User talk:Bryanrutherford0

MainTalkWorksSandbox

Perspectives about WikiProject Texas

Bryanrutherford0, I think our digital paths may have crossed a few years ago when I was making some edits in the transportation sections of various Texas cities. However, most of my edits concern Texas history. WP Texas appears to be inactive. Do you think there is any interest in waking up the project? Do you have any insights about any of the subprojects? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: I've been periodically trying to go through and rate the articles piling up at WP:TX, and some years back I made some efforts to improve the articles on some significant Texas institutions and landmarks, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be any real activity through the WikiProject. I'm interested in trying to restart it in a more organized way, though I'm in the process of running a series of FACs right now that may take up a lot of my editing attention over the next couple of months. I'm also active at the subproject for Austin, where I've rated and categorized many articles and created others (and I've got one nominated at GAN currently, too), but I don't see many other editors there, either. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please let me know specifics about what you would like to see from the projects. I am rating unassessed articles at WP Hou, whittling down a list from about 500. The project is far behind in reassessing stub articles, too. Best wishes for your FACs, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any real interest in maintaining WikiProject Houston as an independent entity. I think the only way to save the project is through a merger with WikiProject Texas. Similarly with the other subprojects. Do you support a merger of the various sub projects with WikiProject Texas? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I at least do use and follow WP:Austin, because I like having a subset of the Texas topics marked as being relevant to Austin for me to comb through and try to improve, but I don't know how many others might be finding it useful, and AnotherBeliever seems to be the only one who responded to your post at the Austin project's talk page. Haha maybe there are only two editors using that project currently! I think I'd like to put together a draft to-do list for WP:Austin indicating my priorities for improving coverage of the city and add that to the project page, since the one there now hasn't been changed since 2010. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WP Houston under my proposal would be reorganized as a task force, just as San Antonio is a task force under WP Texas. The task force does not assess articles under its own banner. But you are correct that if you want to keep distinct assessments for WP Austin, then this project should remain as is. But WP Houston, WP D-FW, and all of the university subs would still exist with their own pages and the ability to propose priorities as tasks forces.

After another week I will probably submit a proposal for a merger, unless you have an objection. We can keep the status quo for WP Austin. WP Houston has about 3800 articles and quality has suffered through many of its articles. I have seen a similar problem with WP D-FW articles, with a count of about 2700. There are articles with Texas content which are not yet carrying the US-TX banner. If there is a merger, I can help you with assessments and also look through the stubs for articles to promote. Please let me know what you need from me. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, then I support that change completely. These projects certainly don't appear to be getting any support from WikiProject Cities; it makes sense to treat them as subprojects of WP:TX (including Austin). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

One more question before I write my proposal: do you want a WP Austin with distinct assessments, or are you ok with the separate assessments going away (like the San Antonio task force)? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't need to have its own quality asessments; I just want it to have its own importance ratings. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Article maint

Hi Bryanrutherford0, wondering if we might chip away at automating some of the tasks you are currently doing manually, as in Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches. For example it seems like in the latest diff the first section (line 3) was simply removing the {{good article}} template as in here. Would this always be the case, or does it require human determination? -- GreenC 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: It would be great to automate more of the maintenance, but it would take some programming beyond my abilities, since, as the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches points out, there are a variety of reasons that an article can end up in one of these lists, though some are certainly more common than others. The most common problems seem to be with articles that have been newly listed or delisted where the editor making the change didn't complete the process, but there are also out-of-process promotions, random deletions of chunks of the article or the talk page... I think the simplest thing to automate might be fixing the redirects in WP:GA/All when an article has been renamed, although non-simple cases crop up there, too, e.g. when an article has been renamed because editors decided that something different was a primary topic and made the original title a disambiguation page. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes won't be able to solve all problems with 100% automation. But to focus on those areas that can be automatically done safely to reduce the manual overhead which seems like a good idea where possible. The bot making the report is one step away from making a page correction edit. How the bot behaves would depend on your recommendation of rules to follow since you have gained expertise in this area. In your experience, have you ever seen a case where you did not remove the {{good article}} when it gets flagged in that section? Or could it automatically be removed every time? Noted about the redirects, though if the original title is now a dab page due to primary topic change it should not be flagged as a redirect in the report, since there is no # REDIRECT statement in the page. Unless you have seen differently. -- GreenC 16:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I should have read the resolving mismatches section since it answers the question that yes there could be cases where it should not be removed. -- GreenC 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If it would help you or someone else with the necessary skill to attempt writing a bot, I could try to create a comprehensive list of the cases I've encountered and the proper editing response in each case, and we could try to think through criteria for identifying and distinguishing the cases. I could contribute at the pseudocode level, at least! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes sounds good. Basically to encode your expert knowledge. -- 17:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Austin, Texas

Thanks for the thanks at Austin, Texas. I was actually hoping someone would revert my edit, as I'd like to start an RfC about promotional rankings in articles. The Canadians did it here and I wanted to get a broad consensus to do the same to US articles, similar to this RfC which prohibits "affluent" from the first line of city articles. Some articles are just heaped with rankings and promos. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Third Silesian War

You reverted my edit noting that "Decisive field battles" had a "potential for crippling casualties", saying that that was not the only reason those battles were generally rare, and challenging me to provide a source if I asserted it was. Nowhere did I assert that that was the only reason for avoiding big battles, just one more reason—in addition to the others, such as the logistics mentioned in this section—that might have been overlooked because it had not been mentioned. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You say that you didn't assert that the desire to avoid casualties was the only reason, yet no other reason is given, in that sentence or elsewhere in the paragraph in question. Anyway, the function of the section is describe what European warfare in the eighteenth century was like, not to try to explain why it had the characteristic features that it had, which is why the section begins with a hatnote to the article on early modern warfare, where readers can go to learn more about such questions. I appreciate you adding the wikilink to the Golden Cavalry of Saint George; it's in other articles in the series, but I had forgotten to put it in this one. As to the "Explain" template, the answer is that Prussia was not "a UK ally" until precisely the events being described in that section (the "Diplomatic Revolution"); Prussia and Britain had been on opposing sides in the previous Silesian Wars, so it was quite a change for the British to align with Prussia and the French with Austria. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

After a favour ...

Hi Bryan, how busy are you? And how generous are you feeling? Do you fancy reviewing one of my unloved GANs? Perhaps Punic Wars? Although I admit that it is a biggy at nearly 7,000 words? Being serious, if time or motivation don't permit, I entirely understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha I'd love to pay forward some of the good that's been done for my articles around here. I'm a school teacher, and my year just started, so I'm a bit swamped at the moment, but I'll give the article a read and see if I feel up to a review. Thanks for the invitation! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't realise that. I withdraw the request. I wouldn't want to be responsible for wrecking someone's education. Or your job prospects! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent GA nominee fixes

Bryanrutherford0, you recently changed a number of GA nominee subtopics, and in three cases, they were invalid. Please, before you make any changes, check the list of approved values on the WP:GAN page, and use them exactly (including capitalization). It's "Mathematics and mathematicians", not "Mathematics"; "Sports and recreation", not "Sports", and "Economics and business", not "Economics". ("Geography" is a correct value.) If you put in a short version of the subtopic, or a miscapitalized version, the bot will not recognize the subtopic value as valid and will keep trying and trying to place the nominations on the page... and fail. I've fixed them now, so they should go through the next time the bot runs. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, BlueMoonset; Template:GA doesn't mind certain abbreviations, as this page makes clear, and there's no indication in Template:GAN whether the topic is valid or not. Thanks for the heads-up. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bryanrutherford0, I really wish the bot was better able to deal with capitalization variations or abbreviations, but it isn't, and we've had no luck getting a new bot written or a new (active) owner for that particular bot module. Until we get to that point, unfortunately, we're going to be stuck with exactitude, at least in the {{GA nominee}} template's subtopic field. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

First Silesian War

Hi Bryanrutherford0. I saw you didn't like my method of noting to readers which sources are open and limited access. I figured it was a 50/50 chance you'd appreciate its value. Its approach isn't as tied to the citation template, and I saw in the references you were fastidious about them. But, given that I like signalling levels of access for interested readers, I thought it was worth a try in case you were open to the idea. I saw you did let the within-template jstor addition stay. Unfortunately, there is no within-template way to designate that jstor too is limited access (via registration.) At present, you can only choose jstor-access=free, which is incorrect. and jstor-access. Worse yet, jstor-access often conflicts with doi-access, which is usually limited, often conflicts with doi-access, which is usually closed). But interested readers can at least click the jstor link and figure it out.

I also removed the article's most salient redlink. As you can tell from the lack of edit, I did this without touching the article. Instead, I created a (currently inadequate, but hopefully passable) article for the redlink. Unfortunately, there remains another problematic link I noted, which I did initially try to fix by edit. This is the link to the lesser-known Franco-German 1741 Treaty of Breslau, which I attempted to change but then reverted after noting I mixed up treaties. As it currently is when I first clicked it, it sends the reader into the War of Austrian Succession with no context or follow up. I'm not sure if you want to address this in some way, as it could be viewed as an issue external to the article. But I thought I'd make you aware of it in case you weren't. And, of course, I'll leave its solution (or not) to your discretion.

As a final note, I came to your article while trying to clean up another, messier First Silesian War-related article, and was impressed by the amount of work and apparent pleasure you put into this. It is a solid article! ( But then, looking at your FA discussion, I'm figuring you already know how good the article is.)
Cheers
Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, mate! I appreciate your obvious interest in building up the encyclopedia (Treaty of Nymphenburg and Battle of Mollwitz are coming along nicely!). I moved the information you added into the citation templates where possible, and then I removed some of it because that's what the documentation in the template advises. That documentation says that URLs in citations "are presumed to be free-to-read" and only require a note when they aren't free; by contrast, named identifiers (jstor, bibcode and the like) "are presumed to lie behind a paywall or registration barrier" and merit note only when they are freely available. I also like your idea to point out that the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie is in German, and I just moved that information into the parameter that already exists for that purpose in the citation template. The function of the citation templates is to help citations to follow a consistent format across millions of pages, which improves readability (and verifiability), and I think that a featured article should probably go with the recommendation of the documentation for the sake of consistency. I think the information you were looking to add is useful, but there's not (that I know of) a clear, standardized way of indicating in a citation that the full text of a book source is available for free through the given link. Maybe someone should start a discussion at Template talk:Citation (unless it's already been discussed in the archives)? Thanks for pitching in! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: Thanks, and it's very cool you checked out the two articles! As you suggest, I'll probably drop my comments into the citation group. This particular side issue of mine is more about helping external readers see at a glance when they have access to the available open resources. The current situation is messy and for non-regular Wikipedians, I think the default is to not click references, whereas I'd like to encourage it. (e.g., How many incorrect citations have you encountered?)

Though the Wikipedia discussion may have rules for defaults, I think intermediate user default for both books and articles is that even if linked, there is no access. I know that is true for me. If I see a book citation, even with a link, I never assume its free. Usually, a well-made book citation has a url-links take readers to a Google book page that makes the cited point, sometimes with just a snippet. Readers can go no further. Sometimes we're limited to just the snip. Ironically url-access=limited denotes a higher level of access than no link. The free or open access key would the reader know the whole work is available. Yes, for articles, the default is closed access for sure. That is why I go with JSTOR when I can because it is better than nothing. It has limited access (registration and 6/articles per month; 100/month during the past year) instead of typical default doi-based articles, which almost always have completely closed access (though there's no template designation for JSTOR limited access).

As an aside, what started me attempting the edit on your page was seeing the lock icons in your citations. For some reason Chrome- but not Firefox- overlaps the icon with text in the url-access=limited designation,making the text and icon into a mashup. But I think this may be just my computer, as it worked when I tested it on another one later.

Anyway, I've gone too far afield, I think. Getting into the Wikinerd citation mode. It was fun to discuss and get your perspective. And definitely having all the Silesian wars FAed attests that your point has strong consensus! Thanks for your reply. Again, your work on the various articles is outstanding, and it looks like you really put in the time helping other articles get GA and FA ratings, which I'm sure is much appreciated.
Best
Wtfiv (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to First Silesian War

Your reversion of my good-faith and sourced improvement of this article and your insistence that I instead take part in an unnecessary and convoluted metadiscussion is a reason that I and many other qualified people who would like to improve Wikipedia are giving up on participating in the project. As a result of your reversion of my edit, the quality of the article is slightly diminished. The cumulative effect of actions like yours is to drive away capable and decent people and to gradually erode the quality of Wikipedia. Too bad. My time is better spent elsewhere. Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

