• If you seek wisdom, you have likely come to the wrong place, but I will do my best.
• If you seek a favor, I am at your service unless I don't know how or I don't want to.
• If you come with something shiny or edible, approach slowly and deposit it in the appropriate location.
• If you come with problems or concerns, consider providing a possible solution or compromise.
• If you come with insults or put-downs, at least make them clever.
• Talk page stalkers are welcome. The vast majority are not abudcted or eaten.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The article Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya for comments about the article, and Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst ( talk) 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Nona Gaprindashvili you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili for comments about the article, and Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Zeno of Elea you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Zeno of Elea and Talk:Zeno of Elea/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco ( talk) 22:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan and Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 12:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi TBUA. Hope everything is going well. We haven't seen you around here in a week and a half or so. I don't mind leaving the review on hold for a little longer. It would help to know if that's something you want. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi again! I went ahead and failed the review. Hope to see you again soon, and best of luck with a future re-nomination. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Autocracy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Autocracy and Talk:Autocracy/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ljleppan -- Ljleppan ( talk) 07:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza and Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst ( talk) 19:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Zeno of Elea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zeno of Elea for comments about the article, and Talk:Zeno of Elea/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco ( talk) 14:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst ( talk) 23:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Autocracy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Autocracy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ljleppan -- Ljleppan ( talk) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I didn't want to derail that thread more, so I'm posting my response here. I think project-level rejection/ignorance of NOTNEWS, PRIMARY, and SUSTAINED is a hugely under-acknowledged issue, and the only way to really tackle it is for more editors familiar with PAGs to get involved in niche deletion discussions etc. I've had the DELSORTs for sportspeople, academics, academic journals, and nobility watchlisted for a while now, but I wish there was some sort of yapperbot-like service that could alert us to a random selection of active discussions that only have one or two DELSORT tags. That way we wouldn't have to watch a whole category we're otherwise disinterested in but could still provide an outsider perspective at the AfDs very few people normally see. JoelleJay ( talk) 05:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

JoelleJay It's probably my single biggest pet peeve on Wikipedia. I've found that whenever I start or join a deletion discussion and !vote to delete on the basis of those P&G, people double down and ignore them even when I quote them directly. Of the AfDs I've created or !voted on, I have a seemingly never-ending list of examples where policy was ignored in favor of subjective personal opinion. Current events has its own cohort of editors just as roads and sports do, and they get just as touchy when you try to clean up the messes they make. I've tried to tackle the issue at the Village Pump among other approaches, which saw some interest but very little to show for it. I honestly don't know what to do at this point to improve the lack of accountability on sourcing. There are already a few methods of sorting AfDs and I'm sure there's a way to set up such a yapperbot, but even then we still have the issue of more competent editors watching it and taking interest in these niche AfDs. And don't even get me started on WP:ITN. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I too have a long list of "bad closes", which I've put in a bookmarks folder. I also have bookmarks folders for good closes in various subjects as well as AfDs where the closing admin makes a good statement on the P&Gs discussed. Perhaps I'll start participating in CE AfDs, although probably only for pages where enough time has passed that the lack of sustained coverage can be used to bolster PRIMARY concerns. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

One of these days I'll take a bad close to deletion review, but honestly I just don't want to deal with the drama or with the editors who don't understand how sourcing works. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah DRV honestly isn't any better than AfD in a lot of cases. The "regulars" there are pretty uniformly on the side of keeping everything and so their !votes typically overweight the ILIKEIT AfD arguments and ignore the expectation that closers discount !votes that go against PAGs. This was a real problem back before the NSPORT RfC, where one cohort of DRV participants routinely argued "meets NFOOTY" was valid despite NSPORT always requiring GNG be met. I think more editors watchlisting DELSORTS for problem areas is the only real way to change things since apparently numerical majority overrides argument quality... JoelleJay ( talk) 21:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

