User talk:Grutness

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page!

I've moved earlier discussions to archive pages (as listed below). A few of the items I've simply got rid of - if I have, it's simply that it was trivial and/or stuff which has been dealt with, and is therefore no longer relevant. The deletion is not a reflection of my opinion of the writers!

Archives

10/04-01/05	02/05	03-04/05	04-05/05
05/05	06/05	07/05: 1	07/05: 2
08/05	09/05: 1	09/05: 2	10/05
11/05	12/05	01/06	02/06
03-04/06	05-06/06	07-08/06	09-10/06
11-12/06	01/07	02-03/07	04-05/07
06/07	07-08/07	09-10/07	11-12/07
01-02/08	03-04/08	05/08	06-07/08
08-09/08	10/08	11-12/08	01/09
02-03/09	04-05/09	06-07/09	08/09-6 Jan 10
01-06/10	07-11/10	12/10-02/11	03-12/11
2012	01-06/13	07-12/13	2014
2015	2016	01-09/2017	10-12/2017
01-06/2018	07-12/2018	2019	2020
2021	2022	2023	2024
2025	2026*	*	*

* = still to archive

Happy New Year! (2026)

Alexeyevitch^(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I randomly remembered that you were the only Wikipedian I added a New Year's message to last year, so I might as well do it again. Either way, Happy New Year to you. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Alexeyevitch:! Already 1/1/26 here... hope you have a great new year too! Grutness...wha? 14:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Women's Bay, Barbados

The article Women's Bay, Barbados has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Found mentions, but no in-depth content.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved it to its correct name Woman's Bay, and added a couple of easily found references. The previous references were removed by someone at some point. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Manawatū Plains for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manawatū Plains is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manawatū Plains until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started (2)

Hi Grutness. Thank you for your work on Woodhaugh Gardens. Another editor, Kingsacrificer, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

You have referenced the same source multiple times, creating a new entry each time. Please find a way to reuse one source in multiple places.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsacrificer}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsacrificer (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer: Yes, I started that page - 13 years ago, as a redirect. The person who turned it into an article and did the multiple referencing is User:Smithandjosh. I will remedy the references, however. Grutness...wha? 11:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The tool sent my message to you as the creator, I suppose. Thanks for taking it up either way. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Lake Reporoa

Is only currently mentioned and named in en:wikipedia in the article Reporoa Caldera so why remove Category:Former lakes of New Zealand ? ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Because the redirect Lake Reporoa is already in that category, as I discovered after adding it to Reporoa Caldera (and then reverting myself). Grutness...wha? 02:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, no expert on categorisation rules. ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you! Grutness...wha?

Terminating vistas

What is a terminating vista (re the category Category:Terminating vistas in India)?RegentsPark (comment) 17:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Terminating vista Schwede66 18:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! RegentsPark (comment) 18:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Cheers Schwede66 - beat me to it! Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Players of United States of America

The article Players of United States of America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced; no sources that this team even existed.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It took ten seconds on Google to find sources that the team existed. It would have been far more worth your while doing that than spending a lot longer prodding the article and contacting me. BTW, it already had a couple of sources, so...Grutness...wha? 11:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Phlogiston Enthusiast: Thank you! Grutness...wha? 01:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The Catlins

Hello, are you still interested in this article? I don't believe it is up to FA quality and issues brought up on the talk page have not been addressed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Haven't looked at it in years! I'll have a look at the talk page queries. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Dunedin club

Hi Grutness, I am part of a Wikipedia club that meets at Otago University weekly on Fridays. It is led by User:DrThneed (Tamsin), who is a librarian at the Central Library. This week we will be meeting on Thursday since it is Good Friday. Here is our page. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought you will be interested since you live in the Dunedin area. Andykatib (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll try to get along to some of the meetings. Unfortunately I often work Fridays and tend to keep odd hours, but I'll see what can do. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Grutness, no worries. Take care and have a good weekend. Andykatib (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Port Chalmers Maritime Museum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Port Chalmers Maritime Museum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Chalmers Maritime Museum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

New article draft for Panasonic camera

Hi Grutness, I see that you are interested in photography and have a lot of experience creating new articles here on Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be willing to help me with the draft that I've been working on for the Panasonic LUMIX S1II here. I think my draft covers all the relevant facts and is in line with the articles for similar cameras, but because I have a conflict of interest, I understand that a neutral editor should move the draft to main space. I'd appreciate you reviewing and cleaning up where you see fit. Thanks for your time. LRGino (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but it won't be tonight (it's 1am here in NZ!) Grutness...wha? 13:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Grutness, thanks so much! Let me know if you have any questions. LRGino (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mount Charles (Antarctica)

The article Mount Charles (Antarctica) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub that is just a copy of the GNIS entry, has never been expanded in over 10 years

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles that are "simply copies of GNIS entries" are very easy to find on Wikipedia. There are hundreds, if not thousands of them. In many cases, they are the only online source, but contain significant encyclopedic information. It would be very rae for them to be expanded further. Grutness...wha?

