User talk:RedWolf/2021 Archive

Your GA nomination of Tibesti Mountains
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tibesti Mountains you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tibesti Mountains
The article Tibesti Mountains 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:Tibesti Mountains for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tibesti Mountains
The article Tibesti Mountains you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tibesti Mountains 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Tibesti Mountains FA?
Hi RedWolf, thank you very much for all your help with the Tibesti Mountains good article review (especially your accidental nomination!). I am tempted to nominate the article as a FA candidate, but I'm a bit worried that life might get in the way and I might drop the ball. Once upon a time I nominated the article, but I never got around to responding to the review, the candidacy was eventually forfeited, and I felt quite bad about having the reviewer do all that work for nothing.

I would feel more comfortable with nominating for FA if there was someone else who could potentially pick up the slack or at least keep the candidacy alive in case I get distracted. I will do my best to undertake any work required as I did with the GA, but it's a bit tough to predict the future at the moment. Would you be willing to help with a candidacy in that regard? Brycehughes (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, reading your response to the GA review, you could also nominate it yourself, which would probably take care of this issue! Re the sources, my big problem is that I don't have access to many of them anymore. Brycehughes (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume your silence means no on both counts, so I'll go ahead and nominate it myself. Thanks again for your help. Brycehughes (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been away from the wiki for several days so I hadn't gotten around to looking at the FA criteria. I just now looked at it and I think the contentious issue will be the "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". The sources that are listed appear to be high-quality but since many are in French, I cannot verify the claims myself. So if the reviewer questions any claims related to these sources I would be unable to provide a proper answer. I'll certainly try to give assistance if I can when the FA reviewer submits their initial comments. RedWolf (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! I submitted the FA and things seem to be going reasonably smoothly (for now anyway). Thanks for getting back. Brycehughes (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of mountains of British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mount Fisher (British Columbia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hughes Range.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fiddle Peak
Hello RedWolf, looking at this adaption, I was wondering why you added the extra date since it evokes an unsupported parameter. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * also here Lotje (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Glacier Peak (Canadian Rockies) too Lotje (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lotje (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * old-accessdate? Lotje (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I strongly suspect that when I added it, it didn't trigger the CS1 error at the time; if it had, I probably would have fixed it then. Peakfinder went through a major update a year or two ago which broke all the existing references. When I fixed the links on some pages, I wanted to preserve the original access date to reflect Peakfinder had been used as a reference for a very long time rather than what would be reflected in the new access date. RedWolf (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you RedWolf, I'll keep this in mind. :-) Lotje (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"Mount Fisher" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mount Fisher. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bryan Adams WUTN.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bryan Adams WUTN.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This file had been used since February 18, 2004 on Waking Up the Neighbours with proper fair use rationale. It was replaced on August 22, 2021 by File:Bryan Adams-WUTN.png for unknown reasons. RedWolf (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Jar of Flies
Hello RedWolf, When you have a moment, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article for Alice in Chains' Jar of Flies to see if that warrants being reclassified as an album rather than an EP since it clocks in (just barely) over the 30-minute mark. Although I'm not the first user to bring this up in it's talk page, I did start a new discussion. As tempting as it is to take the bull by the horns, I know it's better to establish a consensus before making changes of this sort. Thank you for your time and kind consideration. Shaneymike (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. At first glance, classified as an album rather than an EP seems logical. However, I have not been actively involved in WikiProject Albums for some time so others associated with that project can probably provide better guidance on this. I suggest you post a link to the subject you created on the article's talk page onto the talk page of WikiProject Albums. RedWolf (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I will do that. Shaneymike (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Re your edit to Agassiz Peak Comment
I noticed you edit of Agassiz Peak. It resulted in bogus data. Infobox mountain currently always rounds elevations and prominences that are multiples of 10. It uses Convinfobox to make the conversion of feet to meters and meters to feet etc. It rounds the resulting value as if the trailing zeros are not significant. (as does the Convert. See this section on Rounding for more information and how to avoid it. I tried to explain this to Hike395. We reached an impasse (i.e. I blow my cork) and I quit contributing for some time. I can see that at times that type of rounding might be OK but it usually not reflect the data found in the source. I hope this makes scene. &#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  19:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If undefined undefined and do the same rounding behavior, how does my change to not use the Convert template make a difference? Or did I misunderstand what you said? RedWolf (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare the elevation in meters on the older version (3,767 m) and the new version (3,770 m). it is analogous to:
 * 12,360 ft gives 12,360 ft
 * 12,360 ft gives 12,360 ft
 * Peakbagger gives "12,360 ft / 3767 m". The template Template:Convinfobox as used in the infobox template behaves the same way. If this is not clear let me know.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  00:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * So nice having this little talk. I might be back in a year of two.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  22:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)