I noticed you deleted the gallery to this article. I'd suggest that some photos of his buildings be included somewhere in the article, either as a gallery or aligned with the text. Although Wikipedia discourages galleries, the "visual arts" are listed as an exception. ("Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., Lily), fashion (e.g., Wedding dress), and the visual arts (e.g., Oil painting)." [1].)
Perhaps this is a situation where more images in the article are appropriate. I notice that for some architects, the photos of their work form a column at the right edge, which would be another approach. Canadian2006 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edits to Marysville, Washington, because they introduced several grammatical and factual errors. "Downtown" should not be capitalized for cities that do not have a significant enough core that warrants their own article; removing "City of" in front of Marysville leads to confusion between the city as a place vs. the city government as an entity; and highways within their own state do not need to be disambiguated, especially with a postal code. SounderBruce22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently listed variously as downtown Marysville and Downtown Marysville. There should be consistency whichever one is used. Since you reverted my correction of that, please also ensure it is standardized throughout the article. Keystone18 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image sizes
Hi Keystone18, is there a reason you have been adding |upright=1.1 on images (such as here)? Per MOS:IMAGES, image thumbnails should be the default size unless there is a compelling reason to do so. If you simply prefer larger images, you can change that on the "Appearance" tab under Special:Preferences. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you do this all the time, in seemingly every article you edit. And its not necessary. MOS specifically states:
"Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use |upright=scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width. For example: upright=1.3 might be used for an image with fine detail (e.g. a map or diagram) to render it "30% larger than this user generally wants". (For a reader with the usual base width setting of 220px, this is 285px.) upright=0.6 might be used for an image with little detail (e.g. a simple drawing or flag) which can be adequately displayed "40% smaller than this user generally wants". (For a reader with the usual base width setting of 220px, this is 130px.) Short, wide images often call for upright of 1 or greater; tall, narrow images may look best with upright of 1 or less."
You, however, apply an upright 1.1 to virtually every photo in every article, which is absolutely not appropriate. Thus, you are actually ignoring MOS:IMGSIZE, not following it. Its rarely necessary to force a larger image in an article since simply clicking on an image will bring up a much larger version. Meanwhile, forcing larger images reduces space for text. Thus, I would strongly suggest you cease and desist with adding upright 1.1 to every image. Famartin (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should make myself more clear... upright images for no good reason in articles I've edited from this point forward will be rolledback. Famartin (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DUDE... first, try engaging us, but I get it, you can't, because we've already proven you wrong. Give it up. You don't need to upright images in MOST cases. Lay off. I've been here far longer than you, I can keep this up. Famartin (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did engage you with a lengthy, multi-point post on your user page. Second, what is this? I cited the policy on images. In the cases you cite, 1.1 was and is both reasonable and warranted and probably the best image setting. Third, where is this policy you (wrongly) cite that "you don't need to upright images in MOST cases."? Direct me to that because MOS:UPRIGHT reads, and I quote: "upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible." And, finally, I'd again ask that you stop your combative interactions with me and others. Keystone18 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misreading of the actual policy - the context is Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright = scaling factor is preferred whenever possible. It is not saying to always use "upright" - it is saying that it is the proper method when a non-default size is needed. That should be made clear by a later bullet point: Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use | upright =scaling factor... There is no reason to use non-default sizes for the vast majority of images - and you have failed to provide any policy-based justification to do so - and you have continued to do this despite at least three different users asking you to stop. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not specifying a fixed width in pixels. Doesn't apply. Everything else in the policy is encouraging of the use of upright imaging, and in none of these cases was a non-default size needed. Keystone18 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keystone18, may you also stop moving every single image to the right on articles, such as Pennsylvania? In a latest edit, you didn't even respond to the changes days ago, and moved everything back to the right. There's nothing wrong with images to left when it saves content from being pushed down into other sections of articles, and adding unnecessary white space. Is this being an issue here overall with you and images, to where something must be done? Pi.1415926535, Famartin, Magnolia677, any input on this as well; is there ever going to be a point of taking this to the administrators here? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence from MOS:IMAGELOC: "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity, e.g. by pushing some items on such lists further inward. Hence, avoid left-aligned images near such structures." Keystone18 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Key word is 'most'. You placed ALL the imagery to the right; the imagery moved to the left by me does not push the bullet lists or similar structures neither on desktop nor mobile - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, meaning there needs to be a compelling reason not to place it on the right. Your placements are entirely arbitrary and, as a result, violate the guidance. Keystone18 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sandwiched images in any of the examples you're mentioning to my knowledge. There is, on the Pennsylvania page, a gap at the top of the page visible on a cell but not on computers that persists regardless of image positioning. I've seen a similar gap on a cell on other major pages. And I'm not looking for confrontation with you. Your prior recommendation on upright