Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Lists

Table format

Is it possible to have a table format similar to RfA, but based solely on no/% of signatures? CNC (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-RFA notation

I wasn't dead-keen on using "Graham87 2" as the link text for the link to the Re-RFA as it could be taken as meaning it was their second re-RFA, but Theleekycauldron's change this to "2nd" for concision has just made this worse. I don't want to just revert as the text is more concise and as noted it wouldn't solve the problem. However I can't think of something that is all of meaningful, concise and not confusing or potentially misleading. We could just remove the column entirely and link the petition from the date initiated but I'm wondering if that would be surprising and/or deceptive? Ideas welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share your view that "2nd" implies it's a second Re-RFA. Perhaps we just use the text "link" and link to the RfA from that column? Or we could remove the "Re-RFA initiated" column, and put "Initiated on November 17, 2024", as the text under Re-RFA? I don't want to link the entire text in that column and include "November 17, 2024" because that may imply that it's a permalink. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petition	Petition initiated	Threshold reached	Petition status	Re-RFA	Re-RFA initiated	Result
Graham87	October 27, 2024	November 6, 2024	Threshold reached	Link	November 17, 2024	Resigned
Fastily	November 4, 2024	November 15, 2024	Threshold reached	N/A	N/A	Resigned

Petition	Petition initiated	Threshold reached	Petition status	Re-RFA	Result
Graham87	October 27, 2024	November 6, 2024	Threshold reached	Initiated on November 17, 2024	Resigned
Fastily	November 4, 2024	November 15, 2024	Threshold reached	N/A	Resigned

A couple examples based on this brainstorming. I'm also thinking it makes sense to move the petition status column to be between the petition and petition initiated columns. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally dislike using "Link" but that may be because constructions like "...is available at this link" are discouraged in prose. I thought I would like your second suggestion but just linking the word "initiated" also feels like a permalink (and I agree linking the date would do that), so perhaps "Link" is the better option.

I agree with moving the petition status column. I've been mulling over doing something like that myself. Related to that, that would enable making this a complete list of all petitions, not just those that have been closed, with the status listed as "Open".

I'm also wondering if the result column should distinguish between "resigned, did not stand at Re-RFA" and "resigned, withdrew Re-RFA"? Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either link or initiated, both are, in my opinion, improvements on listing "2nd" or "PersonName 2". Feels like you were in my head regarding the result column. It's technically accurate at the moment, but it could be more accurate, while still being concise. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now I've changed the text in Graham87's result cell to "Withdrew Re-RFA" but left Fastily's as is and not changed either of the link targets. I'm going to think a bit longer about the Re-RFA column. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the second table. We could also merge "Petition status" and "Threshold reached":

Petition	Petition initiated	Petition status	Re-RFA	Result
Graham87	October 27, 2024	Threshold reached November 6, 2024	Initiated on November 17, 2024	Resigned
Fastily	November 4, 2024	Threshold reached November 15, 2024	N/A	Resigned

Sincerely, Dilettante 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not a big issue now as the table it so short, I think it best if we kept the Petition status and Threshold reached separate so that they can be sorted separately. For a combined link and date column, that should be sortable by the date (I don't know if the {{dts}} template automatically does this?) rather than the text sorting alphabetically by month. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed the page to use the second table as proposed by Hey man im josh above. Some testing in my sandbox showed that using the {{dts}} template does mean the re-RFA column sorts by the date. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Frost, who made similar changes, just to see if they're cool with the changes made. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was a discussion about this until my edit was reverted yesterday, but yes it's fine. Frost 13:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The shortcut

I don't think "carp" (see Etymology 2, verb, "to criticize or complain about a fault, especially for frivolous or petty reasons") is a great shortcut for this page. It's humorous but I'm not sure humor is called for here. If we rename this page to /Past (as I just suggested at WT:RECALL), then it could be WP:PARC or WP:RECALL/P; if it's not renamed, maybe WP:RECALL/C or WP:REC? (I think we could retarget WP:REC, since it's not really used.) Levivich (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw CARP in the wild, I'd think it's a synonym for TROUT, so there's also that point of confusion. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created it purely as an acronym for Closed Administrator Recall Petitions. It has been suggested that it include open as well as closed petitions, in which case it could just be WP:ARP. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]