User talk:Chess

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

[edit]

Hello Chess,

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

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

[edit]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
  • Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
  • Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Introduction
  • Membership news, obituary and election results
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
  • Closing words
– Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Tech News: 2025-17

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

  • Wikifunctions is now integrated with Dagbani Wikipedia since April 15. It is the first project that will be able to call functions from Wikifunctions and integrate them in articles. A function is something that takes one or more inputs and transforms them into a desired output, such as adding up two numbers, converting miles into metres, calculating how much time has passed since an event, or declining a word into a case. Wikifunctions will allow users to do that through a simple call of a stable and global function, rather than via a local template. [1]
  • A new type of lint error has been created: Empty headings (documentation). The Linter extension's purpose is to identify wikitext patterns that must or can be fixed in pages and provide some guidance about what the problems are with those patterns and how to fix them. [2]
  • Recurrent item View all 37 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • Following its publication on HuggingFace, the "Structured Contents" dataset, developed by Wikimedia Enterprise, is now also available on Kaggle. This Beta initiative is focused on making Wikimedia data more machine-readable for high-volume reusers. They are releasing this beta version in a location that open dataset communities already use, in order to seek feedback, to help improve the product for a future wider release. You can read more about the overall Structured Contents project, and about the first release that's freely usable.
  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings and events

  • The Editing and Machine Learning Teams invite interested volunteers to a video meeting to discuss Peacock check, which is the latest Edit check that will detect "peacock" or "overly-promotional" or "non-neutral" language whilst an editor is typing. Editors who work with newcomers, or help to fix this kind of writing, or are interested in how we use artificial intelligence in our projects are encouraged to attend. The meeting will be on April 28, 2025 at 18:00–19:00 UTC and hosted on Zoom.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Inah Canabarro Lucas on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages 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.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion under consideration

[edit]

An investigation you filed, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#11_April_2025, is now the subject of Arbitration Committee motions. The motions are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2.

Your comments are welcome. If you need procedural assistance, you may contact the arbitration clerks either publicly or privately via email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I think it'd be a good idea to also notify Vice regent, who commented at that SPI casepage. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my edit summary pinged you, but just letting you know that after your !vote, I changed the wording of "would apply" to "should be followed" to make the question a bit more clear [3]. I don't think that wording change will have much of an effect on your !vote, but just letting you know in case it does. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on Move Discussion

[edit]

Thank you, @Chess, for the notification of the Arbitration Committee ban of the user who initiated the move request at Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests. Is there a way to further raise the implications of the ban on the move request besides a comment that might be missed by an admin or another user who seeks to close the move discussion? Coining (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Coining: There's no user-tagging template that specifically covers this situation. However, normally, you're allowed to tag blocked sockpuppets with Template:Confirmed sockpuppet and strike through their comments. I would personally come up with some kind of tag that looks similar to that one explaining the situation and striking through their !votes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kshatriya close review

[edit]

I'm not sure if the arguments in the discussion favoured a "support" close. A lot of people took the sources provided by Dympies at face value, but after doing a review of them, many had quotes taken out of context and some failed WP:V. You can see the review of sources here.

