If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page. If you want me to reply elsewhere, tell me why.
13:48 Monday 4 July 2022 - - - - WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

Please click "New section" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).

If you leave a message here, I will reply here, to make discussions easier to read. If you really want me to reply elsewhere, tell me a very good reason why I should do so.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.

Thanks. PamD

Thanks about BananasEdit

Thanks for your edits to that article, I sensed I had something imperfect about it and it was that I did not catch the second edition, or I confused the 2nd and 3rd editions. I have the first edition here and think it is a fantastic book. I appreciate your edits. CT55555 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: I was confused initially - I told my book club this afternoon that he'd published a new ed with the shorter title, but I think it's a dumbed-down title for the (humourless?) American market. That said, I need to buy the 2nd ed, as mine is 1st ed too. Great book. (Note for Talk page watchers: We're talking about How Bad Are Bananas?) PamD 18:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It's probably the book I've quoted most in real life ("stop worrying about how you dry your dishes and worry about how you travel and heat your home").
My 2011 copy looks like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:How_Bad_Are_Bananas%3F_book_cover.jpeg so was about to put that in, but I think you beat me to it. :-)
Thanks for the collaboration, a wikipedia joy, I think the universe is sending me a sign to spend more time creating content than arguing at AfD. CT55555 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Peter Scott-MorganEdit

"The first sentence should usually state:... Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources.... The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death. These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject...". The caveat that follows is irrelevant in this case - the default position is to include them in the opening sentence, and your different personal preference is irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: So what does the caveat mean, then, and why do you think it is irrelevant? PamD 16:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
(Note to talk-page watchers: discussion of Peter Scott-Morgan and MOS:BIRTHDATE: the full sentence quoted in part above is: "These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context. ) PamD 16:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This is bizarre. It was you who moved the dates into the main text, so you can hardly use the argument that the caveat applies "if they are also mentioned in the body..." - because it was your edit that made the wholly unnecessary change to the previous text in which the dates were not mentioned in the body. I find it extremely irritating, and counter to our aims as encyclopedia builders, when experienced and apparently well-meaning editors actively remove basic information from opening sections, when it is clearly accurate, sourced, helpful to readers, in line with MOS, and "important information about the subject". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle: Yes, I moved the dates into the main text, so that they were then not required in the lead sentence. The birth date had only recently been sourced and added. Until his death the only birth/date information we had was the calculated "1957 or 1958". The full dates are "important information about the subject" and obviously need to be in the article, but the lead is only a summary of the content of the article, and the detailed dates are not necessary there. The years are sufficient, the full details, which will be repeated in the body of the article, are excessive in the lead sentence. I disagree with your edits but don't want to waste my energy on an edit war which you seem determined to win. The full dates are indeed "accurate, sourced, helpful to readers, in line with MOS, and "important information about the subject"", but they don't need to be in the lead sentence to be so. PamD 18:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
That's a bit like arguing that someone's full name does not "need" to be in the opening sentence. But it's useful to have it there, and it is conventional, and usually completely uncontentious, for biographical articles here to have the dates in the opening sentence. I haven't seen any valid arguments for removing them. While you personally may think that having only the years is "sufficient", it is hardly being helpful to readers to exclude such basic details as dates. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"World order (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect World order (disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#World order (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

For my talk-page watchers: an alternative time-sink to editingEdit

In case you didn't spot the mention of it in a recent Signpost, I can highly recommend "Redactle" as a fascinating daily puzzle (changes at 5pm UK time). Guess a Wikipedia article with most of its text redacted. Simple. Those of us familiar with Wiki articles have something of a head start: I cracked "War and Peace" in 4 guesses by noticing that in the lead the "and" in "XXX and XXXXX" was italicised. Have fun.

Yesterday I had to cheat (well, seek help): I got that he was a German philosopher in 28 guesses, found that he was alive during World War I, then spent far too long filling in other odd words here and there before resorting to Category:20th-century German philosophers - and even then might have struggled but that he shared a forename with someone better known (one of those with an eponymous category). Other recent targets have included Skirt, Literary genre, William the Conqueror (got it in 3 having used a guess on "c" to confirm that that explained the format of the birth date!), Cannibalism, Lisbon, Plasma (physics) (which for a while had me looking for a country or region divided into four states...), Monosaccharide (took a l-o-n-g time), Shaktism (once I found it was a denomination of Hinduism, as knew I didn't know any so had a look at Denominations of Hinduism). PamD 17:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022Edit

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello PamD,

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. WikiProject Barnstar Hires.png 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:

>NPP backlog: 11246 as of 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Box Office PoisonEdit

In regards to your statement: "Undid revision 1095091106 by 97.113.61.155 (talk) no, that single mention in a quote is not enough to need a hatnote- no-one will be looking for that article at that title"

The average price of a movie ticket in 1979 was $4.59. "Chairman of the Board" grossed a total of $181,233. So a little under 40,000 people saw Chairman of the Board. Meanwhile, the Norm clip in which he refers to said movie as "Box Office Poison" is sitting at somewhere north of 3 million views - and that's just for the latest upload. So it is inarguable that far more people have seen the Norm clip than the Carrot Top film, and thus may get confused as to what its title is. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to have that hatnote, and I have the numbers to back me up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.46.235 (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022Edit

Women in Red in July 2022Edit

WiR climate logo 2022.png
Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Re: Birth datesEdit

Hi, can politics.co.uk be cited for their year of birth?[1][2]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht: I'm not familiar with politics.co.uk, and there were previous discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Politics.co.uk and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Politics.co.uk last year on that exact question, which were heated but inconclusive. It looks to me as if it would probably be fine for year of birth, which is much less sensitive than the exact date of birth. I certainly wouldn't revert if you added exact years sourced to it, much tidier than the this-or-that years we can deduce from stated ages. PamD 07:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, can this be cited?--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!Edit

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
NPP Barnstar.png
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
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 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)