple sources in a citation, we're missing a space between them in the output. I'll add that to the list of things to improve. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Veracity tool doesn't add .js

Leaving you a message to let you know the text to be copied at WP:VERACITY#Installation doesn't have ".js" at the end, so the script didn't work until I added it manually to my common JavaScript. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Fixed. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Another issue, I've found that the tool won't generate properly in the 2017 source editor. Nothing happens there when I click "create table". Not an urgent issue though since I'm still able to use it by having it appear in my clipboard on a different page. And unrelated, I have a suggestion if it's practical: it's hard to tell at a glance where one passage ends and the next begins (especially if there are multiple footnotes), and some sort of border above each passage would make the table more readable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey Thebiguglyalien, both of those issues should now be resolved. Please let me know if you have any more feedback. Thanks, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

DYK for 2024 United States drone sightings

On 30 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2024 United States drone sightings, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2024 United States drone sightings resulted in flight restrictions over 22 communities in New Jersey and other sensitive sites? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 United States drone sightings. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2024 United States drone sightings), 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

2024 United States drone sightings

I just saw you have it up on FAC, kick ass, great work for 2024 United States drone sightings. When you and I and Chetsford worked on that, it was both fun and a terrific pain in the ass chasing sources nightly. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Very Polite Person! It's been fun taking the article that the three of us poured so much time into, and polishing it up to (hopefully) FA quality. I'm not sure about FA conventions, but you and Chetsford both deserve credit if the article does get promoted.

I must admit, the FA process is quite grueling - I probably could have brought a handful of other articles to GA status in the same time. Alas, this was the article that captured my hyperfocus. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I can take any FA credit, it's been all you in 2025. You killed it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Good Article Gazette, Issue 7

Issue 7, 5 December 2025

Ongoing discussions

• GAR one-month minimum: stats analysis and proposal to reduce
• Discussions on AI fact-checking quality articles

News

• No news for today.

Current statistics

• Number of GAs: 43,036 (+45)
• Number of nominations: 809 (+36)
• GAs for reassessment: 71 (–18)

• Subscribe to the newsletter
• Review an article!
• Participate in review circles
• Acquire a mentor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)