Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023

Article vs redirect points

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Discord, when the idea of an October backlog drive was discussed, I proposed including redirects in it and assigning different weights to redirects and articles. This appears to have been included in this upcoming drive based on the Points section, which I'm happy to see. I do believe there was consensus forming towards a weight of 4 redirect reviews being equal to an article review, but I see that the points section is going with a 3:1 ratio. I'd like to propose that we also this to a 4:1 ratio instead.

Some points option:

1. 3:1 – Articles = 3 points / redirects = 1 point
2. 4:1 – Articles = 1 point / redirects = 0.25 points
3. 5:1 – Articles = 1 point / redirects = 0.2 points

The primary focus of the backlog drive should be reducing the article backlog with a secondary focus on the redirect backlog. We should additionally consider that article reviews are more time consuming and that the points should reflect this. While I personally would prefer a 5:1 ratio, given that I could review 100 redirects in an hour but would struggle with 20-30 articles, I do think a 4:1 is a good middle ground. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m fine with a 4:1 ratio, but you cannot say there was consensus for a 4:1 on Discord. Looking back in the history @Actualcpscm, @Tails Wx, @Zippybonzo, and @Illusion Flame supporting 3:1. It appears @Hey man im josh and @Skarmory we’re the ones in favor of a higher ratio. All the users I’ve pinged: Please continue to discuss the ratio below. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Imo, anything above 4 would probably drive people away from reviewing redirects, but I'd be fine with 3 or 4. Actualcpscm (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Decimalising the redirect numbers isn’t very good for a leaderboard or total point count. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 00:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur, let’s do full points for this, we can discuss the ratio. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

We could have a different ratio for articles and redirects about to be indexed. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 01:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain, I don’t follow. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If an article is near the 90 day mark it gets more points than a brand new article, as the 90 day mark for articles and redirects is when they get indexed to Google, so we want to weed out bad articles before they get indexed. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 01:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Whatever we decide, I’d like to see some input from users. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The majority of old redirects (especially since we cleared the backlog) are the result of merges, BLARs, vandalism, etc. and shouldn't be worth more. (In fact, those are usually on the easier end to review, especially when they've been reviewed before.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Careful with making the point system too complex. Adding different points based on both article/redirect and also article age seems complex, which has disadvantages in terms of bot coding, mental burden, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

For the May 2023 redirect drive, we mostly just quadrupled the article award levels. I think 3x is a bit skewed towards redirects. 4x or 5x is fine with me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"3 coords is the norm"

@Zippybonzo added a spot in the lede for a third coord and stated 3 coords is the norm. Of the past three backlog drives there were three coords twice and and two coords the other time. Is there any reason that a third coordinator is necessary? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Not particularly, though it helps to share out the workload during and the end of the drive, as there can be one coord to request mailings and publicise the drive, one to deal with admin, and one to deal with questions and other issues. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say "admin"? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Setup and awards/coordinating with Tol regarding TolBot. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, so given the long lead time up to the backlog drive there should be plenty of time to coordinate with Tol and possibly run a test or two. As for awards, that's pretty pre-defined and should be relatively easy to figure out from the table. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked another coordinator who declined coordinating this drive. I think @Zippybonzo and I can coordinate this one together, unless someone else offers to help. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you do mailing list related stuff, I can do awards and Tolbot stuff, and we can both do question related stuff. Sound like a plan? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to do awards as I can get through them pretty quick, but I have no preferences, you can do the mailing list if you want. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 00:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that’s fine. We can just do some of each! I’ll draft the massmesage, you send it. We can both do awards and questions. Sounds good? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, also the implementation of re-reviews for articles needs doing, I’m about to go home from my holiday so will be a little busy, but if I get time I’ll do it on the plane (yeah planes have decent “Wikipedia Speed” WiFi now (more WiFi than your house when they turn the internet off 🙃)) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 01:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not too familiar with that, so I’ll leave it to you and your plane Wi-Fi. As luck my may have it, they only shut off my internet once. It has been very slow lately; which is annoying, but better then nothing lol. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I've also got to finish the wikibench validation study to finish on my airplane wifi or laptop when I get home in 12 or so hours Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice, I recommended you for that! Where’d you go on vacation? Did you enjoy? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Maldives, lovely holiday, on the plane now, pretty good wifi, alleged to be good for streaming, which it was on the way out, so I’ll be testing it on the way back, so far pretty good, the download is good 30mbps, upload is under 1mbps. Anyway, any takers for coordinating, as there’s a tentative spot that is not needed but can be filled if needed. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Primary coordinator?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings everyone! Today I saw @Hey man im josh re-added @Zippybonzo to the October backlog drive coordinators list after Zippy had already expressed a disinterest in being a coordinator this drive. @Hey man im josh stated that a primary coordinator was needed or else the drive should be canceled. I DMed (courtesy ping) @Novem Linguae on Discord and they directed me to start a thread here:

1. Zippy, I know you’ve already said so here, but could you confirm again that you are not interested in coordinating the drive, sorry again for wasting your valuable time!
2. As Josh stated in his edit summary, a primary coordinator is needed to run the drive. I propose that I fulfill said role, so that the drive can continue. Is anyone opposed to this?

