Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.

	This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.

The article SMS Albatross (1871) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Albatross (1871) for comments about the article, and Talk:SMS Albatross (1871)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Wolf (1878) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article SMS Wolf (1878) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Wolf (1878) and Talk:SMS Wolf (1878)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Adler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GGOTCC -- GGOTCC (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article SMS Wolf (1878) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Wolf (1878) for comments about the article, and Talk:SMS Wolf (1878)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Hi, sorry for tag bombing your new article, I was just looking at new articles in recent changes, and noticed that yours didn't have any sources, so I naturally gave it the unreferenced tag. Apologies about that. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I understand what you're doing, but some editors find it grating to have tags applied when they're in the middle of editing a page (since it can cause edit conflicts). I also don't see a lot of value in simply tagging articles for the sake of tagging them; I'd just as soon solve the problem if I can. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia policies, so I'll be a bit more careful in the future. Have a nice day (or night). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yeah, I had seen on your userpage you started editing just last year - I'm not a whole lot from 20 years (so I probably ought to keep in mind that not everyone has been around even half that long). Mid-afternoon here, so a nice day is still in the cards, and the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article SMS Adler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Adler for comments about the article, and Talk:SMS Adler/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GGOTCC -- GGOTCC (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit to SMS Habsburg (1865) you add {{sfn|Ziegler|pp=16–17, 21}}. Unfortunately this causes a no-target error. There are three Ziegler sources listed in the article, Ziegler 1870, Ziegler 1871, and Ziegler 1872. If you could fix the error it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, of course it's the last thing I did before I got up ;) Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Okay, fair enough. It was done in good faith. I didn't see how I was making it less precise or harder to edit. I have been chided by many admins in the past on leaving refs stacked like that. Boo Boo (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page - "I didn't see how it hurt. Had been taken to task for leaving refs stacked like that. It was done in good faith, and I've never been criticized for putting it in this style. When I edit pages, it is the style I was told to use by admins. The parentheses are to make it more conforming to Chicago MoS. I HAVE been criticized for leaving it in the tsyle it is now, HOWEVER, since you object and are taking ownership of the article, I'll leave it. Take care and have a good weekend. Boo Boo (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)"[reply]

Nerts! I went back and looked at the reversions I missed on this article. I missed your comments. Sorry, again, done in good faith. Boo Boo (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a huge deal - I was probably more frustrated with IRL stuff anyway - I'm sorry if I came off angry. No harm done, have a nice weekend. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]