...Marco polo, you're talking about an interaction that happened over a year ago? It took me a couple of minutes just to find it. Are you just going around "telling off" every editor you've ever disagreed with, or something? As I said at the time, you were interjecting changes to an article that was in the middle of a Featured Article Candidate review, in which numerous editors were actively discussing the best ways to polish and improve that article, and your changes were undoing work that the group had just done. You were welcome to participate in that process, as I invited you to do at the time. When multiple writers with different opinions are trying to improve the same document, discussion actually is "necessary"; if you're unwilling to participate in that sort of discussion, then you're free to write a new article from scratch or expand and improve an article that no one else is actively working on. It's hard work reaching a consensus about the best version of an article among many editors, and it's common enough to get burned out. I hope you come back to the project when you're in a better mood. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. I was used to thinking it was 2020 and misperceived an edit from 2019 as recent. I didn't know the context and apologize for jumping to the conclusion that I had fallen victim to one of Wikipedia's unfortunate power struggles, which I try to avoid. It does make sense that the featured article process would require more discussion than usual. Best wishes, Marco. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!

Thank you for leaving a Civility Barnstar on my Talk page. Yes, I have had a lot of weird comments left on my Talk page, and, against the advice of many, I tend to engage with editors that don't exactly abide by the rules (and explain how differences of opinion should be resolved) instead of ignoring them or reporting them to Admins. (I also leave all comments on my Talk page, even when they involve abuse against my person, because I don't want to be seen as hiding anything from anyone.) While following the Golden Rule is its own reward, I certainly appreciate someone taking the time to give me a "good job"; I've had a few comments of that nature before, but you're the first person to give me a barnstar. So thanks again. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the Mississippi–Alabama barrier islands drew 6,523 page views (544 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at March 2021 DYK STATS. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Silesian War Kudos

In working on trying to get the citations and structure of Frederick in a shape that seems more complete but steers close to what the community has constructed, I'm currently trying to clean up the Silesian War sections. For this work, I find that your Silesian Wars series has been incredibly useful as a guide toward correcting small issues, providing potential citations when needed, and as a guide I try to adhere to ensure a rough parallel in narrative sequencing. For this section of the clean up, it has been incredibly useful! So I figure a public thanks is in order. (Not to say that what I'm doing won't need further editing and correction, but at least you've helped point it in what seems like a good direction.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! Yeah, I'm always glad when there's a solid existing article I can summarize for a section of one I'm writing or expanding. Thanks again for the massive work you're undertaking there! I tried to work myself up to overhauling Frederick's biography for years and never quite got ready. ;) -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the B player to Frederick the Good?

Hi User:Bryanrutherford0, I've put out the call to get Frederick to Good Article status. It's dicey as the article is just so long, and I don't feel comfortable paring it down. (I kind of like respecting all the various "Frederick's I see on the website) I was wondering, as you are into trying to the "Good Article" culture a little. Would it be possible to reach out to another editor you think is reasonable, perhaps knowledgeable in the era of history, who would be willing to do a Good Article edit? (I'm not asking you directly, as I see you as one of the more invested watchers of the site, though your editorial touch is actually quite light.) It'd be great if the article could get to Frederick the Good.

Thanks for your insight and even being available enough that I feel comfortable asking you for help!

As an aside, I'm not sure about Frederick (the article)'s ability to achieve "Great" (i.e., Featured Article) I think anybody who could edit the article to the level of Featured Article without treading on all the commitments would be a miracle worker. Wtfiv (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'm so glad to see it nominated for GAN! Yeah, it's a beast of an article, but it probably needs to be pretty long just because there's been so, so much written about this guy's life. I'll try to make time over the next couple of days to read through it and make any contributions I see. Congrats on all the great work you've done on it! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bryan! By the way, I totally agree about it having to be long! Wtfiv (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv: Okay, I've given the article a once-over, and here are my main pieces of feedback: first, it looks quite good! I think somewhere early on, maybe around the "Inheritance" section, it might be helpful to include File:Europe 1740 en.png, possibly in place of File:Acprussiamap2.gif that's already there, since the existing map lumps in acquisitions long before Frederick's time with his gains in the same color. I think it could stand a short section about Frederick's activities in the interbellum period, maybe borrowing some content from the corresponding section in "Silesian Wars". The sentence "Frederick undertook the exploitation of Polish territory under the pretext of an enlightened civilizing mission, given his disparagement of Poland and its ruling elite, all of which provided a convenient entree for the "sanguine meliorism" of the Enlightenment and heightened assurance in the "distinctive merits of the 'Prussian way'"." is hard to parse and sounds faintly plagiarized. One other more involved issue, which I haven't felt up to trying to raise in the article's talk page, is that "The Old Fritz" is (in my opinion) not the best translation of Der Alte Fritz. Articles work differently in different languages, and English tends to use them in fewer places than most European languages; I would translate the nickname just as "Old Fritz", and many sources agree with me. Beyond that, I've made a bunch of minor changes of a copyediting nature. Good luck at GAN! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, Thanks! I'll scrounge around and look at the interbellum material and put in a brief transition. I haven't looked yet, but I'm sure you material is a great place to start. Working with the whole "First Partition" section in a way that respects it has been an incredible challenge, so I think that can be taken care of. Translating "Old Fritz" is a toughie. I think the nickname does not really translate, but at the same time, I can just imagine the kind of readers who would come to it. By all means, if there is a better translation, it would be good to tackle it. But as you have mentioned, putting anything in terms of actual content (as opposed to editing) is always a challenge! Wtfiv (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the GA template at the top, as the instructions suggest it is needed by the Bot to close the review, which remains open on the page. You are a pro at GA and FAs, so maybe what you did is sufficient. I just wanted to let you know I made the change, but if it is unneeded to close the review on the GA nominations page, please revert. I trust your expertise! Wtfiv (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, at some point we need to update the GAN bot so that it knows how to work with Template:Article history. Good point! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks...so I probably read the instructions correctly. Wtfiv (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Article