- 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I do think that the drive should be cancelled if there's not a backlog drive coordinator willing to lead it. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep. That’s why I’m proposing for myself to lead the drive, so that doesn’t happen. :) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like we have plenty of folks willing to coordinate the drive. I don't think cancellation is needed. I just think we need to work out who wants to be a coordinator in this backlog drive and who doesn't. I know Illusion Flame and DreamRimmer want to be coordinators and are listed as such on this backlog drive page. I am unsure about Hey man im josh and Zippybonzo. Would be great if Hey man im josh and Zippybonzo could clarify in this thread here if they want to be a coordinator for this backlog drive. Once we have a head count of coordinators, then we can figure out if we need a "lead" backlog drive coordinator for this backlog drive, who it is, etc. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe 3 full backlog coordinators to be too many. I've always been of the belief that we should only have one, but that's just my opinion. I was willing based on private conversations but I'm not interested at the moment as I don't think we need 4 people on the coordinators list with a backlog related title when we typically have ~two drives a year. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought about taking up the role of this drive's coordinator in an effort to learn something new, but if any of you have concerns, please let me know. I'm willing to quit. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 10:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll happily coord, but thought HMIJ would like to coordinate. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

We had a private conversation about this where it was discussed. I made sure to be clear that I would not be leading this drive. In the end, you and I were not on the same page. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I was not leading this drive, the list on the coordination list is for the point of call regarding backlog drives in general. I was very clear that I was not leading the drive, but I do lead 'drives' in general. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In the future, I advise that you not start drives if you do not intend to lead them. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I did intend to lead them, but then you approached asking to coordinate the drive. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that's a mischaracterization of our conversation. Never the less, it doesn't matter now and doesn't need to be discussed further. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused at how everyone became so confused. But it sounds like Zippy, Illusion, and DreamRimmer are in and Josh is out for coordinating this drive? That matches what is typed in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023 so I think we are all set? Now that we have the coordinators for this drive identified, I think the rest of us can step back and let them coordinate any details, including their own internal hierarchy if they use one. Sound good? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m good with that! I think the confusion was caused by an internal misunderstanding between Zippybonzo and Hey man I’m Josh. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ora and Theo Coster

@ULPS: I guess your patrol will pass but I take issue with the article's construction and sourcing. The article uses peopleofplay.com as a reference, which I have doubts is WP:RS. The subject's notability derives from the games they made, which are more than one and each notable but fully half of the article is personal life stuff which makes me wonder if there isn't a CoI issue. Further, their notability could be derived in part from public art of theirs but nothing is mentioned in the article. I've since tag-bombed the mess but you might be more careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I will be completely honest here, I forgot to tag the article for issues and that is my mistake. But from my searches that you seem to have also conducted, the duo appear to be notable. Cheers, and thanks for the ping :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

1965–66 Hartlepools United F.C. season

@ULPS: I don't see notability here. I have nominated cruft like this for deletion before only for fans to show up and oppose deletion. This is the sort of fight that should be on you, the patroller. At least tag it, if not nom for deletion. Folks are under the impression that all seasons of everything are notable because patrollers don't want to take on the fans. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

List of roles in the British Army

@DreamRimmer: Lists have to pass WP:NLIST. I nom'd it for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chris troutman, I believed it met the WP:NLIST criteria, so I marked it. You had a different opinion and nominated it for AfD, which I see as a positive step because the AfD result will provide me with more experience in assessing notability for lists in the future. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The guidance is that a list of notable things (all the entries on the list have standalone articles) is ok. A list where the subject (the agglomeration of things) has been discussed extensively (though not necessarily each and every single item) is also ok. That article is neither. Yes, we'll see if the squaddies prevent deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roles in the British Army was relisted and is leaning keep. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roles in the British Army closed as no consensus. -- 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 07:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Papunta Ka Pa Lang, Pabalik Na Ako

@DreamRimmer: Please don't be in such a rush! Patrolling is better done right, than quickly. At first glance the article seems ok and has a few newspaper citations. The problem is that the citations are mere mentions and the subject fails NFILM. I've since nom'd for deletion but you should have caught that yourself. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chris troutman, As you can see, there aren't many reviews for old films on Rotten Tomatoes or any other review website. Generally, present news websites don't have articles or reviews available for such old films. During BEFORE, I came across the possibility of offline sources, so I decided to mark it as reviewed. I've also taken a close look at the article's available sources, and I don't believe I was rushing through the process. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papunta Ka Pa Lang, Pabalik Na Ako closed as keep. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Chilling

@DreamRimmer: Subject fails NFILM. It has basically one source. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Same applies here. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at the available reviews [1], [2], [3] and [4]. This book also contains two pages about the film, on pages 69 and 70. Additionally, there are numerous other sources available, leaving no doubt that it meets the criteria for WP:NFILM. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The book might be acceptable. The other URLs look like random websites. If it was your impression that sources exist, please tag the article accordingly. If you're just now looking for sources because you didn't bother when you patrolled it and now you're trying to save face, consider that a wasted effort. Bring your sources to the AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chris troutman, I'm uncertain about how you assessed the reliability of these review websites, but it's worth noting that more than 70% of the reliable sources aren't listed on WP:RSP or other notability user scripts. Generally, folks consider the source's independence when determining its reliability, it because each article use different websites as sources. I have full confidence in the independence of those four reviews.

Regarding your mention of 'saving my face' by finding sources, it appears you mean that reviewers should make an effort to search for all available sources during the review and potentially add them to the article. However, it's crucial to clarify that reviewers are not obliged to include sources as part of the review process, and maintenance tagging is also optional.

In this way, I find myself unable to continue with the review, and I don't think I can continue. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 18:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chilling closed as keep. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Columbia 'Coco' Diaz

@Thilsebatti: I don't see notability here, so I've tagged it. The piece isn't COPYVIO and there's no puffery or slander but articles have to meet notability guidelines. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Title also doesn't follow MOS:DOUBLE. I went ahead and moved it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Esto Es Brujeria

Hi @Simon Peter Hughes: letting you know as a part of the rereview process that a page you marked as reviewed, Esto Es Brujeria, was later moved to the draft space by someone else. The article was just an album list, you might've considered tagging the article for notability concerns or moving it yourself during your review; however I could see where sometimes album articles can be bare and you left it. Best MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 15:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@MicrobiologyMarcus: It doesn't look like @Simon Peter Hughes ever marked the page as reviewed. They did tag the page, and accidently re-create it as a result of an edit conflict when the page was draftified, but I'm not seeing anything in the logs about them marking the page as reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: you're totally right about that, I'm not sure how I missed that. Sorry Simon Peter Hughes, mea culpa. MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I accidentally recreated the page as a result of an edit conflict? Jeez! I find it a bit troubling that Wikipedia's software allows that to happen. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Simon Peter Hughes: It's not a big deal. I think had it not been an automated edit you wouldn't have done that. But no worries! You've done nothing wrong or incorrect and @MicrobiologyMarcus just happened to misread the logs. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Accidently recreating pages does happen a bit as I found out when I went looking at my articles created - rubiish that I had been CSD'ing or tagging when the page was moved or deleted was usually the cause Josey Wales ^Parley 22:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Long Jie (disambiguation)

Long Jie (disambiguation) was reviewed by @Simon Peter Hughes and re-reviewed by @Joseywales1961. However I found problems with links, see MOS:DABPERIOD. this page should not be made as per MOS:DABNOLINK: A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link on the entire page, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages. I then revoked the review, send a message to the page creator, and moved the page to the draft space. I wonder if someone can check if what I did was right FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I would have said it was ok and left it in place per the paragraph above MOS:DABPERIOD "However, in some cases the target article title is not an expansion or variation of the term being disambiguated. For example, in the Maggie Anderson (disambiguation) page: Maggie Anderson, character in the musical play Brigadoon", there were a few examples similar in this DAB page. Best wishes Josey Wales ^Parley 21:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

But in that dab you mentioned there are more than one blue link. In the one I moved there was only one and it’s a redirect FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe I would appreciate if you can explain your edit as it will help this discussion FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 already has: you've misunderstood MOS:DABNOLINK. When it talks about the number of blue links on a DAB page, these include links to articles that cover the topic under a different name. So here, for example, the relevant link in the second bullet is Fencing at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's individual épée, where coverage of the Long Jie that participated there can be found. In other words, the disambiguation page stands in place of the redirect that would otherwise take readers looking for the fencer Long Jie to that article, if there weren't other topics with the same name.

