Misplaced Pages

User talk:Krakkos: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:50, 23 January 2020 editAndrew Lancaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers40,254 edits →Core topic of Germanic peoples← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:25, 28 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,354 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Krakkos/Archive) (bot 
(650 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
| archive = User talk:Krakkos/Archive | archive = User talk:Krakkos/Archive
}} }}
'''Welcome!'''


== Reverted edit ==
Hello, Krakkos, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Misplaced Pages's ''']''', and may be removed if they have not yet been. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a ''']''' for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Misplaced Pages also has a related policy against including ] in articles. As well, all new ] must contain at least one reliable source.


Hi there, I'm so sorry to bug you but you reverted an edit that I made and I'm trying to figure out how I can get the edit to stick because it is factually inaccurate. I'm new here and have been googling around about it and just can't seem to find the right way to do it. Any advice is appreciated!
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the ''']''' or come to the ''']''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{tl|helpme}}</code>''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022 ==
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on ]. <!-- Template:Welcomeunsourced --> Again, welcome!&nbsp; ] (]) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
== A page you started has been reviewed! ==
]
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The ] 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 ]. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.


'''Awards''': Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|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 ]. Check out the new ] also.
Thanks for creating ], Krakkos!
'''Software news''': {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|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 ]. The ] has also been improved.
]
'''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 ])
*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 ] 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 ] 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!
Misplaced Pages editor ] just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
{{-}}
{{refbegin}}
;Reminders
*Newsletter feedback - please take this ] about the newsletter.
*If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the , where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
*Please add ] to your watchlist.
*If you are no longer very active on Misplaced Pages 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 ].
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself ].
{{refend}}
<!-- Drafted by User:MB -->
<!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1114894896 -->


== New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 ==
<blockquote>I have reviewed and passed your new article. Great Work!</blockquote>


<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
To reply, leave a comment on Falkirks's ].
{| style="float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;
|}
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
{| style="float: right;
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
|}
]
;Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to {{noping|WaddlesJP13}} who led with 2084 points. See ] for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
;2022 Awards
]
{{no ping|Onel5969}} won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. {{no ping|Rosguill}} led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the ] and the ]. Congratulations everyone!


'''Minimum deletion time''': The previous ] guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and ]). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the ] are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
<small>Learn more about ].</small>


'''New draftify script''': In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly ]. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your ] or vector.js file from <code>User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js</code> to <code>User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js</code>'''
== January 2020 ==
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].


'''Redirects''': Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see ], ], and spend some time at ].
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 14:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


'''Discussions with the WMF''' The ] signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted ] in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as {{noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{noping|MPGuy2824}} have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also ] with the NPP coordinators to discuss ] that new users see.
== Please stop working on the new Germani article until you have justified it ==


{{refbegin}}
Krakkos, please show some good faith cooperative behavior and stop creating this POVfork while we get a plan agreed. The original article still exists, and the discussions on its talk page show that you are knowingly working in a disruptive way by having deleted chunks of it as an excuse to create this article. We still have no agreed definition of what the distinct topics are for the two articles in the future and you know we need that, because you know that has been a controversy and source of these problems. Please make an effort to break the cycle and to get a proper rationale on record. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to trick everyone. See ].--] (]) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
;Reminders
:I have replied to a similar comment at ]. See ] and ]. ] (]) 22:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
*Newsletter feedback - please take this ] about the newsletter.
::No you clearly have not given any sort of sensible and convincing reply. Just posting a couple of words is not a good faith reply. Furthermore '''ALL replies to you have been NEGATIVE''', and yet you are continuing!! I repeat please stop trying to push through these major controversial changes. First there needs to be a single agreed direction.--] (]) 10:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
*There is live chat with patrollers on the .
:::The proper place to discuss this is at ]. ] (]) 10:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
*Please add ] to your watchlist.
::::In your edsums you previously said the proper thing to do was an adf, which is of course tendentious (and completely different). Actually there are several "proper" places we can discuss it, but you are refusing to use ANY of them. I have decided to handle it as a merge proposal and the discussion (as noted in the template) is on the Germanic peoples article which is the parent/mirror article with more people watching it. (Indeed you created this rejected split off secretly.) Coming back to this talk page though, it is the correct place to contact you personally to make suggestions about changes you should make to your own personal approach to editing, which you have succeeded in making a subject of vital importance to anyone interested in these topics. You should freeze work on this controversial mirror article. All feedback you have had on it was strongly negative. You are making articles worse all the time.--] (]) 11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
*If 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 ].
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself ].
{{refend}}
<!-- Drafted by User:MB, Reviewed by Novem Linguae, Kudpung -->
<!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1130464022 -->
</div>


== New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 ==
==Disambiguation link notification for January 18==


<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;).
<!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per ], causes errors for screen readers -->
{| style="float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;
|}
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
{| style="float: right;
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
|}
]
'''Backlog'''


