DYK for Hey, Hey, Rise Up!
On 6 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hey, Hey, Rise Up!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" is the first new Pink Floyd song in more than 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hey, Hey, Rise Up!. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hey, Hey, Rise Up!), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the article which is also featured on my talk today! - a song for you: Glauben können wie du, sung by the person I have on DYK today, right below the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's really Andy who did the main work on this, I just pushed it in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 15,714 views (654.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- team work is it - today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- today Melody (not by me), and more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- a strong woman --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Ritchie333,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 731 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1034 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
Mentoring
Hi there, I noticed you are a good article mentor. I am dipping my toe in the water with the backlog, and have started a review of One Astor Plaza. I thought starting with an old nom, and one that is a non-controversial geographical feature would be a good idea. I have read, and continue to read the criteria against the article, but would love you to keep an eye on my review and let me know of any feedback or issues. Before I even finish the review, I have a good feeling this is a pass given it's good first impression and the past contributions of its author, but looking forward to formally applying criteria. Thanks!MaxnaCarter (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the review. I am aware of Epicgenius' contributions to Wikipedia, particularly New York City architecture, over many years, and am perfectly happy to believe that there won't be much to discuss in a GA review of his work. However, there are always comments or suggestions that can be made, and I would generally list anything you think is worthwhile that can make the article better. You could then defer back to the GA criteria if the nominator thinks such a task is difficult, time-consuming or otherwise complicated, but won't cause the review to fail if not done. For example, there is a citation to TheStreet which one of my scripts (probably User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js or User:Headbomb/unreliable.js - Atsme would know) flags up as "generally unreliable", so that's worth a bit of discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, Ritchie! I took a quick look at the questionable sources (Rolling Stone & Gothamist), and they do raise question. In the section SL Green ownership, if MTV vacated One Astor Plaza in 2009 as anticipated by those sources, where did they move? Looking at the MTV article, their address is still One Astor Plaza, 1515 Broadway. 🚩🚩🚩 Perhaps I overlooked something? Prose size (text only) 6539 words = approx 39kb so it's ok there. I might suggest condensing some of the details in the History section, but wouldn't push it. Flow matters more - the words should flow making the article easy to read – it just seems that the financial situations of previous owners, increased rents, etc. have little to do with architecture or history of the building itself, and more to do with the history of those companies. Hope that helps a little. Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Atsme, regarding
if MTV vacated One Astor Plaza in 2009...
, that was my bad. MTV did vacate the studios and retains an office presence there. However, the wording was extremely weird - I guess the phrasing "MTV moved out of the building's studios" may have given the impression that MTV moved out of the building altogether, which it didn't. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Atsme, regarding
- Hey, Ritchie! I took a quick look at the questionable sources (Rolling Stone & Gothamist), and they do raise question. In the section SL Green ownership, if MTV vacated One Astor Plaza in 2009 as anticipated by those sources, where did they move? Looking at the MTV article, their address is still One Astor Plaza, 1515 Broadway. 🚩🚩🚩 Perhaps I overlooked something? Prose size (text only) 6539 words = approx 39kb so it's ok there. I might suggest condensing some of the details in the History section, but wouldn't push it. Flow matters more - the words should flow making the article easy to read – it just seems that the financial situations of previous owners, increased rents, etc. have little to do with architecture or history of the building itself, and more to do with the history of those companies. Hope that helps a little. Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Wilderness hut
Page was indeffed protected due to BKFIP disruption, in December 2015. Since that time BKFIP has changed his MO, and gone on to create many autoconfirmed and even quite a few extended confirmed accounts without returning to disrupt this page. Hence unprotection might be worth a try here. Protection can always be restored if disruption resumes. Thanks for your consideration. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The last-but-one change on the article was from Hiralious (talk · contribs), subsequently blocked as a sock puppet of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. There hasn't been an edit request on the article for over a year. Based on that, I am not inclined to unprotect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Nigeria
You are aware that you just closed an AfD for a completely unsourced article, where none of the keep voters offered even a single source, as "no consensus", instead of delete? I would think that the basic requirement to give any "keep" vote any weight would be that either the article or the AfD offered anything resembling a source... Fram (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am, and to be honest I get annoyed when I see a contentious AfD like this, and discover that nobody has made any attempt to improve it. However, I also didn't see enough people agreeing with your deletion rationale, particularly DGG, who declined the original PROD. It's never been policy to delete articles simply because they're rubbish, and if you think there should be one, an RfC is probably the way to go. All that said, a "no consensus" close implies no prejudice against re-nomination when things have calmed down a bit - or if you prefer, I can relist the AfD instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Considering the number of similar articles DGG deprodded, but which then got deleted anyway, I wouldn't give too much weight to his remarks. And of course the deletion rationale was not "it'srbbish", but "fails WP:LISTN, which none of the keeps actually disproved (as seen, again, by e.g. the lack of any sources). Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- So do you want the AfD relisted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Considering the number of similar articles DGG deprodded, but which then got deleted anyway, I wouldn't give too much weight to his remarks. And of course the deletion rationale was not "it'srbbish", but "fails WP:LISTN, which none of the keeps actually disproved (as seen, again, by e.g. the lack of any sources). Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have been more active in following these up. (It was indeed my intention to deprod as many of these as I could find, and eventually go on to deal with the ones that had already been deleted. I think it is generally valuable to call attention to neglected corners here, and always valuable to determine consensus on an area which seems never to have been discussed.) They are all unsourced, but not unsourceable, as they are included in the standard philately handbooks. I had hoped someone active in that field would have added them, as my childhood amateur days in this field ended decades ago. Since they are sourceable, the main reasons for deletion seems to have been that "nobody was working on them or currently reading them", or that they were incomplete, all of which are completely irrelevant. WP is a work in progress perpetually, and has no time limits and no size limits. If further discussion is warranted, I see no reason why they have to be listed independently-, for the same arguments would apply to all. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the main deletion reason is that they fail WP:LISTN, which neither you nor any other proponent of keeping them has actually been able to disprove. The claim that e.g. the topic of "people on the list of stamps of Fiji" (or Finland, or Gibraltar, or Netherlands New Guinea, or ...) is "included in the standard philately handbooks" seems very optimistic; what philately handbooks include, is the basic fact that many collectors collect by topic, and that typical topics are people, animals, sports, events, buildings, ... , just like there are collectors by country, by shape of stamp, by year, by special emission, ... All of which is hardly sufficient to have lists about these topics per country. The additional problems (unsourced, incomplete, wrong, ...) are only giving as indications of the state of these articles and the general interest them, as a counter to argulents in early AfDs about how these topics are clearly notable, of interest, ... and other similar false claims. So far, all your many Prods have achieved is cause a massive amount ofg extra work for many people, a massive amount of pointless discussions, and very little actual improvement to enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had a short break today, so I Googled around, and found a couple of RS to add as citations to a couple of the Nigerian stamps that have historical significance, especially now that we have email. Those same 2 sources also reference some of the other historically significant stamps in the list, and there are more RS out there for those with the time & ambition to find them, so happy editing to all the history buffs and philatelists! WP:NEXIST Atsme 💬 📧 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- External link. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had a short break today, so I Googled around, and found a couple of RS to add as citations to a couple of the Nigerian stamps that have historical significance, especially now that we have email. Those same 2 sources also reference some of the other historically significant stamps in the list, and there are more RS out there for those with the time & ambition to find them, so happy editing to all the history buffs and philatelists! WP:NEXIST Atsme 💬 📧 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the main deletion reason is that they fail WP:LISTN, which neither you nor any other proponent of keeping them has actually been able to disprove. The claim that e.g. the topic of "people on the list of stamps of Fiji" (or Finland, or Gibraltar, or Netherlands New Guinea, or ...) is "included in the standard philately handbooks" seems very optimistic; what philately handbooks include, is the basic fact that many collectors collect by topic, and that typical topics are people, animals, sports, events, buildings, ... , just like there are collectors by country, by shape of stamp, by year, by special emission, ... All of which is hardly sufficient to have lists about these topics per country. The additional problems (unsourced, incomplete, wrong, ...) are only giving as indications of the state of these articles and the general interest them, as a counter to argulents in early AfDs about how these topics are clearly notable, of interest, ... and other similar false claims. So far, all your many Prods have achieved is cause a massive amount ofg extra work for many people, a massive amount of pointless discussions, and very little actual improvement to enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (2nd nomination)
Yes, !votes aren't the only factor, but 12/4 is a clear consensus for a keep. I could go directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review but am giving you a chance to change the close to a "keep", or, as suggested at the AfD, a "snow keep". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote. Specifically, RandomCanadian gave strong arguments for deletion, while a number of "keep" arguments were procedural, suggesting the AfD shouldn't have been re-nominated as quickly. Those carry less weight as they said nothing about the suitability of having an article. I would also draw your attention to the above thread, which also shows the presence of these stamp list articles is contentious. As also stated above, I can relist the AfD if you like, and if you filed a review at DRV, I would suggest the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you didn't completely discount/strike all of RandomCanadians' disruptive bludgeoning and faulty arguments. If I had done that, I would have been warned and my !vote discounted. I've seen that happen. Restarting an AfD in this manner is disruptive, so an immediate close and a trout to Random would have been best. I really get tired of wikipedians who take pride in deleting as much as they can get away with. That goes against WP:PRESERVE, which is an important policy. We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete. Much deletion is laziness and an admission that we have failed, and not even seriously tried, to properly document the "sum total of human knowledge" as enjoined by Jimmy Wales. That is why we are here. It is our purpose. Maybe DGG can share some thoughts about this.
- The only legitimate question here (and pretty much all AfDs) was notability (all else can be fixed), and, with few exceptions, if someone is notable enough for a stamp, that's pretty notable. The nation is the only necessary source as their own culture and language will have plenty of RS that show what led to the notability of that person, and we don't have to perform the work/translations to find those sources. That a nation deems a person worthy of a stamp is prima facie evidence of notability. Period. WP:NOT is a BS argument in this connection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are arguing that the people on these stamps are notable, which is not the topic of discussion. "People who spoke at the parliamentary session of 25 May 1782" will include only ntable people (parlementarians) and will probably be verifiable (if there was a session that day), but that doesn't mean that it would be an acceptable article. The reason for deletion, which was ignored by most "keep" votes (and as you show still isn't understood by all of them), is that the "group", the "list of people", isn't a notable topic, despite the individual people being notable. Fram (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Valjean: (talk page stalker) you should count yourself lucky that the AFD wasn't closed as straight delete. Looking at the debate, There is a total absence of valid reasoning behind the keep votes, and nothing to counter the fact that this list violates WP:LISTN and WP:SYNTH, because there is no external source presented which lists the same information. No consensus is a very legitimate outcome, and absent further evidence that this topic is one that's notable for listing, it's likely the next one will be a delete. — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- "We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete" That's not strictly true all of the time; if I were to write "[politican] is a confirmed rapist and has sexually assaulted at least five girls under the age of 16" with no source, and argued that "we are supposed to try and improve imperfect content", I'd be lambasted for doing so. And on that issue, Jimbo agrees. Okay, that's an extreme example, but it does show that in contentious topics like this, it is perfectly reasonable to have a view that an article cannot be improved, and hence deletion might be a more appropriate organisation of the encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree on all points, except the implication that that "extreme example" cannot be improved by providing several impeccable RS and improving the wording. That would satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE's description of how we are supposed to present such matters and also satisfy Jimbo's goal for Wikipedia. I suspect you took your example too far in your desire to make a point (which I do appreciate), yet even this one can be resolved/saved/improved and then included in the appropriate spot in the appropriate article. We don't have to immediately reject and delete it. That's too lazy an approach. We should try to save it. That doesn't mean we have to do the work ourselves. Sometimes we don't have the time or background knowledge to immediately fix it ourselves, and since the burden for doing so is on the one who wants to include the content, they should be encouraged to do so. In the meantime, if it's unsourced, it should be fixed immediately or deleted, per BLP. If it wasn't a sensitive BLP matter, we'd just tag it with a "cn" and hope someone improved it, but that's a different type of situation.
- As far as "That's not strictly true all of the time," I suspect you could come up with a better hypothetical situation where we'd both agree that it was unfixable. Otherwise, I still believe our first priority should be to save content if at all possible, assuming it is from the good faith efforts of another normal editor, not some vandal.
- You and I may not fully agree on the AfD decision, but I do respect your opinion(s) and definitely AGF in your efforts. I also appreciate the comments from others and will consider them. I've been here since 2003 and am always learning. Carry on the good work. I think we are all fortunate to be able to contribute to this amazing project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- "We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete" That's not strictly true all of the time; if I were to write "[politican] is a confirmed rapist and has sexually assaulted at least five girls under the age of 16" with no source, and argued that "we are supposed to try and improve imperfect content", I'd be lambasted for doing so. And on that issue, Jimbo agrees. Okay, that's an extreme example, but it does show that in contentious topics like this, it is perfectly reasonable to have a view that an article cannot be improved, and hence deletion might be a more appropriate organisation of the encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I would like the content of the "List of numbers in various languages" page moved to Wiktionary, please.
Hello, I was one of the regular contributors to the page "List of numbers in various languages", and I just found out that it's been removed. I am sorry to see it go, but I know it's for the best on a site like Wikipedia.
However, I did read that you said, "If anyone would like the content moved to userspace in order to move to Wiktionary, let me know." I would certainly wish to see the page on Wiktionary, because it would probably be more fitting there than on Wikipedia proper.
Please reply to this as soon as possible. --Abcormal (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy to move this to userspace, but there seems to be a technical problem in doing so. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unable to userfy List of numbers in various languages. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have the backup of the "List of Numbers in Various Language" page?
I was just surprised that the page has gone. :( Fortunamia (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's being restored now to User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages - see the above thread on AN. If you think the deletion was in error, you can appeal the decision at deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I doubt very much Wiktionary is going to want any part of this. (I'd have said so earlier, except that the move summary mentioned Wikidata instead. I couldn't figure out why Wikidata would want it, either, but I'm less familiar with the project.) They've indicated that they don't want transwikification from Wikipedia because the content is uniformly awful when considered as dictionary entries, and they handle translations totally differently - see for example wikt:1#Alternative forms and wikt:one#Translations. —Cryptic 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "Wikidata" was a typo, I got the two mixed up - I don't participate in either project bar the odd contribution. The page looks like it might be useful somewhere and I don't think the content is awful per se, it's just a very large indiscriminate dump of information that has been added to without ever stopping to think whether it would be actually appropriate to have it in an encyclopedia (which was the point those at the AfD were making). I'm just not sure what to do with it. The important thing from my angle is because it's now visible to all editors (albeit now in an obscure tucked-away place), somebody more knowledgeable about these things can work on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I doubt very much Wiktionary is going to want any part of this. (I'd have said so earlier, except that the move summary mentioned Wikidata instead. I couldn't figure out why Wikidata would want it, either, but I'm less familiar with the project.) They've indicated that they don't want transwikification from Wikipedia because the content is uniformly awful when considered as dictionary entries, and they handle translations totally differently - see for example wikt:1#Alternative forms and wikt:one#Translations. —Cryptic 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
deletion of page Pushpam Priya Choudhary
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushpam Priya Choudhary (3rd nomination)
You wrongly deleted the page. There was no through discussion and there was no fair opportunity. Please relist the page for discussion. Dakshinamurti (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I deleted it because nobody except you wants to keep the page. You will need to find another article to improve. I strongly advise you not to open a thread at deletion review again, as you may be criticised for wasting other people's time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to be contrary, but unlike the Faroes case above I think you've made an error here Ritchie. The OP may not have gone about things the best way or won any friends thoughout the AFD saga, but they presented sourcing to show Notability and overall I think the Oppose votes were small in number in both the recent AFDs and also weak or failed to address the legitimacy of the three sources presented. I would probably !vote "keep" myself. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I've relisted the AfD. I'm still concerned about bludgeoning, but we'll see. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, having had done a Google News search myself, I can find a whole bunch of sources that can be potentially used, so on reflection I'd probably leaning towards !voting "keep" as well, provided I could improve the article a bit. I think the problems here were (a) nobody improved the article whatsoever during the third AfD, (b) when an article has been deleted at AfD twice and no established editors have come forward to at least play devil's advocate, then it's easy for confirmation bias to kick in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I've relisted the AfD. I'm still concerned about bludgeoning, but we'll see. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to be contrary, but unlike the Faroes case above I think you've made an error here Ritchie. The OP may not have gone about things the best way or won any friends thoughout the AFD saga, but they presented sourcing to show Notability and overall I think the Oppose votes were small in number in both the recent AFDs and also weak or failed to address the legitimacy of the three sources presented. I would probably !vote "keep" myself. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Shift clicking
I know, huh? I'm lucky I found out about it two months in to being an admin, although it didn't save me from clicking that small box 133 times when someone pasted the entire contents of a book into an article... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123: Thanks to the wonders of YouTube (watch out for the copyvio police), I've found a clip of One Vision rehearsals where Freddie is indeed singing "One shrimp, one prawn, one clam, one chicken" .... and worse. I'll never hear that song in the same way again. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Fookin' Prawns"! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbey Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Let It Be and Something.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- You could have told me that when I made the edit (I was reverting to a stable lead from earlier following complaints elsewhere) and it tagged it as "dabs added" but I hadn't the foggiest what. Harrumph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)