This is an archive of past discussions with User:Insertcleverphrasehere. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to the eleventh newsletter from the Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.
General news
Expanding to more wikis: the team is preparing to deploy Growth features to Ukrainian and Hungarian Wikipedias. Wikis that already have the features are Czech, Korean, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Basque Wikipedias. If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together if your wiki is eligible. Then you can go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.
Mentor training: we tried out our first training for mentors with the Czech community, so that experienced users can build skills that help them retain newcomers.
Mockup of guidance while doing a suggested edit, using the help panel
The help panel was first deployed to newcomers in January 2019, and we have now finished analyzing data to determine its impact. A brief summary is below, and more in-depth information can be found here (in English).
In summary, although we have seen a good amount of usage of the help panel, the help panel has not shown an increase in activation (whether a user makes their first edit) or retention (whether a user returns to edit again).
This is a disappointing result, and our team has discussed potential reasons for the result and ideas for the future. Although we have many ideas for how to improve the help panel, we have decided to keep our attention on the newcomer homepage and newcomer tasks projects for the coming months.
We'll be using the help panel as part of the newcomer tasks project: using it to guide newcomers while they complete suggested edits.
The first version of the newcomer tasks workflow (V1.0) will be deployed in the next weeks on our 4 priority wikis. This version will suggest articles to edit based on maintenance templates. In this first version, we expect many newcomers to initiate the workflow, but not many to select articles to edit or complete edits. We expect future versions of the feature to increase those behaviors.
We're excited about this project because the majority of newcomers visit their newcomer homepage, and this will be the first element of the homepage that clearly asks the newcomer to start editing.
These are the next two versions of the feature, which are already being planned:
V1.1 (topic matching): will allow newcomers to choose topics of interest (such as Art, Music, Sports, or Technology) to personalize their suggestions. After evaluating several approaches, we have decided to use a new ORES model built by the WMF Scoring team. The model will automatically identify the topic area of each article. We expect this to increase how often newcomers select articles to edit.
V1.2 (guidance): once newcomers arrive on an article to edit, we will use the help panel to provide guidance about how to complete the editing task. We expect this to increase how many newcomers actually complete productive edits.
Hello, you insert wrote article Pharmanutra is written as an advertising. Why do you say that? The article is neutral and it has much references by newspapers--Kaspo (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Kaspo, Even in the first sentence it reads "generating considerable interest in the market, closing the first day of trading with a leap of +40%" [2] Its products most famous are Cetilar and Sucrosomial Iron [3] holding 50% of the market share for iron supplements in Italy." This reads as intentional puffery. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Merry Christmas, Insertcleverphrasehere! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Draft
The title should be changed to "List of prescription drug prices". How many sources do you want in the draft in order to move it back. I think students would want to edit it in the future. The sooner it is moved to article space the sooner it can be expanded by more editors. QuackGuru (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, First of all, this article seemed more of a veiled attempt as bashing 'Big Phrama' (itself not a neutral term; that was used throughout the article previously). That has largely been fixed, and more sources for individual drugs have been added. Now the issue is more of a structural one. It is still not a "list of drug prices" (a topic is likely too broad for one article anyway and prices change day to day), it is a list of obscenely expensive drugs. Currently the topic could include Ibuprofen, at $0.01 a dose, which obviously doesn't fit with what the intention is. We might be able to have a list on such a topic, though we will need some consideration what the title would be and what the cutoff point would be. The problem is, I'm not sure that we can define what 'too expensive' is, I had a look for sources but can't really find any consensus on the topic.
The issue is notability. If it is notable it belongs in article space. Editors are allowed to create stubs. You can search for different prices in different countries. I am not obligated to make the article perfect. The best way for it to improve is move it to article space for others to expand it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, the notability rules for lists are... strange. Making ill-concieved lists with an unclear and overly broad scope does not guarantee you automatic notability. See WP:LISTN. This isn’t a standalone list, it is a broad category, and there is no present consensus on how to assess the notability or suitability of such lists. As I said, in its current form it seems too broad a scope and unclear as to what exactly it is trying to be a list of: (Canadian or USA prices? Do we just list all the prices, they change all the time and might be different even at different places in the same country.) listing prices is hard, and the only way this list will work is if it is clearly defined what the parameters are supposed to be. As is, it is unworkable. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)09:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
It is supposed to be a list of fluctuating prescription drug prices worldwide. It is a stub but that does not mean it should be held hostage in draftspace. A few editors can't make it into a high quality article. It needs to be back to main space and allow many editors to work on it. It should not be hidden away. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, Well, a "list of fluctuating prescription drug prices worldwide" is completely unmanageable. It would be constantly out of date at best, and at worst would be a fertile ground for edit warring. Even the title doesn't make sense. Prescription drugs where? In some countries certain drugs are prescription only, in other countries the same drug is over the counter. How about Marijuana? It is certainly a prescription drug in some places, but in others is an illicit substance; should we list the price to buy it over the counter in Amsterdam or the price on the black market in New Zealand? Please try to understand what I'm trying to say.
