Archives:

2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020  · 2021 · 2022 · 2023
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 edit

Hello Hawkeye7,

 
New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter edit

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  •   Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
  •   Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
  •   Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Tech News: 2024-06 edit

MediaWiki message delivery 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

DYK for 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final edit

On 6 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Brisbane Lions player said the sight of a jerrycan motivated her team during the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2023 AFL Women's Grand Final. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024 edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Neil Ritchie edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neil Ritchie 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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: January 2024 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Mercury Seven at TFA edit

For the 65th anniversary of the announcement, I've got this listed as the April 9 TFA. No need to do anything. Let me know if there's anything I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter edit

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:

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

The Signpost: 13 February 2024 edit

Tech News: 2024-07 edit

MediaWiki message delivery 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

BAGBot: Your bot request AussieBot 1 edit

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AussieBot 1 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.Reply

Tech News: 2024-08 edit

MediaWiki message delivery 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 2024 GAN backlog drive edit

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
 
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-09 edit

MediaWiki message delivery 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final edit

The article 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final 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 Teratix -- Teratix (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter edit

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:

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) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus edit

 
Hello, Hawkeye7. You have new messages at Template talk:Convert.
Message added 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

DYK for John Cowans edit

On 1 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Cowans, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that British prime minister H. H. Asquith described John Cowans (pictured) as "the best Quartermaster since Moses"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Cowans. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Cowans), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

PMC(talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hanford Engineer Works edit

I have completed a review of the article. As I suspected given the number and thoroughness of previous reviews, I had only a few comments. Donner60 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have noted a consensus to promote on the assessment page. I have changed the talk page banner shell and project template to A=pass. This is the first A class consensus note and talk page change that I have done. Please let me know if I have missed anything or made any mistake. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 2 March 2024 edit

ITN recognition for Richard H. Truly edit

On 2 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Richard H. Truly, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-10 edit

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024 edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:@MILHIST edit

Does Template:@MILHIST include the emeritus coordinators? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: February 2024 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus edit

 
Hello, Hawkeye7. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ojos del Salado/archive1.
Message added 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Always glad to help. I see it has now been promoted. Well done! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-11 edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

FAC source review? edit

Hello, sorry to bother you. I saw that you did a source review on this FAC and was wondering if you'd be interested in also doing a source review on my FAC as I think that's all that I need for it to pass. Spotchecks were already done. -- ZooBlazer 03:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

JoJo has done one for you. Best of luck with the article passing! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for March 14 edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Tinian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Truk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I edit

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

Your GA nomination of Neil Ritchie edit

The article Neil Ritchie you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Neil Ritchie for comments about the article, and Talk:Neil Ritchie/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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Battle of La Haye-du-Puits edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of La Haye-du-Puits 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-12 edit

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply