Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023/Archive 1

More concise title

Any objections to dropping the "1" from "Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023 1"? Would be more concise. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I was originally trying to follow the CCI convention of naming pages by date to avoid singling out the individual editor, and chose that because we have a vague date, plus the 1 to allow for more than one similar situation. As it now seems unlikely we could have another situation in the same month, dropping it makes sense. But holy cow, that will mean a lot of repair at this point. Let me see what I can get done today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Going in to make those moves (after breakfast). It may take me a few hours to get everything in the right place, so stand by :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have now gotten all pages moved and links updated except in my sandbox, which I will do next. I also updated the petscan id to reflect the new page name. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

All done now I hope, and moved out of sandbox in to GA subpage. Please let me know if anything was missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

On list, but already done

Should Appomattox Court House National Historical Park be removed from the master list? I've run it through GAR already and have already done all the cleaning needed. Hog Farm _Talk 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm See here; we've got it covered. Novem Linguae and I discussed leaving it on the (master) list until just before the bot run as it is our test case to make sure the Petscan query is working right. Novem has it in the algorithm to check the Petscan, and remove those, before running the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

ah ha... but you're right, I had missed removing it from the mass message send-- now done, thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Clam Lake Canal now removed as well from MMS targets. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Old intent list in user space

Re, intent to GAR, I have notified editors who had made entries at User:Iazyges/Doug GA Rewrite Claims before it was archived.

• JPxG
• Epicgenius
• Hog Farm has already declared intent above.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Collating this here for the record:

JPxG provided assurances on Paul Rapsey Hodge, Buckeye gasoline buggy, John William Lambert, George A. Mitchell, Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell, The Three Musketeers (Studebaker engineers), Clam Lake Canal, and Eber Brock Ward. Clam Lake Canal has been independently taken to GAR by Iazyges. Epicgenius requested to handle Demarest Building.

All of these, including Clam Lake Canal, remain on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/Doug Coldwell GA list and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/Doug Coldwell GA list/MMStargets at this time. CMD (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis I looked at those marked clean by JPxG on the CCI page, and they are decidedly not clean. A more thorough look on all of those marked by JPxG is needed. Perhaps they weren't thoroughly aware of the extent of the issues or how deep they need to dig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ps, also, all original 223 GAs are left on the list until Novem Linguae is ready to run, at which time they will cull. See the bot notes listed in the sidebar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Another PS, I left a specific note on JPxG's talk, and they have not added an Intent note above for those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, just keeping track since they weren't listed out here. I read below about bot notes (after I posted this initially), but per [2] I thought worth bringing up if Clam Lake Canal out to be removed from the MMS. CMD (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, yes, good catch. Doing that now (I had forgotten about the MMS targets, as we're unlikely to need to use that list again ... it was for sending the notices ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about the delisting process & possible COIs...

*This section up until the 19:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC) timestamp is copy/pasted from User talk:SandyGeorgia#Question about the delisting process & possible COIs...

I put Ramsdell Theatre on the separate GAR list but duh just realized that I helped write it so I would probably be considered to have a COI doing a GAR... Should I take it off the list? I am willing to do a Review but maybe I shouldn't?
Also...I did the initial GA assessment on Thomas Johnston (engraver). Can I do a GAR on that or am I considered to have a COI... Don't want to cause more problems... Need advice here, either from Sandy or a friendly talkpage stalker - Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Shearonink; I'm iPad editing from a car hotspot right now, and am desperately hoping that some of the GAR regulars will begin fielding the questions. Would you mind helping me out by transferring this question to a new talk page section on the talk page where you posted the intent ? Let's see if some of the GAR folks will start taking some of this load off my plate :) :) My personal suggestion is to first contemplate what the article would look like after you (eventually) WP:PDEL any content you can't personally verify to offline sources, and then see what's left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

PS, there are no more individual GARS ... they are all community GARs now -- so it seems to me that a COI is not an issue as long as you declare it and let someone else close the review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll copy/paste this section to that page. Ok, if the consensus agrees I'm happy to do some Reviews & someone else can close. Thanks for everything, Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy here. Feel free to nominate if you believe the articles' plus is salvable after PDEL. You can nominate articles for GAR if you have a COI. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Back home now; Shearonink, if you plan to initiate an individual independent review on both, be sure to add the second to the list above before the eventual bot run, which looks to be around 23 Feb by the timeline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Individual or community GARs?

When my bot does its run to delist these articles, do we want it to do individual GARs or community GARs? Individual would be good to keep from spamming the community GAR logs with 200 entries, but we're also not supposed to do individual anymore due to the recent RFC. I'm leaning towards the former, but would like to get some feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

If setting them up as individual works, can't we IAR here and do the practical? They are individual in the sense that they are one editor (bot), and yet they are already community approved via the AN.

On the big picture, we still don't have Coords, so I'm worried about who will be coordinating with you and answering these questions. Is it still me (not even a GA knowledgeable person)? Not a soul answered my offer at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#GAR coordinators, which is worrisome. I'm prepared to launch a Coord Proposal if someone will just say yea or nay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Both options work. If the bot is sufficiently fast, it won't show up on the main WP:GAR page, as there is usually about an hour(?) delay. So community GARS may make sense. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that community reassessments will likely fill 3 pages of community GAR logs (e.g. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 68) with nearly identical text. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, yeah, individual reassessments may be better then. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Works for me! And I don't think it goes against the spirt of any of the approvals, either the GA Proposal Drive, or the AN consensus. The idea is just to make it happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Petscan out of sync

Vami IV submitted a DC GA for copyright, and removed the template, putting the Petscan that Novem Linguae needs to en masse bot processing out of sync. Joseph Nathan Kane. We're still off by one, which I'm looking for. Petscan 2390505 should be the two already delisted since DCGAR started, plus the 11 delisted per-DCGAR = 13, but now it's at 14. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/Doug Coldwell GA list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Found, same: Nels Johnson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Important discrepancy

Pages for February 2023 GAR reassessment and Copyright contributor investigation
Main pages DC Good article reassessment Copyright contributor investigation Lists Master GA list Reviewer list Intent to open independent GAR Sdzerobot list Notices Article talk notice MMS targets User talk notice MMS targets GAR delisting page Scripts and bots GAN Review Tool Bot instruction Petscan 23790505

Ramsdell Theatre is listed above at #Intent to open an independent GAR, but it was never on the original list and so is not listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/Doug Coldwell GA list. This does not affect Novem Linguae's bot run, since it is exempt per Intent to open ... but why was this GA missed by the script, and how many others might similarly be missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This list needs to be checked against our list to see what else the Ga script missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It was nominated by User:Shearonink, rather than Doug. They made up roughly 20% of the article, to Doug's 68%, which definitely constitutes a significant contributor, but issues may need to be checked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I am iPad typing from the car, but there seem to be about 237 GA icons on DC's user page, while the script originally returned 223 ... subtract the Theatre, and we could still be mssing 13 GAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit more work on the historical GA database I've been building; I ran another query on it and found only one more that hasn't already been delisted: William Morrison (chemist). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Mike, I'm working in Excel and am partly done ... I have a list of 242 in Excel ... done shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of the 242 were duplicates of the same article. List below ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Left out:

1. Australia and the American Civil War
2. George Escol Sellers
3. Julius Kahn (inventor)
4. Philip Slier
5. Ramsdell Theatre (intent to open independent GAR)
6. Trussed Concrete Steel Company
7. Vernon Arnold Haugland
8. William Morrison (chemist)

Already delisted:

1. Buckeye Manufacturing Company
2. Haskelite
3. Haskell canoe
4. Henry Ludington
5. Kitch-iti-kipi
6. Mail chute
7. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999
8. North Carolina Transportation Museum
9. Southern Railway's Spencer Shops
10. SS John Sherman
11. Walter Hunt (inventor)

Done, the eight missed need to be checked, and if need be, we need to notice the talk and the reviewer as we did the rest, and add them to the GA master list and the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/reviewer list.

So to the old total of 223 (from the AN), we now have 223 + 8 + 11 = 242 grand total. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Ramsdell Theatre - I am working my way through every single ref on its talk page. 1) I am only checking to see if the cited refs are available online. I am separating the refs into 2 lists, online and offline. 2) I will go back and then check to see IF the refs completely back up their statements. Or not. If I can access any of the offline information/statements I will do that. 3)I will finish up my assessment and let the chips fall where they may. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: On Thomas Johnston (engraver) I am doing the same as on Ramsdell. Going through all the refs, separating them into online & offline, seeing whether (or Not) they back up their statements and then if the article fails the ref assessment? Oh well, whatever is...IS. I am also working my way through all of this on the Johnston article's talk. Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources, even the offline ones, need to be checked for copying and close paraphrasing. Not backing up what they purport to back up is a problem, but at this point it is far from the biggest problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

David Eppstein You missed my intent I think... What I was trying to say was that IF I cannot access the various offline refs in Ramsdell and Thomas Johnston, then whatever the claimed refs supposedly back up goes and that statement/information will be excised. The online refs will be easier in the sense that I can access those refs so I will be able to go over the online refs & their statements with a fine-toothed comb, checking for copyvios and too-close paraphrasing. Which brings me to my next question...is there a deadline for completing a GAR on DC's articles? Checking everything on these 2 articles is going to take me a while... Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Shearonink, the AN proposal itself implies no deadline, but the problem is we don't yet have GAR Coords to answer queries like this. I think you should go ahead and open the GARs after the 23rd Feb mass delisting runs, and then keep it updated weekly on your progress, letting reviewers know you are working. My sense from Femke has been that the intent is to run GAR similar to how FAR is run (time is allowed), but we just don't have Coords. Nor do we have a body of Coords to rule tht DC GARs should be closed only by a Coord, which is my suggestion. GAR Needs Coords, as of yesterday, and yet that hasn't seemed to be a priority item. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection if GARs are opened before the mass delisting date. Might make it easier when running reports. Also the mass delisting will take awhile (I have to write some code, do the 10 trial edits, wait for BAG, do the rest of the edits) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree; one big problem is that citations do not match content in DC's work, so if you can't access offline sources, you can't know if there is copyvio. He often took content from one source while citing it to another (sample, copy-paste from New York Times, not even cited in article). With every article I've looked at, I've found so many problems of so many kinds, that broad WP:PDEL and stubbing has been the only solution. This editor really had no idea how to correctly research, build or cite content; as he explained in the two newspaper interviews that used to be linked from his talk page, he first designed a DYK hook, and then built content around his desired hook (which wasn't even always true)--completely the opposite of the way research for an article should happen. When rewriting, one way to be sure you are getting rid of any remnants of his horrible work is to use WP:Who Wrote That?. You practically have to make sure everything is your own words, since anything from DC is suspect. And then after you WP:PDEL anything from an offline unverified source, you have to see if the broad coverage of GA is still met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie and Novem Linguae: unless you disagree for some reason, I will add the list of eight Left out (above) to the GA master list for bot processing (noting that Ramsdell Theatre is an Intent to GAR). That is, we have seven new articles for bot processing. I will also deliver the

• article talk page notice
• reviewer talk page notice, and

add these eight to the reviewer list (see links to all of these at WP:DCGAR).

I've also created a new Petscan query, as the master list is now divided three ways; see the DCGAR sidebar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I just checked Australia and the American Civil War, and it was nominated by Bedford (banned last year, as it happens) though Doug did work on the article and helped at the GAN. Do we have the community's OK to mass delist a GA if he didn't nominate it himself? I haven't yet checked the other seven yet but I suspect those will be in the same state. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

DC GAs not on original 223 list

Here's the list again with who nominated it:

1. Australia and the American Civil War - Bedford, mostly Bedord content, reviewer Wandalstouring (gone now for 12 years)

   Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Australia and the American Civil War/1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

   Kept, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

2. George Escol Sellers - The Most Comfortable Chair, TMCC has only 17% of content, reviewer CommanderWaterford, banned

   Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/George Escol Sellers/1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

   Delisted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

3. Julius Kahn (inventor) - Cleveland Todd, 67% DC content, reviewer GeneralPoxter (active)

   Added to master list for bot processing SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

   Delisted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

4. Philip Slier - The Most Comfortable Chair, 62% DC content, reviewer The Rambling Man

   Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Philip Slier/1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

   Delisted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

5. Ramsdell Theatre - Shearonink

   Already listed as Intent to Open SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ramsdell Theatre/1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

6. Trussed Concrete Steel Company - Cleveland Todd, 80% DC content, reviewer The Rambling Man

   Added to master list for bot processing SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

   Delisted, !SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

7. Vernon Arnold Haugland- Cleveland Todd, 84% DC content, reviewer A person in Georgia (active)

   Added to master list for bot processing SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

   Delisted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

8. William Morrison (chemist) - Doug Coldwell, reviewer Truflip99

   Added to DC GA master list for bot processing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

   Delisted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, Femke, Iazyges, Trainsandotherthings, Chipmunkdavis, Etriusus, and TonyBallioni:

From the seven GAs in question above (Ramsdell is already at Intent to GAR), taking Vernon Arnold Haugland as an example:

• Cleveland Todd never responded on the GAN, only DC did
• It is 84% DC content and was edited only 15 times by Cleveland Todd
• Here's the talk page discusson between Cleveland Todd and DC about the nom

And here's the AN wording. I guess it hinges on whether these are "Doug Coldwell GAs", or if we must assume by the way I worded the AN preamble that the consensus applies to only the original 223.

All of these are DC GAs (in the sense that they will have the same issues and are subject to the CCI and presumptive deletion), and need to go through GAR, but if we are hamstrung by how I presented the AN, then shall I submit seven GARs ? We need a GAR Coord determination on whether I can submit seven GARs, and we don't have GAR Coords. If it is safest to put them through independent GARs, I can nom them, but need permission for seven. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The Cleveland ones were part of a joint DYK, so are likely to have the same enormous issues found in the Lunar samples series, so are best evaluated all together in terms of sourcing and copyright issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Besides Shearonink (already on it) and Cleveland Todd, the only editors are Bedford (banned) and The Most Comfortable Chair (inactive). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no GAR limits like there are at FAR. Maybe they're an idea worth considering, but for the moment you don't need any permission to submit seven GARs. If the nominators involved in multiple of these wish to work on them one at a time, I would suggest we just hold the other GARs open given the intent to edit. CMD (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Since it's only 8 articles, I don't see why they can't be sent to GAR separately, but if Doug has majority authorship, I would lean towards including them in the mass-delisting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a clarifying note: seven, because Shearonink is already in the process with Ramsdell Theatre via Intent to open a GAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if authorship is above say 60%, it's fine to add it to the mass delist imo. That may delay the project if you want to give noms the chance to respond and ask for an independent GAR. Nominating at GAR is fast thanks to User:SD0001/GAR-helper, and I'm happy to urge for a fast delisting there. No need for coords. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If they want to challenge the delisting at GAR, then it's their right to do so. Knowing Doug's work, it'll probably require us to go down to the public library in order to copy-vio check everything. I agree with Femke that if DC has majority authorship it's safe to mass delist. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, new info: I just realized that Cleveland Todd is CU blocked, so we really have no active editors impacted if we run these seven through the global process. Izno sorry to drag you back in here, but you may find it worthwhile to read this thread and have a look at the CU-wiki re Cleveland Todd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) relative to Doug Coldwell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Per the above, on the eight, I propose:

• 1 Shearonink already "in the system", so no need to do anything
• 1 Bedford, banned, but not mostly DC content-- normal GAR
• 3 Cleveland Todd, CU blocked, add to DCGAR-- no reason to conduct an independent GAR when there is no one to "defend" those GAs
• 1 William Morrison (chemist), clearly a DC GA, add to DCGAR
• 2 The Most Comfortable Chair, editor in good standing but inactive since September 2022, run through normal GAR (custom notification)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree no need to run a CU blocked nominator separately. CMD (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds good. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I will wait to hear from Izno because if there is a connection between Cleveland Todd and Doug Coldwell, then we already have consensus for en masse delisting, and don't need this independent consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Cleveland Todd was blocked based on factors unrelated to Doug Coldwell, and knowing why between the two of them, I'd say they're unrelated cases. Izno (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Got, it; thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've custom noticed all seven talk pages; all non-blocked/banned editors have also been noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And I've custom noticed all non-banned, active reviewers on the seven. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Heads up for potential/future GAR Coords should any standard future notices be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yea, well, I tried the script; this is not good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I have uninstalled the GAR script, and will not risk that again. The two non-DCGARs that still need to be submitted (by someone else) are Australia and the American Civil War and George Escol Sellers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Bot instructions - article talk page notice, reviewer talk page notice

Does my DC GA mass delisting bot need to do GAR manual opening steps #4 and #6? #4 is transclude the GAR discussion on the article talk page (which is normally done by bot, but it will probably be opened and closed too fast for the bot to do it). #6 is notify the reviewer on their user talk page. If so let me know and I will update the bot instruction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking at the latest page? I'm not seeing any #6. All reviewers have already been notified by the Mass Message Sender, as have all talk pages, not to mention awareness through various AN postings. I would hope the provisional/postulated Coords would waive the notification requirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We notify people in the hope they fix the article during the GAR period. As there is no GAR period here, I think it follows directly from the decision to mass delist that we do not need to notify. I don't even think we'll need to invoke WP:IAR (but I'm gladly taking responsibility if you do feel we need to invoke it). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Okie dokie, sounds like #6 was already done. Do I need to do #4? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No need to do #4 either. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." ?? We already have AN consensus to delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, no need to keep these open more than a few seconds. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Femke so now I see Manual Steps 1 through 6, hidden behind a Show collapse. A bit too late for me ... after I ventured into using GAR-helper with unpleasant results. Why are the Manual steps hidden when nothing else is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to see that incident. I hid those manual instructions on purpose, as nominating manual was quite error-prone error for newer editors (who often forget to transclude and to notify), so I'd like people to start using the script immediately. The problem is that GAR has been dormant so long that the GAR-helper script hasn't been thoroughly tested. That's changing now, and SD0001 has been fantastic in improving the script. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Femke i don't understand why the GA process is cluttering talk pages with duplicate transclusions; we consistently have the GAN and the GAR twice on the talk page. On the two I did manually, I did not add the duplicate transclusion, and I sure wish the GA process would stop doing this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not even FAR and FAC do that; why must GA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I personally like it, even though the inconsistency irks me. GA is a one-person process, so I'd like to see immediately on talk if the GA review amounted to something or not. Not a strong opinion though. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Bot flag?

It occurs to me that this will be a lot of edits (like 2000 maybe). I am about halfway done with the bot run. Think I should turn on the bot flag for my edits? It is currently off. Turning it on will keep watchlists from being spammed. Turning it off is the norm for GAR, and people may want to know about the GARs. So I am unsure.

I am pausing the bot for a couple hours while I go AFK. If folks think I should mark my edits as bot edits, when I get back, I will code it up. cc SD0001. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the one-time nature of these edits is less bot-like than the norm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a one-off. I don't think it will be too problematic, unless you're the kind of person who has Category:Good article reassessment nominees‎ watchlisted, and if you are you probably would be interested in seeing them. CMD (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep this visible, given the nature of what's going on and the fact that some editors will probably want to know about the delisting of any of these articles they happen to be watching. I do watchlist Category:Good article reassessment nominees‎, which is getting spammed, but as a one-time thing, I think we're better off keeping this visible. Hog Farm _Talk 15:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Couple of missed WP:GA subpage removals

As an aside heads up, the bot is not removing some GARs, eg. Talk:Frederick Langenheim/GA2, from the GA lists. It doesn't seem a widespread problem though. CMD (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Think I've figured this out, it's not removing those who are not in the GA list specified in their talkpage GA template. That's an error we should probably be tracking, but not something I would expect the bot should be required to handle. Should be a minor issue that can be fixed manually. CMD (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis this is why I was earlier trying to track the number of GAs, but with the bot stopped, I thik we're beyond trying to reconcile the accounting that way. I am not understanding the problem as you lay it out above ("those who are not in the GA list specified in their talkpage GA template"); can you explain more clearly? Do you mean there was an article move in the interim? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Each GA is assigned to a particular GA topic on the talkpage (we have been here before!). We have all GAs listed by topic. When Novem's script does a delist, it is meant to remove the GA from the list of GAs. It appears that it looks specifically for the list suggested by the talkpage topic, so if the GA is listed in another entry (who knows why or how), the script isn't picking it up. (I've set up a little count of GA numbers myself, and my number is slightly off from the official number, so I'm also wondering if it's issues like this that are causing it.) CMD (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. How can we find which others have similar problem? I can see that by reading through the bot's contribs, I can see that Frederick Langenheim was missed ... do we have to read through thousands of contribs to find any others ?? Or maybe we need a Petscan to show which have DGA on articlehistory but are still listed at WP:GA? But since WP:GA uses subpages, what would the petscan look like ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

GreenC bot posts them to WP:GA/MISMATCH at regular intervals, and gnomes use that page to fix them. Should be OK to create a low quantity of mismatches with the bot. The alternative would be to code the bot and GARCloser to check every WP:GA subpage, which could get a bit slow/expensive. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

ah ha ... I see. And agree. Not worth recoding the bot when we have a way to catch and fix these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't catch "live" mismatches. They probably matter in a minor way, but I doubt it's something we want a bot to fix. CMD (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis translation? That is, we don't catch them right away, but do once Greenbot runs? If that's what you mean, meh ... we need to get this job done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't catch them unless they get delisted. This is not remotely a blocker for any GAR, here or normally. CMD (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

I missed the main discussion on this until the notice showed up on my talk page, since it's been a while since I've worked on good article assessment, but I just wanted to express support for the work SandyGeorgia and others have done sorting things out. Personally, I only reviewed/failed one nomination related to this, but I was not impressed with the response. Good luck, improving the quality of the nominations makes it more rewarding to spend time writing up a review. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 00:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add my thanks as well. I've been very busy with some personal stuff over the last few months, plus I've got teaching duties this term, so I lost track of where this whole effort (which I helped instigate, thereby adding to my sense of guilt at not helping) was going. Pinging SandyGeorgia for special thanks. A special way I could help is via my access to almost all paywalled sources -- post requests to my talkpage, I guess?, or Sandy, maybe you could set up some systematic way for such requests to be pipelined to me. EEng 20:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

EEng sorry you missed all the fun; whew. I ended up with the utterly dubious honor of having initiated three bans/indefs that are now in the same AN archive, which isn't something that pleases me, considering we are only scratching the surface of copyvio and false information spread via Wikipedia.

Anyway, what I'm seeing at the CCI is really bad, so this is basically going to be a broad application of WP:PDEL, except for the few cases where editors are attempting to salvage a GA. Those are all listed above (or will be) at #Intent to open an independent GAR. Those are ones it would be good to follow closely. For example, I'm already asking for a source at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demarest Building/1 that perhaps you can find.

It's not clear to me that all of the GA reviewers understand how really bad DC content is and how really deep one has to look to find where content may have been lifted from or completely misrepresented, as he often did not attach the same citation to content as the one from which the content actually came. As things advance, it will be easier to determine how much and what kind of help we need from you; perhaps a sub-page where we ask you for sources? But let's see how it goes for now ... it takes very little looking through articles to make one realize that presumptive deletion is the best course.

You might also want to catch up on #List of invalid DYKs and other surprising things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I wish I could offer to give serious hours to helping, but I just won't be able to do that for the foreseeable future. But I renew what I said above: I have access to pretty much all paywalled sources, and so if for some reason a question comes up about what a given source says, I can easily get hold of the source to check. Sounds like the default assumption's going to be (as it well should) slash and burn without checking the sources, but I suppose there may be some special cases where consulting the source is important. So like I said, feel free to spread the word. EEng 21:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Rotolactor

Feedback needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Larry Paul Kelley

XOR'easter interested in looking at Larry Paul Kelley? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

From this obituary in a local paper (cited in Shelby Gem Factory) it sounds like he died in 2020. XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like another ... nothing but local coverage ... AFD ??? WP:BLAR to the company ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article on the company will need checking and fixing, too... but we might as well have only the one to deal with, so redirecting sounds like a sensible course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree ... I am partway through the company (derailed momentarily to deal with weekly FAR archive). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirected. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Joggins Raft Company

A minor mention in the NYT, practically an orphan. AFD ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers.com has a lot of mentions of Joggins Rafts in stories from around the 1890s, but most of them seem to be describing the act rather than the company. This short article is also just as much about the act as the company, and doesn't say whether the company was successful or how long it lasted. So I would say BLAR this article to Timber rafting. That is a long-standing article that DC made one contribution to, the These type of constructed log rafts used ... paragraph, which includes a mention of the company. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirected. XOR'easter (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Wire editor

What the heck; this kind of thing is why I don't go AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a real job – see this book description or this book discussion or this Glassdoor page. So I am pretty sure the article would survive at AfD. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, WTR; at least before I work on the CCI end, I want to start checking whether it's even worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Copy paste from PD without attribution, cleaned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Blue Ridge Music Center

Notable? No real sources given, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it merits an article, as there are a number of mentions in books about travel or traditional music and in newspaper stories. For example, this Asheville Citizen-Times piece describing its creation and rationale. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done, most not in sources, so removed all tourist sources and stubbed per WP:PDEL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Schloss Warthausen

Does anyone have Jstor to check this entire section added by DC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, it seems broadly in line with the text, but with some close paraphrasing and one item I think is a mistake. Also lacking a few of the more interesting details I found from a quick skim. CMD (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, CMD; I see XOR got this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Johnston (engraver)

I am attempting to salvage this article back into actual GA status. If anyone involved in this sadly massive GAR process wants to take a look at my GAR and post some thoughts, I think that would be helpful. I also placed some preliminary notes on the article's talk page re: all the references - Online. Or not/Reliable...or not./etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I just placed the following Notice on the GAR for the above article:
NOTICE
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the many WP:DCGAR articles. I am finished with its cleanup and am going to leave this GAR open for the next week, until Tuesday/March 7th. If there aren't any according-to-policy objections/statements, I will close the GAR at that time. Barring any unforeseen issues, I intend for the article to retain its present GA status.
Shearonink (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to close the GAR for this article. As the Reviewer, can I now do that? I know all the DC articles are somewhat suspect but I think the article meets the GA standards now. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a GAR Coord decision. They should have set up by now a message template similar to the one used at FAC and FAR so you can ping them, but I don't think they have. You should post the query at WT:GAN, and remind them to set up a template for pinging all of them at once. I am uncomfortable in general with DC GARs being individually closed, but that is not my decision to make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that's all fine but who are the GAR Coordinators? Are they listed somewhere? I'll go ahead and post at GAN but you posted just yesterday that GAN needs Coords so I'm not sure they exist yet... Shearonink (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ramsdell Theatre