To this I can also add that, if you think a page "should not be made", you shouldn't move it to draftspace, which is for articles that should be made, but are currently unsuitable for mainspace (see point 1 of WP:DRAFTIFY). WP:CSD#G14 exists for unnecessary disambig pages (though in this case I expect it would've been declined per the above), or there's AfD. – Joe (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

make sense although the example of Maggie Anderson (disambiguation) did not help. Just to clarify, I moved the article to allow the creator to make redirects, for example, Long Jie (fencer) who participated in the Fencing at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's individual épée, and that is my intuition in general is to give chance rather than jump to deletion or AfD. But I think now I have a better understanding of DABs as a way to help the reader. Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 backlog drive progress

Please note, I've shared an update regarding the progress of the drive at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#October 2023 backlog drive progress. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Leaderboard not updating

Just thought I'd raise an issue here because I don't know where else to. The leaderboard hasn't been updated by the bot in ~3 hours. greyzxq ^talk 19:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just got updated now. Sometimes the bot doesn't update for an hour or two, so if it continues to update now it's probably not a huge issue. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice @Greyzxq! Bots do unfortunately get off time as the drive goes on. (Which is why the bot updates at 20 minutes after instead of on the hour) I don’t know what caused the 3 hour outage, but it appears to be fixed. If the bot fails to update for more then ~5 hours, don’t hesitate to let us know again. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know the bot only updates in certain conditions such as when there are changes made etc, though you can just leave Tol a message if it does go down for longer than a few hours. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 14:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Duane Owen and WP:PERP

Hi @Taking Out The Trash, for a biographical article on criminals (including convicted ones), WP:CRIMINAL outlines additional requirements beyond the usual requirements of significant coverage, and it's not clear whether those would be met here, and no comment was left. Only one of them need to be met, so an evaluation against point 2 would be fine. Of course, neither a pass nor fail would preclude a move, merge or redirect to an article on a related topic, if it is better covered at another title, as with other topics. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Bot participation

@Illusion Flame why can't my bot participate? DannyS712 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Because this is a human competition… - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Smh speciesist discrimination in this day and age? So cancelled :P Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh no 😥 - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame do you have any other examples of bots being excluded? Or is it just mine? DannyS712 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello DannyS712, We genuinely appreciate the valuable services your bot provides to the NPP. This drive is primarily organized for humans, and everyone knows that there's no real competition between a bot and a human. Bots operate on automation, faithfully following a script, and they don't tire, in contrast to humans who have limited energy. Bots can work continuously, day and night, whereas humans need breaks and remain motivated. For this reason, we won't be awarding any bot prizes or listing them on the leaderboard. Instead, we'd be happy to consider a separate prize for your bot's contributions. Would this be okay for you? On behalf of the drive coordinators, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Its fine - I mostly meant this as banter, I wasn't expecting the bot to actually win any prizes - if you want to grant a separate prize that would be great but I'm just glad the bot is still working after I was inactive for so long DannyS712 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Haha, it seems like your bot is running on magic instead of code – no wonder it won't quit! By the way, welcome back to activity after a long break. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe next backlog drive we can have an award for bots working in this space. Award it to bots do NPP and non-bots who make potentially-workable suggestions for how bots can work better in this space? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this a problem that needs solving? I think there's just one active bot in the NPP space. Anyone is welcome to award it a barnstar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the questions to ask are 'Are there more things in the NPP space that could probably be done by a bot that are currently being done by hand?' (I think the answer to that is almost certainly a YES) and 'How do we encourage this automation to happen?' Stuartyeates (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Re-review: Yrjö Hakanen

Hi Pichpich: I re-reviewed Yrjö Hakanen, which is marked as reviewed by you, and I don't think that should have been accepted. The article cites two sources, the person's own website and a book they've authored, which clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG, and they aren't notable under WP:NPOL either. Also, this is a BLP, but the citations don't support details such as DOB or education history. Any thoughts on this? Or have I perhaps missed something? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing. Did you perhaps mean to write this on my talk page? In any case, I wanted, but forgot, to include {{expand Finnish}} tag to the article. It's pretty clear from the fi.wiki article that the subject is notable even if the current refs on en.wiki don't support that. I've added the expand tag. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Pichpich: okay, that's a perfectly fair point. I'll go and amend my re-review accordingly.

I brought this up here, because that's what it says in the re-reviewing instructions to do. (Did seem slightly odd to me, but what do I know?!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Closing barnstars

I recently get my barnstars awarded by User:Hey man im josh (thank you), and looking at them can't help but think that it would be better promotion of WP:NPP and the backlogs in particularly if the messages left on talk pages actually linked to the backlog drive and/or NPP. If we're serious about raising awareness and recruiting new editors for NPP, we need to be looking opportunities to increase the number of editors visiting these pages, and this seems like such an opportunity. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)