Hi Wehwelt; Your FA star on your User page is currently not linking to this article; it appears to be ambiguous now that the younger Princess Charlotte (b.2015) has a GA article. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Fixed, many thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Princess Charlotte is still not linking from her star on your User page even though the years appear to now be showing. Separately, I've notice that you seem to like Puccini and Rogers and Hammerstein. Those opera writers also had a high regard for Bach. I've recently completed the Bach upgrade effort to GA, and then a peer review to try to move the article towards FAC; would you have any thoughts about possibly joining in for the effort for the Bach page as a co-nomination for FAC? Any thoughts about joining in? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[]

I'm really not that familiar with Bach, except what Gerda has taught me. I'm not sure what I could add. Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Your Puccini articles were super and also your Rogers and Hammerstein articles; I'm quite sympathetic to Bach's versions of his operettas such as his Coffee Cantata. If the Bach article looks well-written enough after the GA and the Peer Review which I've already done, then it might be nice if the article goes straight to a FAC co-nomination with you after you have a chance to read through it and make any changes you see as making the Bach article better. Any possible interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[]

I'll look over the article by this weekend. I have to give the March TFAs a final read over first. Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[]

ErnestKrause, I'll do it as long as it's understood that someone else answers substantive issues at FAC. I don't have the background in Bach the way I did for opera. Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Yes, I'm good with that. Would you like to take a day or so to go through the article and make any appropriate edits for quality of prose, conciseness, etc? Or, is it ready for co-nomination at this time from your reading? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Yes, give me a couple of days. Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Those edits look better added in the article; I've added some text in response to your hidden text and you can modify/change/alter as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[]

That's good. I would finish all the hidden comments, whether they can be acted upon or not, remove them and then go ahead with the nomination. Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I've gone ahead with it and you can add your signature to the co-nomination whenever you are ready. I've just received a note from Aza on the Bach Talk page where I've left an answer. She had shown, many months ago last year, a possible interest in the Bach page improvement many months ago, and then she disappeared from further participation for many weeks. I then contacted you, and now that I've place the nomination she has returned as a full surprise to me. Her comments are on the Bach Talk page if you could look for it there. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I read it. Hopefully she will come on board. If not, well, we'll take our best swing at it. Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Agree. I've started in on the comments and have done the alt text requested for images throughout the article; more edits on the way. One or two words about Aza from several months ago is that her plan at that time involved doing something like a thirty paragraph comprehensive summary addition of all Bach's compositions to the article as her preference, before she appeared to disappear from the editing of the article for many months. I've mentioned to her back then that there are FA article like Tchaikovsky which do not take that approach but she appeared to be insistent. Maybe you could start in with some of the edits requested by the 3 editors who have already responded at FAC, since my computer access at our computer site here is closing for the evening in about 30 minutes. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I'm about done for the evening, I will look at them in the morning. If Aza can be made happy, that is the best course for all. Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I did a few of them and will look again tomorrow. EK, can you send me an email and I will respond? It may be useful to brainstorm things offline. Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I'll try to think of something for this brainstorming access since our public computer center has been restricted to website access only without email usage for the past few months due to misuse. In the meantime for semi-offline brainstorming you can make additions on my Talk page on Wikipedia and 'archive' or 'delete' them immediately; I'll then be able to find them and respond accordingly. You can let me know if that works. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

OK, if I need to I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Reading Aza's latest, what are your thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Long version of answer to both of her recent additions together.

I'm seeing Aza's latest separate comments both on the Talk page for Bach and also in the FAC section today. The first issue I'll mention is that she is opposed to the approach taken in the Tchaikowsky FA which does not include an extensive Music section like the one that she likes in her own previous FA music biographies. Instead she feels that only her preferred approach of a comprehensive 30-paragraph Music section of Bach (currently in progress in her own Sandbox version) would allow her to use her preferred FA music biography format as being distinct from equally valid FA formats like the one which other editors used to previously get a promotion of the Tchaikowsky article to FA. Second there is her comment about old sources versus new sources being used for Bach biographical material which seems to come up periodically as an issue on Wikipedia for different biographical articles in the past; one editor will prefer one set of biographical authorities and another editor who might prefer another separate set of equally reliable biographical authorities. Aza appears to feel that only her own selection of Bach biographical authorities should be allowed and no others; she appears not to recognize that other editors can prefer their own set of reliable sources for Bach's biography as is currently done in the present version of the Bach article. At some point, it is optional as to which set of Bach biographical authorities are used as fully reliable sources for writing a comprehensive article.