Hi, hello. So, you recently told me to nominate an article in Good Articles, if I wanted it to have the good article template. I don't know how to do that

Danglerofhell (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the Great- Further Question

Now that I finished editing the citations to sfn per Tim Riley's suggestion, I'm thinking of putting Frederick the Great out there for Featured Article review, also per Tim Riley's suggestion. (I must say, Tim Riley had a point: the sea of blue citations does not look too bad.) As you know, the article is a tough beast because there are so many opinions and commitments about Frederick II amongst the editors. Do you think is ready for this move, or do you think I should be satisfied with Good Article? My concern sith going for Featured Article would be that they may require certain areas of cleanup that I like. (e.g., you know I like to note freely available resources.) I'm into the idea of trying to get such an article that has so many strong opinions to Featured Article, but if you think the process would be messy or the Fine Article criteria would create more problems, I rather not. I'm good either way, I'm just asking someone whose opinion, insight, and expertise with the process I respect Wtfiv (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv: Hey, thanks, mate! Hah, it cheers me to see that some of the headings and organizational decisions I made way back when are still around in the current version of the article. Let's see... I think I'd retitle the section currently called "Wars" to something more like "Reign", since it also includes a summary of the First Partition of Poland. There's a one-sentence paragraph in that section that should probably be combined with another graph. Yeah, the article looks great! Haha I also like that sea of blue. I'd say go for it, and just be aware that the FAC process is pretty grueling; the reviewers are very exacting (and rightly so), and it can be very hard to square all the opinions and preferences with your own judgments about what's best for the piece. If you're willing to do the work, I think the article is definitely a credible candidate at this point. God speed, and thank you for all the hard work you've already put into this project! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response...I'll make your suggested changes, and toss the FA question into talk to see if there are concerns. Depending on the response, I'll risk the FA and let the editors decide. Thank you so much. Again, I very much respect your opinion! Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, it is very cool that it was your headings that structured this article in the first place. (And your maps are great!) My philosophy has been to let the more content-committed editors have their say, and then just see if it can be brought into a coherent tale (with reliability of citation being the key determinant for me). The emergence of the end product has been interesting. I must say, I like the Frederick that has emerged. Maybe that's why I've stuck at this project! Wtfiv (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to give you some kudos. To make sure that Frederick's major defeats were noted, one of the Feature Article reviewers insisted on prose on final years of the Seven Years War in the Frederick the Great article. To put together the prose, I had to get guidance. Can you guess where the foundation of the narrative structure came from? The The Silesian Wars article was my first choice. I immediately went there because I thought it was the cleanest summary I knew of. Because of the Frederick article's focus and the integration of other prose, it may not be as easy to see your work in it, but your work provided the skeletal structure, and the reviewer seems satisfied with the result. After that, I just had to add citations. After that the FA process continues, but I thought you should know that once more your good work- and your Wikipedia voice- continues to have an impact. Wtfiv (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Aww, thank you! I hope the community is doing enough to make you feel appreciated for taking the lead on this daunting project. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A Frederick Favor

