This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tazerdadog. 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.
We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year!
May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Altamel (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.
The Wikipedia entry for William O'Connell (actor) is scheduled for deletion because of insufficient citations. I am in correspondence with O'Connell and hope to arrive at some citations to restore the entry. However, this may be past the deadline. The present entry has a full filmography. My questions is: Will this filmography be accessible at a later date so as to include it in a revised entry? Willam J. Pease
@William J. Pease: I have made a copy of the article and placed it in your userspace. You can find it at User:William J. Pease/William O'Connell (actor). You can improve it at your leisure without it being deleted, and move it back to the main namespace when it is ready. The article is being proposed for deletion under a process that is uncreatively named proposed deletion. This process applies to uncontroversial articles only. That means that you are able to simply remove the PROD template from the top of the article and it will stop the deletion under this process. If you do so, it will likely move to Articles for Deletion, where the article will receive a full week-long discussion, and you can try to make your case for retention. Let me know if you have any questions. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
SvG articles
Hello Tazerdadog, thanks for your immediate reply. Yes I read the guidelines, but my problem is strictly practical: I start editing a draft. Let's say I corrected it, I added some reliable sources and the article is spot-on and ready to go back in circulation. What should I do to move the draft into the main space? Should I write something? Do I notify an admin? Can i move a draft to the main space by using a tool? I hope you're catching my drift man. I am asking about the procedure, I need some guidelines. Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Gtrbolivar: The move function at the top of the draft article should do what you want. Once you are satisfied that the draft meets the applicable standards, simply use the move tab at the top of the article to move the page from (e.g.) Draft:John Q. Cyclist to John Q cyclist in mainspace. Let me know if this helps. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, as soon as I finish editing one of the articles, I'll try it. If I have any problems I'll let you know. Your help is much appreciated man. Thanks a lot. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. You invited me to discuss the RfC result here at your talk page. I have two questions:
1) Why did you feel that a respected business source such as this, for example, was weak? Business identities and models do evolve, after all. I also believe that not enough people even had a chance to see this and similar refs while wading through the muck on the Talk:Silicon Alley page, and I was not allowed to even post these refs onto the main article page. I believe that had refs such as these been postable onto the main page, the !vote result would realistically have supported at least some inclusion of biotech. This really is an unsatisfactory result, simply because it's now going to give those opposed reason to try to eliminate biotech from other tech articles. Ideally this decision should have gone to three referees.
2) Can you clarify if your conclusion from the RfC also demands that Biotech companies in the New York metropolitan area not even be in the "see also" section of Silicon Alley? After all, it certainly meets tangential criteria for the same. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Castncoot. That source was brought up during the discussion and evaluated by your peers as weak. I have to agree with them - it doesn't really discuss the connection between silicon alley and biotechnology in great depth, mentioning silicon alley just once. It has a couple of sentences of relevant content - we like to see at least a couple of paragraphs in Wikipedia sources. You certainly had ample opportunity to present your argument in the discussion, so comments that people didn't see sources are unconvincing. The question was should the article contain discussion on the biotech industry. I do not believe a single link in the see also section is "discussion", so I will call that out of the scope of the RFC, and open to editorial discretion. I will attempt to clarify the phrasing of my close to reflect these points.
After further reflection, I think I messed up here. It seems clear with the benefit of hindsight that my reading of the scope of the RFC was out of line with what the community thought it was. It is clear that the community was looking for a final resolution to the dispute. My initial close did that, but I reopened the can of worms when I said this. Mea culpa. I have undone my changes to the close, reverting to the original wording. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You mentioned that the result is unsatisfactory, and that this should ideally have been closed by a group of three. If you still feel that way after reading my reply, and feel further discussion would be unproductive, the proper place for further discussion is the adminisrator's noticeboard, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually a pretty reasonable person. I went ahead and returned the see also entry in light of your clarification; after all, that was already pre-existing before your adjudication. It might come as a surprise to you that if you had adjudicated in my direction, I'd (reluctantly) be the first one to acquiesce to a request by anybody to have three editors look at this, to avoid the dreaded "coin flip" or "all-or-none" situation. I believe that this is an enormously critical, precedent-setting decision to make that requires several pairs of discerning eyes. I absolutely believe you adjudicated in good faith, albeit I believe you perhaps should have thought this over for several days before you closed it. Regarding the transparency issue, let me clarify the very critical logistical issue here - it was only toward the end of the discussion were my refs displayed clearly and isolated from other discussion; prior to that, they were (naturally) shrouded by other people's discussion and would basically be cumbersome to discern for potential !voters; by the end of the discussion, when I was finally able to spell these out clearly in isolation, the !votes had been cast, and realistically speaking, it's the rare person who's going to go back and change theirs. I'm happy to discuss further here, with you and others. I wouldn't even mind you being part of a group of three senior closing editors, even given your expressed decision. Castncoot (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to your concerns that some sources were only prominently displayed late in the discussion. I would have taken into special consideration any !votes that flipped late in the discussion on the basis of those sources. However, it is your responsibility when making your argument to put your best sources front and center early in the debate, and not to bury them in lower quality sources, expecting others to pick them out for you. I do not believe that this was an "enormously critical, precedent-setting discussion". Rather it was a content dispute on one facet of one article. I do not believe it was important enough to need a panel of closers. That said, if you would like to appeal to the community that this should have been looked at by a larger group of editors, or that my close was unfair for any reason, WP:AN is thataway. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I repeated these refs over and over during the discussion but they were drowned out by ever more discussion rather being allowed to be posted in the article text in plain sight for fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by readers. I just posted my formal request at WP:AN. (Did I do it correctly?) Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Not quite how it is normally done. I have moved your comment to it's own section at the bottom of the administrator's noticeboard, where it will attract attention. The discusson can be found here. You may want to review your comment to make sure it makes sense in context - I just moved it verbatim. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
We now have 822 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
Hitting 17,000 soon
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
Second set of eyes
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
Abuse
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Thank you. We are making progress toward a close, but more slowly than I would like. Fortunately, everyone appears to be in rough agreement on the biggest points, so I feel confident that a close will be hammered out soon. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is the difference is purely stylistic. I'd use whichever one you think looks the best. I personally use archive top because I'm used to it. Archive top works well in my opinion for short closing rationales, other templates likely work better for longer ones. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
To me, "Archive top" for shorter rationales. For other cases, like lengthy ones, "discussion top" with or without "consensus" template. There are other templates by looking at categories. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
After our previous interactions, I have been impressed with your command of processes here. I have seen Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Kurt_Evans_be_listed_as_.22Failed_to_Qualify.22.3F listed for long time at WP:ANRFC and was working on a close. After investigating, I see that it will have to be a difficult one, especially since the candidate is involved directly in the debate. This is probably why it has lingered. I think it needs an endorsed or multi-editor close, so the editor in question does not perceive it as one opinion, and I would like you to assist me. If I write up a proposed close and email it to you, would you then endorse it once posted? If this works for you, let me know and we can work out some process. I will probably also contact one or two other experienced closers with the same request. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to collaborate on a closure. I will be checking the email associated with my account. I had looked at that case with an eye towards a closure briefly, so I'm familiar with it. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Tazerdadog. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
From the "No good deed goes unpunished" file, you probably want to be aware of this: I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's "NLT" policies, but it's true that after months and months of dealing with this garbage, I'm now planning to pursue defamation lawsuits against Wikimedia and several regular Wikipedia editors.. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 822 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Can you please give us an ETA on your closure. I understand your dilemma - this is the 7th or 8th RfC on this topic in recent years and they were all either closed as 'no consensus' or were never closed at all. However, this delay is unusual. Otherwise please unclose the debate and leave it for another experienced editor. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. The problem is that 2 of the 4 closers have yet to provide substantive comments in the email discussion. I am poking them, but so far it has not been helpful. I am writing a draft closure as we speak. I understand that this delay is unusual and regrettable, but I want to make sure we get the closure right the first time. I am trying to move the process forward as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances, and I appreciate your patience. As for a hard ETA, I would be very surprised if a close was not up in 48 hours, as I'm about ready to proceed without the unresponsive closers. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't been aware of that discussion. It is, however, the same navel-gazing mental masturbation from the same overly-involved editors as before, so I don't feel any good can come of my participation. I'm not really inclined to defend my previous close, as I feel it was already vindicated when they took it to AN the first time. If they want to mis-characterize my efforts in pursuit of re-litigating their personal identities, so be it. In any event, thank you for making me aware of the discussion.
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. 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 equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Would you like to learn JavaScript? I'd like to get a group of editors together who are interested in learning (or improving their skills in) the JavaScript language, to benefit from group synergy, comment on each others' user script projects, sharing ideas and experiences, and perhaps improving Wikipedia's coverage of JavaScript topics (and WP's JS support pages) along the way. If this sounds like something you would enjoy, sign up here. Then I'll bring you up to speed on what I've been up to on the JavaScript front. The Transhumanist06:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. 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 equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 822 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
The last comment there was from you May 19, where you said, Sorry for the confusion, We're going back through the pre-edit filter archives to try and spot where the articles were overwritten by raw machine translations. I interpreted this to mean that your original overture to Village Pump was now moot, that you were calling off the request for help, and that you were taking some other approach to solving the problem, and no longer needed assistance. Is this the correct interpretation? Others must have interpreted it that way, too, because it was a conversation-stopper and there were no further replies, and the conversation was archived.
