User:Velella/Archives/Archive 18

Happy New Year, Velella!

Happy New Year!

Velella,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Velella/Archives,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Recent changes on article.

Hello, Velella. The information that has been added up on this article, has the sources it requires to check what has been added up. If you would like to check them, of course, you are free to do so. Finally, I must highlight such sources are in Spanish, or Portuguese. So you would require a good level of such languages, which, I'm not aware if you understand or not, you also need to understand that there are changes in old Spanish and Portuguese, which could be complex to get when the nature of the writing is old, and there is usage of certain words that are not employed much today in current or "usual" Portuguese, or Spanish. Having said this, I appreciate that you don't revert the edit that has been made, once again, do check the references to check on the information that has been added up if you like. Have a good day. Yupthatsitrightthere (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Quick update: Forgot to mention that on the bibliography, there's one book that also contains information added up on the article, but specifically it refers to the quote made by the clergy, you would require to buy such book to check the source for that quote, since it's not available for free on the web .Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupthatsitrightthere (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello,

I would like to invite you to attend in Articles for deletion/Similarity-based-TOPSIS and submit your opinion. Thank you in advance. Scholartop (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Velella,

I see that you recently tagged two different pages for deletion (one a CSD, the other a PROD) and neglected to inform the page creator about these taggings. This is an important step in the deletion process, especially with PRODs. Content creators should know when one of the pages they created might be deleted, especially if, like with a PROD, it is possible for them to improve an article to overcome the reasons why it was PROD'd in the first place.

I see you are using Twinkle so I don't know why these notifications aren't happening. Please check your Twinkle Preferences and make sure that "Notify page creator" box is checked. Then, when you are tagging the pages for deletion, make sure that this box is checked off by default. I'm sure if you had created and worked on an article, you would like to know if there were problems that resulted in its deletion so make sure you always take this step with any type of deletion process, CSD, PROD or AFD/RFD/CFD/etc. Thank you for all of your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I untagged the draft article because it looks like the main space version was copied from this page. If the main space article is deleted through PROD, the draft will no longer be a duplicate and its good that there is a draft that can be worked on to overcome any problems with the main space version. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

BigBasket

Re: List of online grocers. I accept that there is currently no Wikipedia article for BigBasket but I have looked into it and discovered that BigBasket is currently India's largest online grocery store and since being acquired by Tata, they've taken off and looking at a public stock launch, therefore definitely notable. I'm currently creating the Big Basket article. Watch this space. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Rodney Baggins - Thanks for updating me. I will look forward to seeing the article. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Your comments on Draft of Maisie Myra Marks

References 1,5,6,8,9,10,15,16,17,24,29 are Trade Newspapers and Articles from independent sources where she is mentioned, in many cases extensively. Similarly 11 & 18 are books (they are slightly different editions with different material).nThere is also extensive material in the archives, which includes material on what she did and the significance of her charitable work -- not just the MBE.

Back in the relevant period, 1957-1988 there was essentially no internet, no blogs, the number of newspapers etc was significantly smaller. Hence the number of articles etc is significant. Many sources from that era have not been digitized, or are on microfiche.

If you do a simple Google search of course you will not find much; you will not find much about other notable people of that and earlier eras. You have to do proper research of the sources, which are given in the draft. This cannot be done in a five minute read which, I am sorry to say, the speed of your review suggests; please tell me I am wrong.

Some things you could do are: a) Register for a trial subscription at NewspaperArchive.com, then search. b) Go to a copyright library such as the British Library. Unfortunately many sources are not part of their lending collection, but you can search contents; you may have to physically go to the reading room. c) Go to the History of Advertising Trust. Since they are a charity they may charge you £38/hour for a search. d) If you are affiliated with a major university, get assistance from a librarian. That is their job, and they welcome it. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum:

The quote on the Adwomen is primary, so has no reference.

Refs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15-17, 22, 24, 29, 30 are secondary sources

Refs 11, 18 are tertiary sources.

Refs 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20 are archived collections of primary and secondary material, similar to a library.