imaging, I think, was a good one, and I've adopted it, primarily using regular imaging since our interaction and since evaluating it. It was a good suggestion, despite the fact that these policies are poorly written and open to varying interpretations. On this issue, I want what's best too but am not seeing how your proposal of moving any image to the left is resolving the sandwiched images. In fact, I'm not seeing any sandwiched images at all. Share those with me, if you can, and let's work together for the best conclusions. Keystone18 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share with me a screenshot of this purported sandwiching of photos? I do not see it and neither does anyone else on the Pennsylvania project. If you are correct, I agree with the move, but no one else is seeing the problem you reference. Keystone18 (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add my voice to the chorus of editors politely asking that you refrain from moving left aligned images to the right and from removing upright image tags. I think you might be misinterpreting the suggestion that most images be placed on the right, the advice on the for sections with multiple images, or tables/charts used like images, is still that those later images "be staggered right and left." Similarly, I'll ask that the "upright" tag not be removed from vertical or wide images, Pi.1415926535 (talk·contribs) explained the correct usage above. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk13:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I am unaware of any policy or guideline that suggests "staggered right and left" images. Just the opposite, in fact. The opening sentence from MOS:IMAGELOC states: "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity, e.g. by pushing some items on such lists further inward. Hence, avoid left-aligned images near such structures." What policy or guideline are you deriving "staggered" from? Keystone18 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same place, just keep reading, "Multiple images can be staggered right and left." The only caveat is sandwiching. Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right further advises that "the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right." Stacking up images at the tops of sections also breaks both the policy against stacking and the policy that images be placed by "the text discussing what the image illustrates." I think you should start discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images on this topic so others can weigh in. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk14:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the guideline is pretty clear and sensible. Images should be on the right unless they create some positioning issue. In the few cases I've looked at, however, they were not creating any formatting image problem. It was instead just an editor's strongly-held personal view that the images should be staggered. I have seen other pages where a right-aligned image does create format image problems. Keystone18 (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think that's close but still a misinterpretation, there is no directive that states that images in sections with multiple images need to be or should all be aligned to the right. The sentences after "Most images should be on the right side" serve to clarify that suggestion. Sections and subsections with multiple images can be staggered unless they create some positioning issue. The example of having portraits face the text is a frequent case of this, and alternating is suggested as one solution to the MFOP problem. Why would both the MOS and Help page suggest alternating if it were so verboten? If you want to make the case that images need to be right aligned, there is a relevant discussion regarding apparent contradictions in Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Left-hand images. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk15:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interpreting it. I'm quoting it: "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity, e.g. by pushing some items on such lists further inward. Hence, avoid left-aligned images near such structures." That seems about as clear as a guideline can get. Keystone18 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am confused, but it sure looks like the guideline section keeps going after that. And that there are several other guideline articles that have relevant editing suggestions regarding why editors can and should align some images on the left. Yes, if you read only "Most images should be on the right side of the page" and stop there, I see how some editors can come to the conclusion that removing all left aligned images is helping Wikipedia, but that's just not the end of the manual.
The part you quote says that if there are bulletted lists don't use left aligned images, if there similar structures that depend on visual uniformity don't use left aligned images, but that's it. I think you are interpreting this backwards by taking away that images must be right aligned with only certain exceptions, when the guidelines, when taken as a whole, suggest more of the opposite, that images can be right or left, but not left in certain exceptions. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk16:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove non-breaking spaces between numbers and unit symbols, like you did in this edit to Rhine. Doing so is contrary to the general guidelines on use of units at MOS:UNITSYMBOLS; Use a non-breaking space ({{nbsp}} or ) between a number and a unit symbol, or use {{nowrap}}. Thank you. XAM2175(T)22:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I work for Glenn Dubin making sure the Wikipedia article about him is neutral and updated. I noticed that you are a participant in WikiProject:Biography. I am hoping therefore, that you might want to help with an edit request I submitted here at Talk:Glenn_Dubin#Early_life,_Career,_and_Personal_life_sections in which most of the bullet points of the edit request were implemented, but there are still two left that I would like completed. You can see the discussion about those last two points if you follow the above link, but for your convenience I will briefly summarize: the first is an issue of a paywalled source for a small edit— adding the word "philanthropy" as one of the reasons Dubin retired; the second is whether a line in the "Personal life" section, which I believe should be removed, is more like "celebrity gossip" than useful information that belongs in an encyclopedia. I would really appreciate if you could look this over and see what you think, and implement the remaining bullet points if you agree the edits improve the article. Thanks so much. AM for Dubin (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Long Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hessian.
There is no "third-most populous country" hyphen. It's either all hyphenated ("third-most-populous" modifies "country") or it's left unhyphenated. "Algonquian" always precedes another word ("languages," "peoples"), as it does in its main article. Using it as a singular noun is incorrect. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSSIS, which states: "Most box-type templates such as Commons shown at right should be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is usually, but not necessarily, the "External links" section) so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items." Keystone18 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very next paragraph reads Sometimes box-type templates are not aesthetically pleasing, either because there are no external links except sister project ones, or because they result in an odd layout, such as a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article or excessive white space when the section is laid out in columns. In such cases, consider using "inline" templates... (emphasis mine). Because the infobox is longer than the article text, the right-aligned Commons category box is widely separated from the external links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense; frankly, you're being obtuse and unhelpful. By moving it to the right, you're making it appear far away from (and below!) the external links. How is that possibly better than the inline template, which is explicitly encouraged by the wording I cited? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm answering your question as to why. The answer is because the guideline, which is a guideline and not a policy, says to do it that way. "...so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items." You feel an exception is warranted. If there were not an external link, I could see that point, but there is. Keystone18 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline that I quoted recommends the inline template for this exact situation - it's not an exception whatsoever.
When I look at the article right now (screenshot), the "External links" header is approximately level with the middle of the infobox photo. The Commonscat box is below the infobox - approximately one screen height below the external links header. Is that what you see when you look at the article? To me, that means that the box is not "next to" the list items, but is far separated from them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the idea; that it not be so prominent as to eclipse the external link(s). The commons link also appears on the left column, so there are two placements of it in an article that is only a couple hundred words. I wouldn't think so hard about it, frankly. Keystone18 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that makes no sense, given that the guidelines say to put sister project links at the top of the EL section. Having it be hidden below the infobox is not helpful. I am going to revert to the inline style that is specifically suggested in the MOS guidelines as quoted above. If you continue to make edits to the article that violate the MOS (like all three of your recent edits), I will have to seek admin intervention. Unfortunately, I care deeply about making articles as user-friendly as possible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do you feel it violates a guideline that states, "Most box-type templates such as Commons shown at right should be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is usually, but not necessarily, the "External links" section) so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items." If changed so that it is, in fact, below, that would be the violation. Even the exceptions listed, such as no other links or excessive white space, don't apply in this case. I don't see your point in why a deviation is warranted, and your opinion about user-friendly is just an opinion. I assume some thought went into the guideline that states it should not be done the way you want it done. Keystone18 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the relevant portion of the guideline in my first reply above. Having the commonscat box below the infobox is an odd layout, with a right-aligned box hanging off the end of the article, which does create additional white space. That means that the inline link is compliant with the guideline - not an exception whatsoever. Inline links are used in approximately 153,000 pages, so using it wouldn't be an exception anyway.
The basic point of the guidelines is that the sister project links are supposed to be close to the other external links. (Notably, they do not specify any preference for boxes.) In this situation, the inline commonscat accomplishes that with no downsides, while the right-aligned box does not accomplish that and has significant downsides. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Keystone18. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Steps such as checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline are mandatory and will take a few minutes per article.
Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any required steps.
Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting some copy edit help
@Keystone18
I came across your user profile through related changes link to my draft since you were making some edits to US related various articles.
Hi, I am user Bookku usually work in information and knowledge gap areas. Just worked on sandbox draft 'My Body No Choice'. I am looking for some copy edit help, if the topic would interest you. Thanks. -- Bookku (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Union.
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Sorry about reverting all of your edits on Mulgrew Miller. I subsequently restored a lot of the changes; as I mentioned in a comment there, the system didn't let me make smaller changes, so I had to revert everything then restore some. It has been stable as a Good Article for a long time, which doesn't mean that it can't be better, but it does mean that major restructuring probably isn't required. I realise that you hadn't finished, but sections such as "Wallace Roney" containing only half a sentence on Roney, with the rest on Miller's other late 1980s work, highlighted that a chronological presentation with matching headings makes more sense for Miller (and for most jazz musicians of the modern era – there simply isn't enough work for all except a few to sustain one activity (big band membership, for example) exclusively and for a long time. I hope that this and the edit summaries make sense, and thank you for the textual improvements. EddieHugh (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023
Backlog update:
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip:
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip:
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Thank you for your edits to Brian Babcock. I noticed upon splitting the article into sections, you included his NCAA gymnastics career within the "Early life and education" section and not the "Career - Gymnast" section. What was the intention there, if any? I've been working on a fair few men's / gymnastics articles recently and want to ensure I'm aligned with consensus. Let me know your thoughts, thanks! GauchoDude (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question was whether to place the collegiate career in the college section or the career section. I've moved it to the career section and made a few other minor improvements. How does that look to you now? Keystone18 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes sense. I just wanted to make sure when I go and edit something that it's not different. Logically if we're talking about a gymnast famous for accomplishments in men's gymnastics and part(/all) of that is in the NCAA realm, then it seems like it would go within that "career" or "gymnastics" section or something similar. I think we're aligned with your new edits and thank you for your contributions! GauchoDude (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly happened across this article and noticed some errors and garbling in the "Career" section; it looks like you introduced them in the course of your edits. I'm afraid I don't have the concentration to fix things at the moment, perhaps you could go back to it? Cordially, Brianyoumans (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the fourth paragraph in the Career section, beginning "Isabey's Boat..." There's a missing space, an unmatched parenthesis, and duplicated words. And, while I haven't looked at the source, the sense of some of it seems to have been altered.Brianyoumans (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected those issues and a few others. Hope it's satisfactory in its current state. Let me know if you see anything else that needs to be addressed in it. 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Statutory college, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Leonard's College.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newsday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COVID-19 pandemic in New York.
Hello @Keystone18. I am @Archer1234. I noticed your recent edits where you have updated the statistics in articles for U.S. high schools using recently updated information from NCES. Thank you for doing that. It is a lot of work to update all of the schools each year, so your efforts are much appreciated.
However, I would like to note one thing that should be done at the same time you update the statistics. Whenever we update articles based on a cited source that has updated their information, then we update the |access-date= parameter of the reference to show when the reference was last accessed and used to change the data in the article. In this case, when you update the enrollment, teachers, and student/teacher ratio, go ahead and replace the date in the |access-date= parameter with the current date. if you have any questions, let me know. Thank you, again, for helping to update these articles. Happy editing. — Archer1234 (t·c) 21:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, of course. On each of these particular entries, I previously entered the NCES link, so that exists as a reference but it also should be added as you mention. Keystone18 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
The caption on the last photo is incorrect I believe, that is supposed to be Grant at Lookout Mountain near Point Park not Missionary Ridge. 68.169.141.187 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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.
Page Move of PSFS Building to Loews Philadelphia Hotel with No Consensus
Why did you move "PSFS Building" to "Loews Philadelphia Hotel" without any consensus having reached beforehand? For example, the caption "Loews Philadelphia Hotel in 1985" on this building's infobox presents an anachronism because that pic was taken long before the PSFS Building's conversion to the current Loews Philadelphia Hotel was even announced.
This is the website, which cites the building's name as: Loews Philadelphia Hotel.[2] It's not a heavily-edited page, so there would not likely be a lot of input on consensus. The caption could reference the renaming. Additional references cite the name change: "One of the most important architectural works of the 20th Century, the PSFS (Philadelphia Savings Fund Society) Building has been converted into the new 585-room Loews Philadelphia Hotel." [3]Keystone18 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Keystone18, I noticed that you are signed up for the September 2024 NPP Backlog Drive. However, you're going to be unable to participate if you do not have the New Page Reviewer permission. If you are still interested in participating in the backlog drive, then I encourage you to request the permission at WP:PERM/NPR. I have, for the moment, removed you from the participants list as you are not able to participate at this point in time. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Widener Library
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the hours you invested in (in my opinion) improving the article were reverted by the article's steward (their own words). The image size and placements (only one of the issues the article has) they insist on going with will give any salient reader a migraine (same with the Memorial Hall article, which has been tagged accordingly). I'd support your reversion if you feel so inclined. Seasider53 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, which I'm sure you noticed. I am going to revert to your edition, and we can work from there. Keystone18 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your hard work on the Harvard articles and attempts, though sometimes futile, to make them better. I see you both have encountered "the steward." I encountered them months ago on History and traditions of Harvard commencements. Finally made some progress but it took weeks. There are a handful of Harvard articles (it sort of seems like a random list) that they watch like a hawk, and any change they don't agree with, however minor, will almost invariably be walked backed. It leads to articles that, I agree with you, are formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, and certainly not an encyclopedic one. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