^{( Buttinsky)} Not that either of you asked me what I think, but couldn't help but notice that of the examples of bad closes above, the 3 no-consensus were 2021 and 2022 events (nom'd in 2023), 1 was a road so that's a project-cabal issue, and all the rest were, in my opinion, just nom'd too soon: 2023 events nom'd in 2023, in some cases within days of the event. That's too soon to determine SUSTAINED (and thus whether it's NOTNEWS), and all the sources about current events will be primary; by definition, it takes some time for secondary sources to be written (need multiple primary sources to be created first). So, I wouldn't say those are examples of the community ignoring the policies, just examples of why it's hard to delete current events -- without secondary sourcing, and without the passage of time, it's hard to judge SUSTAINED, so editors make their best guess, and invariably they're going to guess that a big tragedy will get sustained coverage (even if they end up being incorrect a lot, that's how the votes will go). I bet with a sample of AFDs where 1+ year passed, you'd see fewer keeps and more no-consensus, and then 3+ years or 5+ years, you'd see a lot more "deletes." Levivich ( talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Levivich, part of why I'm hesitant to jump into CE AfDs is precisely because I wouldn't know how long is long enough for SUSTAINED to be assumed for notable topics. But another issue is that I don't know whether there are some unstated criteria for CE that the more "curationist" among us use in that area, so I wouldn't want to jump in and piss people off applying the standards I use in AfDs on other topics to events. So it's possible the sourcing is obviously deficient to Thebiguglyalien but not to us. I know I find it aggravating when people unfamiliar with sports coverage show up in athlete AfDs offering what is clearly (to me) routine transactional news (and then I have to go through the exhausting motions of explaining that "routine" applies to sportspeople, no I promise you it's not just for events, look at the text of NOTNEWS (and even ROUTINE!) ffs, here are a dozen AfDs where admin noms or closers affirm transactional coverage is routine...). I've certainly run into that at athlete BIO1E AfDs where the 1E is very recent, which tend to attract a broader crowd than other athlete bios. For example at Maddy Cusack where it was so obvious that all the "significant" coverage of her death was primary and all the background was purely derivative of a couple press releases, and yet I guess it's sexist to discount such coverage since it's so much more than any other women's football player receives... And don't get me started on the non-independent and trivial profiles that pass for GNG on other women's bios if they're mentioned at WiR...

On the original topic, I think one of the other good ways of contributing to AfDs in unfamiliar areas is to regularly comb through DRV. It definitely would have helped if more people who understand LOCALCON and know that NJOURNALS is neither a valid guideline nor a predictor/application of GNG had weighed in here... That area is especially frustrating because the journals crowd refuses to actually formally re-propose their criteria as an official guideline (it failed in the past) and has explicitly threatened sanctions on anyone "outside" who tries to do so since it would be "POINTY". So instead we get the status quo of regulars misrepresenting the essay as if it was a real guideline or as if its criteria aligned with GNG (no, getting an auto-generated impact score and field ranking from being listed in a "selective" index^§ the journal applied to join is not IRS SIGCOV!), pointing to the decade they've been doing that at AfD as evidence it has widespread consensus, and claiming it's "just like citing HEY or TNT". And check out the talk page for what happens if you try to edit the essay itself to emphasize meeting GNG is required...

§ The essay states that having ever been listed on SCOPUS or WoS is enough for a journal to have its own page, regardless of whether there is any sourcing for any content beyond its own webpage. Where else is "not being a literal scam or obvious crap at some point in history" an acceptable criterion for SNG notability? And that's assuming those indices actually do filter out predatory and shitty journals... [1] [2] [3]

I'm not bitter at all and these things never keep me up at night! JoelleJay ( talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I have strong thoughts about this sort of thing. In your examples I see canvassing, tendentious editing, and pointy misuse of notability guidelines. Sanctions are long overdue for some of these gatekeepers. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

If there were a script that would make one of these tables for any given set of discussions, that would be a very cool and useful tool. I'm not at all surprised by the results -- including that it seems the majority of participants did not participate in the majority of RFCs -- i.e., different editors are deciding these discussions, it's not always the same "block".

I had a bunch of questions, feel free to ignore or answer whichever ones you want:

What do you think about making the table sortable?

Adding horizontal and vertical totals?

For whatever method was used to categorize "Isr" and "Pal" (I assume that maps to "support"/"oppose", "keep"/"delete", etc. as applicable?), is it possible to categorize the outcomes of the 15 discussions as either "Isr" or "Pal" or neither/other/no consensus/whatever? I see some green bars and some blue bars, and I want to know if the outcomes--the consensus--is either a green bar or a blue bar or patchwork or what.

Also "match rate" would be interesting. Someone might vote one color all the time, but it tells a whole different story if their match rate is 0% or 100% or 50%.

