User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 10

URFA 2020

I have been looking at some of the weather articles at the URFA. I gave notice for Tornado as it needs a significant cleanup to meet the FA criteria. What are your thoughts on the 1941 Atlantic hurricane season? I don't exactly know where to look for sources, but I have an inkling that the Nicaragua hurricane section is vastly incomplete as an article doesn't even exist for quite an impactful storm. Obviously these articles can't cover as much content as a modern-day one due to lack of sources and data, but I think some areas are missing content for this one What are your thoughts on this article? Noah^Talk 14:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked using a Spanish language search on Google Books. It does appear that this was a quite significant storm, but most results are mentions in books published long after the fact. I bet there are more details in contemporary news publications, which might be very difficult to access if not digitized. (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, what sources have your searches uncovered? I'm not finding a lot. This doesn't turn up much information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Noah, I just saw this post, having left already messages for you all over the place. (If you even need help with Spanish sources, please feel free to ping me.) All of these will need CCI checks, and I've done a few samples and am waiting for the CCI people to get back to me, to make sure my methodology is adequate. Thanks for the help on these ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue for these Spanish sources is the age of them. I would have no trouble finding sources for a storm in modern times. I just wanted to see what others thought about this article and make sure such sources would exist. Noah^Talk 20:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah thanks again for the flurry of activity ! (I'm a bit overwhelmed by my watchlist today, as I had committed to doing all of the 2004 to 2006 hurricanes, and we have multiple other proposals coming to fruition today in FAR and URFA.) On the remainder at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#2004–2006, I was hoping to wait to hear from the CCI people before tackling 1933 Atlantic hurricane season and 1995 Pacific hurricane season, as those are where we are most likely to find copying within that needs to be templated with {{Copied}} on article talk, and I want to make sure I'm doing it right. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You can see my first sample at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1. And the initial discussion at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#WP Cyclone CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Good grief... I see the effort thus far hasn't even scratched the surface across all of WP. I have tried to get through several today to reduce the weather backlog a bit. I believe many people haven't helped thus far because either 1. school, 2. work, 3. the stigma associated with nominating your own project's articles for FAR... Some people take nominating articles for FAR as an insult or betrayal. Noah^Talk 23:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep. FAR was moribund for years; after the FA process lost its director (who oversaw the entire FA process, meaning FAC, FAR and TFA), interest was lost in making sure quality was maintained, and the process turned in to a one-way pipeline. Curiously, the FAR Coords are exceedingly responsive and helpful, but nothing was being nominated. At least now we have lots of people working on it. Thanks for the help; it is selfless (as opposed to "Reward culture" work)! You can begin to see why I often say that half of our FAs ... aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I went through several more (partially) last night and a couple more this morning (all were posted this morning) which yielded several more FAR notices. The lack of academic lit coverage is quite appalling and honestly one of the main reasons behind many of the FAR notices. I have seen many articles with unsourced content and that are outdated on coverage as well. I am FAR noticing Hurricanehink's articles that have issues since he is busy with other things right now and publicly stated he wouldn't be taking any effort to save them from FAR. Hopefully these notices will bring some attention to the articles, however, I still believe we are going to lose a significant amount of FAs. I will continue pointing out problematic articles as I get time to do so. Noah^Talk 15:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Once we get everything evaluated at URFA/2020, we may find we need to make a global proposal… but that would require a thorough discussion first at WT:FAR, best held once all the data is gathered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that we have 150 articles with FAR notice. Surely the number will continue to grow as we actively review articles. It seems like a lot already. Noah^Talk 18:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep. What is keeping that number high is that, because we attempt to not overwhelm any given editor or WikiProject with too many FARs at once, and not generally overwhelm the process, any individual editor may only nominate one article per week, with five articles max on the page at a time. Very few of us are doing all the nominations. Unless other editors start nominating one per week (keeping in mind, for example, not to nominate a lot of hurricanes at once, as that will overwhelm the Project), we will take decades to process those FAs that need processing. Anyone can nominate a WP:FARGIVEN article. I suspect we may find a need to take a global approach to the Cyclone WP articles, but time will tell. (Finished splitting WP:URFA/2020 if you want to continue work now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at Fabian and Irene '99 as I had seen satisfactory markings. I honestly don't believe they are there yet as the academic coverage is lacking. They are fine in every other regard though. Noah^Talk 19:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In those cases where they have only one "Satisfactory" mark, subsequent editors will see your notes. On those that have already moved to "FAR not needed" (for example here), if they are so bad that you feel that they would be an embarrassment if run on the mainpage at WP:TFA, you can still give notice and eventually submit them to FAR. We had few reviewers trying to do a lot of work, and even with multiple notices posted to the Cyclone WikiProject, no one was helping until you stepped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Being entirely honest, I just think this is the result of articles not keeping up as new information has come out. In some cases, academic coverage didn't exist when these were nominated. There also wasn't the expectation for these types of sources back in the day either. This is partially why I have been noticing so many. There often times is a lot of coverage for landfalling storms and many articles have NONE. I don't have any issues with the articles currently marked satisfactory by 3 editors. Should the two I mentioned be noticed in the hope that someone else comes to fix them since Hink is no longer interested in working to save his FAs? Noah^Talk 19:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: - If you think Fabian has substantial issues, then it can be added to the noticed list and I'll remove my satisfactory. Would you be willing to give Tropical Storm Allison a look? I noticed it back in May, but I'm not the most familiar with looking for hurricane sources here. We'll probably have to send another hurricane one through FAR soon, or the backlog of them will build up huge, and Allison's been noticed for a long time with no real action. Hog Farm _Talk 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think both should be noticed since the academic coverage is zero on these and there is a decent bit to check. As for Allison, it's the same story... tons of academic sources are available here. Btw the backlog is already huge after all the ones I looked at and noticed. Many articles do not have academic coverage and there's almost always quite a bit out there. Noah^Talk 21:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it would be okay for Allison to go to FAR soon, or should it wait for the '93 season one to be closed? I couldn't turn up a whole lot on it, but I also didn't know where to look. And it does have some copyright/copying within issues, as well. I'll be able to open another FAR on Friday night. Hog Farm _Talk 21:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be fine for you to open one for Allison on Friday. Noah^Talk 21:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I wish the CCI people would get back to me, so I could have a standard methodology/format for dealing with the copying within. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've got a bit of CCI experience through Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125 and some experience with the copying within templates (see the collapsed "other talk page banners" at Talk:Battle of Marais des Cygnes), but I'd like to have someone who knows better than me look at it. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I’m doing the templates correctly, but I want to know if I’m doing all the right things to locate the CWW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I gave project-wide notice (across WPWX, WPTC, WPSVR) of all the articles noticed from 1–5 December. I'm giving people the option to step up and help if they can. I plan to start actively FARing articles listed under the header for 1–5 December around January 15 if people do not reply there. At the end of this week, I will add another header for 6–12 December and those articles would not be touched until the last batch are handled either via improvement or FAR/FARC. Noah^Talk 21:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely; if you find any of us marking articles "Satisfactory" that you think need a FAR, go ahead and officially "Notice" them. I don't want to "unmark" my mistakes, and I don't mind being made to look stupid when it means someone is getting the job done better than I can :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you noticing how long each one of these storm CCIs takes ? I think it worth the effort because, over time, trends will become apparent. I think if we know that certain editors either a) never or always b) copied within, didn't attribute, or committed copyvio, then broader decisions can be made, and the rest of the work may go faster. I am also getting a bit better at knowing how to do it. But for now, ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be a pain. If you run into one I don't want to mess with, I can take a look. Hog Farm _Talk 22:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Russia geostub mass creation

