Jump to content

User talk:Qwerfjkl: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
RE ULSS: @80.7.186.76 "first of all, thanks a lot for your redi..." [Factotum]
Line 688: Line 688:
Yes, it's not unambiguous as a reference to the [[unduly lenient sentence scheme]]. But it's also presently a redlink, so it's not helping anyone resolve what it means in any context at all. If someone comes along and writes articles for those other uses (or expands articles, or realises that existing articles already cover those other uses, etc), they can turn the redirect into a disambig as and when; in the meantime, the redirect would be serving a useful purpose to readers. Wikipedia's malleable and we don't need to get it absolutely perfect the first time; we can fix things up and improve them, and make incremental changes that are better than nothing. So, will you please create the redirect, as suggested, so that readers can get ''some'' value, even if it's not the absolutely platonic perfect result that an encyclopaedia with infinite resources would have? [[Special:Contributions/80.7.186.76|80.7.186.76]] ([[User talk:80.7.186.76|talk]]) 15:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's not unambiguous as a reference to the [[unduly lenient sentence scheme]]. But it's also presently a redlink, so it's not helping anyone resolve what it means in any context at all. If someone comes along and writes articles for those other uses (or expands articles, or realises that existing articles already cover those other uses, etc), they can turn the redirect into a disambig as and when; in the meantime, the redirect would be serving a useful purpose to readers. Wikipedia's malleable and we don't need to get it absolutely perfect the first time; we can fix things up and improve them, and make incremental changes that are better than nothing. So, will you please create the redirect, as suggested, so that readers can get ''some'' value, even if it's not the absolutely platonic perfect result that an encyclopaedia with infinite resources would have? [[Special:Contributions/80.7.186.76|80.7.186.76]] ([[User talk:80.7.186.76|talk]]) 15:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
:[[Special:Contributions/80.7.186.76|80.7.186.76]], first of all, thanks a lot for your redirect work.<br/>However, per [[WP:REDLINK]], it's better to keep [[ULSS]] as a redlink. Readers can use the search bar for this.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1668355419626:User_talkFTTCLNQwerfjkl" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 16:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
:[[Special:Contributions/80.7.186.76|80.7.186.76]], first of all, thanks a lot for your redirect work.<br/>However, per [[WP:REDLINK]], it's better to keep [[ULSS]] as a redlink. Readers can use the search bar for this.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1668355419626:User_talkFTTCLNQwerfjkl" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 16:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
:: Search would be useless in this case, as the acronym isn't used in the article (I wrote it talking about 'the scheme'). I also don't see where [[WP:REDLINK]] covers this situation - could you please quote the part that you find relevant? [[Special:Contributions/80.7.186.76|80.7.186.76]] ([[User talk:80.7.186.76|talk]]) 16:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:50, 13 November 2022

Discussions

Centralized discussions

Village pump

Village Pump (policy) (13 threads)
Village Pump (technical) (17 threads)
Village Pump (proposals) (15 threads)
Village Pump (idea lab) (14 threads)
Village Pump (WMF) (6 threads)
Village Pump (miscellaneous) (5 threads)


Administrative noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard (33 threads)
Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents (41 threads)
Administrative action review (0 threads)
Most recent:
Edit warring noticeboard (7 threads)
Bureaucrats' noticeboard (6 threads)
Bots noticeboard (2 threads)
Arbitration Committee noticeboard (7 threads)
Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (7 threads)


Editors requesting help

Wikipedians looking for help (0 requests)
0 page(s) currently transcluding the {{Help me}} template.


Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Graham872 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
Worm That Turned2 RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91
FOARP AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 268 106 242 72
Peaceray AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 270 107 239 72
Sohom Datta AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 298 108 210 73
DoubleGrazing AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 104 206 75
SD0001 AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 101 209 75
Ahecht AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 303 94 219 76
Dr vulpes AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 322 99 195 76
Rsjaffe AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 319 89 208 78
ThadeusOfNazereth AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 321 88 207 78
SilverLocust AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 347 74 195 82
Queen of Hearts AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 389 105 122 79




New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Qwerfjkl,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hi, I just noticed that this category was deleted. Since you closed the discussion, I thought I would ask if there is there any way to have that decision reconsidered? Frankly, the comments from the proposer and some of the others demonstrated a lack of knowledge of Upper Canada politics in the 19th century. The descendants of the Loyalists, born in Upper Canada, were a very influential political group, even though they themselves were not political refugees from the US, and don't fit within the definition of "Loyalist" used in either of the two articles on the topic. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, can you give some examples of UEL descendants, where that is WP:DEFINING for those people (the main objection)? — Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was the defining characteristic of the politics of two provinces which did not exist prior to the arrival of the Loyalists, Upper Canada and New Brunswick, as well as an entire sector of settlement in Lower Canada. Loyalty to the Crown became the significant ideology of those provinces. They were the descendants of political refugees who fled a revolution after losing their homes and property. Asking if it is a defining characteristic is sort of like asking if being the son or daughter of a political refugee from Cuba in Miami is a defining characteristic, or if being the son of an American revolutionary was a defining characteristic for politicians in the next generation after the Revolution. The ideology of the Revolution permeated US politics; the ideology of loyalty to the Crown permeated politics in Upper Canada, New Brunswick, and to some extent Lower Canada. I can give you a list of descendants of the political refugees from the US who were then involved in politics and governance in Upper Canada and New Brunswick in the first half of the 19th century. But it's not like there was a "United Empire Party" that elected members; it's that being the descendants of political refugees who lost their homes and fled for ideological reasons was the defining feature of politics in those provinces for a half-century. I'm also curious why there are categories for Sons of the American Revolution and Daughters of the American Revolution. Do you apply the same standard of defining characteristic to those categories? For people born two hundred years after the Revolution? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on that last point, I notice that Rosalynn Carter is listed in the category of "Daughters of the American Revolution", but there is nothing in her article that suggests that is a defining feature of her life and political views. Should she be deleted from that category? Similarly, George W. Bush is listed in the category of "Sons of the American Revolution", but there is nothing in his wiki article that suggests it is a defining feature for him, either. Should he be included in the category, if there is nothing in his article that mentions it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there’s also a process issue. For an issue that relates specifically to Canadian history, I think this deletion should have been listed at some of the Canadian wiki pages, so you would get comment from people with some knowledge of Canadian history, instead of comments from editors who have no idea why the category could be significant. Two good places to list it would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Canada and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. I only learnt the category had been deleted when editors started deleting it from bio pages of Upper Canadian politicians I follow. Advance notice would have been preferable. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #542

Tech News: 2022-42

MediaWiki message delivery 21:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category not deleted yet

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Category:American anti–illegal immigration activists, the category should be deleted by now, shouldn't it? You closed the discussion the 20th. Categories of other discussions you closed that day have been deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, added here, thanks for spotting. Qwerfjkltalk 08:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #543

Tech News: 2022-43

MediaWiki message delivery 21:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Triple Jeopardy!" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Triple Jeopardy! and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Triple Jeopardy! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes of Europe / America

Hi, You have closed this proposal. Does the decision preclude me from creating an new category call Category:Civil parishes in Europe? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged, wouldn't that fall under WP:SHAREDNAME? — Qwerfjkltalk 10:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I also created Category:Church parishes in Europe. Both could then have the same parent ( Category:Parishes of Europe ) which would become a container category with only two members. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged, I would suggest having another CfD discussion about it, given the previous discussion, which had mixed views. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This might be a first at WP:CFD - "permisson to create a new category please". BTW, love your personal categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CFD categories

Hello, Qwerfjkl,

I kept seeing Category:17th-century British literature and Category:Gladiators (UK TV series) on the nightly Empty Categories list and I finally looked at them again tonight. I found you had closed the CFDs that involved these categories yesterday. Is there a reason that you didn't tag these categories for deletion after you closed the CFDs? They were already emptied so they didn't require any removal of pages/categories by a bot.

You and Marco use to do this when you were done closing CFDs but for some reason, over the past month or so, I never see categories deleted through CFDs come up as uncontroversial deletions, CSD G6, any more. Was there some problem with how you were handling these closures? Because I thought that it was a very efficient system. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I've switched to listing these at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working now, regardless of how much work needs to be done, so that they can be processed by the WP:CFD/W bot. They tend to get added to the bot page by an admin within a week.
It looks like I forgot to list Category:17th-century British literature, however.
I used to manually carry out the outcome of every CfD discussion, but it took far too much time, and there are still a severe shortage of closers at CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

Implementation of rename for Category:Volcanoes of the New Zealand seabed

Hi. The CFD for Category:Volcanoes of the New Zealand seabed was closed as rename several days ago. I'm not sure of the process from here. How/when does it get implemented? Is it in progress, or is there a step that has been delayed, or is someone else responsible? Sorry for not being familiar with the process. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nurg, I've listed it at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. An admin will move it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working sometime. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nurg (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #544

Tech News: 2022-44

MediaWiki message delivery 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Renaming discussion was shallow to coin a pun

Please see Category talk:Seamounts of New Zealand ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rag Shop

Is Rag Shop notable enough to be in the list of defunct retailers of the United States? 2601:584:101:80B0:D7A:766A:BB3E:869E (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2601:584:101:80B0:D7A:766A:BB3E:869E, based on Talk:List of defunct retailers of the United States § Inclusion criteria, if there are reliable sources noting it, it can stay; otherwise, you can be bold and remove it. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the fact that there's no article for it, it can probably go, as per the discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder

As Bigwig7 turns out to be Rathfelder, would this affect your closure of August_15#Category:Judges_educated_at_Eton_College? Oculi (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, not really. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; just asking. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #545

Tech News: 2022-45

MediaWiki message delivery 00:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jasmeet2001 (11:15, 9 November 2022)

How can i get my profile url? --Jasmeet2001 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasmeet2001, please can you clarify what you're trying to do. What is your 'profile'? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qwerfjkl,

This empty category is tagged with a CFD tag that makes it appear to be part of a CFD discussion you closed but I don't see this category in the bundled list. Do you have any ideas of what's going on here? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, looks like Hemiauchenia didn't add this to the list after tagging it for discussion, presumably by mistake. I assume it only contained subcats that were deleted due to that discussion, so you can probably just delete it. — Qwerfjkltalk 01:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this an oversight on my part. Apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE ULSS

Yes, it's not unambiguous as a reference to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. But it's also presently a redlink, so it's not helping anyone resolve what it means in any context at all. If someone comes along and writes articles for those other uses (or expands articles, or realises that existing articles already cover those other uses, etc), they can turn the redirect into a disambig as and when; in the meantime, the redirect would be serving a useful purpose to readers. Wikipedia's malleable and we don't need to get it absolutely perfect the first time; we can fix things up and improve them, and make incremental changes that are better than nothing. So, will you please create the redirect, as suggested, so that readers can get some value, even if it's not the absolutely platonic perfect result that an encyclopaedia with infinite resources would have? 80.7.186.76 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

80.7.186.76, first of all, thanks a lot for your redirect work.
However, per WP:REDLINK, it's better to keep ULSS as a redlink. Readers can use the search bar for this. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Search would be useless in this case, as the acronym isn't used in the article (I wrote it talking about 'the scheme'). I also don't see where WP:REDLINK covers this situation - could you please quote the part that you find relevant? 80.7.186.76 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]