It's a cool table, thanks for putting it together. Levivich ( talk) 06:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Really it's just a table of associations based on who !voted the same. Certain editors always voted as a group, so they're "Group A". Other editors always voted as a group, always reaching the opposite conclusion of Group A, and that's "Group B". I then labeled the groups Pal and Isr because I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that's not what it is. For the most part it was just who voted support or keep and who voted oppose or delete, but on the non-poll discussions I had to actually read through them to see who agreed with whom. I'm probably going to blank the sandbox now that the motion has been passed, but I believe that evaluating discussion patterns like this is a viable method to identify possible WP:CPUSHers. The moral of the story is I'll find anything to occupy my time if it's an excuse to avoid real life responsibilities for a little while. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Please revert this edit immediately as it is a violation of the 1RR rule imposed on the Red Sea crisis article. At this moment, I am in the process of adding more references including this article titled, “US-Iran proxy war rages back to life in Iraq”, which satisfies your issue. Either way, please revert immediately. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

My mistake, I did not see the 1RR notice. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah no problem. Thanks for reverting! Also, I did have a question regarding your concern. (Noting, I just added an article by the Council on Foreign Relations titled, “U.S.-Iran Proxy War Intensifies, Sudan Conflict Rages On, Sundance Film Festival Marks Forty Years, and More”, so your concern about it not being titled exactly is no longer an issue).

Your concern was that the NYT article, titled “U.S. and Iran Wage a Proxy War” doesn’t actually say US-Iran proxy war? May I ask why you think that those words don’t mean it is a proxy war? I will note, the article has since been re-titled “U.S. and Iran Battle Through Proxies, Warily Avoiding Each Other”, however, the original title still shows up as the “page tab title”. I’m curious about why you think it doesn’t actually mean it is a proxy war? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

It does mean it's a proxy war, and I would have no issue with using it to source "the conflict is a proxy war" or something to that effect in the body. My concern was that it doesn't support that being the actual name of the conflict. It would be like using this source to rewrite the lead to Blue whale to say The blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), also known as the world's largest animal, is a marine mammal and a baleen whale. It's true, but it's not the name unless other sources say it is. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edith Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ Episcopal Church.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Thor Volume 2 Issue 11.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey, on my draft of Ida Saxton McKinley, I'm working on the historic assessment as it is an easy section to write. Is it alright if I copy the description of the study that Siena College performs on the First Ladies? I've poked around multiple FL articles and they seem to have the exact same description. I might end up modifying it later, but is it alright for me to use the description? I'm a bit nervous as this is my first attempt at a GA and I want to avoid as much trouble as I can. ❤History Theorist❤ 04:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

HistoryTheorist, it shouldn't be an issue. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia goes into detail, but really all you have to worry about is writing "Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution" or something similar in the edit summary. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response! I had some idea that attempting a GA would be a lot of work but the first attempt is always a bit nerve-wracking, and I'm paranoid that my writing either includes too much details, too little details, or is too boring. Oh well. Your GAs have been great inspiration! ❤History Theorist❤ 04:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I've found that GA is actually the best place to figure that sort of thing out. Having an objective editor going over your work and listing further suggestions for improvement is invaluable. The real killer is the wait time. I nominated Anna Harrison almost five months ago and I'm still waiting. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 24 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 20:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 23 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 20:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 1 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 20:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Federalist No. 25 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!— Wehwalt ( talk) 16:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Federalist No. 1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 1 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 18:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Federalist No. 24 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 24 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 24/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Federalist No. 23 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 23 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 23/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 08:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Federalist No. 25 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Federalist No. 25 for comments about the article, and Talk:Federalist No. 25/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 12:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima ( submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 ( submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV ( submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan ( submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter ( submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie ( submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts ( submissions) and Elli ( submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ( Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs), Epicgenius ( talk · contribs), and Frostly ( talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Precious

