Mccapra

It is approximately 11:44 AM where this user lives (BST). []

First Battle of Yedaya

Hello, I added multiple secondary sources to my article I still dont understand what you meant, could you help me improve whatever you deemed imperfect ?

First Battle of Yedaya Yubudirsi (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

hi thanks for your message. Wikipedia articles require sources that cover a subject in depth, ie. There should be paragraphs or pages of material about it in several books, or scholarly articles written about it. The fact that an event is briefly mentioned in a source - as is the case with this battle - does not provide a basis for creating an article. The battle could be mentioned in the articles about the leaders involved, or in a timeline article, but to have a stand alone article much more detailed treatment in the sources is required. Mccapra (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Well not in this case, you see the primary source also mentions it that briefly, altough it being an important impactful battle in the HOA history Al makrizi is only able to tell us the location, belligerents and outcome most of the time, I don't how we could say more on this topic or make paragraphs Yubudirsi (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree and that’s exactly the point really. If there isn’t much to be said in detail about the battle then what we know about it should be included in other articles in a sentence or two rather than a stand alone article. Everything doesn’t have to have its own article. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understood you well, you're telling me I can't make articles for 80% of Adalite history ? Yubudirsi (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

By all means you can make articles, but not about individual battles if that’s the level of coverage we have in the sources. You could do articles about a chronological periods, or about extended wars that provide details of the battles without creating an individual article for each one of them. Or you could add details of the battles into existing articles. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So does that mean all the Battles I put in wikipedia are all gonna get deleted ? Yubudirsi (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the level of sourcing that supports each one. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Are 3 secondary sources enough ? Sorry if I'm asking lots of questions Yubudirsi (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

don’t worry that’s fine. The question isn’t really how many sources mention the event, but what they say about it. For example, take Julius Caesar’s battles in Gaul. We know about them in some detail because he described them himself. They are also discussed and described by two or three Roman historians so we know details of the ground, the formations, the tactics and the mistakes. We can add into that generations of historians who have discussed the battles, debating whether Caesar was exaggerating, and what their significance was. In some cases we also have archaeological evidence to bring in. All of that means we have enough of a detailed picture of each battle to write an article about it. In contrast take a look at the battles Infobox in List of battles of the Second Punic War and you’ll see lots of redlinks. Why? Because we know there was a battle in that place, but we just don’t know enough about it to create a standalone article. What we can’t do is just go through the chronicles and create an article for every event in a conflict just because it’s mentioned in passing. My suggestion to you is that instead of trying to write an article about every battle, you write something similar to List of battles of the Second Punic War, combining information about multiple battles in a single article. Mccapra (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please remove discriminatory nomination for deletion

Please remove the nomination for deletion for Timothy K. Blauvelt. Having 400+ citations is a lot, as there are not many scholars working on these issues. It is, sorry, totally inappropriate to remove scholarship simply because not so many people are in the field & it is underfunded. Moreover, there are multiple peer reviewed publications. I really find this nomination borders on vandalism. Hundnase (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have made this point in the deletion discussion. I’m happy to wait for the outcome of the community review on this. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your response -- it seems that some scammers used the AfD discussion, so those are separate things. Sorry I got that mixed up. If I can just highlight again that for this region here, 400 citations is a lot! So I feel this should be taken into account. As for my CoI, I know the person as a colleague for many years, have started various articles about academics in the region, and have in general tried to advance the use of Wikipedia in Georgia, see here. Hence pls understand that it can be a bit dispiriting if one needs to struggle to keep articles. It seems that consensus is forming for a keep. ~~~ Hundnase (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa

I hope you do not mind but I have added the previous AFDs for this article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 4)

Hello, Mccapra,

This article had already been draftified months ago so it was not appropriate to draftify it again. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT for guidance. Articles should not be draftified more than once so please remember to check the page history before doing this type of article page move. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Harry W. Hunt

You tagged Harry W. Hunt with a note which requests showing the "notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention."

There are a total of seven sources cited from reliable secondary sources (the Golbe and Mail and Toronto Star newspapers) all of which provide significant coverage rather than a trival mention, as demonstrated by the headlines of the articles, as follows:

• Harry Hunt: Ex-alderman owned tavern The Globe and Mail (1936-); Toronto, Ont.. 15 June 1966: 45.
• Harry Hunt to Run For Mayor on Plan Of City Leadership: Three-Cornered Fight Indicated-- Platform to Be Announced Friday The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 17 Dec 1935: 11.
• The Globe Recommends Hunt for Mayor, Robbins Thompson Miller.  The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 26 Dec 1935: 1.
• Extremist Victory Would Be Tragedy, Hunt Warns Voters: Mayoralty Candidate Makes Final Appeal for Continuance of "Sane, Sound Administration" ISSUE AT STAKE IS EMPHASIZED The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 01 Jan 1935: 4
• Harry Hunt to Run For Mayor on Plan Of City Leadership: Three-Cornered Fight Indicated-- Platform to Be Announced Friday The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 17 Dec 1935: 11.
• Hunt Statement, The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 02 Jan 1936: 1.
• "Harry W. Hunt, ex-alderman, leaves $521,165", Toronto Daily Star (1900-1971); Toronto, Ontario. 25 Aug 1966: C3.

Accordingly, the notability requirement has been fulfilled. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay: hi thanks for your note but I don’t think it’s clear-cut. The subject is an unsuccessful candidate for mayor and the coverage is essentially local. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Toronto was at the time the second-largest city in Canada and the newspapers are not "local newspapers" as such but are both considered national newspapers in Canada. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Mccapra Thank you for your review of my article on Anton Franzen and for your informative note. I now have added an edit summary to the article as requested, indicating that there was a partial translation from the German wiki article. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to review the note to see that it is sufficient to give full attribution to the prior article. I usually try to paraphrase when using material from other articles and, if copying, am sure to include any applicable inline references. In future, I will include the translation edit summary also. Thanks again for your assistance and guidance. Historybuff0105 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Whiteside

Thank you for your attention to my article. I have added the additional credible source in support of this page. Qigong4wellness (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: one of the effects of lockdown is I’ve lost my sense of the passage of time. If you told me it was seven years or two years I’d believe you. But best wishes to you in our anniversary and thank you for remembering. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ricci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giovanni Ricci.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

About your review of Upcoming Porter Robinson album

Hey Mccapra, I noticed that you marked this redirect as reviewed after I had tagged it for CSD R2 deletion. I would not recommend doing this, and it's not endorsed by the new page patrol guidelines either. Most of the time, of course, a page tagged for speedy deletion will be deleted by an administrator soon after, so marking it as reviewed wouldn't do much. However, if the tag is contested, this will result in the page staying in mainspace, but bypassing the review. This potential for abuse is mitigated by leaving pages with CSD tags (and PROD tags, for that matter) in the queue. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: hi the article was redirected to draft, not sent to speedy deletion. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it marking such a redirect as reviewed simply takes it out of the queue. If the article is moved from draft space back into mainspace it reappears in the NPP queue regardless of whether the original redirect to draft was marked as reviewed or not. Or have I got that completely wrong? Mccapra (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I draftified the article, which left behind a redirect in mainspace due to the page move. That redirect was then tagged for speedy deletion as it's cross-namespace. The reason that marking that redirect as reviewed is problematic is because if I or another editor were to contest that speedy deletion and, for example, change the target of the redirect or even start another article from it, that page would not get a proper review since it had been removed from the new pages feed, and probably won't get seen by an administrator either since it's no longer in the speedy deletion tracking categories. I wouldn't ever game the system like that, but it is a loophole in the system that abusive users can exploit. In general, it is not appropriate to mark any page as reviewed if it has CSD tags on it. Either an administrator deletes it, or the tags are contested and NPP will review the page as usual. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks for explaining Mccapra (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Adulf mcEtulfe hoax?

Why have you listed my article as a hoax? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Because I can’t find any sources supporting it and it contradicts sourced articles on the topic we already have. Mccapra (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  What sourced articles do we already have that it contradicts? I did not intend to put false information on Wikipedia, if I have then I apologise. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  • @GoldenBootWizard276: apologies my misreading. I’ll remove the tag. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Mccapra,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)