'''Redirect drive''': In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with '''23851''' reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to '''0''' (momentarily). Congratulations to {{Noping|Hey man im josh}} who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by {{noping|Meena}} and {{noping|Greyzxq}} with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See ] for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
(].) --] (]) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
:The issue is now fixed. ] (]) 10:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


'''Redirect autopatrol''': All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them ].
== please edit articles only in a way which respects EXISTING titles, structures, etc ==


'''WMF work on PageTriage''': The ], consisting of {{noping|Samwalton9 (WMF)|label1=Sam|JSherman (WMF)|label2=Jason|SCardenas (WMF)|label3=Susana}}, and also some patches from {{noping|Jon (WMF)|label1=Jon}}, has been hard at work ]. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in ] where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of ], to help find bugs. We will post more details at ] when we are ready for beta testers.
Krakkos, including a section about Germanic languages in the Ethnonyms sections, or already treating the Germanic peoples are sometimes in your edits (including wikilinks in other articles), etc etc, is not on. Stop it please. If you want to change sections, titles, etc then certainly in the case of Germanic peoples you are being called upon very clearly to explain your ideas first, so you need to do that. It is more generally necessary for practical common sense reasons that we all work in the same direction, of course. That is very hard if you work against everyone on purpose and REFUSE to nominate a plan despite making massively disruptive changes that you know to be controversial and in conflict with WP policy.--] (]) 12:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:Issues related to ] should be discussed at ]. ] (]) 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::This is related to your editing behaviour.--] (]) 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::You're consistently removing sources and information I'm adding about ] and ] at ] as being beyond the scope of the article. I started ], in which every participating editor, including yourself, agrees that information and sources on Germanic languages and Germanic culture is within the scope of the article. In the spirit of the consensus of the RfC, i reinserted scholarly sources, but you're STILL removing them. It's about time for you to re-examine your own editing behavior. ] (]) 13:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::"Germanic " is not an ethnonym Krakkos, which is where you put that new section. Furthermore it is made of duplicated material, and as you recently pointed out yourself this article is getting long, and the reason, as I pointed out, is for a big part because of these edits which randomly insert the same information into multiple places without any reference to the article structure. This has been a long term problem, and as this is one of the only articles where you go beyond category, link and list editing, this editing history is very problematic. Before you made Germanic an ethnonym, you made Barbarian an ethnonym! Please look at the articles you are editing and fit your work with others, or else announce your ideas first on a talk page.--] (]) 15:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::An ] is defined as "a name applied to a given ethnic group". We have an article titled ] about "a category of ethnic groups", so Germanic is their primary ethnonym. This should be discussed at ]. ] (]) 15:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::Your entry was for Germanic as a language family and contained duplicated information. The ethnonym already contains a section for Germani, which, as the opening says, can be translated as Germanic peoples. We do not need to make separate sections for every plural form or translation. Why on earth do I need to explain something like that though?--] (]) 15:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::My was for the Germanic peoples. See the citations from ], ] and ]. The term ''Germanic'' is very recent, it does not equal to ''Germani'', which translates as ]. If you're opposed to having separate sections for Germanic and Germani, the proper course would have been to merge the sections, but you just removed everything about Germanic. ] (]) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Because there was nothing worth keeping. Your edits never seem to take account of what is already in an article, and create constant duplication and artificial inflation. Sections you have been working on become unreadable.--] (]) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Why aren't definitions by ], ] and ] of Germanic peoples worth keeping in the article on Germanic peoples? ] (]) 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::First let's get agreement about what the article(s) are about, and then about how they will be structured. If you are finding good quotes you'd like to use, instead of inserting them impulsively now, while basic things are unclear, collect them, for example on a draft in your sandbox. Frantically making massive, repetitive, point-making changes into random bits of the article now is not a good idea Krakkos.--] (]) 15:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::A cursory examination of the edit history of this article shows that you're the one who's been making the largest amount of edits to the article in recent days. And that you edits are of a radical nature. If I'm not permitted to edit the article "while basic things are unclear", why are you? ] (]) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::I am not sure if your count is correct but in any case I did not expect you to bring problems this far. I propose for now we both slow down.--] (]) 16:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I agree. ] (]) 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


'''Articles for Creation (AFC)''': All new page reviewers are now '''automatically approved''' for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at ] like was required previously). To install the ], visit ], visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit ], and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
== Crash course in the ] dispute ==
* '''Chronology'''
* For more than thirteen consecutive years (2005 to 2019), ] was defined on Misplaced Pages as being about peoples identified as speakers of ].
:*This definition has fundamentally shaped the body of the article Germanic peoples, and the way the article is integrated into the rest of Misplaced Pages.
*In April 2019, without any prior warning on the talk page, ] fundamentally changes the scope of the article Germanic peoples from being primarily about peoples speaking Germanic languages to being about peoples "identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring ]".
:*Andrew Lancaster provides no new sources when changing the topic.
:*In fact, the change of topic is in direct contradiction to the source which is used.
:*Andrew Lancaster provides no edit summary for the change of topic.
:*Andrew Lancaster does not refer to any consensus for this drastic change of topic.
:*Andrew Lancaster's change of topic is opposed by ], but Andrew Lancaster successfully edit wars to get his will.
:*In ensuing discussion at ], i also express opposition to the change of topic, but the discussion comes to nothing, and the determination of Andrew Lanncaster to edit war ensures that the article topic is changed.
*In early September 2019, i insert a citation by ] at the article Germanic peoples, in which he defines Germanic peoples. This source is removed by Andrew Lancaster with the explanation that "this is not what this article is about".
*Later in September 2019, i create the article ].
:*Germanic peoples (modern) is soon ]. Andrew Lancaster votes delete, calling it "a content fork to try to publish material not suitable for WP". A large majority votes merge, and the decision becomes to make it a redirect to Germanic peoples.
*On 16 January 2020, i merge a number of sources about peoples speaking Germanic languages, from Germanic peoples (modern) into Germanic peoples. These sources include scholars such as Edward Arthur Thompson, ] and ].
:*On 07:29 17 January 2020, these sources are removed by Andrew Lancaster, who states that they are "sources about another topic (speakers of Germanic languages) handled in other articles" and a "deliberate confusion between Germanic peoples and Germanic languages using inappropriate sources".
:*On 10:51 17 January 2020, i initiate an RfC to determine if information on peoples speaking Germanic languages are within the scope of the article..
:*].
:*On On 11:29 20 January 2020, encouraged by the sentiment in the RfC, i insert quality information and sources on the relationship between Germanic peoples and Germanic languages.
:*On 12:08 20 January 2020, this content is removed by Andrew Lancaster, who states that the content "does not fit here".
*On 10:18 17 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster removes a whole chunk of sourced information from ], under the rationale "shortening".
:*On 13:13 17 January 2020, i create the article ].
::*This is in order to preserve the quality information Andrew Lancaster has just removed, and to have a clearinghouse for information related to the etymology of ], ], ] etc.
:*On 18 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster suggests that ].
:*On 20 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster block the addition of information on the term ''Germani'' at the article Germanic peoples, citing an "article length concern".
* '''The remarkable double-standard of Andrew Lancaster'''
:*Sources
::*When i attempt to add reliably sourced information to Germanic peoples, Andrew Lancaster removes it as based on "inappropriate sources", "unsourced assertions", or "not relevant to recent trends"
::*When i request Andrew Lancaster to attribute the information he's adding to reliable sources, he refuses to do so and replies: "Who cares? Why is this important? What is your point?", and adds that the information he's adding does "not have to match individual sources. They are editing decisions."
:*Consensus
::*When i request Andrew Lancaster to point to the "editing decisions" which justifies his edits, he refuses to do so and accuses me of obsessing about "the past".
::*When i add information which warrants inclusion per an ], he removes it as being without consensus.
:*Content relevance
::* (1) When i insert a source (]) about peoples speaking Germanic languages at the article Germanic peoples, he removes it with the rationale "this is not what this article is about".
::* (1) When i create an article to cover this subject which Andrew Lancaster has previously identified as beyond the scope of Germanic peoples, he wants it deleted as a ].
::* (2) When i create an article ], Andrew Lancaster wants to have it merged into Germanic peoples.
::* (2) When i add information about Germani to Germanic peoples, this addition is blocked by Andrew Lancaster, who cites an "article length concern".
] (]) 20:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:*Asking and answering questions
::*Andrew Lancaster asks me "what the core topic should be".
::*I answer the question in a straightforward manner. In return i request Andrew Lancaster to say what he considers to be the core topic.
::*In his reply, Andrew Lancaster refuses to answer the question. Instead he asks me to make a "proposal about the best way to divide up the topic".
::*In return i make a proposal about how the topic should be divided. I request him once again to tell what he considers to be the core topic and how it should be divided.
::*Andrew Lancaster again refuses to answer his own questions. He replies with the phrase: "I'm not really not sure what your point is", and accuses me of "turning the same question around... saying I should answer first?"
::*I again request Andrew Lancaster to tell what he considers to be the core topic and how it should be divided.
::*Again Andrew Lancaster refuses to answer his own questions. He accuses me of "not trying to think about what people are saying", and of "asking the wrong questions". He now says that the core topic of an article "is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness".


You can review the AFC workflow at ]. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that ], so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
===example corrections in case it helps===
*April 29. Krakkos describes it as a major article change when I mentioned that Germani were contrasted with Gauls, and also in conflict with a source (Heather). In fact it is neither a major article change, nor in conflict with that source or any other, nor with previous versions, nor talk page discussions. Heather : "Romans learned to distinguish precisely between the Germans and the Celts, a distinction that is made with great clarity by Julius Caesar."
*Dispute with Florian Baschke depicted as same discussion, but it was about a change of one word: are -> were. The context of the sentence is about Roman era peoples. That does not mean I have blocked discussion of later Germanic speakers in other parts of the article.
*The discussion Krakkos then describes as "ensuing" was not the same, and had actually begun months earlier.
*The first mentioned Thompson quote which was removed was about language phylogeny and placed between sentences about the Roman era peoples.
*The second accusation of me removing Thompson (and Owen etc), is NOT a deletion of material from those authors, but material from low quality sources which were part of an enormous block of footnotes (not article text) which was in essence meant to DISAGREE with the article text in the lead (to show it was wrong?).
*The third accusation of me removing Thompson etc, was, as mentioned in the real edsum, concerned also with duplication which is a major concern with Krakkos edits, also mentioned by other editors.
I stop at the RFC.--] (]) 12:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


'''Pro tip''': Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own ]? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is ] 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
==Germanic peoples discussion==
:I wonder to what extent the solution chosen in ] can serve as model for a way forward. However, it would be highly desirable to cite literature that demonstrates a comparable debate about the continuity between ancient Germanic peoples and medieval and modern Germanic-speaking ethnicities (the debate about the Celts being one that I personally find perplexing). --] (]) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::For the Celts we also have the articles ], ] and ]. Many solutions for Germanic peoples are possible when looking at how the Celtic topics are covered at Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::I think the first thing which must be determined by the community is which subjects that fall within the scope of Germanic peoples. That is the purpose of ]. The second thing which has to be determined by the community is which of these subjects constitutes the ] for term Germanic peoples. In my opinion this should be decided by what is written in reliable sources. ] (]) 21:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::First, I created a title for this discussion. Feel free to reverse that Krakkos, but I come here taking the section seriously because you directed others including me to look at this (on Doug Weller's talk page). Comparisons to Celts and also to other linguistic topics have of course been made before. Arguably, ethnolinguistic topics are one of the worst parts of Misplaced Pages in my honest opinion, so referring to other groups does not necessarily help. One of the problems (let's put it on the table) is amateur interest partly triggered by new DNA testing work including commercial tests to test whether you have viking genes etc. Secondly there are some special problems with the term Germanic, including the beliefs which were widespread among scholars up until WW2 and even after, which scholars now reject - but making it difficult they don't all agree in how far to reject them. Those old beliefs are the ones people often get when they google.--] (]) 07:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::::Krakkos, we do not ''have to'' base our titles on source usage, especially if sources don't all agree, but ''what do you feel'' that reliable sources imply about what the core topic ''should'' be?--] (]) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
===Comparing to Celts===
Just for notes. I think
*], is not dissimilar in aim to articles such as ] (broad modern), and ] (narrow modern)?
*] looks to me at first sight like it should be merged with Celts (modern). (It is about modern nations, divided into modern nation states, like the other one.)
*] addresses an issue specific to the Celtic topics. I honestly have my doubts about whether this article is needed, as it is more or less duplicated in related articles such as ].
*] seems to be quite settled as an article focused on ancient peoples without the controversy caused at Germanic peoples caused by people wanting to mix ancient and modern. At first sight this topic also does not have the challenge coming from the imperfect overlap between linguistically defined peoples, and the peoples as they were described by contemporaries.
I think the '''imperfect overlap''' issue is a critical one for Germanic peoples, that Krakkos should address before taking more actions? Historically, many editors of Germanic peoples have wanted to treat the two highly overlapping concepts in one article. If we want to convince them a split can work then the onus is on the person demanding the split to convince everyone of how it can avoid overlap.--] (]) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


{{refbegin}}
== See this for the lulz ==
'''Reminders'''
*Newsletter feedback - please take this ] about the newsletter.
*There is live chat with patrollers on the and {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}} on IRC.
*Please add ] to your watchlist.
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself ].
{{refend}}
</div>
<!-- Drafted by Novem Linguae, MPGuy2824 and Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Zippybonzo@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1160196052 -->


== Women in Red January 2025 ==
This guy is so predictable; zero creativity. --] (]) 07:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:Haha! ] (]) 11:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFFFFF;"
== Core topic of Germanic peoples ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | ] ]'''<big>]</big>''' <big>|</big> <small>January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329 </small>
<br />
'''Online events:'''
* ''New'': ] <small>(year-long initiative)</small> <big>|</big> ] <big>|</big> ]
* ''Continuing'': ] <small>(year-long initiative)</small> <big>|</big> ]
'''Announcements from other communities'''
* Celebrate ] on Jan 15, 2025
* Participate in ] Jan 15 – Feb 5, 2025


'''Tip of the month:'''
Krakkos, we do not ''have to'' base our titles on source usage, especially if sources don't all agree, but ''what do you feel'' that reliable sources imply about what the core topic ''should'' be?--] (]) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
* Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding <nowiki>{{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}}</nowiki> to your user page.
:] - ] states that "all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source." I believe WP:NOR applies to titles, definitions as well as every other material on Misplaced Pages. I do not just feel, I'm firmly convinced, that the majority of reliable sources considers speaking ] as ''the primary defining characteristic'' of ]. Here are some examples of clear scholarly definitions of Germanic peoples:
:{{talkquote|"'''The Germanic peoples are those who spoke one of the Germanic languages'''... Clearly the people who came to speak Proto-Germanic must have been isolated from other Indo-Europeans for some time... It was among these groups that a German language and ethnic identity would gradually develop during the Middle Ages." - {{cite web |url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/History |url-access= |title=Germany: Ancient History |last=Heather |first=Peter |author= |author-link=Peter Heather |date= |year= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor= |editor-link= |editors= |department= |website=] |series= |publisher=] |agency= |location= |page= |pages= |at= |language= |trans-title= |type= |format= |doi= |doi-broken-date= |isbn= |issn= |access-date= |url-status= |archive-url= |archive-date= |via= |quote= |ref= |postscript= |subscription= |registration=}}}}


'''Other ways to participate:'''
:{{talkquote|"'''The Germanic, or Teutonic, peoples are''' a branch of the Indo-Europeans ; that is, '''the peoples of Asia and Europe whose original common language was Indo- European'''." - {{cite book |last1=Thompson |first1=Edward Arthur |author-link1=Edward Arthur Thompson |year=1973 |chapter=Germanic Peoples |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=Encyclopaedia Britannica |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IOdMAQAAIAAJ |series= |language= |volume=10 |edition= |location= |publisher=] |page= |pages=243-246 |isbn=0852291736 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via= |registration= |subscription= |quote= |ref=harv}}}}
* ]. You can always ].

* ].
:{{talkquote|"The term “Germanic mythology” refers to the gods and heroes of European peoples, among whom are included Germans, Scandinavians (Norse), and Anglo-Saxons. '''These are people whose languages'''—one of which would evolve into Old English and then, along with other influences, into Middle and Modern English— '''derive from the same Indo-European branch'''... '''The Germanic people emerged in the early Iron Age “Jastorf” culture in what is now Scandinavia and northern Germany at the beginning of the sixth century b.c.e.'''" - {{cite book |last1=Polomé |first1=Edgar Charles |author-link1=Edgar Charles Polomé |last2=Fee |first2=Christopher R. |author-link2=Christopher R. Fee |last3=Leeming |first3=David Adams |author-link3=David Adams Leeming |date=2006 |year= |orig-year= |chapter=Germanic mythology |chapter-url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195156690.001.0001/acref-9780195156690-e-606?rskey=FNfGdv&result=1 |editor1-last=Leeming |editor1-first=David Adams |editor1-link= |title=The Oxford Companion to World Mythology |trans-title= |url= |url-status= |format= |type= |series= |language= |volume= |issue= |edition= |location= |publisher=] |page= |pages= |isbn=9780199916481 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date=January 3, 2020 |via= |subscription= |quote= |ref=harv}}}}
* ] and add any general ideas on developing the project.

* Follow us on social media:
:{{talkquote|"The languages spoken by the early Germanic peoples formed part of that large group known generally as the Indo-European... which also includes Celtic, Greek, Italic, Illyrian, Hittite, Thracian, Iranian, Sanskrit, Slav and Baltic." - {{cite book |last1=Todd |first1=Malcolm |author-link1=Malcolm Todd |year=2004 |chapter= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=The Early Germans |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZxXltwAACAAJ |series= |language= |volume= |edition= |location= |publisher=] |page=12 |pages= |isbn=1-4051-1714-1 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via= |registration= |subscription= |quote= |ref=harv}}}}
] '''|'''

] '''|'''
:{{talkquote|"The problem of the origin and expansion of the Germanic people is intimately connected with the problem of the origin and expansion of the Indo-European speaking peoples, since it is universally admitted that Germanic is a group of the Indo-European language stock." - {{cite book |last=Owen |first=Francis |author-link=Francis Owen (philologist) |year=1960 |chapter= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=The Germanic People |url=https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000371958 |series= |language= |volume= |issue= |edition= |location=New York |publisher=Bookman Associates |page=Foreword |pages= |isbn= |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via= |registration= |subscription= |quote= |ref=harv}}}}
]

|}
:{{talkquote|"Germanic... is a collective term referring to the peoples who speak the modern Germanic languages', Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, English, Frisians, Dutch and Germans, and to the ancestors of these peoples." - {{cite book |last1=Pasley |first1=Malcolm |author-link1=Malcolm Pasley |last2=Bithell |first2=Jethro |author-link2=Jethro Bithell |year=1972 |chapter= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=Germany: a companion to German studies |url=https://books.google.com/?id=aiEJAQAAIAAJ |series= |language= |volume= |issue= |edition= |location= |publisher=] |page=5 |pages= |isbn=1438129181 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via= |registration= |subscription= |quote= |ref=harv}}}}
--] (] 17:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