We have a List of drugs; it is a list of lists of other types of drugs, and is extremely complex (as would be expected as there are many thousands of drugs worldwide). Can you imagine trying to take all of these drugs, figure out which are prescription drugs, and somehow agree on a consensus for what the prices for all of them will be? It isn't possible.
I won't move it back to mainspace. You are free to submit it to articles for creation, or to contest my move to draft space by reverting it and moving it back to your preferred title in main space (if so I'll be taking it to articles for deletion though). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Where is the article about "List of prescription drug prices" in mainspace? If there is no such article in mainspace then there should be one. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
It is workable if more editors were given a chance to expand it. An article does not need to have prices updated every month or every year. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, Please answer me this for this list: what is a prescription drug? You've started listing prices from different times, what about different places? Drug prices vary wildly by country in some cases being a few dollars where in other countries they cost hundreds. What about government subsidies in countries like New Zealand (where I live), where most drugs that are prescribed are massively discounted but the governemnt foots most of the bill? What do we do in these cases? All of these need answers so that the scope of the list can be defined before a bunch of people start editing the list with different opinions on what should be listed, or else it will just become a hodgepodge of random info. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)17:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I included a note for the scope. See "For each prescription drug include the name of the drug, brand name, and price. Also include prices from various countries when available." When new sources are presented for other countries just summarise what they say. There are thousands of drugs that can be added to the list. One editor can't add all of them by themselves. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, Tens of thousands. And even a multitude of editors won't be able to keep up. Also there is still no definition of a 'prescription drug', which is different in every jurisdiction. In any case, As I've said I will not be moving it to mainspace, but you are free to do so yourself. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)17:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no reason to keep up with current pricing. No article needs prices updated every month or year. There is no need for a definition of a 'prescription drug'. Just summarise what each source said is the usual practice. A different definition for what is a 'prescription drug' seems to be irrelevant. A long list of drug prices is workable if more editors participated in expanding it. Hiding it will not help improving it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Well that's the thing. I believe it's the same template regardless of whether it ends up to the reviewer or the creator. So we need to modify the template to fit both situations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that they added that drop down. I actually think that's great. I also disagree - for reviewed articles I think the default should be the reviewer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Insertcleverphrasehere! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Hi ICPH! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Seriously hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはInsertcleverphrasehereたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Deletion The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2020
Marcetw, Apologies. I did a search for the list and missed it. I had not checked the link as I did not realise it was the link for the first week of next year. It might be good to put an archive link of that page on the first entry to make it more clear. I was reviewing a few other articles at the same time for jumping the gun off the whole list of 2020 thing. Sorry to catch you in the crossfire. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding simplifying the graphs. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Tercer (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
i expressed much criticism over the discussion, but tanks to ask me on final approval.
i hardly make changes in these pages because they are so big that can make mistakes and someone else have to come to correct me, so double work--Dwalin (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I was researching all the areas of Wikipedia and I went through WP:NPR and I'm interested in it, I've been adding to short descriptions to new articles but it seems NPR is more than adding short descriptions, so can you give me some tips on it?Antila333 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Antila333, New Page Review is for somewhat more advanced Wikipedia editors, who already know many of the policies and guidelines related to what should be on wikipedia and what should not. Ultimately, it is triage; rather than an article improvement process it strives merely to identify what new articles should not be on Wikipedia and deal with them accordingly. AfC may be somewhere you can help, though you still need a good working knowledge of the notability guidelines to know where expansion is productive and where the topic simply isn't notable. See the box at right for more info on notability in general and also a more specific dive into notability of various categories of topics. Participating in discussions at WP:AFD is also a good place to learn notability guidelines.
Lugnuts, As an autopatrolled user, you shouldn't be creating single source stubs. If I wasn't patrolling 'reviewed' articles, nobody would have even noticed. Yes, they meet an SNG, but they still require multiple sources for verifiability. I'll stop messaging your talk page, but I'm going to keep tagging the articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Lugnuts, All articles require multiple sources. Period. This is enshrined in the highest levels of WP policy (even the 5 pillars says that all articles should be sourced to "sources" (plural). I realise that they meet SNGs and am not going to require that the articles meet the GNG as created, but two independent sources are not hard to come by. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"The Page Curation process is for identifying articles which do not meet the criteria for inclusion and to tag them for attention" - Which all of my articles do meet the criteria for inclusion. Please find something more productive to do with your time. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There's no such thing a "social contract"! WP:HOUND is also a policy, which this feels very much like to me. Maybe focus your time on new articles by new editors instead. And stop pining me, please. LugnutsFire Walk with Me19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not checking your articles specifically, I was just checking through new articles in the side feed. You created like 10 of them with the same issues in the space of 5 minutes. My side feed script waits 10 min before articles show on it (to allow time for users to clean up initial submissions and A1/A3). That's all the tags came 10 min after submission. You'll notice in my contributions other edits to other articles immediately before and after yours. I'm literally just patrolling new articles, your's just had issues, that's not my fault and it isn't harassment to tag them. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
