Archives:

2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020  · 2021 · 2022 · 2023

Hello Hawkeye7,

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

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

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)

hey, just saw your review of the book I've started an article about. it would be great if you can expand a bit Background and Synopsis - I must admit that I haven't read the book yet :) Happy New Year! Artem.G (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artem.G:  Done Added a synopsis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice, thanks a lot! I've added a bit to synopsis as well. I didn't read Labatut's previous books, but the Maniac was a good one for the holidays. Artem.G (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between October and December 2023. Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Hi, belated new year's greetings to you. I have nominated the article Sam Manekshaw for peer review because I have expanded it and want to take it to FAR. I have incorporated the suggestions from the last 2 FARs in 2018. You were a part of a GAR for the article in 2015 and your comments were noteworthy. I would be much obliged if you would take part in this PR, given your skills in and understanding of military history. Thanks in advance. Matarisvan (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

This Month in GLAM – Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2023 Headlines Albania report: Wiki Loves EuroPride in Albania 2023 Bosnia & Herzegovina report: A year in review ... Croatia report: 2023 in review Czech Republic report: Wiki-residents establishing meeting took place in December Germany report: Go-ahead for Wikidata Project of GLAM institutions from Baden-Württemberg Italy report: WLM Local winners and funds for 2024 GLAM projects New Zealand report: Auckland Museum summer updates Poland report: Intense end to a year of GLAM-Wiki activities in Poland Sweden report: Photo memories project concludes; Sörmlands museum passes 1000 uploads to Wikimedia Commons; Wikimedian in Residence supports an upload of music content; Subject terms from Queerlit; Wikidata for authority control: 3 years of work Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Program UK report: 2023 in Review USA report: WikiConference North America 2023; TSU and USF; Philadelphia WikiSalon; Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting; Wikipedia Editing 101 for All; NYC Hacking Night; Upstate NY workshop; Wikiquote She Said Project Wiki Loves Living Heritage report: Thank you for making Wiki Loves Living Heritage happen! WMF GLAM report: Updates and invitation to test the Commons Impact Metrics prototype Calendar: January's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Roscoe B. Woodruff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 33rd Infantry Regiment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made an edit to this article with the following edit summary: "add back generals.dk ref, has appointment 1950-10-01 –1950-10-31 Acting Commanding General 1st Army, no reference to predecessor, possibly could be same as October-November 1950; added as temporary reference; perhaps is in the NY Times article cited at start of next sentence but is behind paywall; Taafe does not have Woodruff in Biographical afterword, https://alchetron.com/Roscoe-B-Woodruff has the info but seems likely it is copied from Wikipedia." You may wish to delete it, change it or otherwise revise it. Donner60 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added another source. I have full access to the New York Times archive. The funny date format was really annoying me on this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. 00:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"And concluded with the opening of the German Ardennes counteroffensive, better known as the Battle of the Bulge" -> I have an issue with this statement. Battle of the Bulge started on 16 December 1944, and Siegfried Line campaign ended on 7 March 1945. Saying the Siegfried Line campaign concluded with the opening of the Battle of the Bulge does not make any sense (again, that's on 16 December 1944). Siegfried Line campaign ended with the Allied forces crossing the Rhine river. Western Allied invasion of Germany started after the campaign. Am I missing something here? Thanks! 172.220.8.65 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We follow the organisation in the official history, which has the Siegfried Line campaign ending with the Ardennes-Alsace offensive. Are you intending to work on some of the articles? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just passing by reader who happened to find an inconsistency and decided to fix it. If the history book says so, then I have no problem with it. However, we should be consistent. As of right now, the dates are inconsistent as I've mentioned earlier. Perhaps, "25 August 1944 – 7 March 1945" can be changed to reflect the official history? 172.220.8.65 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Corrected the date in the infobox Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, that looks perfect! Have a good day, bye. 172.220.8.65 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The German losses in the battle were especially critical: their last reserves were now gone, the Luftwaffe had been shattered, and remaining forces throughout the West were being pushed back to defend the Siegfried Line" (quoted from the Battle of the Bulge article) -> this clearly indicates that the Siegfried Line campaign did not end after the Battle of the Bulge. 172.220.8.65 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are calling the campaign that follows "Rhineland". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am... very sorry for this. I get... detailed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 08:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear,@Hawkeye7

Regarding to the removing the tag claiming are dubious, I strongly recommend that you restore it. It is not about the Wikipedia policies ---it is about a topic not resolved in the talk page. Please use the same analytic criteria than in the "GA Review" to realize the importance of the wrong statement and source where the claim was originated. Furthermore, before to undo my editing, response to my claims in the talk page.A small reminder of a superior being: "remain neutral, don't be a dick, ignore all rules" Mycoandres (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final 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 Teratix -- Teratix (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Cowans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Daily News and The Herald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought you might want to know that the high-resolution Council of Clermont image I found for Crusading movement is now a featured picture. Not exactly one of mine: it's not restored, but still. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final 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:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final and Talk:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Teratix -- Teratix (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]