One year!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, in this edit to Edith Roosevelt you added {{Sfn|Morris|2013|p=437}}, {{Sfn|Morris|2013|p=445}}, and {{Sfn|Morris|2013|pp=447–448}}. Unfortunately no such work "Morris 2013" is listed. This means that nobody can look the references up, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source that would be appreciated. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anna Harrison you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dugan Murphy -- Dugan Murphy ( talk) 00:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Don't Be a Sucker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma ( talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Anna Harrison you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anna Harrison for comments about the article, and Talk:Anna Harrison/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Dugan Murphy -- Dugan Murphy ( talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Don't Be a Sucker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Don't Be a Sucker for comments about the article, and Talk:Don't Be a Sucker/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Kusma -- Kusma ( talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan and Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I was by Ray May this morning putting up a portrait and I saw you laid a "no significant coverage (sports)" template up for him last May. The guy played in 118 NFL games with 88 starts — that strikes me as a pretty inappropriate template for such a subject, no matter how terrible the stub is currently. Please find a better "sources needed" template for NFL players if you feel you must template rather than going the far preferred SOFIXIT route. Thanks, —tim //// Carrite ( talk) 17:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Carrite, WP:SPORTCRIT is clear: Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Template:No significant coverage (sports) is specifically made for articles like Ray May where the only listed source is a database entry. This is the better sources needed template. Please find significant coverage before removing the no significant coverage maintenance template. If significant coverage is not available, then the article should be merged or deleted. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima ( submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV ( submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 ( submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie ( submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan ( submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter ( submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV ( submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Thebiguglyalien. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts ( 1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Autocracy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 ( talk) 22:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Politics of Botswana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Youprayteas -- Youprayteas ( talk) 16:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst ( talk) 13:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Catherine Samba-Panza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza for comments about the article, and Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Grnrchst -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I corrected the references for Henry Sullivan (composer).

I wanted to add that Sullivan wrote the script for the Broadway show Murray Anderson's Almanac (1929), of which some of the sketches were written by Noel Coward. From that show, he wrote the song I May Be Wrong (but I Think You're Wonderful) which has had its own Wikipedia page since 2006. It was sung by Doris Day as well by other notable singers. Starlighsky ( talk) 01:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Starlighsky, it's entirely possible I was wrong. Right now it's in an Articles for Deletion discussion, which is a chance for anyone to come forward with sources to prove that it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If it can be shown that he meets any of the listed items at WP:MUSICBIO, then I'll gladly withdraw the deletion nomination. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 02:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

His song I May Be Wrong (but I Think You're Wonderful) clearly meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria:

• Judy Garland - performed the song on Command Performance #134, August 19, 1944.
• Dinah Shore - a single release for Columbia Records, catalog No. 37140. (1946)
• Frankie Laine released a version in 1946, backed by Milton Delugg and the Swing Wing for Mercury Records, catalog No. 1205A.
• Doris Day with Harry James - included in the album Young Man with a Horn. Released on Columbia CL-6106 in 1950.
• Frank Rosolino released a version in 1956, on his I Play Trombone album.
• The Four Freshmen - for their album Four Freshmen and Five Saxes (1957).
• Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney recorded the song in 1958 for use on their radio show and it was subsequently included in the CD Bing & Rosie - The Crosby-Clooney Radio Sessions released in 2010.
• Perry Como - included in his album Saturday Night with Mr. C (1958)
• The Mills Brothers - included in the album Count Basie & The Mills Brothers – The Board Of Directors (1967).
• Ray Charles recorded a version for his album Volcanic Action of My Soul (1971)
• June Christy - A Friendly Session, Vol. 2 (1999)
• Ella Fitzgerald and Joe Pass recorded it on their album Speak Love.

Starlighsky ( talk) 03:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Keeps are clearly the majority and it clearly meets the criteria the music notability. Is it okay if I delete the Articles for Deletion banner? Starlighsky ( talk) 10:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The articles for deletion banner will be removed by an administrator when the process ends. I'm not sure what you mean by "the keeps are clearly the majority", as no one has commented on it besides you. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No one is responding but me. Because of this, keeps are in the majority.