Have been doing a GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ramsdell Theatre/1. I think the present state of the article is probably very close to retaining its GA designation. The article has received a major overhaul, information/statements/text/references all checked, new refs found, etc., etc.. Preliminary work only on the references being offline/online/accessible/viable can be found at Talk:Ramsdell Theatre#Working through this article's refs. I think it might be ready to keep. Feel free to weigh in, be gentle, am taking a break for a while. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This article's GAR has been closed (by Trainsandotherthings). The article has retained its GA designation. Shearonink (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Statue of John Plankinton

Notable? Small-town coverage and one non-RS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look at Template:Public art in Milwaukee, there are a large number of articles about public sculptures/statues/art in Milwaukee. They have been created by many editors; see the overview description at User:Jgmikulay (who seems no longer active). And if you look at Category:Public art templates, a similar situation exists for a number of other cities. Regarding sourcing, are you saying that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel piece is a non-RS because there is an 'In My Opinion' under the author's name? In this case I think the piece is relating some detailed historical investigations that were done and is okay to use. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not saying it is non-RS, but Milwaukee News Online (??) is not an indication of other than local interest ... there seems to be absence of coverage here, similar to Mason County Sculpture Trail. But I'm dismal at AFD, which is why I'm asking others. My reference to one non-RS was http://grandavenueshops.com/history/ I'm unclear why the template is relevant here, except that in checking several of them for notability, I didn't see any problems and saw all indexed by the Smithsonian, FWIW. Different situation here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

U.S. mail bags

How are these (all created by DC) not all redirects to one article ?

• Did You Know that ... throughout U.S. history, different types of mail bags have been called mail pouch, mail sack, mail satchel, catcher pouch, mochila saddle mailbag (pictured), and portmanteau depending on form, function, place and time?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I can maybe understand the catcher pouch as a specialized method maybe having a separate article, but there's no real difference between most of these. And is there much of a difference between Portmanteau (luggage) and Portmanteau (mail)? Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where to start on this mess. A multiple AFD ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiple AFD of all but the catcher pouch sounds good to me; agree with HF that at least that one justifies its own article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe keep the mochila article too, but not sure. It's incredible how much of these articles is completely irrelevant, such as how expensive the Pony Express was. DC simply could not grasp what an article is supposed to be. EEng 06:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have almost no experience with AFD (well, any that I do have usually went the wrong way); I don't know how to put this one together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Mochila one simply because once you get rid of charming bits like The rider would also carry a canteen of water, a gun and a small Bible that included the solemn Pony Express loyalty oath., what is left that couldn't be merged into the main article? Perhaps I'll nominate the mochila article with the others, and ask for consensus on it separately to the others? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, catcher pouch doesn't really need to be split off of Railway post office. I would support redirecting it there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia, EEng, and Hog Farm: I have nominated the lot (aside from catcher pouch), with a note that mochilla is a more marginal case than the others. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Iazyges, thank you so much; AFD just has never been on the list of Things I Know How To Do, and I am grateful for the help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Pelican Pete

Just look at the sourcing (google books turns up books about different pelicans, best I can tell). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely is a thing, see this story from Minnesota Public Radio a couple of months ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that it? Why not merge it to the town if so, because almost all of the sources there now are tourist sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've redirected the article to the page on the town. I'm old and sentimental enough to think that this encyclopedia would be poorer without the occasional local landmark and roadside attraction, and there was enough news reporting to substantiate a mention. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

And somehow this survived in the town article for three months ... Hog Farm _Talk 15:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Pelican Pete definitely deserves to be in here somewhere; these kinds of roadside attractions are classic bits of Americana. I've expanded the coverage in the town article a bit and have restored the old cats to the redirect. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Jenny Lind private railroad car

• ... that the first private railroad car was made for the singer Jenny Lind, the "Swedish Nightingale?"

The claim that this is "the first specifically outfitted private railway coach" appears to be BS. The Henry Ford Museum says [3] "Private railroad cars are nearly as old as the railroad itself. America’s first common-carrier railroad, the Baltimore & Ohio, opened in 1830. Little more than ten years later, President John Tyler traveled by private railcar over the Camden & Amboy Railroad to dedicate Boston’s Bunker Hill Monument in 1843." and this is substantiated by a contemporary newspaper article [4]. The Jenny Lind car was built about 1850. The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad was offering private cars in 1834 [5]. An accident report from the U.K. in 1845 discusses attaching a private car to a train. [6] I suspect this car isn't notable and should be taken to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, looks like another dubious first so-and-so. There isn't enough in that page to warrant a whole article, anyway, so even if the story were true it should just be redirected. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Started by DC, 94% content DC, offline sources that can't be checked; easiest to send it up to WP:CP where it's gone in seven days. Let me know if you disagree, else I'll do the WP:CP thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No objections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, will do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• The stupidity of taking on face value anything coming from P.T. Barnum claimed to be first (best, highest, biggest, or any other superlative) need hardly be pointed out. And books of firsts should be used with great caution in any event, especially if they don't cite their own sources. EEng 14:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  @EEng Also Famous First Facts states that it compiles First Happenings, Discoveries and Inventions in the United States. Taking a source that only covers one country and using it to claim an unqualified worldwide first is just daft. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Do things happen outside the US? EEng 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm told there are heathen gods such as free healthcare and functional public transport, but these are surely myths. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This claim is repeated in Private railroad car#History, it seems to have been copied from the DC article [7]? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this from the article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of GARs

As part of the DC cleanup, some DC articles have been deleted as copyvio, ok. Associated with the deletion of those articles, some old GARs of those articles have also been deleted, under WP:CSD#G8 "Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page". For instance, User:MER-C just deleted Talk:Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission/GA1, a review I wrote, for this reason. Is this appropriate? It removes the record that I reviewed the article. But if MER-C didn't delete it, some cleanup bot probably would have, for the same reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

PS @Mike Christie: this has already caused Mike Christie's GA bot to incorrectly decrease the number of reviews it thinks I have made. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

David, can you give me a diff that shows the issue? As far as I can see the bot is crediting you with 114 reviews as of today, and it credited you with 114 reviews yesterday. However, see below; if the review had been since November it would definitely have decremented it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I appear to have misremembered my review count. It appears your bot has not decremented the count. (Not that in my case it would make much difference to the review/nom ratio.) So this is not in need of any fix now but may in future. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Waiting to hear what MER-C suggests, also @Mike Christie: and potential GAR Coords, you need to set up a global pingie thingie like at FAC and FAR, so we can get you all in on how to best solve this. The FA process has only one equivalent, ANAK Society, and in that case, the talk page was also deleted. I hope we don't have to instruct the CCI people to watch out for all DC talk page article histories, as they have enough work to do already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Once again, this is an artefact of the crazy way GA pages are set up, while at FAC, we have the record saved in independent pages. I don't feel right asking the CCI people to deal with this, when they are so overworked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Not as crazy as using template namespace for nominations and reviews, as DYK does, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

But that does remind me ... at least DYK has subpages, albeit crazy ones, so that history is preserved even when the article talk page goes away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would the GA subpages be deleted? I see that G8 allows for it, but I think review pages would be worth keeping since they might contain information that would be relevant to any future recreation of the page. In fact the talk page of the article might as well stay, if the article is deleted for copyvio. Is this a perennial VP topic? If not I might suggest there that there should be some exceptions to deletions. Following up on David's comment above, as far as I can tell the bot is not decrementing review counts, but it would do so in the future if a page were to be deleted that was created since ChristieBot took over. I set it up that way because I thought the only reviews that would be deleted would be inappropriate reviews (sockpuppets and so on). I can change that, but I think it would be better to keep review pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

When the subpages are dependent on the talk page, they get deleted. Are we really going to instruct the over-worked CCI people to do something different for every DC GAR-- an extra step requiring them to check the talk page and not delete per usual? Do we really want to overwork CCI people for the sake of keeping track of GA reviews ??? That is, we will be asking the CCI people to check every talk page to make sure it was not previously submitted to GA ... which means they would have to check every article. This is not a good message to send them, as they are so overworked already.

Further, I am particularly opposed to asking this extra work of CCI people considering that a) I have been trying to get people to understand the flaws in the GA setup for years, and even today, some people don't get it; and b) the CCI people are already working overtime to address a very big very real problem that was born and bred at DYK and GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking it would less work, not more, to just leave talk pages and review pages in place, but you know their workflow better than I do, and if you feel it would be extra work for them I agree it's not worth it. I have been thinking about proposing a change away from the current review page structure, but it needs to wait till the other outcomes from the proposal drive have been implemented and people have had a chance to draw breath. That would prevent the review pages disappearing. I'm still a bit surprised that the talk pages go, though. Spoo, a featured article, was deleted, and so was the talk page, but Talk:Spoo (food) was restored -- see the discussion linked there. That seems sensible for GAs as well as FAs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Mike spoo was not like ANAK society ... it was not an outright delete, rather a merge and redirect. See Wikipedia:Former featured_articles#Media (where the FA process keeps records :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This was brought up elsewhere, but the GA subpages could be tagged with {{G8-exempt}} because they are indeed "useful to Wikipedia" (albeit in the sense that these GA subpages demonstrate how bad some of these articles were). – Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I deleted these on muscle memory. I'm not fussed what the result is - as long as I can deal with these articles in the most expedient way possible. The subpages require a little extra effort to delete, the talk page none. I check the talk pages anyway to establish whether there is any intention for a rewrite - but for not GA/FA reviews. MER-C 19:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

MER-C I think everyone on this page would probably agree to do whatever you tell us to do; what are your instructions :) Do we need to do something different when we bring these up at WP:CP? Because I've got a slew of DC work on your 16 February, 17 February pages, and stopped there wanting to be sure I was doing it right and we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. I have been adding an explanation on each I submit, but haven't been indicating if they had past GA nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been GAs and former GAs deleted in the past, yet there are no GA reviews in the G8 exemption category. MER-C 19:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

So unless someone tells me otherwise, I will continue processing the CCI per usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I would err on not deleting them. Similarly, I've noticed many moved GAN/GARs are having their redirect deleted, this also feels like something that should be avoided if possible. CMD (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

G8-exempt tags on subpages

David Eppstein did you remember to put a {{G8-exempt}} on any GA talk subpage you want saved ? In a few days, those I sent up to WP:CP will start being processed after the 7-day wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to exempt all of them, as it makes scraping GA history far easier. Would there be any objections to me adding that tag to all of them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not from me; I am most interested in doing it in whatever way makes for less work for MER-C. I have G8-exempt tagged those that will come up tomorrow and the next day, so we have time before the next batch (three days from now). I just don't want to add to MER-C's work to require them to check every blooming DC talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ps, Mike, you're talking about several hundred tags! Are you planning to do that manually ? Or maybe you can just watch WP:CP for those coming up ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

See user:SandyGeorgia/sandbox10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to cause extra work for MER-C. What I've been doing over the last week or two for deleted talk pages of GAs is getting them restored at [{WP:RFU]]. (I do think there are multiple reasons to not delete them, since even if the article doesn't get recreated, the existence of the talk page and its history gives other editors background on why it might be problematic to recreate.) It's not that common to delete a GA, so there's only been a handful -- maybe eight or ten. So since these are all coming in a group, would it make the most sense to just let MER-C know none of the talk pages should be deleted? I can certainly add the tag to all of them (it's probably only an hour or so's work) but if we do it by tag someone has to actually check the pages, whereas if the deleter knows none should be deleted it's less work, since they don't have to check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever MER-C wants ... you can scroll through WP:CP to see those coming up. I can also flag them there if that is easier for MER-C. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

OK -- MER-C, please let us know what is the least work for you -- I'm happy to tag these with G8-exempt if that's easiest, or if it's quicker for you to not even bother to check the talk page when you know it's a DC GA, then that works too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please flag them. I do check the talk pages, but I am very likely to check the "delete associated talk page" box by habit. MER-C 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, MER-C. Mike, I will go through WP:CP and flag them up there, because who knows, maybe some other admin who hasn't followed these discussions will come along to start giving MER-C a hand :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, Mike, I've flagged the (one open) AFD, and flagged everything with a GA subpage now at WP:CP, and will continue to do so for any I send up there. But. It occurs to me that once MER-C goes through those, we may still need to add G8-exempt on the subpages for whichever articles are deleted, so an admin won't come along years from now and delete the pages. I think the easiest way for all of us to track these is to follow User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox10, and note when an article is deleted so the G8-exempt can be added to the GA subpage left behind... I will try to remember to do that as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -- I had a look at that sandbox (and have watchlisted it) and at WP:CP, but I'm not sure you've left me anything to do! Did I misunderstand you? Sounds like you're going to do the tagging yourself? I'd be happy to do it but would have to ask a question or two about those pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct: that is, best I can tell, nothing you need to do now. As MER-C processes those at WP:CP, my plan is to update the status in my sandbox10. There you will be able to check any that need a G8-exempt added, since not all will be deleted (some may be stubbed). That is, any that I eventually mark as deleted at CCI will need a talk page check vis-a-vis G8-exempt tags.

Once we get a system going, I will move my sandbox to a subpage of this page, so everyone can help out, but I want to leave about another week so we can figure out how it will all work. We've dealt with the GA delistings, but as you can see from my sandbox, there's still a mountain of work ahead on the CCI front. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops, Mike Christie you will need to double check the lists at #Doug's failed GANs; my sandbox is only DGAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Actually, since I see a couple are already deleted, and the list is not very long, I think I'll wait till it's all over and then just post what I need restored at WP:RFU. Thanks again. And if I haven't said it already, thanks for field-marshalling this whole affair. It needed to be done and you have made it happen as efficiently as anyone could have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks; what a miserable experience. When it all started, I did not envision having to take such a large role, but I guess the timing was really awful (in the midst of the GA proposal drive, and with no GAR Coords in place to take it all on). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Mike, here's one to ask Liz to refund: Talk:Charlie H. Hogan/GA1 (G8-exempt for record keeping on DC Good articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie on the WP:CP pages, I am marking the DGAs and FGANs so MER-C won't delete the talk pages, and MER-C is not. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 February 27 as a sample. However, Liz is deleting the talk pages before I can get to them with a {{G8-exempt}}. Sample: Talk:Louis Timothee. I really can't keep up with these and you will need to find a system that works across the board for your GA recordkeeping. I will update the list in my sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry this has caused extra work; I do think it's worth it and am happy to do what's needed. I see that {{G8-exempt}} is written to be used after the deletion. Given there's little doubt that these pages will be deleted, do you think it would be a problem if I were to go through the ones listed at WP:CP and add it to the talk pages? If that's OK I'll just make a pass through WP:CP every day or two; if it's a problem I'll probably have to ask for them all back at RFU but that's OK too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is I can't be sure they will be deleted ... yes, you could go through WP:CP and add the exempt tag to all that might be deleted that I have flagged as DGAs or FGANs. Not sure what else to do ... I just know I won't be able to keep up with them. I'm taking on a new volunteer commitment that is going to cut in to my time over the next few months ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll add the tag, probably starting tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie my watchlist just went nuts because you tagged everything at WP:CP. I'm not sure we have a record-keeping justification beyond those with a GA history, and only about half of them have a GA history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did it by a sort of semi-automated process that meant I wasn't paying proper attention to the contents of the talk pages. I'll go back through and undo as needed and will be more careful from now on. Sorry about that; I think I subconsciously forgot that there would be non-GA articles to deal with too, since Doug was so driven about getting everything to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you missed the 28th Feb, done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie I'd like to archive this section of this talk page, as I think we have a working system now. To the best of my knowledge, only Talk:Charlie H. Hogan/GA1 has not been recovered. David Eppstein did you get what you needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I tagged the ones I found of mine as G8-exempt. If I later find out that I missed any I can always undelete it myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)