User talk:Kosack/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kosack. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
Technical news
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Kosack,
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 810 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 846 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. | |
The Signpost: 29 May 2022
- From the team: A changing of the guard
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
- In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis
- Featured content: Featured content of April
- Interview: Wikipedia's pride
- Serendipity: Those thieving image farms
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?
- From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia
- Humour: A new crossword
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
Technical news
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Kosack,
- Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
- Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. 
Barnstars will be awarded.
- TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
- Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13801 articles, as of 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, 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.
- Notes
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 June 2022
- News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks
- In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down
- Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?
- Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose
- Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed
- Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals
- Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
| New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 July newsletter
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.
Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Happy Third Adminship Anniversary!
Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
|
|
Technical news
user_global_editcountis a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Hey, how's it going? I see you've reviewed football-related articles for FA in recent years. A.C. Monza has been a candidate for over three weeks, and there are almost no comments. I would really appreciate it if you took some time to leave a comment (it doesn't necessarily have to be a full review) :) Nehme1499 21:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 August 2022
- From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something
- News and notes: Information considered harmful
- In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap
- Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)
- Community view: Youth culture and notability
- Opinion: Criminals among us
- Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement
- Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country
- Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us
- Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists
- Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
- On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories
- Essay: How to research an image
- Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed
- Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia
- Gallery: A backstage pass
- From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened
Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
- An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Technical news
- The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
- Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
- The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
- Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
- Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello Kosack,
- Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
- Coordination
- MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
- Open letter to the WMF
- The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
- TIP - Reviewing by subject
- Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
- New reviewers
- The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, 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.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP message
Hi Kosack,
- Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP Award for 2019
|
The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award | |
| For over 360 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. Also, we notice you haven't been very active here recently, and hope you will consider increasing your participation. The backlog is relatively high and we could really use your help. Regardless, thanks again for your past effort. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 August 2022
- News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere
- Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?
- In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
- Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees
- News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me
- In focus: Thinking inside the box
- Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...
- Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now
- Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth
- Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.
- Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links
- Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come
- Essay: Delete the junk!
- Humour: CommonsComix No. 1
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago
Administrators' newsletter – September 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
- An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
- The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
- The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
- The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
- The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
- Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
NPP Award for 2018
|
|
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| For over 100 article reviews during 2018. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2022
- News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
- In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
- Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
- Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
- Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
- Featured content: Farm-fresh content
- CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
- Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
- Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.
Technical news
- The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
- Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
- A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
- The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.
Miscellaneous
- An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
- You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
- An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
- Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The Welcome Back Barnster
|
The Welcome Back Barnster |
| Special:Diff/1114977915 - first edit made since your return and I will get used to seeing your user name on my watchlist again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
2021 Rugby League World Cup article name
As you put the administrator access required for remaining the article 2021 Rugby League World Cup – Men's tournament, I am asking you this seen as no one has responded to my discussion in the article talk page.
My recent efforts to backdate all the modern era world cups to fit this new system have been reverted with the claim that it's again the Wikipedia manual of style.
If that is true then 2021 Rugby League World Cup – Men's tournament needs to be renamed back to 2021 Rugby League World Cup, and the current page 2021 Rugby League World Cup needs to be renamed back to 2021 Festival of World Cups.