Île de la Lande moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Île de la Lande. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: The rules on Wikipedia must have changed. This is no different from the several thousand geographical stubs which I have started over the last 20 years. The article used information from the French-language Wikipedia, where there are references, with a hatnote asking for expansion. Such article-for-translation requests usually regard references on the foreign-language article as sufficient. In any case, most people find it is far simper to add a reference than to go through the process of draftifying an article. If you find an article with no references, please consider doing that first. The article is now back in mainspace. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has been unsourced for ten nine days. Given the supposed ease of adding sources and your long history of creating articles, why haven't you sourced the article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: Family emergency. My wife has terminal cancer and was in hospital. If you look you will see that I did very little editing at all over the last few days (102 edits in the last nine days - about 10% of what I normally do). I see someone removed the reference I posted about half an hour after I added it. I've added some more. BTW, since the article was only created nine days ago, how could it have been unsourced for 10 days? As it was, I added references as soon as I got your message - it took two minutes. BTW, revoking my user rights is extremely heavy-handed, and seems in complete violation of WP:AGF, and disingenuous given your seemingly arbitrary mention of "three references" - which in neither policy nor guideline. Other that the article under discussion, all of the last six had references, and four of them had multiple references. Grutness...wha? 15:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[edited 16:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)]

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I have personal experience with close members of my family going through treatment for stage IV cancer, so I greatly empathize.

I also apologize for the calculation error about the number of days. I thought today was July 20, not 19. Regardless leaving an article unsourced for nine days is not what I would expect from an autopatrolled creator.

That said, Looking back to February 2021, you have created 50 articles (to my count), not including redirects or DABs. Of those 50, 4 were unsourced, 12 had 1 source, and 11 had 2. Even if we ignore the 3+ argument (which is often held up at AFD), 16 of your last 50 articles created failed to meet N as they did not have "multiple" sources, which is policy.

I would not expect someone who is autopatrolled to be creating articles where at least 50 percent have questionable notability and about a third do not meet the standard of having multiple sources. Many may meet NGEO even with fewer than three sources, but this list also included BLPs and other non-place articles. If you disagree with my assessment, I'm happy to have someone look it over. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

To quote WP:N - There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. "Generally expected" is not the same as "mandatory". WP:N goes on to say In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. I feel that I have done that. It further says Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. As such, small number of references does not mean an article "failed to meet N". Please be aware of what a policy or guideline actually says before you run with it. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, so change my wording from failed to meet N to failed to establish or demonstrate N. As such, these articles may not have been patrolled by NPP without improvement. Thus, the AP user right does not make sense. Again, you are free to request that another administrator review whether you should have the autopatrol user right. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In most of the 16 instances you cite, however, notability was established, despite only having one set of references. Very few of the new articles failed to establish notability. And if you, or anyone else, feel that I have not added sufficient references for an article, I would expect you (or them) to again follow WP:N and If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator. In this particular instance, rather than asking me, you simply boilerplated me and moved the article to draft. Not friendly, not appropriate. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur, Significa liberdade. Boilerplating an editor who has been around since soon after Wikipedia was set up is inappropriate. It’s not something that I would ever do. If there’s an issue, bring it up and see where a discussion leads to. Revoking autopatrolled feels heavy-handed. Schwede66 05:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This thread came up on my watchlist, so let me see if I can be helpful here. Perhaps I am missing some part of the discussion, so let me ask @Significa liberdade: did you raise any concerns with Grutness about his article-creations or editing prior to revoking the userright? I understand that as a new-page patroller you want to ensure that articles are properly sourced, but having such a discussion first would seem appropriate in the case of any good-faith editor, let alone one with Grutness's tenure. I'm curious whether there was a reason that didn't happen in this instance. The point is not that long-time editors are exempt from standards; it is that there was every reason to expect it would be fruitful to discuss first what you perceive current standards are, whether in fact they are not being met, and how Grutness would respond to your observations. For that matter, I'm not seeing where Grutness was actually told of the revocation even after the fact, other than in a log summary (but again, I'm open to the possibility I'm missing something). Grutness, to your observation that the rules on Wikipedia must have changed, I think it is fair to say that expectations on sourcing have indeed increased over the years. I anticipate that the outcome of this discussion will be a restoration of your userright, but including an extra source or two up front in new articles might be a sensible adjustment to make. And of course I join in the sympathy for your family health issue, and SL's as well. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for your input. To answer a couple of your queries, my first contact with Significa liberdade was her boilerplate telling me that the article had been draftified, and I only found out about the rights revocation through the log summary (and I can see no direct mention of it in her comments to me, though maybe I've overlooked it. As it was, I added a reference as soon as she brought it to my attention — s I would hve done if she'd just asked or queried it with me, as I implied above. And thank you — and SL — for your comments on Joy's health. Grutness...wha? 16:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Schwede66: When I draftified the article, I did not take the time to look into who the editor was. While reviewing articles for NPR, I came across an article that had been unsourced for over a week, so I used the MoveToDraft script to move to draftspace (a recommended practice in NPP, regardless of who the editor is). You are free to restore the user right, but personally, if Grutness came to PERM asking for it today (without it previously having it), he would likely be denied. This is not a user right that personally benefits the editor in any way, which is why I didn't find it necessary to discuss. You're correct that I may have erred in that sense. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It was certainly helpful while I was working more regularly than I am now, and often creating around 100 stub articles per day, something which might happen again. Now, it simply seems like a hefty downgrading in status and a psychological loss of significant honour within the Wikipedian community. I am not ashamed to say that it kept me awake most of last night. Oh, and FWIW, when I did WP:NPP work for a few years, I always checked whether the editor was experienced or a newbie. It makes a huge difference as to how the article's future is handled. Grutness...wha? 16:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding to this, my concern is not that Grutness cannot respond to queries. Sure, if I said, "Please add more sources to these articles," he likely would do so. However, that goes against the purpose of the autopatrol user right. Editors receive no benefit from the user right, with the sole purpose to help with the backlog. As I stated, Grutness has created about 50 actual articles in the past five years, about half of which I found contained issues at the time he stopped working on them. This is not what I would expect from an autopatrolled editor. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll also note that looking at the talk page above, Grutness has been notified of potential deletion for his articles multiple times. Sometimes, the articles are merged, sometimes sources are added. Commonly, Grutness's response is to tell the editor who informed them that that editor should have taken the time to improve the article. Again, this is not what I would expect from an AP editor; their articles should be good enough when they stop working on them. That said, I accept the criticism regarding my communication. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

...and you're automatically assuming that I was the articles' creator. Sigh. I have been arguably the busiest member of WP:WSS. As such I have edited and stub-sorted literally tens of thousands of articles that were no more than two or three lines long. It's inevitable that I get notified when these are prodded or sent to AFD, since often all editors who have been involved in the editing of articles are notified. It doesn't mean that I started them — but it means I often end up sourcing references for them. In plenty of other cases, I created a page as a redirect, and someone else has later created an article from it. In those cases, probably numbering in the hundreds, I created the page but not the article, but still get notified. See, for example, here and here. Grutness...wha? 17:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I was looking at the current deletion notifications on your talk page, all of which appear to be for articles you created.

• You created Mount Charles (Antarctica) in 2014, and it was PRODed as a GNIS copy without sourcing beyond GNIS. GNIS is of questionable reliability regarding notability. You dePRODed, but you didn't improve the article.
• You created Port Chalmers Maritime Museum in March 2025, and it was later merged per consensus. You had sourced it almost entirely from primary sources.
• You created Players of United States of America as an unsourced stub in September 2021, and it was still unsourced in March 2026, when it was PRODed by 331dot. You dePRODed it with the edit summary, Bollocks. Plenty of sources that the team existed. Try <https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/First_Class/Overall/Players/Oldest_Players.html> to start with. Sure, 331dot could have looked for sources, but you should have added them upon creation as a seasoned content creator. However, 331dot tagged it for notability concerns with the edit summary, when I marked with PROD, there were no sources provided. Now, no sources about the team itself, just team members.
• You created Manawatū Plains in 2004, and it was AfD'ed this year, at which point it was completely unsourced. I won't hold this 22-year-old article against you, though, especially since sources were added at it was kept.
• You created Woman's Bay in 2006, and it was PRODed this year by JoeNMLC. At the time of PRODing, it had zero sources. This is another 20-year-old article, so I won't hold you to current standards when it was created. You dePRODed and added some sources.
• You created List of city and town nicknames in New Zealand in 2017, and it was AFD'ed to speedy keep, so I won't hold it against you.
• You created Long Island, Bermuda in 2005, and it was PRODed in 2025 by Bearian. In Bearian's rationale, they stated, Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Small island. Unlikely to find sources due to many islands with similar names. No other language's article has any citations either. This reads to me like they spent time looking for sources to improve the article. You dePRODed and added some sources, which is fine. However, you also did not AGF in responding to Bearian on your TP, writing, I would guarantee it took less time to find references than it did to add a prod to this article and notify me. Perhaps you should try something like that next time, especially since verifiable places are never normally deleted. Perhaps Bearian erred, but this is quite a snippy, non-AGF response, and isn't AGF what you were originally asking for here?

Before you make claims that you didn't create the pages being nominated for deletion (and thus, ABF), I recommend you actually look at the notices on your talk page to ensure that what you're saying is accurate. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

(outdent) I am indeed inclined to restore the userright, but will leave this thread open for a short while longer in case any other admins are seeing this converation and wish to weigh in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I concur with restoring AP. I see that I assigned it to Grutness some years ago. I assessed editors for AP for several years, so I'm well aware of what it is, Significa liberdade. Schwede66 18:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps Grutness's article creations were better prior to 30 June 2022, when you granted the user right. Again, I'm fine if you choose to reinstate the user right, but I recommend that you evaluate Gruntness's recent work the same as you would any other editor who applies for it at PERM. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I make a good effort to search for reliable sources, but sometimes I miss things. I've never been accused of being perfect. I'm always happy when someone proves me wrong about a prod and rescues an article. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

oookaay.

• I created Mount Charles (Antarctica) from a GNIS article. That is common practice and is usually all the referencing that is needed. Being an unexpanded stub for 10 years is not normally a rationale for prodding.
• I created Long Island, Bermuda — which is the only "Long Island" in Bermuda. Bearian and I have known each other on Wikipedia for a long time. A little banter is not a denial of good faith. Apologies if it was not seen as such.
• I created Port Chalmers Maritime Museum, and sourced it largely from local newspapers.
• I acknowledge fault on the Players of United States of America article.

BTW - you say I have started only 50 new articles since 2021? Are you including the former redirects that I expanded into articles? Grutness...wha? 05:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like further back-and-forth between the two of you isn't likely to be helpful. I'll take care of the permissions restoration in the morning (don't want to do it on mobile). Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the restoring! Grutness...wha? 05:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As a response:

• Creating an article from GNIS may be common practice, but at AFD, GNIS is often not considered a reliable source for establishing NGEO. This may have been a bad PROD, but the article still needs additional sources.
• On March 4, 2025, Port Chalmers Maritime Museum had six sources, four of which were from the museum.
• I did not include articles you started from redirects, so there will be errors there. I looked through contributions and filtered for new article creations, then ignored DABs and redirects. Perhaps the articles created from redirects are better.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Let. it. go. Six prods, of which you accept that four could be given the benefit of doubt, over the last 18 months. Grutness...wha? 12:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, I have restored your "autopatrolled" status. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 15:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:CfD/Television series debuts and endings by year

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 August 5 § Television series debuts and endings by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Users with Extended Rights Conference 2026

Kia ora Grutness, thank you for all the work you do as an admin! We wanted to let you know that the first ever Users with Extended Rights Conference is taking place in Portugal, 11-13 December 2026, and there are scholarships available for editors such as yourself. Get more info here, and apply for a scholarship here. Applications are open until 4 September 2026. As always, please reach out if we can be of any assistance! – Sophie from WANZ Hillmenco (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

DYK for 1879 Octagon fire

On 28 September 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1879 Octagon fire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dunedin's 1879 Octagon fire was the third major disaster in Otago within a year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1879 Octagon fire. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (1879 Octagon fire), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Launchballer 00:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Morrisons, New Zealand

A new page Morrisons (Nouvelle-Zélande) on the French Wikipedia has been linked to your page Morrisons, New Zealand via Wikidata (Q18011291).

You will not be notified in the future about new articles linked to any of the articles you have created, if you wish to opt-in to receiving these notifications, please follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Grutness. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 02:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 02:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you! Grutness...wha? 02:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Grutness. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) 05:03, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) 05:03, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you! Grutness...wha? 03:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Wishing Grutness a very happy first edit day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Rencoolguy (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! Grutness...wha? 03:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Grutness, I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day! Have a great day! ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

• Cheers, P! Grutness...wha? 03:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mass media in Reuver

A tag has been placed on Category:Mass media in Reuver indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know who emptied all these mass media categories, but presumably they have some idea of what they're doing. They seem to be too determined to fight anyway. Delete away. Grutness...wha? 15:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)