Hi Bryan, I'm tossing out a request for help with Frederick the Great. In the Fine Article review, the latest reviewer would like a source for the maps. I can certainly dredge up something, but am heading out for the rest of the week. Would you be willing to toss an sfn citaton into each of the two excellent maps you created for Frederick II's before and after? In addition, would you be willing to add alt tags to the images. Also, it was reported that the battle of Rossbach.png has a broken link; is this something you could quickly fix? Would you be able to take care of these? If you don't have time, I understand. If you can, I can mark them as done when I get back. Or if you feel comfortable doing so, you can mark that as done as well on the FAR page. I can get back to this later. Appreciatively, Wtfiv (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I added an archived URL source to that map of Rossbach, and I think I got alt text onto all the images. I don't believe it's usual to attach a citation to a map image in an article; the source information for the maps is on their Commons pages, where it at least names the German book of atlases that the original map was adapted from. Hope this helps! I'll try to weigh in and mark things done at the review page later today. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that last sign off. I'm on the road now and am not nimble with the mobile tools. Thank you so much! That's totally awesome (Even if Circassia is off a bit! I'm not sure that it is much of a deal- or so I hope! :-) )! You warned me: This is FAR is quite the process! Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Bryan, Frederick is now indeed "Frederick the Featured" and worthy of standing amidst is fine "Silesian War" series of articles. I'm so glad you have been keeping an eye on this article for so many ages, and thank you for your help in so many ways- editing and of course, watching!

@Chariotsacha: Thank you too! I think you mentioned that this is your first major article commitment. You have been tremendously helpful in getting this to featured status, and as I said to Bryan, I'm so glad you are keeping an eye on this article! Hopefully, the experience will get you to try your hand at another article, and if I can help either of you out in anyway, let me know. It was great working with both of you to get it here. Wtfiv (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv: I just about fell out of my chair! Frederick made it, and to think that only earlier this year he wasn't even at G.A.! I was about to post on your talk page but I see you've pinged me here. This has been an incredible experience, and I've learned so much. You're correct in saying this was my first major article contribution. This was such a brilliant effort on all ends, I want to say my thanks first to you @Wtfiv:, not only for always being bold and getting through the grotto of citations. But also for being exceptionally patient and kind when I was starting out helping, and encouraging me to try new stuff on here, such as creating new articles and helping with the F.A. review. I appreciate it immensely, especially as working on a big article like Frederick was very intimidating at the start. @Bryanrutherford0:, Bryan, you have been an incredibly active and wonderful contributor from the very beginning at B-quality all the way to featured, you contributed scripts, consensus and beautiful contributions left right and centre. It simply couldn't have been done without you! Finally, @Buidhe: always seemed to really want to see this project go far and really put in time to get it organized for G.A., although he went a bit silent on the F.A., I really think his points during the G.A. were exceptionally important to how far this article has become, and of course, thank you to everyone who contributed. It's been an an absolute treat working on this article and I couldn't have asked for better editors. I hope to work with you all again! Chariotsacha (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree about Buidhe (Buidhe|talk). It wouldn't have happened without Buidhe's jumping in. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Three hurrahs all around! Wtfiv: be sure to nominate Old Fritz at TFA requests; his promotion to FA also should entitle you to a Triple Crown (you nominate yourself). Congratulations! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Another one! Why not? I'll request his 311 birthday in January. Now, I'll have to figure out a blurb... Wtfiv (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotsacha: Since the requests can only be for a month, I requested a random day. Frederick is slated be today's Featured Article on November 9. Thanks for the suggestion! Wtfiv (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Texas Capitol View Corridors

The article Texas Capitol View Corridors you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Texas Capitol View Corridors 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 GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2021 (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 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

DYK for Third Street Railroad Trestle

On 1 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Third Street Railroad Trestle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Third Street Railroad Trestle is the last remaining wooden trestle bridge in downtown Austin, Texas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Third Street Railroad Trestle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Third Street Railroad Trestle), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

CMD submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Bryanrutherford0 to be Editor of the Week for their behind the scenes work maintaining the Wikipedia:Good articles lists. Among other tasks, they have been monitoring and fixing the Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches page since March 2020. Such a background task is hard to notice and almost never remarked upon, but is a key part in keeping everything ticking along. This is in addition to participation in the Featured and Good topics space, and of course to their splendid content contributions. This award was seconded by User:Eddie891.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)