Please could you as an administrator get this done? Mn1548 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Has a consensus been reached regarding the naming of these articles? If so, can you point me in the direction of it? Cheers. Kosack (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- No concenus has been reached on article names, I started a discussion here but it has had no response. There is a small concenus that four articles are needed (which I also agree; here) one for men's, women's, wheelchair, and an overall article. There is also a definite concenus that the festival of world cups article should be transferred to the overall article (here). I'd like the naming to be consistent for all editions of the tournament, which is what I proposed in the first link. Mn1548 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a clear consensus to move the protected page. The first link especially seems to favour the current title based on the handful of editors who participated. Given the tournament is ongoing and likely to receive high traffic, I'm reluctant to move this only to find it causes more issues. Kosack (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- TBH I agree it might be best to wait until after the tournament has concluded. I just want some consistency in how these series of pages are titled, and as my efforts to alter previous tournament's articles to fit this new one for the 2021 world cups were reverted for not fitting the manual of style (which was not linked on the revert notes, so I don't personally know if it does or not) I would like the 2021 articles changed back to match previous articles naming convention, and also that if what I was told was true, the current naming of the 2021 tournaments wouldn't fit the manual of style either. Mn1548 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a clear consensus to move the protected page. The first link especially seems to favour the current title based on the handful of editors who participated. Given the tournament is ongoing and likely to receive high traffic, I'm reluctant to move this only to find it causes more issues. Kosack (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- No concenus has been reached on article names, I started a discussion here but it has had no response. There is a small concenus that four articles are needed (which I also agree; here) one for men's, women's, wheelchair, and an overall article. There is also a definite concenus that the festival of world cups article should be transferred to the overall article (here). I'd like the naming to be consistent for all editions of the tournament, which is what I proposed in the first link. Mn1548 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Jon Morgan (footballer)
On 27 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jon Morgan (footballer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Welsh footballer Jon Morgan went on to become a college principal after retiring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Morgan (footballer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jon Morgan (footballer)), 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.
Vanamonde 00:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2022
- From the team: A new goose on the roost
- News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment
- Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove
- Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com
- Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?
- Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal
Administrators' newsletter – November 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
- An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
- AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
- You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
- Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like
{{rangeblock|create=yes}}or{{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by- Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
- BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.
During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.
- Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
- Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.- Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.- Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
- Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
- Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
- Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit to National Anthem of Hong Kong
"March of the Volunteers" is not the national anthem of Hong Kong from 1997.
Basic Law and the Law of Hong Kong didn‘t define what song will be the national anthem of Hong Kong from 1997 as Hong Kong is running the “one country two system” rule. This has not be change even China make an amendment to the Annex III of the Basic Law. It only require Hongkonger respect to the National Anthem of People Republic of China, there are no define "March of the Volunteers" will become or is the national anthem of Hong Kong.
Thus, until now, there do not have any offical national anthem of Hong Kong. Please change it back to the correct description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.166.22 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- The page was protected due to the disruption being caused by edit-warring. I don't proclaim to know much about the subject, a request was made to protect it by another user. If you wish to propose changes to the article, please do so on the talk page with your reasoning. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Consider yourself lucky you weren't the last admin to have protected the page, Kosack, even though we protected it at the same time, to the minute ([1][2]). That IP has been so unrelenting, there's no breathing room to even reflect on what's happening. They've copy/pasted that same thing above seven times now btw ((1234567). So, maybe it's your turn...? ;) Anyway, I'm out. El_C 16:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Perks of doing the unpopular jobs I guess. Kosack (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Consider yourself lucky you weren't the last admin to have protected the page, Kosack, even though we protected it at the same time, to the minute ([1][2]). That IP has been so unrelenting, there's no breathing room to even reflect on what's happening. They've copy/pasted that same thing above seven times now btw ((1234567). So, maybe it's your turn...? ;) Anyway, I'm out. El_C 16:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The Mummy
Hello,
The Mummy (2017 film) is not being edited in a disruptive fashion, the source is utterly speculative, as I already explained to another editor who agreed with my point: The deadline article was published whilst the film was still playing in cinemas, estimating a global box office total of $375 million for losses of $95 million. This is woefully inaccurate as the film ended up grossing $410 million at the end of its run. On that basis: The $95 million loss is inaccurate because the film made considerably more than the $375 million projection by the author. If the author can be that wrong with their estimations of the box office, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they could be just as wrong with their projections of the movies budget and marketing costs. What the article is saying doesn't match up to what actually happens and therefore it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be trusted.
I hope we can both agree that unreliable and inaccurate sources need to be removed, otherwise they damage wikipedia's integrity, something which I was trying to do.
2A00:23C5:8124:AE01:94DB:C297:8323:3FBA (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, unfortunately the page is currently being disrupted by the disagreement. There have been 6 reverts of information in less than 48 hours. If you disagree with the sourcing, then it needs to be discussed on the talk page to reach a consensus. If you believe the source provides incorrect information, then you need to provide a more accurate one. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- It was previously discussed on the talk page three years ago and the section was removed, someone has since re-added it.
- The information provided in the source is woefully inaccurate, the first step has to be to remove the inaccurate information, the article is based on estimates which we now know to be incorrect.
- This is an equivalent of me finding a source for Avatar (2009 film) which predicted that it was going to be a bomb and using that as evidence that Avatar lost a significant amount of money, which we now know is not the case.
- If I did that, the information should be removed, that process should not be delayed because someone else needs to find an alternative source.
- This is the problem with Wikipedia, it should not be this difficult to remove information which is undeniably and objectively incorrect.
- 2A00:23C5:8124:AE01:B89B:6D22:DDEF:5956 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Other than a vague two post thread, there is little definitive discussion on the talk page. Also, a second source supports the information which is dated several years after the film's release. If you want the information removed, the best course of action is to start a discussion on the talk page, clearly citing your sources that contradict the sources provided. Kosack (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2022
- News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"
- In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
- Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
- Book review: Writing the Revolution
- Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
- Essay: The Six Million FP Man
- Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
- Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"
- Featured content: A great month for featured articles
- Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
- CommonsComix: Joker's trick
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
- The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
- An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
- A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
- The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
- A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
- Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add
/64to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet. The study is scheduled to end on Monday, January 9, 2023. Please note this is a bit later than the initial estimate specified in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Whoops! Looks like we pushed the button at the same time to protect this article! :-) I protected it for four days as opposed to simply two; feel free to modify the protection duration to the length you see fit - no need to discuss with me beforehand. Sorry for stepping on your toes! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- No need to apologise and no problem at all! Kosack (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Figured I'd just reach out to you and let you know, if anything. It's a pleasure to say hi to you again (as usual)! Hope you're doing well, Kosack! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- While I am happy to see @Oshwah: return a couple of days ago, I have spotted two protection templates added by the two of you so I have removed one of them. Can't tell which user I've reverted though.
- What are the odds be for this to happen when both of you protecting the same article at around the same time? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Iggy the Swan - More often than one would think, actually. I can easily count a handful of times where myself and another admin protected the same page within just seconds of one another. I remember even running into an error once when applying protection awhile back because another admin was doing the same thing at the exact same time, and our requests had actually clashed with one another and caused a conflict. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- More often than I thought. Glad some agreement has been made for this current protection. Happy editing - Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Iggy the Swan - More often than one would think, actually. I can easily count a handful of times where myself and another admin protected the same page within just seconds of one another. I remember even running into an error once when applying protection awhile back because another admin was doing the same thing at the exact same time, and our requests had actually clashed with one another and caused a conflict. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Figured I'd just reach out to you and let you know, if anything. It's a pleasure to say hi to you again (as usual)! Hope you're doing well, Kosack! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Fiyako Tomori birthplace.
Forgot to log in on mobile when i edited that. If i remember correctly, his birthplace was edited from "Calgary, Canada" to "Calgary, Alberta"? Calgary, canada feels incredibly awkward to me. Would you prefer something like 'Calgary, Alberta, Canada" as is the case with birthplaces for american and canadians playing abroad like Christian Pulisic and Joe Scally? The city of birth is a single separate hyperlink on those pages, as is the country of birth. PikaBoop (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly bothered by the addition of the state, I reverted the edit because it removed the country of birth which is probably the most important of the three (city, province, country). Cheers. Kosack (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Hernán Galíndez
On 19 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hernán Galíndez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ecuadorian footballer Hernán Galíndez won a bicycle for beating a team featuring Lionel Messi when they were children? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hernán Galíndez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hernán Galíndez), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
2021 National League play-0ff Final
Hello, I think I've addressed all of your points from the GA review now. I was slightly unsure on this one: "by 2–0", this doesn't read right to me. Essentially you're writing that they won by two nil which doesn't work. Needs rewriting." I believe I've corrected the rest though, would you be able to check them please? Michaeldble (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Michaeldble: Hi, no problem. I'm away most of the weekend now, so it'll probably be Monday before I can get time to finish off. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Enjoy your weekend :) Michaeldble (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, apologies for the delay. I think I've addressed the smaller points. I was unsure if there was anything else to mention for the second half as I can't find anything relevant in the match reports apart from what has been added. Michaeldble (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Enjoy your weekend :) Michaeldble (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Bath City FC article
Hi Kosac,
Sorry to bother you.
It's a shame that the Bath City page failed the Wikipedia:Good article review, but thank you so much for the time and effort you put into it, I really appreciate it.
I've edited as you've suggested.
I think it would be a shame to cancel it, just for the tier issue, although I understand that an article cannot achieve good article status when a conflict is present.
Just for clarification, here are some of the sources that I used to get to the conclusion that the southern league was the top tier of non-league football:
[1] "Before the formation of the Alliance Premier Football League in 1979 the best non-league divisions in England were the Northern Premier League and Southern League."
[2] "the league was composed entirely of former members of the (professional) Southern League and Northern Premier League."
[3] "The 1969 season saw a hint of change when the formation of the Northern Premier League to equal the status of the long-established Southern League was the first step of many which led to the creation of the non-League `Pyramid`."
[4] "the Southern League's influence was reduced, although it remained the second strongest competition in England."
[5] "The Southern League operated as a 2-division competition throughout the next few years, with the Premier Division claiming, with some justification, to be the top football section outside the Football League."
[6] "It was the foremost non-League competition and players could often earn more playing part-time than being with League clubs."
even Number57 said that: "we all know the Southern League was one of the best leagues below the Football League"
I have tried to have a civilised, formal discussion on the matter, in which we share points and how we came to certain conclusions. But to be honest, Number57 seems extremely rude, and keeps saying stuff like: "The issue is, no-one agrees with you. Please stop flogging this dead horse and get one with something more productive." and is refusing to provide any evidence stating: "You can't prove a negative, so please stop asking me to." it just seems really odd...
I'm not sure what your views are on this? Joseph1891 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Joseph, no worries. The Bath City article has come a long way and there's no reason you couldn't get it to GA when this issue was resolved. Unfortunately I'm in agreement with the consensus we have here right now, the Southern League may have been the strongest league outside the Football League for significant periods, but it can't be labelled as the fourth tier. A tier system would suggest a natural progression through the Southern League into the Football League, but that is not the case. In fact there were long periods in which the strongest candidates were from other leagues, the entire 1950s saw candidates from other leagues far surpass the Southern League and pre-1915 the Southern League barely had a look-in. Progression to the Football League was basically a free-for-all. As one of the strongest leagues around, the Southern League naturally produced regular strong candidates, but calling it tier 4 is factually incorrect I'm afraid. Kosack (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear from you, thanks for your reply. Looking at that source currently, I can’t see where you got, the “Southern League barely had a look in the the 1950s”. To me, it looks like the Southern League completely dominates the election bid during this period, particularly for southern divisions. It’s important to note that those other leagues were northern leagues. The northern non-League divisions were always more “messy” as originally, the football league contained the majority of the top Northern clubs, and the southern league, the top southern clubs. The southern league was the only non-league division that ever truly “rivalled” the football league in terms of quality, as was its intention when it was formed in 1894
LC = Lancashire Combination NE = North Eastern League ML = Midland League the only Southern division that provided clubs for election after 1950 was The Southern League. Here are the amount of clubs that applied for football league each year in the 1950s from the Southern League and from other leagues:
Using the source you provided:
1952: Southern divisions: Southern League = 5
Northern divisions: Lancashire Combination = 3 Midland League = 1 North Eastern League = 1
1953: Southern divisions: Southern League = 5
Northern divisions: Lancashire Combination = 3 Midland League = 1 North Eastern League = 1
1954: Southern divisions: Southern League = 4
Northern divisions: Lancashire Combination = 2 North Eastern League = 1 Midland League = 1
1955: Southern divisions: Southern League = 4 Northern Divisions: Midland League = 1 Lancashire Combination = 2 Birmingham and District League = 1 North Eastern League = 1
1956: Southern divisions: Southern League = 7
Northern divisions: Midland League = 3 Lancashire Combination = 2 Birmingham and District League = 1
1957: Southern divisions: Southern League = 5
Northern divisions: Lancashire combination = 3 Midland League = 2 North Eastern League = 1 Birmingham and District League = 1
1958: Southern divisions: Southern League = 6
Northern divisions: Lancashire combination = 2 Midland League = 2 North Eastern League = 1 Birmingham and District League = 1
1959 Southern divisions: Southern League = 9
Northern divisions: Midland League = 3 Lancashire Combination = 2
Thing is, there are other editors on Wikipedia that agree with me that the Southern League from the 1950s - 1979 acted as tier 5, it was only really two editors on the talk Football page that didn’t agree, and they were the exact editors that I’ve had confrontations with before. I have looked but I haven’t found any evidence of a source stating that “no pyramid system or hierarchy, existed at all before 1979 in non-League.” Joseph1891 (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Joseph1891: I think you're assuming that Peterborough (Midland League) must have been applying for the Third Division North. They weren't. See e.g. the 1954 voting for the Southern Section, and other seasons from that site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- In regards to the source, teams may have applied during that period, but they were resoundly rejected in the voting process, which is what I was referring too. Any team could apply, that doesn't mean they were worthy of being elected. In 1951 for example, five Southern League teams applied and garnered just 3 votes.
- The key phrase you've used in your post is "acted" as the fifth tier, and that's the difference that you're coming across I think. It may have been the strongest league, but if it wasn't officially designated as a tier by the powers that be, we can't simply call it that because it appears that way. Kosack (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kosack No you're right, I can't find any evidence stating that the southern league was indeed a given tier.
- On @Struway2's point, yes it seems that the Midland League was a feeder to the third division south, which is odd, as it was later a feeder to the northern league, sorry for getting mixed up.
- @Joseph1891: It's a bit misleading to think of leagues as "feeders" to the Football League that far back. Any club could apply for election to whichever section they chose, regardless of what league they played in. In 1932, Mansfield, also a Midland League club, were elected to the Third Division South. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- For me, the reason it's important to state the tiers, is that I believe a lot of readers/ and modern-day football fans will be unaware of how much of a greater competition the Southern League and other non-league divisions used to be, and how they have been demoted throughout their history, almost forgotten. For example: If readers see that Chelmsford City F.C.: won "The Southern League" in 1968, they may click on the link to the Southern Football League Article, and assume that the club won the seventh tier, as it is now, which simply isn't accurate. Winning the southern league was far more prestigious before 1979 then after it - I'm not sure if it's fair to state that the southern league acted, but was not formally recognised as a given tier below the football league? As sources state that the league was indeed "the best non-league competition", and "secondary to the football league." [3][4][5]
- Also, after 1968, only clubs from the northern and southern league applied. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- So do you think I could re-apply the article for GA review? Joseph1891 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry Joseph, I missed this comment because of my DYK below. There are still a few issues with the tier mentions I feel, namely
- So do you think I could re-apply the article for GA review? Joseph1891 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The key phrase you've used in your post is "acted" as the fifth tier, and that's the difference that you're coming across I think. It may have been the strongest league, but if it wasn't officially designated as a tier by the powers that be, we can't simply call it that because it appears that way. Kosack (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- The lede features the comment "the top tier of non-League football at the time"
- "Bath were accepted into the Southern League Western Section, the top tier of non-League football"
- "acted as the fourth tier, being only one division below the Football League Third Division", this sentence is directly contradicting itself
- "played in the top tier of non-League football for the majority of their history"
- The wording on the notes of the honours system is also concerning. For example the first note begins "From 1920 to 1958, the top division of non-League football was The Southern League". This reads to me as directly implying that a tier system was in place and the second note has similar wording, "from hosting level four to levels five and six" is implying that a level system was in place.l even with the acted comments following on. If I was reviewing, these would be a problem I'm afraid. However, you should nominate the article on your own belief in its merit and the reviewer will do the same but, given the history, be prepared for it to come up again. Good luck with your nom! (which I just noticed). Kosack (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- No problem.
- But I've provided evidence that it was?
- [1] "Before the formation of the Alliance Premier Football League in 1979 the best non-league divisions in England were the Northern Premier League and Southern League."
- [2] "the league was composed entirely of former members of the (professional) Southern League and Northern Premier League."
- [3] "The 1969 season saw a hint of change when the formation of the Northern Premier League to equal the status of the long-established Southern League was the first step of many which led to the creation of the non-League `Pyramid`."
- [4] "the Southern League's influence was reduced, although it remained the second strongest competition in England."
- [5] "The Southern League operated as a 2-division competition throughout the next few years, with the Premier Division claiming, with some justification, to be the top football section outside the Football League."
- [6] "It was the foremost non-League competition and players could often earn more playing part-time than being with League clubs."
- So far, I've not found any evidence stating that an official pyramid was formed in 1979, and that there were no tiers in non-league before then.
- You believed me as well, saying "I have no problem with the tiers" until number 57 said it wasn't true, even though he provided no evidence, and still hasn't. Joseph1891 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- The wording on the notes of the honours system is also concerning. For example the first note begins "From 1920 to 1958, the top division of non-League football was The Southern League". This reads to me as directly implying that a tier system was in place and the second note has similar wording, "from hosting level four to levels five and six" is implying that a level system was in place.l even with the acted comments following on. If I was reviewing, these would be a problem I'm afraid. However, you should nominate the article on your own belief in its merit and the reviewer will do the same but, given the history, be prepared for it to come up again. Good luck with your nom! (which I just noticed). Kosack (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
But thank you so much for your help anyway Joseph1891 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's not much I can really add that hasn't been said at this point. The wording above that I mentioned appears to still be maintaining the viewpoint you have which is against the consensus that currently exists from what I believe and what I can see from the discussions that have been held. A lot of it has been trimmed from the article though, so finding a happy medium for everyone probably isn't unobtainable.
- I can't find the quote of mine you mentioned, so I can't comment on what I was referring to. As I said, there's no reason this article can't get to GA, but any reviewer worth their salt should be looking at why the previous nomination didn't go through. I'd hate to see you getting bogged down in the same frustration again when it's probably unnecessary to the article as a whole. All the best! Kosack (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!
Hello, Kosack! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Iggy the Swan:, Merry Christmas to you and yours also. Kosack (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 January 2023
- Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief
- Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"
- Essay: Mobile editing
- Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022
- Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes
- Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?
- Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!
- CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet. The study is scheduled to end on Monday, January 9, 2023. Please note this is a bit later than the initial estimate specified in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Kosack!
Kosack,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.
Arbitration
- Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
- The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
- Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sorry to bother you again
Hi Kosac, sorry to bother you again, about something that you are not currently discussing anymore, but I found this source: [6] not sure if it's too reliable, but it's far more than number57 provided. I assume that was the main reason why the page failed to review, but I have provided far more evidence to support the tier claim than any evidence against it. Anyway, really sorry to bother you, have a great day. :) Joseph1891 (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Joseph, no problem. The source is interesting, but I think NFT has had reliability questions in the past. They seem to be classing any league with election aspects as the fifth tier but obviously I'm not sure what they're basing that on. I don't think it would be enough to form a consensus that there was an organised structure and the further you go back in the archives, the looser it gets from what I can see. Kosack (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Promotion of Hughie Ferguson
The Signpost: 16 January 2023
- Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020
- News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion
- In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again
- Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery
- In focus: Busting into Grand Central
- Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100
- Featured content: Flip your lid
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
DYK for 2006 FIFA World Cup Group A
On 23 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2006 FIFA World Cup Group A, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Group A of the 2006 FIFA World Cup featured the highest-scoring opening game in World Cup history since the competition began using a single match opening format? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2006 FIFA World Cup Group A. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2006 FIFA World Cup Group A), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)