Refs 22, 23, 31-41 are evidence. Evidence is stronger than any source, as it is not open to question. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

My task is not to review every source but to review the article and establish whether, in my opinion and using the guidance at WP:GNG, the test for notability had been met. In my opinion that test had not been met and I therefore declined to accept the draft. Had there been a statement which implied notability and for which the reference was unavailable to me, I would have commented to that effect, and assuming good faith I might well have accepted the draft. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to challenge you on that. To my knowledge:

Reference 18 is only available at the British Library, no lending library has a copy available and you can only reach it by asking for it to be moved from the shelves (which takes two days) and then go there yourself.

Reference 11 is similarly unavailable, although I have a copy.

To quote from reference 18: "Two other women have occupied the chairmanship of the clib. Both were leading figures in the advertising industry and both, in fact, chaired two other clubs! Mary Messer, of C. Nicholls & Co (was also chairman of the Women's Advertising Club of London and of the Berks & Bucks Publicity Association. Maisie Marks, of Harris Media and Marketing (1973), was also chairman of the Adwomen (which she helped to form) and of the club in Croydon" (there is more).

The actual document is copyright protected, so cannot be posted. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that there is a misunderstanding here. Notability in the real world is not the same as Wikipedia's definition of notability as summarised at WP:GNG.

At its simplest, there should multiple independent and reliable sources discussing the subject and not simply mentioning or naming the subject. In this case , and in light of the work and commitments made by the subject, there would be an expectation of mentions in 'The Telegraph' or 'The Times' as examples, although reputable local papers serving a wide area would also suffice. To take a specific example. The sentence "Her first position was secretary of the House Committee; over 30 years she served on several other committees and was the Associate Editor of the club’s magazine and also a representative" is referenced to a reputable source, The 'Bristol Evening Post' but the role referenced isn't itself notable. If the claim to notability is that this person is notable for the sum of her lifetime achievements, then that is what needs reliable and independent sources. As that claim would be relatively recent as it could only be acknowledged towards the end of a lifetime, then such a source is likely to be modern and readily available. That is the challenge that you have. For the record, many editors here are scientists, some with the highest academic credentials, but it makes no difference to the judgements made about their individual edits by other editors, nor to the respect that they are given here. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for the comment on my talk page. All best wishes. --Bduke (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing

Dear Velella, thank for the guidance to the clarification page which I have read and absorbed. I was in error. . Beirniad33 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

A request

Hi, thank you for reading and assessing my latest edit. Please could I ask that you restore the reference to the BSL 999 service on the 999 emergency number article as I think it might be helpful for some readers. I appreciate my edit regarding Welsh speaking operators was unsourced but the Bangor operations centre does not offer a bilingual 999 operator service. The emergency operator service is designed to put people through to EAs in the quickest possible time rather than to converse with the caller. Police are able to organise for other EAs to attend an incident. I know that claim is uncorroborated by a reference so I appreciate you not taking my word for it but the reference I made to the new 999 BSL service was sourced in my edit. I know I didn’t mention it in my notes for brevity so I know it may have been missed. I also made changes to reflect that there are now 7 rather than 6 operator centres with the opening of Birmingham’s operator centre last Summer. Just thought I’d put this on your talk page to avoid an edit war. Thanks again, Jack JackTaylor6464 (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that as at October 2022, a reliable press source states that there are 6 OPACs. If a new centre has opened that that would need a good source. My searches only reveal that new BT Hub at Three Snowhill but which, as far as I can see, does not include an OAC.I am a loss to understand why the BSL service has any relationship to the Welsh language service which now has two references. I have no problem with the addition of sourced content about the BSL service, but that has no bearing on the Welsh language service. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Velella, thanks for taking the time to reply. The change I made regarding the BSL service was separate to the change I made regarding to Welsh language operators. The BSL reference was added to the paragraph about hearing impaired customers. Here, I also updated the name of the relay service from ‘text relay’ to ‘Relay UK.’ I just happened to make both changes during the same edit. Here’s a document with details of the 999 call centre in Snowhill as produced by the company that installed electrics for the building. https://www.impactbs.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Completed-Project-Sheet-For-Website-C5447-BT-Birmingham.pdf JackTaylor6464 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Just dug out this reference from the union as well which say that there will be a picket line outside Snowhill manned by 999 call handlers; https://www.cwu.org/press_release/bt-strike-999-operators-pickets-and-gs-dave-ward-location/ JackTaylor6464 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The new reference provided to support the statement that all Welsh speaking customers are transferred to BT Bangor does not seem to corroborate the assertion. The source confirms that BT Bangor is still an active site as of 2017 however there is no mention of Welsh speaking callers being transferred to Bangor. BT Bangor is 999 Operations Centre just like any other. JackTaylor6464 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Palaeopanthera

Why did you decline this draft? WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES says that all species described in reliable academic publications are notable, and Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, which is associated with Springer Nature, is reliable. Unlike other scientific concepts, newly-recognized genera and species don't usually need multiple sources (e.g. Balaenognathus, Cratonavis) Miracusaurs (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature sets out the requirements for the naming of a new Taxon. In Wikipedia all species are generally considered to be notable but that doesn't extend to say that all genera are necessarily notable and certainly not genera described and named so recently that there is no corroboration of use of the Genus by other taxonomists. In this case a well developed article was deleted to form a redirect without any consultation so that, unless an editor was aware of that activity, the previous history would have been lost from sight. There should have been a merge discussion with "merge to" and "Merge from" templates added to the respective articles after the new article had been accepted. An alternative would have been to move the existing article to a new name, by consensus, with the new taxonomic information added there. Your approach appeared to create an unnecessary fork together with the blinding of the history of an existing article Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

About my deletion of info provided

I had added information to Cocculus orbiculatus page but you have deleted but I wanna restore it. Sahasranshu (Sam) (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sahasranshu (Sam) - The information that you added may have been correct, but there were no reliable sources used as references to corroborate that. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say and not what we know ourselves to be true. In one of your edits you also added "It is also used as medicinal purpose in Ayurveda". This is a medical claim and for that we need even more rigorous sourcing. Please see WP:MEDRS for the special requirements in these case. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Velella

https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Cocculus+orbiculatus#:~:text=It%20is%20used%20in%20the,bronchitis%20and%20paralysis%5B218%5D. Sahasranshu (Sam) (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found any more details of that species as wikipidia also haven't any more published detail.

But In my region many Ayurvedic doctors recommend them and use as medicine. I can add more and more about that and many more herbs in detail, with the help of those doctors,but I think it won't be publish. Sahasranshu (Sam) (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sahasranshu (Sam) - That is a topic that it is advisable to steer well clear of. Ayurveda is considered to be pseudo-scientific . ie.a practice which has no demonstrable medical benefits. Please read WP:MEDRS with great care before attempting to add anything to do with alternative medical practices. It is a real mine-field and only for the most skilled and adventurous editors!. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You didn't thinked about billion people are reliving on Ayurveda.

You have misunderstanding about that bcz you aren't aware with the benefits, and not aware with what you said. Sahasranshu (Sam) (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No, no misunderstanding. As a child I was given cough linctus with liquorice, ginger, honey and garlic in. It soothed my cough and made me feel better, but that doesn't count on Wikipedia. Reliable and independent sources are needed to justify the addition of facts. For medical claim, secondary or tertiary sources are required. However, I would suggest that this debate is best continued at Talk:Ayurveda. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Rivers of Wales

Thank you for contextualising my entry of the Ritec on the page “List of Rivers of Wales” although I am not sure if it should be described as a minor stream. The river was navigable from Tenby to St Florence and at St Florence there is a disused mill which was powered by this river. Shouldn’t it be referred to as a river not a stream? Canol (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Canol - Yes, good point. I have changed it to South Pembrokeshire rivers. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy for it to be called a river though two rowing-boats might struggle to pass each other and the minute mill might only supply flour for a few scones rather than loaves per day! Worth a look on Google Earth if not in the area.SovalValtos (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

SovalValtos - I know the river well. It is a designated "Main river" by NRW and it has, in the past, been the location of illegal salmon and sea-trout poaching despite its diminutive size! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

yes I am going through all of these talks to really get a good look at Wikipedia and just the things you can learn by fixing a page alone is amazing the fact that you figured out, or at least realized yourself a location of an illegal salmon and sea trout poaching site despite its shrinking size just because you discussed classifying one specific section of flowing water differently. Each discussion that I read is making me feel like I owe it to you guys to contribute. Th5tW1k1Guy (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Just a heads up that I have referenced discussion we had in a case I have just taken to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry. Cheers Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Kaituna River

Good one! I've just written the article Kaituna River (Tasman). Schwede 66 06:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Velella/Archives,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Chemicalbook.com

Hi Velella. Following our discussion at the Teahouse yesterday, I took a look at some of the edits you had made to remove/modify the chemicalbook.com entries. I've made some modifications to the ones you have already done, for example using the parameter |Properties_ref to avoid having to repeat multiple citations within the chembox/properties (see tryptamine). Having gone into this in more detail, I'm not so sure that links to chemicalbook.com are actually spam. For example it is on our list of chemical databases and reputable websites such as the one that maintains ChEMBL use it. See their entry for 2-methylphenethylamine in the "UniChem Cross References" section. The entry in chemicalbook for 2-methylphenethylamine seems to have much better curation than many other databases! So my conclusion is that we don't need to remove more of these references and it would need consensus to do so. If you want to seek such consensus, the correct place would be at WT:CHEM, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, although the chemicalbook.com website is hosted on a cloud service in China, the people behind it are actually from East West University in Bangladesh, as described in its history. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That is interesting... My real concern about this site and its motives was the this reference at Photographic film. The text is a wholesale copy of text from two sources. A book and an academic paper, neither with any acknowledgement. Now I am aware that Wikipedia's rules on copy-vio do not extend outwards to the sources we use, but it did throw up an enormous question mark about the site. In many other cases the source also directly lists prices for the chemical referenced as well as more useful information. As you have found, there are also examples where sites disagree about physical properties, and I would greatly prefer a publicly funded reliable source if one can be found. I do remain concerned about this site. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that sources differ in quality but being publicly funded is no guarantee of quality, I fear. I've found loads of errors on pubchem, which is hardly surprising given its vast scope: and it, too, offers listings of chemical suppliers, although not prices. As far as I can tell, chemicalbook.com is not itself a supplier, it just aims to provide links to companies that are and it may well be funded by what are in effect adverts for those suppliers. So for me the bottom line is that there are lots of better ways we can improve Wikipedia's chemistry without being too aggressive in removing this particular source. One of the quirks of Wikipedia is that it prefers secondary sources, whereas my background as a practising chemist (retired) is that I preferred primary sources such as scholarly articles and patents for physical property data like MP, BP and appearance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You may like to comment on a similar website I have described at WT:WikiProject Chemicals#What do we think about Guidechem.com citations? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

Hello Velella/Archives,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Velella/Archives,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Velella:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Likely

Hello user Velella-- We're a scholarly non-commercial photo group with the purpose of putting useful images on Wikipedia. All member-photogs understand that and all give copyright to NelsonExpression and then give it up to PD from there. We use the one account for uploading since there's only one experienced Wikipedian in the group. Just as if Magnum Photo or Time Magazine or UPI were the account, they'd still identify their original photographers while controlling the member images. There's nothing commercial or "for profit" going on: it's a non-profit, no money wanted, educational activity. It feels like you've targeted our account and are just "being mean" at this point. Please, what do you mean by "self-cite" in your removal of an image from Recycling? Readers likely wouldn't know there even ~are~ medical education anatomical models being made from recycled plumbing pipe waste before seeing that image of ours. Why make Wikipedia have less usefulness, less information? Could you please stand down? NelsonExpression (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No misunderstanding at all. It appears as though an admin also has concerns about the Username issue and has taken action.

Regarding the copyright issues, there is guidance available at WP:DCP. Essentially the true "Owner" of a copyright may donate such copyright to Wikipedia and this a formal documented process. If you don't formally own the copyright you can't donate it. The same rule apply to Wikimedia Commons.

Other things worth bearing in mind is that images must have encyclopaedic value, should not replicate existing images and should be of good quality.

Red flags are raised whenever a contributor adds things to Wikipedia that always mention their name. It happens a great deal with academic papers as references and also with some photographers. Many such references and images are deleted as "self-cites". I.e they appear to exist only to promote the up-loader and not Wikipedia. Several of the photos that you have provided appear to be in this class.

As for "standing down", even if I Understood that, I am sure that I wouldn't do it without good reason. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello

You made a mistakein merging Republic TV & Republic Media Network. The Republic TV article is really now vanished. TruxtVerified | [Message] 12:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that a mistake has been made, it would be helpful to describe that mistake. Without that information I am unable to rectify any mistakes. The statement that "The Republic TV article is really now vanished." is unclear . Republic TV exists as a c 60K byte article. Please clarify Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Velella, I was about to leave a comment about this hear as well and noticed this section. First, thank you for doing the merger, it's not always easy to do those. My thought in this case, based on the AFD comments and the sources that I could see, that nearly everything in the Republic TV article should remain as it was, as the sources around the creating and most events call out Republic TV, not a media network. A brief mention about the network would be appropriate to add as a subsection, which would be a good place for merging in anything from the AFD article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Rocky Gorge RFC Page

Hi, I was wondering why our Hall of Fame page kept getting deleted. This is the only space that we keep track of our HOF records outside of a plaque. 2601:147:C101:2400:B5C4:6414:6081:5729 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the role of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in people who have been demonstrated to be notable - anything else is liable to de deleted without warning. Please see WP:GNG for more information Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

These are notable individuals to our club being honored and remembered for their years of contribution to the community. According to the purpose page of Wikipedia, this IS the role of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.". What do you think needs to be done to make sure that this section of our Wiki stands. 2601:147:C101:2400:C890:6A72:BA8D:CB4 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There are several issue here. Firstly it is not "our Wiki". Articles are now owned by anyone and anyone who thinks that they "own" an article almost certainly has a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article. Secondly you omitted the next sentence of the quote which states "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner ". "Existing mainstream knowledge" is the principle that underlies Wikipedia's notability policy. Notability in Wikipedia and the usual understanding of the word are quite different as noted above. Somebody who is notable in a club is very unlikely to be notable as far as Wikipedia understands it if they do not feature in "existing mainstream knowledge". So the simple answer is that unless these individuals have Wikipedia articles about them, they are very unlikely to continue to be listed in an article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Jerusalem artichoke

Curious about this edit and what policy my edit violated [1]. There is no photograph on that article of the subject being used as a foodstuff. I cited the policy my photograph aligns with in my edit. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I debated some time before reverting your addition. I realised that you are a very experienced and knowledgeable editor but I could not see the encyclopaedic value of the image of a buff coloured soup. It could be almost anything from mushroom onwards. Having reverted your edit I did then look at your other recent image additions a number of which caused me some concern although I haven't yet acted on my concerns. There is an inevitable naming of the photographer (yourself?) and the artichoke soup image seemed to be unnecessarily tagging a particular restaurant. In less experienced hands this look a lot like image spamming, but, as noted above, I will continue to assume good faith, but with some worries. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of adding unsolicited input, if I may: I can only echo Velella's comments. Well said. Eric ^talk 16:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, there's no justification for including a photo of Pierre Curie in the article about Pierre Curie because, unless one has been told that it's a photo of Pierre Curie, it could be almost anybody from Niels Bohr onwards.

The point with the soup is to show the user that "Look, this soup is a Jerusalem artichoke soup, and here's what it looks like, if you're interested in the appearances of the sort of dishes one can make from the root that you've taken the trouble to read about." It's almost as though you've never noticed that food articles very frequently have multiple illustrations. And it isn't as though we need to know what Pierre Curie looks like to understand his significance: he isn't exactly Brad Pitt. The value of photos in articles isn't as limited as you seem to think it is. Largoplazo (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Re "reasoning": The article is about a plant, not about a kind of soup. Eric ^talk 14:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we shouldn't have the section about its use as a food at all, because the article is about a plant, not a food. You're making out as though Wikipedia's standards for article content is insanely hyper-regimented. It's not. Largoplazo (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Solihull

Loved your edit summary on the Birmingham article! Happy New Year Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Image spamming

Just saw this strange note. You write "In the absence of a valid link, the image appears to breach copyright." The "valid link" is the very first link on the user page of the uploader. You ok? Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You invited me to the talk page to discuss your revert, but there is nothing on the talk page. I have started a thread there and I’m awaiting your discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the sudden absence which may continue for a few more days. Covid is responsible but I will be back to answer all queries as soon as the brain fog lifts. You may see me doing a few minor gnomish edits just to get the brain back into gear . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Resources for a once deleted Skoota Warner Page

Hi there!

I wanted to pass on the last but of information that was given to me to credit Skoota Warners in the attempt to revive his page:

Active Links for Skoota Warner References

Please let us know if this is something that can be revived or not. Thank you for your time. Saracward!! (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that these sources covey notability, then write the Draft and submit it for review. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)