I was wondering if you could look over the creations of ThWiki1910, who's just been given Autopatrol. They've been copy-pasting the same set of sources (in a few variations) for hundreds of Russian "rural localities" with Litva, Kursk Oblast (currently at AfD) being a standard example. I guess my main concerns are A) Are rural localities legally recognized? and B) Are the sources acceptable? Using Google Translate, they look to be a combination of Russian government population tables and autogenerated/algorithmic spam pages. Just want to make sure we're not headed into another geostub cleanup saga. –dlthewave ☎ 18:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: - I'm definitely not sold on the sourcing - it seems to be a mixture of the Russian equivalent of hometownlocator or those websites that tell you how far the nearest UPS drop off is from a location, with a mixture of government reports/laws that don't all appear to be relevant to the subject at hand. Doesn't help that the claimed location type is often Khutor, which doesn't seem to have a set meaning - I can see stuff that seems to indicate that khutor has been used to refer to everything from independent villages to individual farmsteads. I don't think these should be being created as is - what we're getting is a really drawn-out way to say that something is just a vague location of unspecifiable type and then a description of what's around it on the map - no significant content there. I think it's noteworthy that the same user requested autopatrolled for this user, as for the discussion a few sections above above that lead to a revocation of autopatrolled. They seem to be basing their WP:PERM nominations base solely on article creation count, and it's abundantly clear that that's meaningless when you're just mass-producing stubs. Hog Farm _Talk 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Another recent Autopatrolled recipient is TrangaBellam who made a bunch of articles based solely on Turkmenistan travel guide entries and got really offended when they had to be the one to dig up local-language sourcing. A few thoughts on why these could be slipping through the cracks:

• • A lot of editors still think that all populated places are automatically notable and refuse to hear any objection once a place's existence is verified. They might feel that they're taking sides in a debate by denying a request from a mass stub creator, even though the question is pretty much settled.
  • There's an assumption that if none of an editors articles have been deleted, then they must be fine. As you and I both know, this is bunk because articles can sit for years before anyone notices the lack of notability. I encountered the same thing with copyvio removal. Nobody is checking.
  • This brings up another point: Someone should be checking. How are these getting past NPP? Are admins assuming the articles must be fine if they didn't get flagged by NPP?

The number of comments on the Autopatrolled talk page tells me there's an ongoing issue. It seems like the approval process should be adjusted when these topics come up at ANI, but it isn't. Something is broken here. –dlthewave ☎ 00:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking the last couple days of a way to bring this up - there's a significant problem here, but I'm not sure how to word things yet. Possibly the epitome of this is that according to some user rights logs, User:Vanished user 7b1215e7ef746ac20682e3dbe03f5b84 was autopatrolled before they vanished. (Although several of the most prolific of these creators are admins, so a lot will never go through NPP). Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe admins' autopatrolled privileges are about to be revoked, and they'll have to be granted the right the same way as other editors. (t · c) buidhe 10:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, that's interesting. I didn't follow the RFA reform at all because I've found such things result in much yelling and no improvements in the past. Hopefully this one won't be one of those phab tickets that hang out in purgatory for years and never get done. I can think of a specific arbcase I was recently a party to that would have been probably preventable by this. Hog Farm _Talk 15:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Removing_autopatrol_from_admins (t · c) buidhe 15:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer there, I don't intend on giving it to myself. Probably don't create enough new articles to really need autopatrolled, but it'll be interesting to see if I create enough redirects to become mildly annoying in the NPP pool. Hog Farm _Talk 16:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy demands that you ping me, if the two of you are discussing my activities. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've also had eyes on the mass creation of Selo articles, some of which are truly tiny. I think this is similar to the Turkish Mahalle and Iranian ābādī cases in that it is simply being assumed that every single Russian rural locality (which is probably a better term for what these selos are) is a legally-recognised populated place and therefore should have an article, but there is no evidence that these are, for example, self-governing in any way (there populations are so low as for this to be very unlikely).

At the very least I think we're looking at WP:MEATBOT editing. I mean especially the transport-links sections which are simply a Google maps-style output, often discussing highways that are very far from the locality.

Pretty much every time I look at the NPP live feed I see stuff like this, normally autopatrolled. FOARP (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me a lot of the abadi case, too. A vague term in a non-English language with a wide variety of meanings, and generally no substantive content to prove notability. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue, because it sets two highly dedicated and involved segments of the project (people active in GEOLAND-failure cleanup and people active in NPP) against each other. The NPP pool is far into backlog realms and doesn't have enough competent labour (the adjective is important...) to keep up with its demands. The people who are concerned with these articles want more eyes on them to see if they actually pass GEOLAND/GNG (as appropriate), while the people who are concerned with the NPP backlog want as many active article creators out as possible so they can triage the most serious issues. These aren't compatible desires, and I think the intensity of them is heating up -- a lot of high-profile discussions about each issue independently lately. I'm not sure what the solution is (I'm just a (talk page stalker)), and it might be a drawn-out one. Vaticidalprophet 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

NPP isn't just about reducing the backlog though, we also want mass creation of non-notable articles not to slip through the cracks. The proposal to review 1% to 5% of creations by autopatrolled editors seems reasonable to me. (t · c) buidhe 17:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is eventually gonna have to get to the point where we're gonna have to discourage mass-creation of stubs if all you can/are willing to say is two sentences that really just establish that something existed. For instance, one of those autopatrolled editors who creates bad geostubs also churned out Divo Zadi, which at least to me does not look like something that should be getting waved through NPP (not least because Headbomb's RS script is flagging the sole source in red). Stuff like Tom Merritt (Illinois politician) is at least somewhat informative about the subject, but I'm firmly in the camp of "if you can't be bothered to write at least 100 words of prose about the article subject, why should this be an article?" Hog Farm _Talk 17:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Vaticidalprophet: - I'd place that Divo Zadi article as an example of why autopatrolled editors should still have a sample percentage of their work going through NPP. Page creator has had autopatrolled since 2009, but it churning out stuff in 2021 that I doubt would get through AFC. Hog Farm _Talk 17:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a sprawling (to say the least) convo on User talk:Iridescent that overlaps with the themes of this a lot, though comes somewhat more from the NPP-backlog perspective than the geostub-backlog perspective. I semi-agree with the "if you can't write X words you shouldn't" idea of notability; I think we're headed for a reckoning about notability in a lot of ways, including the WP:ATA idea that it can be totally divorced from quality (current or potential), reader use, et al. There's a fair bit of argument over the value of X (you suggest 100, WAID 200, Iridescent 1000). I've thought a lot about a "can it pass DYK standards?" notability gauge. I think it'd be interesting to see what'd happen, in both the sense of what we'd include that we don't, and what we exclude that we do. Vaticidalprophet 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say 1000 is a bit too high (CSS Tuscarora is a recent page creation of mine, it's at about 900 words, and I think there's enough there to establish notability), but yeah, those substubs aren't really useful for any purpose. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, but it sometimes seems like some editors are trying their darndest to make it one. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Aside from any length requirements, it would be immensely helpful to require that sufficient sourcing to establish notability be included in any article created in or moved to mainspace, and anything lacking such sources can be speedily deleted or draftified. No demanding that editors seeking deletion do a WP:BEFORE search, no giving folks time to develop the article. If it's in mainspace, it needs to be ready for mainspace. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a problem with articles like John Ferguson (Scottish activist) because even though it's a stub, there is useful information and sources are provided to prove notability. What bothers me is when articles are created without the sources that show they are notable. (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems like there are two possible outcomes for an Autopatrolled request: Approve (lift the burden from NPP) or Deny (leave the burden on NPP). There should be a third, "Hey, this editing pattern raises some red flags that nobody has noticed and should be addressed/stopped" which some admins seem opposed to pursuing even though they're in an ideal position to do so. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

+1 (t · c) buidhe 19:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think often the problem is that autopatrolled means that maybe nobody with any experience of editing Wiki ever actually lays eyes on the articles being created. I've had a bit of success just looking at the NPP live-feed and then, when I see stuff I think is problematic popping up from an autopatrolled editor, just going to their talk page and trying to diplomatically ask them what's up, suggesting sources they might try using, that kind of thing. I've noticed that since I pointed out that the articles an editor was creating about mountain peaks purely on statistical data were a bit problematic to them on the talk page, they have at least been hitting up Newspapers.com and similar sources to find stuff about accidents and assents on the mountains in question. Often the problem is the editor has just got stuck in a rut of automatically doing stuff based on databases and maybe having someone ask them about the sourcing helps remind them that the whole game here is writing encyclopaedia articles.

Of course there's also a big tendency to respond defensively, and its not totally unnatural for them to respond this way since no-one likes a complete stranger just coming out of nowhere to dump on their work, but you just have to get past that if you can. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

1st Missouri Field Battery scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the 1st Missouri Field Battery article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 4, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

January songs

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Another Missouri CSA unit, a topic I find fascinating but most of humanity probably finds dry as dirt, so many thanks in advance to all reviewers! This one was an artillery battery formed in 1862. Unlike my recent FAC of Landis's Missouri Battery, this one lasted the rest of the war. Some of its members were executed after the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry in 1864, which is probably the most unusual incident in a generally undistinguished service history.´"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Hog Farm, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar of thanks

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		To AmericanLemming for seeing the problem and the idea for a solution; to Hog Farm for grabbing the bull by the horns and running with it; and to GreenC for setting up fambot to create the report at Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches that will save all of us many hours of searching for that missing or extra star populating the Featured article categories. Thank you for the speedy solution to a problem spanning more than a decade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skirmish near Brooklyn, Kansas

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Skirmish near Brooklyn, Kansas 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Neglected but important cleanup

Hey, HF -- I've talked with Vami about this, but I think it's worth bringing to you here, because 1. it's probably of interest to you and 2. it's also probably of interest to some people who watch this page (and some people who watch the pages of people who watch this page, et al). There's a cleanup area that's been abandoned for the better part of the decade, but has some pretty serious content-integrity implications, and I've been looking for people who are likely to have the ability to take a bigger chunk out of it than the original 2014 work.

User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup is a CCI-structured (diff links, check/cross, etc) cleanup page for a prolific content editor (13 GAs on WP:WBGAN) who was uncovered in 2014 as a prolific sockpuppeteer and hoaxer. There's all kinds of unsavoury backstory and follow-up here, most of which is not polite onwiki conversation, but the core of the issue is that the majority of the articles were never checked in what of the cleanup was done before its abandonment. I don't blame anyone for that (the words "142 edits, 142 major" are not a great thing to see in a context like this one, to pull out the example of List of colonial governors of New Jersey), but it does mean there's long-persistent and foundational content of questionable integrity in quality-assessed articles, which is an unfortunate state of affairs.

I did kind of disappear for several months after first raising the GA sweep thing (sorry about that...), but I think this is an issue of a very similar kind with it, if a bit more pressing than most of the cleanup tags. (It's also a false negative for cleanup tags -- most of those articles are free of them.) Some of this stuff can be checked off relatively easily (articles since deleted, a restored article ColonelHenry socked to get deleted for which his contributions were probably not meaningful content additions), but some of it is really concerning. Vaticidalprophet 02:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: - Took a look at one for practice, and just want to clarify - so in CCI, the X means "no issues" and the green check mark means "issues found". It appears to be the other way around there, right? Hog Farm _Talk 17:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Believe that's the case, yeah. CCI was pretty moribund in 2014, so while it uses the same underlying structure there was some divergent evolution going on at ColonelHenry/Cleanup. Would be worth maintaining the distinction, there's enough checked off it's not worth changing. Vaticidalprophet 17:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow; even more GAs, but that’s a lot of FAs that need checking. Was CH ever once source-checked at FAC? user:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4; a good example why articles shouldn’t advance at FAC until sourcing is checked, and why prose nitpicking Supports in the absence of source checking are meaningless. More scary is that was 2013 to 2014, but the trend of only checking prose really accelerated 2015 to 2017. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh boy, yeah, that needs a lot of work. Will try and take a look at that fairly soon. As to the FAC source reviews:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology Hall/archive1 appears to have just been a formatting check

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Finn M. W. Caspersen/archive1 - explicitly states that spot checks were not done

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Song for Simeon/archive1 - review of formatting/reliability

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey/archive1 - closest thing to a source review appears to be I have not done a thorough source check, but the sources look great at a quick perusal, some sort of spot-checking apparently done. This should never have been promoted and has sizable issues.

I really think we ought to make this one a priority for FAR. I can't access a lot of the sources, but have flagged multiple instances of failed verification just from brief checks. Including a statement about 2006 events sourced to a source from 2004. I generally don't like the idea of rushing things here, but this is probably one to send through FAR sooner rather than later. Hog Farm _Talk 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

sorry not to help more, there’s only so much I can do from an iPad, home late Monday. If all of them are as bad, the Coords might agree to a mass FAR for the lot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@FAR coordinators: - I normally don't like to rush FARs, but given the history of the nominator for hoaxing/fake referencing and the extremely blatant source text integrity issue I turned up with a 2004 source supporting something from 2006 (which was present when this passed FAC!) in addition to the other problems, would this be excusable to send to FAR two weeks after the notice instead of the preferred longer time for just this one case, if nobody expresses an interest in giving this the thorough rewrite the sourcing needs? Hog Farm _Talk 22:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This one's at FAR now, the alcohol laws one needs to go there once this one closes. Hog Farm _Talk 22:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Merrill Woodbridge/archive1 - no separate source review, although some formatting/comprehensiveness comments within Nikkimaria's review. Spot checks don't seem to have been done

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duino Elegies/archive1 - unless my headache is causing me to miss it, this contains nothing that I as a current FAC coord would consider to qualify as a source review

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/archive1 - roughly a dozen sources apparently spot-checked.

Bad sources here, too, without evening checking for failed verification. Also out of date in parts. Noticing. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

From a quick glance, several of these appear to be weak FAs or to have not been maintained, regardless of the potential referencing issues related to this. Hog Farm _Talk 06:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Besides spotty source checking, what a number of those FACs trigger is my concern about the “three supports = promotion” problem. It is now almost a fact, which has left Coords with little discretion (party through their own fault). There are many Supporters throughout those FACs that there was good reason to discount. And Coords should regain their power to discount Supports from reviewers known not to review thoroughly and not to know how to write and not to engage the standards or to regularly support their buddies. It’s hard to keep track of poor reviewers when others refuse to use the Oppose button, but a pretty good measure of a poor reviewer is one who consistently Supports articles that are later solidly Opposed. If you keep a list and then are challenged for not promoting at three supports, you can explain why. (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1 had 21 Supports at the point that Tony1 and I kicked in to Strong Oppose; Coords have to be able to consider valid Opposes over any amount of Support, but the Oppose button has again gone missing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, 3 supports is NOT sufficient to promote in all cases. It's the bare minimum that you need in order to promote. Not promoting at 3 supports is entirely reasonable and it's even happened at some of my FAC's. If I came across an article where I felt that the FA criteria hadn't been fully evaluated, I would leave a coord note explaining that more review was necessary. We can't force people to oppose, though. A lot of the FACs mentioned above had insufficient source review and would not be promoted without it in 2021. (t · c) buidhe 16:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

But they also got piles of Supports that weren’t worth the paper they were written on. If a Coord doesn’t promote today on three, the nominators start pinging as they have come to expect it … hope this can be stopped in its tracks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Pali-Aike volcanic field

Greetings, I have nominated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pali-Aike volcanic field/archive1 for a featured article candidacy but so far it's languishing without much input. Do you have time to review the article? Thanks in advance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Hog Farm _Talk 15:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skirmish near Brooklyn, Kansas

The article Skirmish near Brooklyn, Kansas you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Skirmish near Brooklyn, Kansas 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

A very happy holiday season, whatever it may be for you and yours.

I wish you an enjoyable and safe season, and health, happiness, and success in the year ahead. Have a fantastic time! Vaticidalprophet 03:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Hog Farm! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Comment

Hi-I wrote various articles for Wikipedia assuming good faith. Wikipedia also serves as a gazetter and I had wrote articles reflecting this. Thank You for your service to Wikipedia-14:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)RFD (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sherman

It's all yours for the evening, as I'm off. (A friend took pity on our Christmas alone, after the whole family came down with COVID, and our plans all got cancelled, and we now have a dinner invite for tonight!) I did not see your earlier message about deleting some of those entries, but holy moly, What A Mess ... at least I got sorted what is what now, so feel free to delete anything superfluous. (Although unless you intend to watch that article for life, I suspect anything we delete will get re-added later anyway <sigh> ... ) Merry Christmas !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the two I considered doubtful was one of the two you removed as having trouble identifying/verifying, so that's part of it. I'll look into the other one, but anticipate removing it. Hog Farm _Talk 21:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for your help with the Longtown, South Carolina article and the gnis citation. RFD (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Angelfish GA

Hello. Would you be able to review Queen angelfish? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Not right now (I'm away from my computer) but if it's still unreviewed Monday I'll take a look. Hog Farm _Talk 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Hog Farm! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cleomenean War

Hi, another one I spotted some time ago. T8612 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. By that time, I may have been weary of the regular cage-matches on my talk page over same, and expecting reviewers to hash it out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

T8612 - Thanks for pointing that one out! There's currently Epaminondas, Demosthenes, and Corinthian War all at FAR (although Corinthian War is probably ready for closure, the weekly FAR update didn't seem to occur because of the holiday), so to not overload on the off chance someone picks these up, I'll wait until at least two of those are closed before bringing it there. And Pericles and Cretan War (205–200 BC) are on the noticed list, as well. Hog Farm _Talk 00:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

T8612, I wasn’t able to track down one of the infamous cage matches on my talk page, but did detour into interesting related reading. For example compare Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1 (2009) to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive2 (2021), for an illustration that Coords are sometimes constrained by consensus to what reviewers provide. Fifelfoo worked hard to make a dent, but eventually abandoned that track. I see at 16:26, 8 November 2009 I’m making the same plea I often make today at FAR, and then the FAR closes after Fifelfoo raises the long-standing concern about the new 1c that Iridescent often mentions … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, the 2009 FAR was really awful. T8612 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Coords are often constrained by what they are given to work with. And that FAR led me down a related rabbit hole, about the factors in that decade that led to the undermining of the FA process, explored here. That issue took care of itself eventually, but the damage was already done. At any rate, it is good to see FAR coming back strong, but we do need to be vigilant that consensus-based criteria are given for Keep and Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have thoughts, but will be later when I can put them here, as I’m currently about to enter California and go down the Donner Pass...will reply at I’m sure some length when we reach our stop this afternoon near Sacramento.Ealdgyth (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Enjoy your memories of Moni :) I understand there was an astonishing snowfall affecting my old stomping grounds, and hope you enjoy the beauty from the warmth of the cab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts - briefly - there was (and still is) a strong resistance at FAC to actually using sources that are "high quality" - rather than just enough to meet WP:RS. There's significant pushback especially from some subject areas - video games, music, and some areas of history come to mind especially, although there's some problems with the sports area also. By 2010, I was growing tired of the fight, and in the years since, it's been that issue that continues to drive me away from FAC whenever I summon the energy to re-engage with FAC. I never felt like anyone had my back after SG left ... it always felt like fighting against the tide, and I just no longer have the energy to fight without knowing that others will support me. I'll also add that I've been dragged back into the whole Holocaust in Poland quagmire and that's just going to suck my energy more... Ealdgyth (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also a strong supporter of "high-quality" as well as just RS, but in my opinion, the same source might be high-quality in certain subject areas but not others. For example, a 2020 NYT review of a TV show is HQRS, but an 1885 NYT article about an 1885 historical event is definitely not. In the latter case secondary sources can and should be cited. HQRS can also come into conflict with comprehensiveness where reliable sources cover the topic, but these sources might not meet some definitions of "high-quality". Overall I wish that we could get stricter source reviews at FAC, but it's so time consuming that few people are willing to do it... props to those who do. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

These brings back memories of what "had their backs" meant then. Although (d'oh) both are needed, I always believed that reviewers were more crucial to the process than writers because without reviewers, no writer gets a star or they get a meaningless star. It is unfortunate whenever we exhaust the patience of reviewers or chase them out; they are the value in the star. For example, I was plagued for how many years by sockmaster Matisse, but never did I suggest she should be banned from FAC or FAR. Coords were empowered to take the good in her reviews, and ignore the bad (holy major depressive disorder FAC). I cannot fathom why an FA writer wants a star whose meaning is diminished by the absence of strident review, and I regret each lost reviewer. Yes, I tried to have your backs, and that earned me enemies that still plague me today, and in the early years, I counted on support from my hundreds of TPS. But when multiple socks moved in, no one had mine and Raul's backs, and we had to buck a later-discredited arb with a dubious approach to CLEANSTART that allowed the socks to continue. And, as they say, the rest is history ... you were appreciated and you are missed, Ealdgyth! (Keep trying, Buidhe :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

right now, I think my best area of effort may be trying to clean up our Holocaust articles, which ... frankly, suck. (Except those Buidhe has worked on ... but I"m not sure they have any Holocaust articles still watchlisted) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm still working on any Holocaust articles that aren't related to Poland. I just finished The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (up for GAN) and I got The Holocaust in Greece to A-class status last year. I still have Nazi concentration camps on my to-do list. Sadly, you are right about the general quality of Holocaust articles. :( (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I think there should be a better explanation on the use of primary sources, especially for FAs. The main problem I see is that there is no real way to distinguish between them and secondary sources by just looking at the references section; they are often all packed together. In this article, I made two different sections for primary/secondary sources, with a different numbering. It could be a solution. T8612 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve seen them separated like that many times, and it seems to be a good practice for certain areas, but I’m unsure if it can be generalized. For example, I edit mostly medical, where primary sources are very very rarely used per WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year, 2021

		The Silver Wiki
		Congratulations, Hog Farm - you have with Gog the Mild been named the Military Historian of the Year Runner-up for 2021 by popular vote. Please accept this token of appreciation for your contributions. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Hog Farm _Talk 14:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ben Geraghty

Changes addressed; thanks for the review! Let me know if anything more is needed.

I found Geraghty really interesting too. I first discovered him when I was going through Tommy John's book, adding interesting facts from it to articles it was relevant too. There were already a couple interesting stories on the Geraghty page, so I figured it would make a cooler read than a lot of brief-tenured players. He may not have managed in the majors ever, but that long managerial career in the minors implies he played quite an important role in baseball history, even if almost no one knows about it. Hopefully, this article will help more people find out who he was. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Maria J. Carlton (1861)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Maria J. Carlton (1861) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on my GAR

I don't disagree with your assessment that my review was very short and not comprehensive. I'd be interested in your feedback, whether it was appropriately short, or if there are more things I should have said on Talk:60 Wall Street/GA1. Thanks and happy editing/reviewing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shushugah: - From a quick look, the structural engineer in the infobox isn't cited anywhere, the construction started date in the infobox of 1987 doesn't seem to be supported in the body, and while the infobox gives a single figure for floor space, the article says it could be one of two. Aside from that, I think the article is fine. You sometimes will run into articles that don't require much work (Epicgenius's are often like that), and I don't think the review length was particularly bad here, it just wasn't the sort of review the drive was meant to count, although it was fairly close to general GAN expectations. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm thank you and completely understood from the drive point of view. I am happy to contribute to speedy pass/fails regardless of whether they gain points! Some gamification is nice, but ultimately improving knowledge online is the intrinsic reward. 🎉 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Not participating this year. Hog Farm _Talk 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

On break

I'll be on break, or at least largely so, for at least the next week or so. I'll keep a bit of an eye on my talk page, as well as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of St. Charles/archive1, but won't be active much or at all. @FAC coordinators: and @WP:MILHIST coordinators: - just a heads up that I won't be able to keep up with coordinator duties until I'm back. Hog Farm _Talk 20:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Have a nice vacation! (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hope all is good, enjoy the break, and looking forward to seeing you around. Vaticidalprophet 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Come back happy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just come back!! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Have a good one. Wikipedia will still be here! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Have a good break! Zawed (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Dude! Enjoy being AFK! BusterD (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Back

Back (well, kinda). Got a lot to catch up on in real life, but am back (and now married). Pennsylvania in January may not have been the best trip location/timing though. I was somewhat amused though to see that the visitor's center at Gettysburg National Battlefield was selling a book that explicitly sourced it's content from Wikipedia articles. Will be around in some form now, but won't be fully active for awhile. Hog Farm _Talk 20:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on the marriage! :) (For every source that tells you it cited Wikipedia, there's ten that pull the "cite what we cited" trick instead. It's fascinating to watch when it's your own words being rewritten...) Vaticidalprophet 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy wife, happy life! (And my motto: "Save time, see it my way".) Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, HF! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations! When we got married, our honeymoon was in that area; we spent our first night at a little place in Gettysburg that a friend reccoed. It was May, though, which I have to say was a great improvement in the weather. Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 29 reviews between October and December 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of St. Charles

Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, Battle of St. Charles, 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, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS R. B. Forbes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS R. B. Forbes 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 Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS R. B. Forbes

The article USS R. B. Forbes 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:USS R. B. Forbes for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

SS Choctaw source

Hi!

When you reviewed the sources of SS Choctaw, you advised me to remove The fleets of Cleveland-Cliffs, Detroit and Cleveland Navigation, Traverse City Transportation and the Hawgood Family by John Orville Greenwood. While I was looking through this document by the NPS, I noticed it frequently uses one of his works as a source. Given how the source added some information regarding the name of the ship, should I restore it? GreatLakesShips (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: - I think we'll need widespread use among multiple sources here. That NPS document is a good start here, but I'd recommend looking to see if two or three other RS frequently cite it, and if so, a decent case can be made for the source. Hog Farm _Talk 14:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark L. Thompson, who wrote two of the books cited in the article mentions him here and here, and the BGSU mentions his work here. Although, I am unsure whether or not the last one could be considered valid, as it only lists his work in an archive. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: - looks like between the NPS document and the two books published by Wayne State, you could probably make a WP:SPS argument for noncontroversial material (I assume those name details aren't controversial). I wouldn't recommend using Greenwood for anything controversial, though. Hog Farm _Talk 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Query...

@FAC coordinators: - where would you like me to source review next? Ealdgyth (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: - Would you have an interest in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tell All Your Friends/archive1? If not, I can try to take it on. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I will try to get to it this afternoon... Just know that giving me TOO many pop culture articles is likely to lead to whines from nominators and possibly burnout from me...-- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted. I can try to take some of the music/video games ones you don't want to do, although I have a profound disinterest in most TV-related topics. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, what a generous offer. Would Seychelles parakeet and/or The Yankee provide a change of pace? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I shall look at those in a bit... we just got loaded and are about to head back to Ohio. Parakeet is sure to be done today, the other may wait til tomorrow. I'm going to be glad to get out of Conneticut (I'm back out with husband in the semi... heh... New England is not a fun place to watch the idiots try to kill themselves on the semi...) -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy. I recently had the fun time of driving across the Appalachians in a snowstorm at night ... Hog Farm _Talk 17:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

We sat out the snowstorm last weekend, just parked at a truck stop until it passed. The company actively supports drivers NOT driving in bad weather conditions, which is nice. Unfortunately, it can't let other-bad-drivers-on-the-road stop deliveries, otherwise we'd never get anywehere. Oh, and the offer of reviews does not cover sports articles or something like Di Caprio... there's only so much pop culture I can take. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I can do source reviews for baseball/American football when needed. Don't understand a bit of cricket, and not the greatest with cue sports/soccer. Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ack, Ealdgyth, I-95 in CT is a death trap, and lately, so is I-84; take care there.

Gog and Hog, re the reviews I once typically did, you might want to know that A. C. Santacruz speaks Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to help :) I won't be super available 'till February or so due to exams, but after that I'm free game. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A warning, A. C. Santacruz, about what to look for. FAC gets nominations from editors who perhaps don't speak fluent Spanish, so many issues are found. They may have done machine translations which aren't entirely accurate. They may have translated from es.wiki without checking for accuracy and reliability of sources. They may not be aware of the things I explained to you at FAR re direct translations and plagiarism or WP:PARAPHRASE. They may not have enough proficiency in Spanish to track down whether the source is reliable, since that involves finding the "about" page equivalent and reading it. They may be unfamiliar with the need to disambiguate some sources as I explained to you at FAR. They may not be familiar with WP:NONENG and the need to provide the original text for quotes. They may not know to add a |trans-title= parameter on the citation tempalte. Besides all that, you can always ping me if unsure of something. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

EaldgythAlso, a double check on my own at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive3 and especially Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SLAPP Suits/archive1 might be an option. Fair warning, they are both pop-culture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I have a couple further points with SLAPP; I'll be leaving those on the FAC page. Hog Farm _Talk 20:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please have pity - I've already got one pop culture FAC to deal with (and it's already showing the usual signs ...) I don't got it in me to do more than one at a time. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Anything that's NOT a foreign language-heavy, pop culture, or sports FAC taht needs a look? I think I'm setting myself a limit of one open pop culture FAC source review at a time....for my sanity. But is there somemthing that needs doing now? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: - Any interest in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lake Estancia/archive1? If not, I can do that one. It seems to be all English source unless something isn't marked properly, and it's not pop culture, music, or sports. Hog Farm _Talk 20:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never done a source review, could I dip my toes on this one? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify, for an FA lol. Of course when I'm reviewing GA noms I'll check the sources :P A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a great FAC to start off with, actually. (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take it up if Ealdgyth is ok with that, then. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me... if you'd like, I can look over your review after you're finished and make any suggestions on your talk page. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That'd be fantastic, Ealdgyth :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Yours is actually a 2020 book, just like the MegaRed edition of the Red Book I've cited, so there's a discrepancy I can't account for. I'm going to just wait until April, when the new Red Books and Blue Books will be out, as I buy the Red Book every two years.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

I'm wondering how consensus is determined for FA. I have my first FA nomination going and I have another one planned soon. SL93 (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |

(talk page stalker) In order to promote, we generally require as a minimum: 3 supports, 3 weeks since nomination, source and image reviews passed. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Second the above comment, although I would stress that that is a general minimum and not a guarantee of promotion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The other article that I'm working on bringing to FA is One Day at HorrorLand. An issue is that I want to add a reference for an audio book that was released of the story, but I can only find audio book retailer websites. I'm not sure one of those sources would work in a featured article. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

My concern with the audio book is that if it's only mentioned on retail sites or even press releases, it may not be WP:DUE content. Hog Farm _Talk 02:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I managed to find a source. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS R. B. Forbes

The article USS R. B. Forbes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS R. B. Forbes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

On lengths and ratios

Hey HF, hope you're well. Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication has expanded roughly threefold since you reviewed it at GAN earlier this month, and I've been trying to work out with Sdkb at peer review how to properly handle incorporating summaries of the individual essays in the article (given it didn't have any at the time of passing). The current length is past what MOS:PLOT would like, but MOS:PLOT is a bit tricky to compare between fiction and nonfiction, having been written for the former. I'd want to ideally cut about 300-500 words total to get it more confidently in acceptable bounds, but there isn't much of a place to do so in the first place, given each individual essay has only a few sentences summary. There aren't any comparable articles at FA to give a gauge, either (and not many even of what I tend to informally think of as "high GAs" -- social science essay collections just aren't something we cover much). Given you reviewed at GAN and have much experience with high-level content, I'd really appreciate any thoughts you could give on how to shape David out of the marble here, so to speak. Vaticidalprophet 07:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, given that my "best" work with a book article is The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 I may not be in the best position to give much feedback here. I agree that it is a bit on the long side - while I would expect a longer synopsis for something like this, the fact that it's longer than the other two body sections combined would probably not sit well at FAC. While it doesn't really contribute to the word count as much, I am wondering if the detailed of the essays in the bulleted list is necessary, as the author and titles are already listed within the sections for the various essay groupings. My only advice on how to trim it would be to consider removing some of the smaller details listed, such as the reference to Benedict's Chrysanthemum and the Sword. For instance, "and discusses planned and actual attempts at it such as the publicity blitz for The Eerie Silence and the interest of religious missionaries in transmitting messages to aliens." could probably be lopped off after "attempts at it". I can't imagine it'll be fun to trim it down like that, but the length of the synopsis will almost certainly need to be reduced for FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 14:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS Oregon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Oregon 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Violette's Lock

Hog Farm - Thank you for your work reviewing Violette's Lock. Eventually, I will try to get at least one of the four C&O Canal articles (Pennyfield Lock, Riley's Lock, Swains Lock, and Violette's Lock) up to FA. Pennyfield and Swains are better places to visit, so they might get priority. I've got two small battles and and one large one that I am working on right now—and I work pretty slow. You are amazingly productive! TwoScars (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@TwoScars: - You definitely did a better job with Battle of St. Michaels than I did with Battle of Caulk's Field back in 2020. It helps with my productivity lately that my focus has been minor naval vessels - it doesn't take a whole lot to crank out USS Maria J. Carlton or CSS Carondelet. My big project(s) for the year are Sterling Price and maybe Battle of Westport if I can pull enough sources together. I thought the lock article was interesting - ping me when any of them go to FAC, and I'll review it there. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks TwoScars (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS Carondelet

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Carondelet 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion: FAC 4 nomination of nonmetal

Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)