His music is clearly notable. However, the Article for Deletion is for a notable part of 20th century contemporary music. Starlighsky ( talk) 19:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Everyone who voted voted Keep. Can I remove the Article for Deletion banner? Starlighsky ( talk) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thanks for spotting the copyright issues on Scott Conger. I've declined the G12 as that applies only if all versions of the article are copyright violations. Earlier versions did not have any of teh copyrighted material that I could see. In such cases, you should revert to the latest clean version and use {{ copyvio-revdel}}. On a related note, when you tag for G12, it's helpful for the reviewing admin if you do not blank the page. The G12 template includes a link to the copyvio tool which assumes the copyvio is in the current version. When the page is blanked, I have to manually set up the correct version to use the tool. Additionally, stuffing multiple URLs into one URL parameter also requires me to manually separate out the URLs and set up the copyvio tool. WP:Twinkle makes it easy to tag and supports multiple URLs for G12. Cheers. -- Whpq ( talk) 04:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have noticed that you have been very protective of the Iron Man article including the decreasing of the alternate version bios like the Tony Stark of Earth-818 who operates as Ant-Man. Would you have a problem if I was to sort the "Other characters named Iron Man" from the "Alternative versions" section considering that the former details the Iron Men of Earth-616? I'm just asking here. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 04:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Rtkat3, I moved up the other characters who used the name to "Allies", so now "Alternate versions" is just alternate realities, not alternate identities. Does that look good? I'm currently trying to remove all of the low quality sources like ScreenRant and CBR (and obviously primary source usage of the comics themselves). If you know of any higher quality sources that cover the different interpretations of Iron Man, that would be really helpful. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The relocation edit has been seen, but do you think there should be a separate heading for the other characters named Iron Man as there have been similar sections for other comics characters like Cobra and Hulk to name some examples? Rtkat3 ( talk) 17:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It wouldn't be unreasonable to have that be its own section, but it also seems a little unnecessary to me since it's only two sentences (both of which need to be changed anyway because their current sourcing isn't helpful for encyclopedic coverage). Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you add in the brief information of James Rhodes, Arno Stark (the Earth-616 version), and Victor von Doom's first appearance as their versions of Iron Man with a reference to the first comic book appearance, it would suffice. Right? There was also an Iron Man imposter named Clarence Ward who killed Rumiko Fujikawa. As for his different A.I. versions of Tony Stark, perhaps something can be figured out. Sonny Frisco and Andros Stark are the known Marvel 2099 inhabitants that took up the name of Iron Man in different versions of Marvel 2099 even though we haven't seen the Earth-2099 version of either one yet. As Iron Maniac currently redirects to Iron Man, either a brief information will have to be added your way or his history will have to be transferred to List of Marvel Comics characters: I with a mentioning in the comments section on the transferring and importing that most other editors on this website do. Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It sounds like you're trying to write the article backward and then use primary sources to justify inclusion. The standard for what should be included depends entirely on what aspects are covered by reliable secondary/tertiary sources, and ideally high quality ones at that. If you'd like, I can take another look through the Marvel handbooks to see if any alternate versions are considered significant—still not ideal since they're not independent sources, but it's better than content farm sources like CBR and way better than using existence as justification for inclusion. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you want to go through the handbooks, go right ahead. Any one of them can contain the information that we're looking for. Rtkat3 ( talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've looked through a few handbooks today, including Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Alternate Universes. As far as I can tell, there are only two alternate universe Iron Man characters that have significant coverage in them: Iron Man (Ultimate Marvel character) and Iron Man 2020. These also happen to be the two alternate Iron Men that have articles on Wikipedia. I think the best way to go about this would be to have those two mentioned on the main Iron Man article because they seem to be the most important, and then give the other ones some dedicated space of their own on the "List of Marvel Comics characters" pages. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

While Iron Maniac can be redirected to List of Marvel Comics characters: I if that is alright with you, the section should still have a brief mention of the Tony Stark of Earth-818 who operated as Ant-Man and the Tony Stark from Earth-6160 who currently operates as Iron Lad because the Howard Stark of Earth-6160 operated as Iron Man. Perhaps Google can help you find the right sources that aren't the websites that you mentioned. Right? Rtkat3 ( talk) 02:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What's the justification for including these other than you personally thinking they're important? Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 02:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I was just stating some facts while reiterating that Iron Maniac still redirects to Iron Man as well as the fact that Ant-Man of Earth-818 was a main character in the second Avengers: Forever series. The rest of the already mentioned alternate versions that are already listed can have proper sources found on Google and/or with collaborations with editors who are experts at finding sources. Rtkat3 ( talk) 02:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

My congratulations on adding the sentient Iron Man armor to the part with the other characters that went by the name of Iron Man. That sentient armor was responsible for killing Whiplash. I can look for how it sacrificed itself to protect Tony Stark to elaborate on that part if you like. If brief information on the tenure of James Rhodes and Doctor Doom can be added, it can be it's own section like how some comic book character pages have an "Other characters named [insert character name here]" section. Right? -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 01:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Samia Suluhu Hassan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan for comments about the article, and Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Firefangledfeathers -- Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 12:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article War Machine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:War Machine for comments about the article, and Talk:War Machine/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie ( talk) 12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Thebiguglyalien :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hugo's House of Horrors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haunted mansion.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is brilliant.

Thehighestd ( talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vrxces -- Vrxces ( talk) 02:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hugo's House of Horrors you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vrxces -- Vrxces ( talk) 09:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, Thebiguglyalien! The article you nominated, Leucippus, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild ( talk) via FACBot ( talk) 00:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey dude! Since you made the review for the first failed FAC for AC/DC ( archive3), are you able to review the rest of the article? — VAUGHAN J. ( t · c) 00:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy for comments about the article, and Talk:Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Vrxces -- Vrxces ( talk) 07:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've reverted your mass addition of this rarely used template. I believe it badly needs a larger discussion/consensus than the few editors far down in this discussion, and for the two articles I spotchecked it wasn't even accurate to say that there were no sources from after the event. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 05:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The ed17 Your mass revert was inappropriate and I'm going to ask you to undo it now. You personally not liking the template is not a valid reason to remove it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I will not. As I said above: my spotchecks of your mass addition of this template to over a dozen articles over just a few minutes showed that you were not taking enough care in placing it. For example, while 2006 Falk Corporation explosion is not an example of one of our best articles, there are entire sections devoted to the subsequent investigation and legal actions. It probably meets the criteria for Template:Update, but it does not fit anything listed at WP:NOTNEWS, which is the prominent link in Template:Old news. (It actually doesn't say anything about issues with "contemporary reporting", which is an issue with the template.)

I do now see that the link given in the template's history was not the full discussion, so while I do still believe it needs a stronger consensus and its wording/links badly need more thinking/discussion, I have less of an objection on that front. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 05:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The investigation and legal actions are sourced to contemporary sources as well; several contemporary sources for several events do not make a retrospective source for any event. I agree that the explanatory link on the template could be changed, but I don't believe that invalidates the template as a whole. I personally would prefer it if focused more directly on WP:EVENTS or similar pages. I actually wrote an essay with this specific issue in mind, though it's more general-purpose and either way I'm not going to suggest using it on any template. If my initial response seemed abrupt, it's because this looked like a WP:DRNC issue from my perspective. Is there a specific venue you're thinking of when you say "stronger consensus", or is this a more general sense? Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That essay has sent me down a tangent, but I'm not sure it hits the mark. Effectively disallowing citations to things that meet the definition of reliable sources (per the title and "it should be removed from the article", but perhaps I'm missing something) would run into significant opposition per the last line at WP:PRIMARYNEWS: "Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." If the essay is not meant to be read that far, I might consider changing the page name to something like "prioritize secondary sources". I'm also staring at the line "Contemporary sources can still be written well after an event initially began or took place" and the examples that come after, which do not recognize that subsequent reporting can sometimes be secondary or have characteristics of both when describing events that came before. It depends on the quality of the source, and each need to be evaluated on their own merits.

Overall, I worry that this essay too narrowly focuses on the wrong issue. It's not that editors use contemporary news coverage in articles—you're arguing that editors are poorly using their editorial content discretion.

Back to the template: I would argue that explanatory links are a core requirement in a maintenance template, as they give necessary additional context to anyone who reads them. This template feels like it ought to be a village pump topic because it could be added to a large number of articles, particularly new ones, albeit depending on the final scope of the template. I wrote down my quick/immediate thoughts at Template talk:Old news#Template problems, and may return to that later when I have a chance to think through things more. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 06:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The ed17, where are we at on this? I'd like to keep sorting the events articles that don't have any retrospective analysis. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I left that message on the template's talk page, which unfortunately no one seems to have seen yet. I won't be able to get moving on a village pump post at the moment as I'm about to head out on my honeymoon. Ed  ^{[talk]  [OMT]} 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Autocracy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Autocracy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 ( talk) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article I Am Not Going to Get Up Today! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Am Not Going to Get Up Today! for comments about the article, and Talk:I Am Not Going to Get Up Today!/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos ( talk) 20:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are all good articles so if you manage to get this page to GA quality, you can make a good topic. Okmrman ( talk) 21:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 May 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

The article Hugo's House of Horrors you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugo's House of Horrors for comments about the article, and Talk:Hugo's House of Horrors/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Vrxces -- Vrxces ( talk) 08:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Thebiguglyalien. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of War Machine titles, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 10:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Green Eggs and Ham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Green Eggs and Ham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Green Eggs and Ham for comments about the article, and Talk:Green Eggs and Ham/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, as an uninvolved administrator could you please review this discussion regarding a conduct dispute. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 02:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

IOHANNVSVERVS, I do not have access to administrator tools. If you need to contact an administrator, I suggest requesting assistance at the administrator's noticeboard. If the dispute is totally intractable, then it should be raised at the incidents noticeboard. Regarding the subject of the dispute, you may wish to read WP:BURDEN, which says that Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 02:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"I do not have access to administrator tools." — Oh...

Thanks for the guidance and for citing this relevant policy which I was not sufficiently aware of. Although reading it I do see that it says "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article."

I'll proceed to the administrator's noticeboard, and thanks again. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 02:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've noticed you've been marking a lot of incidents pages appropriately. As you know I've been nominating many for deletion. The vast vast majority are created within a day or 2 of the event, and come under WP:NOTNEWS and not meeting WP:EVENT for lasting coverage. One person in an AfD said that an additional source 2 months later made it have a lasting effect... LibStar ( talk) 04:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

LibStar And let me guess, the "additional source" is still a contemporary source, just used to support "there was an investigation" or "there was a court case"? Believe me, this is my number one pet peeve on Wikipedia. The template thing is on pause because someone mass reverted a bunch of them and put it in limbo (see User talk:Thebiguglyalien#Template:Old news above). Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Routine coverage of guards who were involved, no lasting impact of effect... LibStar ( talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

story · music · places

Thank you today for Lou Henry Hoover, introduced: "Lou Henry Hoover is the most interesting U.S. first lady that no one knows about. She was the first woman to major in geology at Stanford, she participated in the Battle of Tientsin during the Boxer Rebellion, she made a landmark accomplishment in metallurgy when she translated one of the field's most influential books from Latin after it was presumed lost purely due to its complexity, she was one of the leaders of the British World War I relief effort for American and Belgian refugees, she led and reformed the Girl Scouts of the USA, and she became a household name for her food conservation advocacy, and that's all before she became first lady. While in the White House, she famously invited a Black Congressman's wife to tea despite widespread backlash, she was the first of the first ladies to give radio broadcasts, and she made countless donations to families in need during the Great Depression out of her own funds without telling anyone. She advocated gender equality throughout her life, and on this issue she was one of the earliest first ladies to openly engage in advocacy, setting precedent for her iconic successor Eleanor Roosevelt."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Thebiguglyalien, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! –  Joe ( talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Politics of Botswana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Politics of Botswana you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Politics of Botswana and Talk:Politics of Botswana/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Politics of Botswana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Politics of Botswana for comments about the article, and Talk:Politics of Botswana/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Melania Trump you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ ( talk) 02:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

		The Master Detective Barnstar
		I dub thee the "master detective" with The Master Detective Barnstar. Through your deep persistence, expert puzzle-solving and clue-finding, and a disregard for what Wikipedia is about, you have discovered all five guestbooks. Panini! • 🥪 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am quite surprised you (and Dialmayo) actually found the last one specifically. I would like to hear your thoughts. How did you uncover the answers to the puzzles, and should it be made harder or easier? Panini! • 🥪 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Thebiguglyalien,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The other day I noticed you had brought the article on Don't Be a Sucker to GA, so I gave it a read and it convinced me to watch the movie. I find classical anti-fascist propaganda to be fascinating pieces of history, so I very much enjoyed watching and learning about this film, as well as the places it succeeded and failed. So I just wanted to thank you for writing this and broadening my understanding of this subject! Thanks :D -- Grnrchst ( talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iveta Radičová you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst ( talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Iveta Radičová you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iveta Radičová for comments about the article, and Talk:Iveta Radičová/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Grnrchst -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have agreed to do as you said—deleting and reversing my review pages for another reviewer. Safari Scribe ^{Edits! Talk!} 02:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

SafariScribe If you intend to do so, you can just paste {{db-g7}} on the top of each page, and an administrator will reverse them. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No worries. I am not going to do that any more. I can clear the backlog. It's just a challenge! Thanks. Safari Scribe ^{Edits! Talk!} 07:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for participating in the March 2024 GA backlog drive. Your noteworthy contribution (7 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie ( submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts ( submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs ( Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima ( submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce ( submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin ( submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma ( submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ( Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs), Epicgenius ( talk · contribs), and Frostly ( talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply