User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 9

Hey there. I saw your post at VPP about FOOTYN and NFOOTY. A point you made really resonanted with me and is something I believe to be an issue beyond football (apparently what y'awl call it in New Zealand?). I had first encountered it with baseball and have a largely completed essay about the issue. The reason I've not finished is that I now believe this problem is endemic across sports. The community through SNG has set a certain standard but the AfD participants tend to be fans of the sport and take a broader view. I'm not sure I have a great solution, but wanted you to know I've given it thought too and am willing to invest some time working on this topic if you do have some ideas for moving forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Not watching so please ping me with any reply

@Barkeep49: Closers at AfD are supposed to weigh up !votes based on how well they relate to policy, but too often they fail to do that and just count heads. That is the major problem with these kinds of articles. There are simply more sports fans and they have conscious or unconscious bias. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that too. As I said I'm long on observing the problem short on solutions (at this point). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep: I wonder if you can find any sourcing for the most recent club AfD: Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C.? I'm not seeing much, and editors prefer to parrot 'consensus' about FOOTYN rather than discuss sources. I'm not going to bother !voting on this, but this is rapidly heading toward needing to start a full RfC on whether sports teams can avoid the GNG based on head counting of Wikiproject football members. Still, even if the RfC was successful, I doubt it would make much difference. There was an RfC to stop WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES from being used in AfD discussions, but it is still routinely used as an argument, even if it is rarely linked (i.e. "notable as a high school" being used as an argument). Watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools and you'll see plenty of examples. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: (to tag correct Barkeep.) Barkeep^Chat 19:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

​Woops! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I made my comment. But sheesh there were a lot of FOOTYN !votes that have no real argument behind them. I'm thinking they way forward might be to offer an RfC on FOOTYN asking if English club standards should be incorporated into NSPORT (similar to the list of fully professional leagues), something incorporated into OUTCOMES (which while not technically something that should be used at AfD, does have a large impact on how I choose to patrol), or some third none of the above choice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

​ Yeah, I changed my mind. I have changed my !vote to 'delete' based on a complete lack of sources found by anyone and the lack of any solid arguments for keeping this. I am seriously considering an RfC to rewrite WP:NTEAM. Instead of 'not applying to teams' it should simply and clearly state that teams must meet the General notability guideline, and that notability is not inherited from leagues that the teams play in. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's say that RfC passes (I think it stands a reasonable but not guaranteed chance of doing so). Do you think that really prevents the discussion that's being had on that page? I'm skeptical. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

​It gives !voters who look at sources something to point at that totally debunks any argument to the contrary by the wikiproject editors. This informs the closer's decision and gives them something to cite that unequivocally supports closure by policy rather than whatever the prevailing head count might be. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah as I've thought further the idea has sat well with me. Besides those who disagree with the idea, the problem is that it might be a subtle enough change that some people who support the concept would oppose the RfC. But I think there's enough real world examples of why the change is needed to get them on board. So wording along the lines of This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see the general notability guideline. Teams must meet the General Notability Guideline.^[1] Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: @Insertcleverphrasehere: I actually agree with both of you on the difficulties regarding sports articles, and I like and appreciate the baseball essay. This wasn't an essay guideline, but I was particularly frustrated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Appleby (American_football) and the essay at the American football wikiproject which assumes all head coaches pass WP:GNG! Also, the football wikiproject seems to view WP:NFOOTY as almost binary - I have argued for keeping certain articles on WP:GNG grounds against a wave of "delete, fails WP:NFOOTY" votes.

That being said, for football, I'm not sure the guidelines that a team has to pass WP:GNG will ultimately return the desired result. I think it will create a lot of work and hubbub since the line for notability moves from a white line to a grey one. This concerns me significantly, as I do a lot of research on football teams in my personal and professional life. It's one of the reasons I'm active at the Cray Valley AfD and have done my best to improve the article. My concern stems from the fact we would now treat football clubs like startups or other corporate businesses. This is significant, especially in African football. If you look through my history, I've done a lot of work on the Ugandan Premier League and its teams. I'm certain every team in the league passes WP:GNG, and even most if not all teams in the Ugandan second division. As I research, I will frequently update information for other clubs I stumble across, including African teams which are promoted to the top flight of their league which may or may not pass WP:GNG at the time I make the article - but they will be playing in the country's top division.

That being said, the coverage for a Ugandan article I created, Nyamityobora FC, might be considered routine or unreliable by some, even though it's sourced through independent secondary articles (there's other coverage of the club as well) and play in the Ugandan top division. I'm absolutely convinced it passes WP:GNG, but I'm nervous notable stub articles like this one may get nominated for deletion without an AfD on WP:ROUTINE grounds, and I've been creating them with the safe assumption that they will be notable per consensus, and they're exactly the type of articles which help me "signpost" when I'm researching. It's actually easier to find reliable verifiable information on Cray Valley, even though the Ugandan teams are probably better covered! I'm less concerned with articles like Wichita Jets, which may have a higher likelihood of being kept as it's in the U.S. even though that article has no reason for existing, and I'm not upset with the Dontan AfD, even though I wish I had a better opportunity to review Thai-language sources (which would mean learning Thai - not worth it for a fifth division team!).

A club-specific SNG and not one based on WP:GNG would be very helpful for demarcating when exactly a team is notable, given the difference in sourcing between the English 10th league and many countries around the world. I think teams should be presumptively notable based on league participation (as a valid group), and the guidelines for evaluating club notability be better defined. Otherwise we're going to get many other difficult AfDs like Cray Valley (which, in my opinion, is a solidly validated and referenced article compared to many other articles you see at AfC or AfD, and I'm trying to turn over stones finding a source which everyone agrees is notable, as opposed to sources people disagree on.)

I'm also happy to help brainstorm on how to get away from the blind/poor repetition of SNGs in sports articles. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments SportingFlyer here and at the AfD. The thing that has struck me about NSPORT is that the SNG does have a position about certain clubs based on the league they're playing in in regards to player notability (WP:FPL) but isn't willing to attempt something for the clubs themselves. Personally I am completely behind the idea that a team in the highest level league in Uganda is going to be Notable - this is an area where Internet researching is going to be hard. The clubs that give me pause are ones like this - in English speaking countries well down the pyramid. Given how old the club under discussion at AfD is I think it's more damning that there isn't better coverage that any of the several of us who seem to have made the effort to find sources could pull. I also know that I am bothered enough by fans of the sport who show up an AfD and make no effort to talk about notability in a way that has broader community support to think we should do something. If the AfDs in this general topic were filled with people like you who maybe I don't agree with your conclusions but know are making policy based arguments I wouldn't think we needed to bring community clarity to the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@SportingFlyer: Well, the bar has always been pretty low when it comes to sportspeople and sports subjects in general. I also understand the usefulness of having an SNG for a topic, presumptions of notability help avoid lengthy and time consuming searches for sources just to decide if a topic warrants an article. There is actually nothing wrong with a Wikiproject essay that instructs that wikiproject that 'teams at lexel X or higher are generally notable". This actually gives editors a good idea what is worth pursuing for article creation. The concern comes when people start arguing that "all teams at level X or higher are generally notable", and start treating the guidance essay as a guideline and as prescriptive, and as an alternative to sourcing, rather than just a general rule of thumb that should be verified via the searching of solid sources. I can't tell you how many football biographies I have seen come through New Page Patrol that simply have one link to a stats page that verifies that they play at the appropriate level for WP:NSPORT. This is of course entirely contrary to WP:NRV, but people do it nonetheless because new page patrol has their hands tied: the worst they can do is tag the article as needing more references. Treating SNGs as prescriptive can save a lot of time for editors, and can turn a lot of red links blue, but the danger is that most creators of sports biographies coming through the New Page Feed have not even bothered to look for sources to meet the general notability guideline or to satisfy WP:NRV. The same is also somewhat true of sports team articles. England has relatively good coverage of their football teams, so most of the teams that play in the FA cup are totally notable, but some that play on the fringes, only playing a couple games here or there in the preliminary rounds, simply don't have enough. You have seen the most recent AfD for FA Cup eligible team: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harrow_Chequers_F.C.. Is this really the level that we should be saying has presumed notability under an SNG? You say: My concern stems from the fact we would now treat football clubs like startups or other corporate businesses."; that's exactly how it was before NCORP was rewritten early this year and excluded teams (it was rewritten to include a higher standard of sourcing verification for companies, which is why teams were then excluded; I actually agree with this as teams don't suffer from the same kind of promotional news placement that plagues the coverage of companies). I actually am not adverse to creating an SNG at WP:NTEAM, but it would have to be done carefully, with a 'white line' chosen that is high enough to guarantee that it won't be used to prescribe notability to clubs that can't be demonstrated to meet the GNG. I highly doubt that the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Club_notability would be accepted as such a line. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The above was written prior to Barkeep49's post, but I'd also like to echo that I very much respect your approach to these AfDs, even if I somewhat disagree with your conclusions about the sources and how they apply to RULE 42 (which is of course always going to be a bit subjective). At the very least your searching has been enough to make me think twice about the Paper mills AfD as borderline. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere,

Thanks for reviewing the article I wrote on Useless Eaters. I just added an additional five citations for verification. I'm quite confident that the band meets WP:BAND. If you google ["useless eaters" "seth sutton"], there's a multitude of diverse sources from music magazines, daily newspapers and other reliable sources that are independent of the band. Were there any sentences in particular that you wanted to see more citations for? Tracklan2 (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks a lot better, I pulled the tags. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel these articles are too soon. By my count, there are currently over 150 Wikipedia pages pertaining to the 2018-19 men's basketball season. Out of 351 NCAA Division I teams, over 100 articles similar to the ones I am creating (about 10 by me so far) already exist for almost every NCAA Division I conference. Please see Wikipedia category Category:2018–19 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. Sub categories started around March to April of this year to cover preseason recruiting, roster changes, etc. Take a look at the category (and article) creation dates for previous seasons. Many articles started in March and April, 2018. Based on my short experience (less than 5 years as a Wikipedia author), this season is not atypical.

One reason for creating the articles prior to the actual playing of the season is that the season is not a finite point in time restricted by the start and end of the competitive season. It encompasses many months prior to the season as well as months following the season as post season awards are announced. The articles are not intended only as a record of the actual season. Recruiting for the 2018-19 season took place several months ago. For example, one section will discuss the recruiting. 2018-19 rosters have been published. Please see the "Off Season" section for the Sam Houston State Bearkats article. Many activities occur well before this coming November. Schedules for many teams are already published and begin to appear in August and September at the latest. Following that, schedules are populated on the articles.

Here's are examples articles started in March, 2018 2018–19 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team, 2018–19 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team. Here's another one that started in April, 2018 2018–19 Missouri Tigers men's basketball team. I guess my failing is that I am a actually a little late in creating my articles. Many of the articles start with preseason activities such as recruiting and roster changes. I am adding that information to my articles, but I'm having to catch up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUSportsFan (talk • contribs)

@LUSportsFan: Well, thanks for taking the time to reply here. It does seem that the sourcing of these types of articles are generally light on substantial significant and independent coverage, but I suppose if it is common practice to create them for each season I won't get in the way. Ideally articles shouldn't just be based just on a roster published via ESPN and various other schedules published by involved parties. There should be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In any case I have moved 2018–19 Southeastern Louisiana Lions basketball team back from draft space, and have tagged it needing references by non-affiliated sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to post the following reply to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soroti Secondary School but it was closed just before I submitted it. I was working based on Primefac's clarification here. I should have said WP:ORG, based on what WP:NSCHOOL says, which is of course the same notability guideline. Do you agree? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: NCORP has slightly stricter rules on what qualifies as a source for notability. As the school in question is not a for-profit school, NCORP shouldn't apply to it. This is more clearly stated in the NCORP lead, and the school section could be clarified a bit to make this more clear. I would have agreed that the sourcing wouldn't meet NCORP's additional standards, though given that it doesn't have to, it probably passes the GNG, if barely. That's really all I was trying to say. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I won't be its E-in-C any more, but in next month's (September) issue of The Signpost I will be publishing a special report I have rough drafted on NPP/NPR, how ACPERM has affected it, the new features in the New Pages Feed, the problems of finding enough active reviewers and checking the work of the ones who are active, and issues getting the API up dated. As the magazine is widely read, such an article would serve as a precursor to any future RfCs for changes. As a magazine 'special report' feature, it will be factual, balanced, and neutral, without any op-ed or journalist's opinion. If you would like to collaborate on this article you are most welcome to do so - there's probably a lot you could contribute. It should also have snippets of interviews with reviewers and deleting admins. You would share the attribution and have a dedicated byline. I otherwise do not intend to be actively involved at WT:NPR anymore or provide any actual patrolling services any longer; I will however continue elsewhere and on Meta with ongoing calls I have made for the software development it needs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Polyamorph (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks very much. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

​I wish that page had more participation from editors. I feel that few people know that it even exists. I nominated some of our top patrollers a while back, and while a couple of them were successful, it is unfortunate that the more gnomish of reviewers failed to get enough support despite being invaluable to the project and tireless contributors. In any case, thanks for the nomination. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It could indeed do with more participation, hopefully you'll get something though, it's nice for you to have a reward for everything you do for us! Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind invitation. I seem to be on an extended wikibreak at the moment. I'll reply when I return to editing. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In ref number 7, The Orion article, goes to Tom Sundgren (in last line). However did not find evidence of any high editorial standards for the writer (Chico News & Review is a tabloid). Remember that you've been discussed before at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 222#The Orion - Student Newspaper? 183.171.121.175 (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I know what this is regarding, and I'm a bit confused by this comment. Was this in regards to an article that I reviewed? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you had User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list, containing a list of all users who meet certain criteria as possible NPR invite candidates. My question is, how did you generate the list? Did you somehow do it automatically or semi-automiatcally? It seems like it would have been extremely tedious to do completely manually. I'm asking this because, as an active AfC reviewer, I would like to do a similar thing with AfC. The backlog is getting quite high, and it would be nice to be able to easily generate a list of users who meet certain criteria to apply, so that I can invite them using {{AfC invite}}. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Yeah, the data was gathered via Quarry, you can find those queries on my quarry profile]. I had some help putting them together, I'm not much of a coder myself. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I figured it'd be something like that. I was hoping that it would be something a bit less complicated, though. I personally suck at most types of coding.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: You could always just copy my ones and tweak the parameters, or failing that, make a script request at Wikipedia:User_scripts/Requests. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, copying and modifying yours would probably be easiest, so I think I'll try that when I have the time. I actually didn't know that WP:User scripts/Requests even existed. Thanks for the tips.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512:Neither did I until I was pointed there after making a request at WP:VPT. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, could you just create the page User:The garmine /talkarchive-2018-03-2018-05? Just put something in it, so i can archive my talk page. Thanks. The garmine ^(talk) 09:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• 96.41.142.170 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC) (Do not reply here)

Sorry, I'm confused about this request... could you clarify? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Just create the page. thanks. 96.41.142.170 (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC) (do not reply here)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

The newsletter last month had an awesome auto-updating chart. Why isn't it on the one that was just sent out? Also, the new newsletter is a bit too big in my opinion. Just my $0.02. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, I'll work to include it in future versions and keep the size a bit smaller. You seem to have answered your own question though, I didn't have room for it. Thanks for the currency. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

One thought might be to make more use of the collapsable parts like you did with the scripts which I thought was great - I know that this newsletter felt "long" compared to other NPR newsletters and especially in comparison to other newsletters I see (admin, tech update, etc). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been using your super helpful flowchart for a long time, and I've been curious why you put "Does the article contain a credible claim of significance or importance?" BEFORE "Does a Google search turn up any reliable sources?". In my experience, regardless of how bad quality an article is, it's always better to perform a Google search and see if it's notable; of course, there are exceptions, such as attack pages. Per WP:ATD-E, if a page can be edited to avoid deletion, that's preferred. Therefore, if a page doesn't make a claim of significance or have reliable sources, but a Google search turns up reliable sources, it should be tagged for needing more sources or moved to draftspace, but deleting it wouldn't be right. I suggest you switch the order of the significance/importance bubble and the Google search RS bubble, but I'd be happy to bring this up at WT:NPR if you would like to view the opinions of a wider audience. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: A7 doesn't require a notability search before CSD, as long as there is no claim of significance. We used to get a ton of these before ACTRIAL, and the CSD criteria was chosen to limit wasted reviewer time; "XXXXXXX is a student in YYYYYY high school and hopes to be a ... someday". These don't require a search. To be honest, post ACTRIAL, we don't get a ton of these any more, and what few A7s are available are more borderline to the point that doing a search is probably advised. "Contains a credible claim of significance or importance" is a bit open to interpretation, like, I generally wouldn't A7 a company without doing a BEFORE search, unless the entire content was something like "XXXXXX is a coffee shop in (middle of nowhere)". Doing WP:BEFORE searches for everything would be great, but does cut into review time. As always, it is up to the reviewer if they want to put in the extra work, but I think that with regards to A7 the flowchart reflects current CSD policy about what is required at minimum. Thanks for bringing this up though, and I'm keen to discuss further if you are. I've got some planned updates to the flowchart coming anyway (remove 'mark as reviewed' for deletion options, as the bug has been fixed in the feed, and changing PROD to "PROD preferable to AfD?"). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

While your reasoning certainly makes sense, I'm not necessarily sure I agree in all cases. I don't think we should use "the current article doesn't currently say that it's important or signifcant" as an excuse to delete a notable topic. Maybe it would be better to have a bubble for if the article contains any useful prose at all that could be used in an article, then the article should be tagged or draftified, and otherwise just blow it all up and start over? I do understand what you're saying though - if you have "John Smith is a cool 12-year old dude who rides a skateboard" but it turns out that many reliable sources say that he won some skateboard world record, deleting it and recreating it is probably the best option. However, we don't get much of this in the feed. Possible A7 candidates are mostly just obviously non-notable OR they have useful and accurate prose, but don't cite reliable sources or have a claim of significance. If the second is the case, I don't think they should be deleted.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the second part, will we officially change the NPP policy so that PRODded or CSDd articles should not be marked as reviewed? If so, Twinkle will need to be updated, as currently it marks any page as patrolled once it has a deletion template placed on it.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: From our last discussion it seems that there was consensus that if the bug could be fixed, that it would be preferable that way. I agree that a discussion will need to be had regarding it, and I think we should wait until changes to the new page feed are complete before we make a final decision. The flowchart will be changed afterwards. My preference will be that so long as deletion tagged articles are in a separate section of the new page feed, they should not be marked as reviewed (that way if the author removes the PROD tag, it will go back into the feed by default for a re-review). We can default this by making the feed automatically treat any page with a deletion tag as 'unreviewed'. There will likely be a few technical hurdles to overcome, but it will help greatly in closing some of the cracks that things fall through. 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

And in reality there are a bunch of articles even older than that by virtue of accepted AfCs or former redirects which have been sitting in the queue for a while. Not sure when the right time is to see if there's more support to trying to head-off a problem before it becomes intractable as we approach 90 (60 days might be the right cut-off) but I thought I would note this new "milestone". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Reality is pages just age out and get indexed. Maybe that is not a bad thing beause by time they get that far a few NPP have looked at them but been too unsure to approve but not willing to seek deletion. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I'm aware of the issue, I just got back from holiday but I'll post a backlog update soon at NPP/R and some adverts around requesting help. That isn't a solution Legacypac. The reality is that we are falling behind amd need to catch up. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Insertcleverphrasehere:!

I would still like to work with you on creating an RCF for a collapsible infobox on the Stanley Kubrick page. My last discussion was archived (editor said there was too much personal commentary?) and I would like to create a more productive avenue for making this happen. I know you said you were out for some time so please get back to me when you can!

Thanks very much!

Willydrach (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Willydrach,

I'd be happy to help. I've been a bit busy as I just landed in a new country (moved halfway round the world) and am also catching up on some New Page Patrol stuff that I neglected when I was on holiday. I'm not really sure whether the 'personal commentary' bit of the close was commenting about you or refering to others commentary about you, but it doesn't really matter.

On topic: I don't think that we should actually include an infobox as part of the proposal, as people can get bogged down in the specifics, but if pressed I think the example at the right might work. It is also probably better If I launch it, rather than you launching it yourself. I've put together an idea in the collapsed box below. Let me know what you think and if you are agreeable, I'll launch it whenever you are ready. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) I am all for infoboxes (as you probably know), but not for collapsed ones, because the defy the very purpose of an infobox: make something available at first glance. I have a friend who is handicapped and has trouble clicking the "show" button. I stared at the side navboxes in some operas (Rinaldo (opera), for example) without even realizing that there was something collapsed, for years! Summary: why not go for a normal infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Because its been tried, and failed to gain consensus. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

When? Who opposed? Are they still editing? - A bad compromise (Sinatra) is not a good model ;) - In German we say "keine halben Sachen", don't know that in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In two RfCs. The most recent one is here. There are still plenty opposed. It's time to try a compromise. If you don't like it, feel free to oppose. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I will not oppose ;) - The worst I do about RfCs is ignore. But I feel like CurlyTurkey: "one of those compromises where both sides lose, and utterly defeats the purpose of having an infobox". Four of the oppesers don't edit any more (Jaguar, Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, SagaciousPhil), which includes those who felt strongly enough to question supporters, - why not try it? - The other option (perhaps better, less time-consuming for everyone) is to just leave that article as those who are so proud of improving it want it, and add infoboxes to the thousands of articles where they are requested on the talk page. I made one today for Berthold Leibinger, and got a thank-you-click for my removal of the request on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty good advice, but it was Willydrach that wanted to run the RfC, I was going to leave it to slowly smoulder over there. I think that If the Sinatra page is anything to go by, there won't be an end to disruption, but it could end up a little less venomous I suppose. Perhaps this RfC will fail and it will become clear in this RfC that the majority of users Oppose the collapsed infobox for the same reasons that you do, time will tell I suppose. It is up to Willydrach to decide what he wants to do. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere! I apologize for taking so long to get back to you - this past week has been crazy with work. I'm glad you made it to where you were going and took the time to make this proposal. It looks great! I think the collapsible infobox example that you made will really add some value to the page and finally put this whole infobox debacle to rest! What would be the next step here?

WillydrachI'll start the RfC now, Just head over there and !vote. Don't forget the sign the end of your comments (and your !vote) with ~~~~. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to show an example of how it would look, or link to such a think, like the one above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: With all respect, I disagree as part of the RfC proposal. If an example is proposed, people with think that is what we are !voting on, and the nit-picking will begin. If somebody asks in the discussion, I'll point them here. Regardless of what the example is, we will need to discuss and get a consensus in the final result after the RfC is concluded, assuming it were to pass. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As you like it. I doubt that a general user unfamiliar with the topic - and those are addressed in an RfC - will even know what a collapsed infobox is, - there are only a few I'd know, such as Frank Sinatra, Peter Sellers and Little Moreton Hall. I'll watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2018

Hi, Insertcleverphrasehere! I cannot thank you enough for all of your support & kindness regarding this. It doesn't seem like the other editors are too fond of me....is there a reason for them to have this scrutiny towards me? I've never felt more disliked in my life! Willydrach (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(UTC)

I would like to become a New Page reviewer in wikipedia. I saw you in WP:NPP/S as a trainer. If you like, kindly please help me.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 08:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Path slopu Thanks for your interest in New Page Patrol. I'd love to, and normally would, but unfortunately am heading off on holiday where I will have limited internet access over the next few weeks (literally about to board the flight), and won't be able to help on WP much until mid October. I'd suggest asking at WT:NPR instead. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Path slopu. I am back from holiday and able to help if you have some interest in joining NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi greetings, I would like to join NPP. Would you mind to help me? Thank you.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 12:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Path slopuFirst thing I can suggest is: Make sure you understand Wikipedia:New pages patrol, make sure you understand Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and Familiarise yourself with the NPP Flowchart.

Then install all of the scripts and gadgets located at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Full_recommended_gadget/script_list. Gadgets can be ticked on in the gadget section of 'Preferences' in the upper right of the page, and scripts have to be installed at your User:Path slopu/common.js page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(continued on your talk page)...

Hi. I apologise for the confusion. With only one thread being archived by the lowercase bot would have updated the archive index. Thats why I had added {{archive now}} to that one thread, and undid the archival if that single thread. I also saw you removed the the threads from archives as well (completely finishing the undoing of archival). Again, sorry for the confusion. Also, I am not sure if that template actually triggers lowercase bot, as there is a {{user:ClueBot III/archive now}}; and I have never seen {{archive now}} triggering the archive. Please free to archive any threads, except "removE NPR right". Sorry again. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)