User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 9

You may want to review Flying machine (The War of the Worlds)] and Handling machine (The War of the Worlds) too. Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) is probably notable, not sure if there is anything to merge and redirect from those three, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Pickens 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) 08:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

  Administrator changes

  Jake Wartenberg

  Emperor • Viridian Bovary

  Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

  Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

  Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

  Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

  Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Now there is something to be really proud of! Top job, my friend. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vami IV: - Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 04:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article CSS Pickens you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Pickens 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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

In your message that calls on people to sign up for the Wikiproject Military history you wrote the phrase "please sign up *here*" where the "here" is the link. "click here" links give no context to someone skimming a text to what that link is for. It would have been better to make the link out of the words "please sign up", or "sign up". This is in line with W3C guidelines on labeling hyperlinks 1Veertje (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@1Veerje: - Thanks for pointing that out! Hopefully I'll remember to correct that when the voting message is sent out later. Hog Farm _Talk 01:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

List of places in Colorado

Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention List of post offices in Colorado... (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is such a mess. Why does the main list lump neighborhoods, airports, mountain passes, and random features such as the Four Corners monument together? What is Altura? It's listed twice in the list as a neighborhood of Aurora, but the link goes to something else entirely (that topos show as a single building along the Denver & Rio Grande). Why are List of counties in Colorado and List of county seats in Colorado separate? Is it just to include the historical seats, which could well just go in a section of the county articles themselves? At least most of the old 4th-class p.o.s on the post office list haven't been mass created, although the footnotes suggest that its a mess with a separate entry for each time the same one was renamed (such as De Beque and Debeque having separate entries despite just being spelling variants of the same thing). Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

List of county courthouses in Texas is also an awful nightmare that cannot be escaped. There must be like 300+ courthouses on the list, and tens of thousands of bytes worth of citations and table. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

And MOS:ACCESS violations, to boot. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just nominated a short article for GA that you might be interested in reviewing! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me about that one! Of course I'll review a Royals player GAN. Hog Farm _Talk 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Changes made! Let me know if anything else is needed! I discovered him years ago when I was working on Jeremy Affeldt, and I thought to myself, "An article about a guy who only lasted one year can't take too long to write." It was fun learning about him. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Sanfranciscogiants17: - Yeah, it can be interesting to write about the short career ones. Reminds me a bit of when I worked on Brooks Pounders (another KC pitcher) last year. Hog Farm _Talk 22:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for helping out at CCI. I see you've been tackling 20190125, which is a long American military history one. I thought I'd let you know that it isn't the only open military history case at CCI. There's 10 marked as military in the descriptions at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations. So, if you feel like working on milhist ones, you're not obligated to only do 20190125 :) Your help is greatly appreciated! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! That 20190125 is quite a doozy. Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Terror (ship) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Black Terror (ship) 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:Black Terror (ship) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the Battle of Marais des Cygnes article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 25, 2021. 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/October 25, 2021, 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? 08:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Black Terror (ship) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Black Terror (ship) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm. Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC) has been promoted to FA, and I was wondering if you could use your magic admin tools to change its name to Battle of the Bagradas River (240 BC), as discussed in the FAC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sure. This is done now. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been busting my hump on Bradford Island, which I created about a year ago as a shitty GNIS stub, but have since gotten through DYK and GA. It's now somewhere north of 7,000 words, with 241 references -- I have had a peer review request open, and am working through feedback from a couple people there (I expect to finish my expansion in a couple days, and do some substantial reorganization of the content then). I went to WP:FAC and looked at some the open nominations to get an idea of what I was trying to prepare for, and I saw your name on a few of them -- given that I've seen you knowing lots of smart stuff about geography topics I figured I would drop you a line.

Anyway, I'm of two minds -- should I just make the obvious edits (cleaning up the article layout, finishing the expansion), do the edits suggested by the peer reviewers, and send it along to FAC with potential warts on it? Or should I try to convene with people ahead of the FAC and try to get it into a state where it's likely to pass with minimal modifications before I even make a nomination page? And, if the latter, would you be open to giving it a once-over when I've got it presentable?

Best, jp×g 08:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Let me take a look at it once I get off work, but generally if you can get most if the stuff ironed out before FAC that's the best route. Hog Farm _Talk 12:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) - be aware that the first FA is usually the one that is the most scrutinised, so be prepared beforehand. That said, the best course of action is sometimes to get the article into the process, as you'll get a better understanding by taking something into FAC. My first FA was denied the first time, but it gave me valuable info for the next time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lee Vilenski: My understanding of the process was that it was similar to GA, in that the initial review will typically find some issues, and you've got a while to hammer them out before a fail -- is there not a lot of wiggle room there? jp×g 07:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

FACs are open from around a month to six weeks. You do have some wiggle room to update the article, and you'll have to do this even if the article is in fantastic shape. The issue is that you can quite easily have too much in the way of comments to keep up, or if someone sees too much to do, they might just oppose outright. The strength of the review is usually dependent on the reviewer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Hog Farm. Could I interest you in taking a look at my FAC on Melville Fuller, which you recently reviewed for GA? It's progressing smoothly, but I'd still be much in your debt if you could spare either a source review or some general feedback. Of course, don't worry about it if you're busy – I certainly understand. Thanks in advance! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Extraordinary Writ: - Sure! I'll try to take a look at it over the next couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm, there's a discrepancy between Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2021#Election process, which says the voting period ends at 23:59 UTC, 28 September 2021, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2021/Status, which says it ends at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. Just wanted to let you know as I saw that you were handling some of the election set-up. DanCherek (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DanCherek: - Thanks for pointing this out to me. 28 September is the correct date (14 days nominating, 14 days voting), so I will correct the status page. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

G'day HF, probably worth sending out a final mass message about voting on the 26th, just as a final reminder. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Will put on the schedule. Hog Farm _Talk 20:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Characters of Carnivàle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Mjroots (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Might be better to hold the notice until you actually create the review page. At least that's how I do it (: (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Buidhe: - I've created the page, don't know why it's not showing. This is the first time I've ever put an article through FAR, so any assistance is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mjroots, that's odd: you did create the page it in the right location (it's here), but for some reason your notification uses the wrong link. When I tried previewing {{subst:FAR-notice|Characters of Carnivàle}} the link was correct and blue. That's the correct way to create the notice, but perhaps you did it another way? (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mjroots: - It looks like the issue is that you tacked "Wikipedia:Featured article review/" on the front twice. Hog Farm _Talk 03:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Redirect created, and no, I didn't do that, the template did. Mjroots (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Probably best to close this off now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. Was wondering if Fort McKavett comes up in your library at all; during the war, the rebels used it as a prison camp. I'm about to give it the Fort Concho treatment and won't say no to the extra help. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vami IV: - Unfortunately not, which surprises me a little bit, since I've got a book by Stephen B. Oates that specifically discusses the Confederate takeover of Union forts in Texas at the beginning. Hog Farm _Talk 00:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well huh. Hmmmm, well, it could come in handy. I'll check it out. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I imagine the fun part of writing that article will be trying to separate out Fort McKavett, Texas, Fort McKavett State Historic Site, and the fort itself. Hog Farm _Talk 00:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, they are all one and the same. The fort and the historic park exist in one article, and the fort forms the corps of the town of Fort McKavett. Just like with Concho, when the Army left, its real estate was gobbled up by civvies. I forsee lots of Template:See alsos being used but not much more than that. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Tuscarora 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) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Hancock you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Hancock 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

  Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

  Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

  Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your hook reached 10,777 views (449 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2021—nice job! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think that's the first time I've ever had one up that high. Toilet reference for the win, I guess Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article CSS Tuscarora you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Tuscarora 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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm, as an sysop active in deletions, what do you think of the many articles on years in a country like 1841 in Belgium or 1870 in Sweden? I just came across those articles as a wl was made from an article I created to 2021 in Italy. I then also checked some others many of them have little info on the years and their mainly have wls to templates. Deaths and births are included in categories... would be glad to have a second opinion on that.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Paradise Chronicle: - I think they can, at times, serve a useful navigational aid. I think things like 1861 in the United States can serve as a valid timeline of sorts, for years where there were a lot of events. But 1602 in Sweden, 1601 in Sweden, 1603 in Sweden with basically no content can be merged into a decade article, which would probably be more useful that a bunch of mini-lists. Another thing to watch out for is stuff like 1531 in Belgium, which is a bit dubious in the sense that Belgium did not exist as a unified entity in 1531, and it is rather trying to lump together two entities that were not politically united at the time. A bit of a case-by-case basis here. In short, they can be useful, but at times they're more useful merged into decade (or even century for really old ones!) lists, and that some of these are a bit questionable because they're trying to force modern geopolitical boundaries onto non-united historical polities. Hog Farm _Talk 20:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I see, so we ought to see year by year. I'll see if I find some time and energy to do so. But I don't have any interest for a long discussion...:)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lingzhi.Random seems to have retired in the midst of several reviews. I have just wrapped up an easy one at ACR, but the source review at James Longstreet. Given that it is your speciality area and that you did a review if you might be able to pick it up? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ignore me. Resolved. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Saint Charles 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 Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Hog Farm – May I request you to take a look at Missourian Harry S. Truman's 1948 presidential campaign, which is currently at peer review, for a future FAC nomination. It recently passed it GA nomination. Would appreciate any suggestions, particularly for the sources and reliability. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Will take a look in a couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 13:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Saint Charles 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:Battle of Saint Charles for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Saint Charles you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Saint Charles 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 Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations. I'm happy to see the article promoted. Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Would you be able to review the formatting and quality of the sources for turtle? Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Hog Farm. Due to your familiarity with the American Civil War, I was wondering if you might be able to point me in the direction of some scholarship that could lead to an article. This past Saturday I found myself at the Wil-Cox Bridge over the Yadkin River in North Carolina. Adjacent to this bridge is a large hill some call York Hill or York Bluff. During the Civil War it was home to the Confederate Fort York. During Stoneman's 1865 raid Union troops tried to cross the river here but the fort repelled them with artillery in what the Salisbury Post called the last Confederate Victory in NC. There's been some talk of fully revamping York Hill but nothing's been done yet, and Google hasn't been very forthcoming with me on the details on either this fort or the battle. Do you know of any good books on the civil war in NC or of Stoneman's raid? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Indy beetle: - I actually have not read anything specifically about the war in NC or about Stoneman's 1865 raid. It was apparently listed as one of the 25 most endangered battlefields back in '09; maybe the study that identified it is out there somewhere. I can access a preview of John G. Barrett's The Civil War in North Carolina (not otherwise familiar with this work), but it only devotes a paragraph to this action. It's a bit hard to look for because Battle at the Yadkin River and Battle of York are other things. Unfortunately, this is an area of the war I'm simply not familiar with. Hog Farm _Talk 01:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if this is "congratulations" or a disappointment, but just noting here that you nominated the quickest delist for an FAR I have ever seen. Maybe I'll send you a gift of shoe polish? (And does this mean you can nominate another FAR?) Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Z1720: - I was very surprised to open my watchlist and see that it was already gone. Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/archive2 from 2018 which was invoked as a precedent lasted a few hours longer. ROT13 was before my time as an editor, though. The shortest one I can remember seeing in my time at FAR is Wikipedia:Featured article review/Webley Revolver/archive1, which lasted about 9 days. As to the second question, I have absolutely no idea. @FAR coordinators: - probably doesn't need codified as this looks like a one-off occurrence, but might not hurt to get a precedent for this question. I have no opinion on the matter; purely procedural question. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, you can nominate another. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Maurepas 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) 18:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm, I have sent you an email. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have responded - thanks for alerting me to the email. I don't check the one I use for wp-specific purposes as often . Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

And another. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Also thank you for today's Battle of Marais des Cygnes, introduced: "And now, an FAC whose title I do not know how to pronounce. Confederate cavalry was retreating across Kansas after being defeated near Kansas City two days earlier. After slowing down at a river crossing, they were attacked by pursuing Union cavalry, who hurried the retreat along. This minor action set the stage for the more significant Battle of Mine Creek later the same day."! - I have a FAC open, for a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Today: memories in friendship, - an FA-to-be --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article CSS Maurepas you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Maurepas 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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering why you didn't just protect the article yourself, then took a closer look at the main contributor. Beautiful article, of course, very well done! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 17:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've got the changes done in the English version. It could be better but the errors are corrected. BusterD (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent you a ping email. Will attach to the reply. BusterD (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've sent an email back. Thank you very much for creating a corrected version of this, @BusterD:! It is greatly appreciated. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Did you receive the file? BusterD (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@BusterD: - Yes, it looks way better! Thanks! Are you okay with me replacing the old versions of the file with it once I get back from work, or would you prefer to do that yourself? Hog Farm _Talk 18:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Better I upload it myself. Then I'll get to the other language versions. Thanks for raising the issue! I'm not really clever with graphics but I've been doing it for long time. Give me a headsup if you see other graphics which need tweaking. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

This article should be not FA. 118.106.15.104 (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@118.106.15.104: - Agree, I've listed it at WP:FLRC. Hog Farm _Talk 15:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hog Farm: Thank you for looking over Battle of the Wilderness. I believe I have addressed all your concerns except the Iron Brigade. It is Gordon Rhea that says they retreated for the first time in their history, and the original article said the same thing. I know they took significant casualties at Gettysburg—it is in the footnote after the sentence in doubt. Can you steer me toward a source, even if not Wiki-worthy, that says they retreated at Gettysburg. The fix would be easy—I can drop the "for the first time in its history" part. I might do that anyway, but it would be good to know. TwoScars (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TwoScars: - I'm away from my 2.5 bookshelves of books at the moment, but once I get back I will dig out my stuff about Gettysburg. My guess is that Rhea is likely using a different version of withdrawal, maybe based on orderliness. Hog Farm _Talk 16:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marmaduke–Walker duel 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

  Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

  Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

  Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

  Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

During the FAC for Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) I agreed to move the article to Second Battle of Cape Finisterre as the disambiguation was not needed. It seems that only an admin can do this [?] Any chance that you can help? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Gog the Mild: - Done (old page history as a redirect at the title needed nuked; nothing of value was lost). We need to get you the mop Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.

I keep my hands behind my back so no one can press a mop on me. If I had one I may be expected to actually work for my keep. Happily any RfA would sink over "no need for the tools". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is   The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1.   The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3.   Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4.   Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5.   Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6.   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7.   Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8.   Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

•   The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
•   Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
•   Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
•   Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
•   The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
•   The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
•   Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
•   Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

List of UAAP Final Four results sources looks awful to be FA. 115.21.148.138 (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Michael de León. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Michael de León until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 15:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Two days ago, you blocked Ahmadyarpk for their promotional edits at Colorado Heights University and several other articles. A new editor, COLORADO HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY, has appeared and begun making very similar edits. In addition to the obvious username and COI issues, this appears to be a clear sockpuppet of the blocked editor. Can you please block this new editor, too? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Bayou Meto 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 Smerdyakov911 -- Smerdyakov911 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Marmaduke–Walker duel you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Marmaduke–Walker duel 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, another FA that should be delisted: Epaminondas. I don't have time to go through the process; you can move it there if you want. T8612 (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

T8612 if you could find the time to start a talk page section (Featured article review needed) and outline your concerns there, one of us can add the article to WP:FARGIVEN, so it will be more likely to find its way to WP:FAR, without you having to do the rest of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree it needs work. T8612, would you be able to leave some succinct commentary on the talk page? You'd be better at explaining the concerns in a clear manner, given your expertise with the ancient biographies. I'd be willing to keep an eye on it and send it to FAR in three of four weeks if no action occurs. Hog Farm _Talk 23:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The most obvious issue is the near-exclusive use of ancient sources. (t · c) buidhe 23:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done. T8612 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks T8612; I have added it to WP:FARGIVEN and WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you would like a map of the battle instead of the map of the county, just let me know -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Guerillero: - Thanks for the offer, but I think a battle map would be impossible to make for this one. Sources are just too vague as to troop dispositions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyothish p jayakumar‎. I found that there is a draft too. What happens to the Draft:Jyothish P Jayakumar? Venkat TL (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Venkat TL: - Most likely, nothing happens and it gets deleted per WP:G13 in six months. Hog Farm _Talk 18:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thank you for the reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Bayou Meto you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Bayou Meto 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 Smerdyakov911 -- Smerdyakov911 (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

A refund request with draftification has been made @ Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Nasibi. This is for information and request.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

With respect to this discussion, do you have any idea how to remove the userpage from the category so that we can have the category processed by WP:G6? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Marcocapelle: - No idea. DrKay - Any ideas? Hog Farm _Talk 06:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Marcocapelle, I think I've suppressed whatever template was doing that, so you should be good to go. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

That didn't seem to work, but I think (?) this should. (I'm sort of winging it here, if you can't tell.) Since the user behind this page is inactive, you might consider just blanking it in the spirit of WP:STALEDRAFT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for raising that tissue. Definitely a bad move on my part. Meters (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Hog Farm. Am I being paranoid for thinking this new user who appeared a few months back and started creating tons of GEOstubs about Spanish locations right off the bat based on Spanish census tracts and a map source is a bit suspicious? I know ANI etc. is the place for actual complaints but I'd like to sanity-check this first. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@FOARP: - I don't think this is any of the "old friends". My knowledge of Spanish is mainly limited to food and food preparation supplies (from a prior job where I had to unload boxes from trucks), so I can't really judge these article's sourcing too well. Geostub mass-creation is pretty common (likely because it's an easy way to rack up an article count), and I don't think this is related to the prior incident I think you're referring to. Hog Farm _Talk 16:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@FOARP: - What does concern me is that the user is autopatrolled - rapid-fire creation of geostubs with the time between article creation often being one or two minutes doesn't seem like a great case for not having these articles patrolled. I agree with Sandy below that these appear to be (semi-?) automated somehow, such as the repetitive and unusual inclusion of "in Navarre province, Spain, Spain" with the double Spain in a lot of these. The Spanish and/or Catlan wikipedia pages are much more fleshed out, suggesting that at least some of these are likely notable places (see [1], [2], [3], etc) but I don't think mass-creating poorly-done two-liners is a good way to go about this. Pinging Schwede66, who granted autopatrolled, so they are aware. Hog Farm _Talk 18:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look. I am DISMAL at notability, but do speak Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Allright, keeping in mind that I am dismal at notability (just ask Vanamonde93 re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANAK Society, although Johnbod can attest to my One True Success at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke-- I think I should get royalties every time an arb uses the word bespoke):

• First, Zulueta (Navarra), why is it "Navarra" when we (apparently) call it Navarre in English? (I don't know the naming conventions for places articles, but this seems inconsistent).
• It they are doing this by some automated process, shouldn't the process be corrected to avoid this duplication? "Zulueta is a locality located in the municipality of Noáin, in Navarre province, Spain, Spain."
• The first source (the map) is from https://2ua.org/ . Where on that page do I find any indication of who runs that site and what their reliability is ? They seem to be taking the location from Google maps, but I'm not certain.
• "Zulueta is located 13km southeast of Pamplona" is cited to the first source. Again, if this is automated, why not do it right and include the convert to miles? Also, is that cite reliable for this kind of data? I dunno ... And I don't see where the "southeast" comes from.
• I'm not happy with how they are citing the second source, and again, if this is automated, why not do it right? They are sending us to a Spanish government site that has to be searched. What English-speaking reader is going to know how to negotiate that search page?
  • "Nomenclátor: Población del Padrón Continuo por Unidad Poblacional" (in Spanish). Instituto Nacional de Estadística (España). Retrieved 3 December 2021.
    • |trans-title should be added to give the English-speaking reader an idea of what the page is, and the publisher should be linked (with an English translation), and instructions for how to complete the search can be added after the citation template, but within the ref tags:
      • "Nomenclátor: Población del Padrón Continuo por Unidad Poblacional" [Gazetteer: Population of the Continuous Census by Population Unit] (in Spanish). National Statistics Institute (Spain). Retrieved 3 December 2021. Note: enter "Zulueta" in the first search box, and press "Consultar selección".
        • And then, when I enter Zulueta in the search box, why does it return two different population numbers? What is the distinction between 001100 and 001101?

The next article I checked is identical, so without continuing, I am assuming the automated process is doing the same for all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. If you come to the conclusion that autopatrolled should be reviewed/revoked, please post on that talk page to give transparency to those who watch that page. Schwede66 18:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Schwede66: - The user's talk page, or WT:AUTOPATROLLED. Hog Farm _Talk 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry – autopatrolled. Schwede66 18:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Still don't know where to post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled. Hog Farm _Talk 19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Will someone ping me when a section is started there? I don't speak that language ... so not sure what I am expected to add. Or just copy my stuff to there and then ping me there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed a few of these articles. Some, like Colldarnat, don't actually turn up on the INE database. Others, like Egulbati, show up on the INE database but as never having been populated. I agree with Sandy that this looks like automated activity (maybe based on Geonames or GEONet, and they're just assuming there's a corresponding INE listing) since it is quite strange to literally write that a place has a population of 0, or if not it's basically WP:MEATBOT.

Since I put this one up I'm OK with flagging this up at Autopatrolled. FOARP (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@FOARP: - If you flag this up there, ping me so I can comment as well. Hog Farm _Talk 20:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

  Administrator changes

  A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

  Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

  Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.