<!-- Message sent by User:Lajmmoore@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/G-N&oldid=1263556351 -->
:I have now stated my position clearly, and provided the sources which forms the basis for my position. Could you please do the same? '''What do you consider ''the primary defining characteristic'' of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position?''' ] (]) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

:::Funnily enough, no, in fact you still have not made a proposal about the best way to divide up the topic or topics with specific article titles, although I have asked over and over. You seem unable to ever say something in a direct way. Concerning my own preferences, I have not been pretending when I have asked for feedback so that we can get one way of working, as long as it can be explained how it avoids obvious problems like POVFORKING, etc. But putting those two things aside, the correct policy page is ], titles working a bit different than normal content:
::{{talkquote|The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles. etc.}}
:::Just for example, and we know it is just an example, we discussed this one a few times (Heather, p.5)
::{{talkquote|the Germani, as these Germanic-speakers are now often called}}
:::And an obvious complication is that unlike you and I, who've done our job and looked at a range of recent sources, many of these writers, at least when they wrote, assumed that the Germanic-speaking peoples in the Roman era has a perfect overlap with the Germani. If we both believed that we would have no problem. Nevertheless one option we do have available is to handle both topics in one article, because the overlap in our sources is extremely high - with the topics often being treated as the same.
:::Concerning how to choose what to for example mention first in an article for example, should we continue to handle these highly overlapping topics in one article, I don't know of any criteria apart from editing judgement. For example a lot of articles work through a topic on a chronological basis, or a logical basis starting from how a concept developed, and working towards more advanced debates.--] (]) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::::] - This discussion is not about the title of the article ], it's about the content of the article Germanic peoples. You didn't ask me about "the best way to divide up the topic", you asked me what i feel the "core topic" of the article should be. I have now answered that question. You have so far not answered this question. With regards to dividing the topic, i think that information on the Roman term ''Germani'' and inhabitants of the region they called Germania can be placed in the article ]. There is no need to transform the topic of ] into a duplication of ]. Now could you please answer your own questions: '''What do you consider ''the primary defining characteristic'' of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position?''' '''How do you want to divide the topic?''' ] (]) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::I am really not sure what your point is. Aren't you just turning the same question around (which title goes with which content) and saying I should answer first? I am saying that (a) the sources don't all treat these terms the exact same way, meaning we need some pre-agreements and a structured way of handling this, and (b) a simpler more stable structure within articles, and indeed the group of articles, that everyone can then edit in a way which won't constantly create chaos. Such situations are common on Misplaced Pages, and as mentioned solutions tend to come from simple structures. The talk pages and my new drafting page show me working with ideas. The chronologically original concept can be important for explanations, but does that make it "primary defining"? I am not sure editors always need to argue about "primary defining" in such cases. But anyway the way it seems to me, you are the one whose comments and edits (article splits etc) appear to indicate a strong position about what you want. Is that a misunderstanding?--] (]) 08:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::In fact, Todd still seems to write "Germans". Wolfram's book in English also says Germans even though it says we shouldn't. I presume this is because in German he was writing "Germanen".--] (]) 09:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::If you're not sure what my point is. Read what's written in bold text. You asked me two questions of fundamental importance to solving this dispute. I answered. I've now asked you twice, and you've yet to answer the questions. So i'm asking again: '''What do you consider ''the primary defining characteristic'' (the "core topic") of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position?''' '''How do you want to divide the topic?''' ] (]) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::You are just shouting again, and not trying to think about what people are saying to you. You are asking the wrong questions, and getting stuck all the time. As I wrote, in a case like this the concept of a "primary defining concept" is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness. We have strongly overlapping concepts, not necessarily a hierarchy of concepts.--] (]) 11:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Please try to think about what you've been saying to others. You asked me "what the core topic should be". When i ask you back, you say the core topic "is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness", This entire controversy revolves around what the "core topic" of the article should be, and this is the right question. Why won't you answer it? ] (]) 11:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh, "primary defining" means "core" in this case? I thought you were talking now about the question of how to write about the two overlapping topicz in one article, which is the historical situation and my interpretation of what most editors still want, and also what I am working on, as you know. Apparently you are still proposing to split the article? You can see above that my answer is that I don't feel any need to have a strong preference about article title. I remain open to discussion about concrete proposals to change the article topic or split the article up. But you have made no such proposals? I guess I am missing something. As the person pushing for change, don't you need to explain? On my side, I've not pushed for title change, but explained my concerns, over and over. My aim is a more stable and better-made article, and the avoidance of too many over-lapping articles. I know from the past that without work on a logical structure no one will be happy. I also see article fission as a major cause of bad articles on Misplaced Pages. So I am very cautious about sudden changes, especially splitting changes, but not necessarily pushing any particular article title solution. I believe all or most editors share my concerns?--] (]) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::As far as i understand it, you're essentially advocating the merge of ] into ], and then switching the scope of Germanic peoples into being about inhabitants of Germania. This is a big change. I'm opposed to it. I think the "core topic" of Germanic peoples should be preserved the way it has been since Misplaced Pages was created more than ten years ago. That topic is peoples speaking ], practicing ], following ] etc. This is how the topic is generally defined in reliable sources. I think Germania is a distinct and notable topic, and that it should be kept as a separate article. I think Germania should be the primary destination for information on the etymology of the name ''Germani'' and information on inhabitants of Germania. This is my proposal. Clear and simple. What is yours? ] (]) 13:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::That was really what you were asking me? OK, that I can answer. I have made no proposal about that merge with Germania yet. I only said I was considering whether it was worth discussion based on how my draft writing goes, and what feedback it gets. (If it becomes obvious that Germanic peoples needs discussion of Germania that covers everything in the other article, then it is policy telling us to merge them.) But I have no proposal, except that I want to avoid overlapping articles, articles that annoy people because they seem incomplete, and also unstructured articles. These problems have knock-on effects which make everything difficult for everyone, and keep articles bad and editors annoyed.--] (]) 13:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Alright so you have no proposals. What about the `"core topic" of ]? You asked about what i felt about the "core topic". This question has been answered by me. You have previously removed substantial information from Germanic peoples with the rational that this information outside of the "topic". What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? ] (]) 13:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
*I have said that I am trying to work with the old article aim, which I understand to be the consensus, of having an article which handles the two over-lapping topics in one article. I am not proposing a chance. If you are suggesting I need to pick one topic over the other, I have mentioned both my aims, and the relevant policy, above. I understand you did not find that an interesting topic for this discussion, but it is still there. Does that not answer you?
*I do not believe any question that might fit your description above ("This question", whatever that refers to) has been answered by you? My apologies, but can you give a diff? Are you talking about the idea of merging with Germania? But this was not a question of anyone, and saying you are against it before anyone has put forward any case is not really useful. Furthermore, the implication is that you want me to answer the ''same'' question, but that makes no sense in this context?? My apologies for not being able to understand you.
*Deletions of duplicated materials, webs of footnotes trying to argue against something on the talk page, materials placed into wrong sections etc, might have given a wrong impression, as mentioned here , for example. I am trying to remedy any concerns with the drafting exercise, as I suppose you know.--] (]) 14:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::*You asked me what i consider the core topic of ]. I consider the primary core topic to be peoples speaking ]. Here is the diff for the original statement.
::*I have not been able to discern what you consider the core topic of Germanic peoples. Could you provide a diff? Could you tell me again what you consider the core topic?
::*Which "two over-lapping topics" are you referring to? ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::So you are still proposing to keep trying to split articles? I think that is a bad idea, at least as I understand your current approach. The post you refer to which is just a series of quotes is not a clear proposal, let alone an explanation of how it would work. Apparently you instead think the quotes give you some kind of right to demand a split on a policy technicality but that is not the case, as I have explained. Instead, as I've said over and over, a critical thing would have been for you to explain how to avoid the multiplication of overlapping low quality and POVfork articles. But you do not seem to want to ever address those serious concerns. (Frankly, your editing record seems to show that you don't even see them as problems.) So for now, as I explained, I am not thinking in terms of which core subject I want to argue for, but ''how to structure'' one article which covers both "Germanic speaking peoples" and "Roman era Germanic peoples". I don't know of any other reasonable and policy-consistent proposal at this time and I think this approach, when done properly, can be executed much better. One particular area I certainly want to improve is to get the right structure to be able to handle BOTH topics better. Is there any reason you think this is impossible to achieve already?--] (]) 15:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::I'm suggesting that ] and ] be kept split. This debate has never been about article structure. It has been about article topic. You asked me about the core topic of Germanic peoples, and i answered it. What do you consider the core topic of Germanic peoples? What do you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples"? ] (]) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} Which debate? Let me know if you are prepared for a more constructive discussion.--] (]) 16:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:This debate. Have you even read the title of this section? Or the title of the ]? I'm always prepared for a constructive discussion. You say you want a composite article about "Germanic speaking peoples" and "Roman era Germanic peoples". For the sake of having a constructive discussion, i would like to know what you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples". ] (]) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::Not much of a debate, and the RFC was ridiculously unclear too. Over the last few days you and I have discussed the two overlapping meanings of "Germanic peoples" and the various sourceable terms for them, maybe 50 times? If you want people to take you seriously, I suggest continuously pretending that when it suits you you can't comprehend other editors, written sources, or WP policy, is probably not the best approach. Demonstrate some ]. --] (]) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::] 4 a. states that an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is engaged in ]. Given your proclaimed constructiveness and competence, it should be an easy task for you to answer two basic and essential questions: What do you consider the "core topic" of ]? What do you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples"? ] (]) 20:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::You think those links are about having to answer circular rounds of un-ending questions which other editors demand of you on their own talk page? Again, whatever case you want to make, either make it to the rest of the community, or keep out of future editing in this group of articles where careful coordination is going to be important to finally get stability.--] (]) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::I haven't asked you to "answer circular rounds of un-ending questions". I'm just asking you to answer the same question you came to my talk page to ask me. I answered this question. I've asked you this question a number of times and you have still failed to answer it. What do you consider the "core topic" of ]? ] (]) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::And your connected action is , posting on ]'s page. Anyone might think you are looking for a way to get what you want to link up real-world articles to your walled garden of Germanic alternate-reality articles and categories, by catching me slipping up on a technicality. I hope all your editing gets a lot of attention. It deserves it. I think some admins would block you just for the obvious dishonest intentions of that post on its own.
::::::But just to say it one more time: I asked you about what titles and topics you wanted when you were (openly, for a while) pushing for an article split. I have not been pushing for any such change. The article has had two 90% overlapping main topics for a long time because that is what editors wanted. I believe that can work, and I want to try to make it work. Will you let it?--] (]) 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::These are '''not''' "90% overlapping main topics". ] (Germanic-speakers) and inhabitants of ] are quite different subjects. As ] says:
:::::::{{talkquote|"While the territory of ancient '''] was clearly dominated in a political sense by ]-speaking groups''', it has emerged that '''the population of this vast territory was far from entirely ]'''... expansion did not annihilate the '''indigenous, non-Germanic population''' of the areas concerned, so '''it is important to perceive Germania as meaning ''Germanic-dominated Europe''...''' The more one moved south and east through the region during the Roman period, the more likely it is that '''Germanic-speakers constituted a politically dominant force in very mixed societies'''. - {{cite book |last1=Heather |first1=Peter |author-link1=Peter Heather |year=2007 |chapter= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iy9pAgAAQBAJ |series= |language= |volume= |edition= |location= |publisher=] |page=53 |pages= |isbn=9780199978618 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via= |registration= |subscription= |quote= |ref=harv}}}}
:::::::Mixing those two topics will not work. See ]. We already have the article Germania, so mixing does topics is not necessary either. They each have their own articles The fact that you have been removing content reliably sourced to ], ], Peter Heather, ], ] and others as "off-topic" confirms that mixing those subjects will not work. A "core topic" must be decided. You asked me about the "core topic" of Germanic peoples, and i answered. What about you? What do you consider to be the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? ] (]) 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::As you know very well, because repeated over and over, I would like to try to handle the two over-lapping topics together, like all our sources including Heather do. It is great that now you remember what the two agreed topics are! Of course, like Heather, good clear explanations of the bits that are not perfect in the overlap are needed in appropriately prominent places. This is why I am carefully asking feedback on a new lead and structure, and want to get rid of the duplication and general mess which is a major concern of your colleagues. I think every other involved editor, with all their diverse opinions about other things, seems to also want this to go ahead? BTW I think this is the closest you have ever come to explaining what you want, rather than just splitting the article without warning, and writing misleading posts. Do you have anything else to say in favour of it apart from BS stories about "removing content"? Why would you be so desperate to even let other editors TRY to make it work?--] (]) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I interpret you as considering ]-speakers and inhabitants of ] as "the two over-lapping topics". Is this interpretation correct? If no,t could you please enlighten me? ] (]) 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Close, but I think it is better to say ]-speakers and people described by Romans as Germani. ] were Germani for Caesar (and also Gauls I'm afraid) while the Volcae and Boii were not. By the time of Tacitus it becomes fuzzy whether a Gaulish people in Germania would be called Germanic. These are the tricky bits, but the need for careful handling of these matters will not go away by having more articles. In fact, the more articles, the worse their quality will be.--] (]) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:25, 28 December 2024

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Reverted edit

Hi there, I'm so sorry to bug you but you reverted an edit that I made and I'm trying to figure out how I can get the edit to stick because it is factually inaccurate. I'm new here and have been googling around about it and just can't seem to find the right way to do it. Any advice is appreciated!

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Krakkos,

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Krakkos,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If 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.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Krakkos,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Women in Red January 2025

Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging