Is there a Category:Good articles by age or something like that? If there isn't, it would be helpful if good articles were sorted by their age in a new category so that old ones that have issues can easily be found and nominated for WP:GAR TNM101 (chat) 06:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@TNM101: you could try asking at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as people ther will know more about the GA process than most helpers here. TSventon (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@TNM101 Rather than looking up good articles by age (I imagine there is a way to do this) you can use the cleanup listing for good articles, which will allow you to find all the good articles with various maintenance tags and specific issues. Reconrabbit 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies! TNM101 (chat) 06:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Sudzha. On 14 January 2024, an edit is made "After the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Sudha became..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sudzha&diff=next&oldid=1195628086). The source provided supports the second part of the sentence but says nothing about the term "full-scale invasion." As far as I can tell, the phrase "full-scale" has remained in the article through about two hundred edits. Today, another editor added a "dubious" tag around "full-scale" and shared their opinion, but they did not start a discussion on the talk page.

I disagree with the editor��s opinion. I assume the correct approach would be to open a discussion on the talk page. However, since "full-scale invasion" is mentioned in many other articles about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I suspect that this issue has already been discussed and that a consensus has been reached. The article Russian invasion of Ukraine mentions "full-scale invasion". Can I therefore assume that the term "full-scale invasion" is acceptable and remove the "dubious" tag? (I have also looked at the archive of the talk page of Russian invasion of Ukraine, and "full scale" is mentioned in a lot of archives - it is possible that it has been discussed but it is such a job to go look for it)

Another question: In other cases where an editor adds a "dubious" tag to a word, expresses an unsourced opinion that "this is all wrong", but does not start a discussion — and if no previous editors have raised concerns about that term — is it the editor’s responsibility to open a discussion and can I simply remove the tag, or should I keep the tag and open the discussion? TIA!! Lova Falk (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lova Falk WP:DRIVEBY suggests that adding such tags without discussion is a bad idea (although not prohibited by policy). As it happens, while typing this I have been listening to the BBC's 6 p.m. news on the radio and the phrase "full-scale invasion" came up! I've heard it so many times that I certainly don't think it is dubious. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Turnbull! Could you please extend your comment to an advice on how to deal with them. For instance, would it be fine just to remove them? WP:Etiquette does not require me to first try to engage the editor in a Talk conversation? Lova Falk (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The other editor may have been concerned that the phrase in question is imprecise: the "became the last remaining point" presumably happened exactly on the day of the other pipeline's sabotage, not just "After the beginning of the full-scale invasion". You should probably either clarify that with an exact date or WP:PING the other editor to the talk page to discuss this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I was trying to expand the stub at Noarlunga_railway_station and found an image here: https://www.libraries.sa.gov.au/client/en_AU/walkerville/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ASSET$002f0$002fSD_ASSET:1432327/ada?qu=Landscapes+%28views%29&d=ent%3A%2F%2FSD_ASSET%2F0%2FSD_ASSET%3A1432327%7EASSET%7E162&ic=true&ps=300&h=8

Is that something I can use in the article? Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The photograph looks like it was taken in 1968 and its copyright is not indicated anywhere (the source link is broken) unfortunately it is unlikely to be in the public domain per Australian copyright rules. You could still add a link to it in "External links" if desirable. Reconrabbit 19:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to link to a specific subsection of an article. How does that generally look like?

The link is supposed to lead to "The Ideological Turing Test" within the Bryan Caplan article. I imagine this might be where Wikipedia redirects come in. Thank you. MutuallyAssuredDeduction (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@MutuallyAssuredDeduction: that looks like [[Bryan Caplan#"The Ideological Turing Test"]] or [[Bryan Caplan#"The Ideological Turing Test"|The Ideological Turing Test]]. TSventon (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

TSventon, if somebody renames the section "The Ideological Turing Test" (to, for example, "Ideological Turing Test"), such links will no longer work. Better, I think, to use Template:Anchor (about which, see its somewhat wordy documentation). -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Redirect for how to make a redirect. It can both redirect to a section heading and an anchor. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, people. That's certainly a lot of info to digest. My first redirect, however, is live as we speak. MutuallyAssuredDeduction (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)