The proposed wording of the RFC question was: "Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it." In your closing statement you write: That being said, the proposed wording doesn't exactly reflect that "Rajputs attained Kshatriya". But the proposed wording says exactly that: "the Rajputs were most successful in attaining [Kshatriya status]." Neutral wording would say "most successful in claiming Kshatriya status". As it stands now, it is being said in WP:WikiVoice that Rajputs are Kshatriyas, which does seem a lot like caste WP:PROMOTION and I don't think Wikipedia should be taking sides when it comes to Indian castes. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+: Your source analysis is interesting but wasn't provided at the RfC, so it can't play a role in my close.
The reason why I encouraged editors to provide an alternative wording is because the main bit of consensus is to include the claim in the article. The wording is more disputed. If you feel like a more neutral wording would be one that says Rajputs were "most successful in claiming Kshatriya status" you should propose that. That's why I emphasized that the wording can be changed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a really confusing close, Chess. Unless I am misunderstanding, you are saying that the proposed statement should be included in the article even though it is poor and should be be changed. That sets a low bar for the quality of information which we provide: surely it is better to say nothing about something than to misrepresent?
Anyways, it is done now, I guess, and I'm not a regular participant in RfCs so will bow to your experience. - Sitush (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: It's a confusing close because it was a confusing discussion, but your understanding is essentially correct.
  • There's two aspects to the close. The first is summarizing what was agreed upon. The second is trying to move the discussion forwards.
  • In terms of what was agreed upon, there's two subpoints.
    • Is there consensus to examine Rajputs' claim to Kshatriya status in that article?
      • Yes, there is.
      • Most editors on both sides agreed that Rajputs' claim to be Kshatriya, and there's plenty of reliable sources covering that.
      • Most editors also agree that there is value to discussing this in the article, NitinMlk says: It seems okay to summarise castes in the context of Kshatriya with proper details, along with listing Rajputs as the most successful claimants. But the proposed passing mention is misleading.
      • The main argument for excluding this dispute entirely is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV: i.e. that there are many contrasting views on this, so we should exclude it entirely.
    • Is there consensus to describe that claim as Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it?
      • This was significantly weaker.
      • Oppose !voters brought up a lot of potential issues.
      • For instance, LukeEmily made a lot of references to possible scholarly consensus about Rajputs being a "shudra varna", or how their acceptance as Kshatriya is political.
      • Another editor argued that the caste comparison was promotional.
      • There wasn't much engagement between the sides. Oppose argued that there should be context, support argued that this didn't invalidate the sourcing of the statement.
      • I would really have liked more discussion on the specific wording since it would make the consensus easier to evaluate. I evaluated it as "support" because support gave stronger arguments with better sourcing and more people. Additionally, many oppose !voters didn't argue that the wording was invalid, just that additional context needed to be added. This is kind of borderline, though.
      • You could also argue that the first subpoint had consensus, but the second subpoint did not have consensus or even had consensus against. However, I think it's not that important because in almost all cases the next steps should still be the same (propose a new wording and gain consensus).
  • The second goal I'm trying to achieve with the close is to try to push editors towards something other than going to WP:AN to overturn the close, succeeding, then waiting for another close, getting the same result, and going in circles. I see this all the time and it's honestly faster to just re-argue the parts of the discussion that were borderline rather than go WP:AN to see which side of the border is correct.
    • Ideally, TurboSuperA+, NitinMlk, and you would go to Talk:Kshatriya to start a new discussion on an alternative wording that addresses your concerns, instead of rehashing this one.
    • At that discussion, since it's now agreed that the article should include information regarding Rajputs' claim to Kshatriya, you can focus the discussion on the best way to express that.
    • You will get a much stronger consensus on one side or the other, now that your concerns are addressed in a proposal that editors from both sides can agree upon.
If this is clearer than my original explanation, I could add something to the close. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will have a ponder! I appreciate you going to the trouble of explaining. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-18

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

  • Event organizers who host collaborative activities on multiple wikis, including Bengali, Japanese, and Korean Wikipedias, will have access to the CampaignEvents extension this week. Also, admins in the Wikipedia where the extension is enabled will automatically be granted the event organizer right soon. They won't have to manually grant themselves the right before they can manage events as requested by a community.
  • Recurrent item View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • The release of the next major version of Codex, the design system for Wikimedia, is scheduled for 29 April 2025. Technical editors will have access to the release by the week of 5 May 2025. This update will include a number of breaking changes and minor visual changes. Instructions on handling the breaking and visual changes are documented on this page. Pre-release testing is reported in T386298, with post-release issues tracked in T392379 and T392390.
  • Users of Wiki Replicas will notice that the database views of ipblocks, ipblocks_ipindex, and ipblocks_compat are now deprecated. Users can query the block and block_target new views that mirror the new tables in the production database instead. The deprecated views will be removed entirely from Wiki Replicas in June, 2025.
  • Recurrent item Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

Meetings and events

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

[edit]

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]