Third, Aza appears to wish to now take a trip or holiday at the precise time that the Bach article has been nominated and therefore leaves her criticisms prominently placed on the FAC page apparently without any time to address the apparent demi-issues which she tries to raise. That's not quite how Wikipedia works; namely either you are making criticisms from the viewpoint of defending them, or, perhaps she shouldn't be making them to start with if she knows she is departing for extended travels. I'm finding it a little sursrizing that after she went silent for 2-3 months with no answer to my multiple pings on her Talk page, on my Talk page, on the Bach Peer Review page, and on her sandbox version of her newly proposed Bach Music section, then that she now suddenly appears full of energy within minutes of the Bach FAC nomination made yesterday. That sounds sursprizing to me and still unexplained; that is, she completely seems to disappear for months, and then suddenly reappears only when the article in nominated by someone other than herself. Maybe you can try to figure this out. Otherwise your edits on the Bach page look very good and the article is being improved and enhanced based on the other participants responding. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

OK. I will put more work in tomorrow. Some of the reference formatting needs a work over. I did some of that today, but there's more to be done. Some of the comments need your attention since you have a better grasp of the literature than I have. I will do some more reading on Bach, and over a little longer term, I will see where I can get reduce reliance on the older sources. Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Close by Ian this morning for added editing noted. Is it a good idea to continue into round two of editing? I'm not sure where Aza is going with her trips at the end of the month though it leaves things open to go into a second phase of editing; it starting to look like she is only going to let her own envisioned future version of the article go forward. Is a second phase of editing of interest for you? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I'm probably not the best person to build the article, more to polish once it's built. I suggest taking a break and seeing what happens next. Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi @Wehwalt. Apologies for contacting you out of the blue but I was wondering whether you be willing to take a look at my featured article nomination for Bella Ramsey's page? I noticed you’ve recently reviewed Robert Pattison’s FAC, and I’d really value any feedback or suggestions you had. Thanks! Crp74 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

I will try to get to it. It may be a few days. Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks @Wehwalt. That would be much appreciated. Kind regards, Crp74 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi @Wehwalt. If you are able to support my FAC nomination following my replies to you and my responses to the other editors' comments that would be great! Best, Crp74 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

👁 Image
Administrator changes

👁 removed

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

👁 Image
CheckUser changes

👁 removed
Ks0stm

👁 Image
Oversight changes

👁 removed
Ks0stm

👁 Image
Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

👁 Image
Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

👁 Image
Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

I realised this morning that the Bach FAC had been archived. I am presently in the midst of school examinations, so I would not have been able to do a full review, as I usually prefer to, but I look forward to the next PR or FAC whenever you list it. Best wishes to both you and ErnestKrause for taking on such a long and important article. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you. I think the best course would be a unified effort, so we'll see. Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I watch from the distance of travel. I briefly looked at the socalled "Cantata years", and think that the section in whatever cantata FA (for example BWV 1, BWV 110) would be better than what we presently have. Paulinerkirche was not linked, mentioned too often and mostly misspelled. Still on vacation, - it will take time to fix. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Wehwelt; Those are interesting comments above. Have you thought of the possibility of asking to join with Aza as a co-nominator? I had originally asked her last May 2025 on her archive page to co-nominate with myself and she appeared to agree in the Bach thread of her Archive page #10 here [1]. She then started sandbox in the weeks following that before she declined all further pings from me in November 2025 as if she had dropped the project; last heard from her here on November 9, 2025. [2]. She had apparently then watch-listed the Bach page without my knowledge at that time for her personal use. If you could ask her to join in as a third co-nominator then it might be a good way to see if there is an authorship/ownership issue with her editing there. Everyone else seems to believe that the Bach page is in good shape and ready for nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

However you slice it, a successful FAC will be dependent on everyone with an interest in the Bach article either participating or content with the effort being made. Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

What is the best option to try to implement your idea for: "I think the best course would be a unified effort." My thought was to suggest that you offer to join in with Aza as a third co-nominator, to see how she would respond to being on-board with such an idea or not; can you try it or some alternative? There seem to be so many editors, such as MSincccc and Gerda above, that would want the nomination to move forward, with Aza acting as an apparent single hold-out... ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I’ve given you my opinion. No need to discuss nominations and all that but a new FAC has to be backed, or at least not opposed, by the people you mention. Backed, and actively participating, would be much better. Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks for getting back to me about this; there is an interesting comment from Gerda on the Antandrus Talk page about Bach from yesterday which might be of interest. Also, Aza has indicated leaving on travels soon and it seems like it might be a while before Aza is available for contact about this. If you have any thoughts for a useful timetable of when to do things for the article, and in which priority, then let me know your thoughts. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I don't see that, can you provide a link? And I would not urge a nomination until there is broad agreement it will pass. That's what I can offer on a timeline. Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I said more or less there as here, repeating: "I briefly looked at the socalled "Cantata years", and think that the section in whatever cantata FA (for example BWV 1, BWV 110) would be better than what we presently have. Paulinerkirche was not linked, mentioned too often and mostly misspelled." - In other words: far away from what I believe is FA quality, and that was just one little corner of the whole article. I see no need to rush anything. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

This is the link to the interesting comments from Antandrus you had requested: [3]. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Wehwalt; There is an update from Aza on my Talk page about his return for mid-April Bach editing and he appears to agree that you’re the third editor for the co-nomination of Bach. I’ll add some of my recent research updates for all of the back-and-forth from the past week. User:Antandrus input was that the FA approach which separates articles about composer’s biographies are not the same as articles about composer’s compositions. Aza’s sandbox is indicating that he wishes to add approximately thirty (30) paragraphs for a new version of Bach’s composition; do you have a view if this is better nested within the biography article, or, with Antandrus that a separate article for it might be best for Wikipedia. Second, Aza raises the issue that Forkel is a historical source with age issues; the other viewpoint is that Forkel is essential to the historical reception of Bach (analogous to the FA for Samuel Johnson and his early biographer James Boswell). Forkel remains important even if some deference is given to Wolff as Bach’s current biographer with his two books on Bach from c2001 and c2020. Gerda also says she might wish to update the Catatas material currently in the Bach article. I'll bring in Gerda's edits about Cantatas during the next hour. Any ideas for these items? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

What about Gerda? She has many FAs on Bach and is much more familiar with the sources. I'm happy to help but it has to be a group effort. Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Happy if Gerda Arendt is with us; I've just brought her Cantata updates into the main Bach article. It would be nice for her to join. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Gerda sends a 'Thank you' on my notification board for her response; I'll assume she is to make constructive and supportive edits as time allows for her. What do you think of the Antandrus comments I've quoted above? ErnestKrause (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

(This message was sent to User:Wehwalt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Thank you today for Young Head coinage, "about... the coins that became an iconic image of Queen Victoria in her youth. So much so that it makes two appearances so far (wife and I have watched through Episode 6) in the current Netflix series on Victoria. I'd like to extend my thanks to WMF for purchasing for me a copy of the new, and rather expensive book by Mark Jones on William Wyon."! - I have Gustav Gunsenheimer on the same page. I got to know his motet, in which the devil speaks, when I was young ;) - I was quite impressed by Cyprus, pics to come, preview in my music. Did you ever visit? Yesterday was sort of a Mediterranean day in "my" music, combining the small church of Paphos with the title page of Verdi's Requiem and the opera house where I saw Rigoletto (premiered 11 March 1851). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Yes, we were in Cyprus for the day from a cruise ship and had a tour of the mountain villages, wineries, etc. We are going again in October, again for the day. Very beautiful. Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Yes, and I'm going to upload placed with my pics now. Perhaps you can help me with a change that needs an admin: I added Johannes-Ostern to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 16, copying from the previous entry, and then failed to change the year, which was 2002, not 2001. No idea why I didn't see it yesterday, but immediately when I checked now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Sure, I've fixed that. Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you! Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of that one, so made it my story. - More pics.

on Bach's birthday, a (FA) story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I have another Bach FAC open, in case of interest, Gott fähret auf mit Jauchzen, BWV 43 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I will look at it as soon as I can. Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I hope you are doing well. I have listed Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales at peer review, with a view to taking it to FAC in the near future. You can find the PR nomination here.

I still remember your helpful comments at my first FAC. Thank you, and any suggestions would be appreciated. MSincccc (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Yes, happy to. Within the next couple of days. Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[]

HiWehwalt, another editor, now retired, listed this for TFA at pending for 29 May. I have tentatively reserved a date for it, but if you would like it be considered you will need to nominate it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, which is now open. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I probably won't. A 290th isn't worth a definite date. Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

That's fine. I'll sort it then. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello, and since I'm here, first of all thanks for all of your good work. You've been plugging away educating the world for years now. A request, if you have a few minutes can you please take a look at the above article and maybe add the Statue of Liberty's representation on the United States Semiquincentennial coinage. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks much. I have a few things on my plate but I will get to it when I can. The SoL is certainly on the new half dollar and its torch on the other side. Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Haven't gotten one of the half dollars as yet, will have to request a few, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you today for Apollo 6, about "the final uncrewed Apollo mission. It didn't go quite as planned, but it went well enough."! - Thank you also for the FAC review! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]