But the problem of reverted cxt clobbers has not been solved, and remains serious. The risk is, that we will delete perfectly good and mature articles that have been around forever that were briefly clobbered by a cxt creation by some well-meaning editor, and subsequently reverted by alert article watchers. That's all well and good for now, but it won't be good come June 6, when these good articles may be nuked. Since the cxt entry is in the rev history, that triggered the db report to include these clobber-and-reverts in the list of 3602, where the nukebot will remove/quarantine them if nobody gets around to examining and marking them.
That is the risk we face, and it has not gone away. This is an easy problem to solve in SQL as I mentioned elsewhere; you just get the groupwise minimum of the rev-history timestamp field per title on the list, and join that to title where tag=contenttranslation and rev time not equal the minimum thus obtained, and spit out the list of titles. Those are the clobbers, and that list should be a few dozen titles to maybe a hundred or two, not more. (A subsequent clever query against that result set could even enumerate the ones where a clobber was reverted to a previous good version, which would generate the exact list to save, i.e., the clobber-and-reverts; but even just the result of the first query, i.e., the clobbers, would be sufficient to take editor action and solve this.)
Why was the V Pump conversation allowed to lapse? Is someone still looking into this, perhaps proceeding along some other tack to develop a list of the clobbered articles to expose to editors for evaluation? It would be a pity not to deal with this issue. We still have time to do it if we get the list in the next few days, but time is drawing short. Pinging @S Marshall:. Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It was not my intention to allow that interpretation, that was an error. I have no idea what I'm doing with SQL. I recognize that it is a problem, I jut don't know how to solve it. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
If you know how to unarchive a conversation, can you please do it for that one so I can follow up, or send me a link to a page that explains how to unarchive? (Otherwise I can do it manually.) Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Since your editing activities are sporadic and I have failed to receive any reply to my above message, may-be you're not interested anymore.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I was actually working on a close, but had a template problem. I would be happy to volunteer that text for a joint close. I have saved a draft at: User:Eggishorn/sandbox/nsports. Thanks.
@Eggishorn: Let me give the discussion and your proposed text a good solid readthrough. I'll have substantive feedback for you in a couple of hours. Glad to see you again, and I look forward to working with you on this one. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. The intro bit can obviously be gotten rid of, but I think the rest is good. I spent a good chunk of my afternoon reading through the whole thread. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)03:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Aaaaand we have two closures which are pretty fundamentally different. I went with a kick it back to the community approach. I posted my proposed text directly under yours. I think that's all I'm up for tonight, though. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, @Tazerdadog:, as I went to bed shortly after we last spoke. I took another look at the two versions and, while the verbiage is quite different, I think the essential points agree. They are, as I see them, 1: SNG's like NSPORTS never override GNG, 2: Only NCYCLING got anything like a hearing in the discussion, which means 3: the rest of NSPORTS needs broad community discussion. I think a joint text can easily be brought together with those points and will post it later this morning. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've posted a combined version. I also posted it within RfC close tags so that I could tell if it was going to work with the internal links and the already-closed sub-discussions. I kept the part from my version quoting WP:NHC because Ithought it was important to lay out that this wasn't simply a vote. I know that most readers will already know this, but there are some that were drawn in who may not be familiar and I wanted to state up front that we intentionally ignored some voices. I then used your sketching out of the two themes and where consensus was visible and where it was not. I kept my clear->rough->no consensus list but added two of your points, the ones about older athletes and lack of community debate on sports criteria. I then finished with a mash-up of the points we both made about needing further community input. I hope you think this adequately captures your views and also the gist of the discussion. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)15:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Also pinging Eggishorn: The word "substandard", which your close uses twice, doesn't mean what you think it means - it's always "of inferior quality", never "a standard that's subordinate to another standard". Something like "subguideline", which isn't a real word but gets your actual idea across, would be much better. —Cryptic23:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible, but whether that's a preferred outcome is the question. There is a real difficulty when considering notability guidelines in the abstract. For, say, a Burmese badminton player, the usual editors are not going to find anything on web searches that would indicate passing WP:GNG and WP:NBADMINTON is a good backstop to prevent deletion unnecessarily. If an editor with access to Burmese language sources, however, states that they definitively don't pass GNG, then deletion is preferable. The same argument could be made for a American baseball player in the pre-1920's timeframe or many other sportspersons. That is the value of NSPORTS. It shouldn't, however, be a way for sports fans to to short-circuit discussions or a way for truly non-notable people to continue to have articles. That was the general feeling at the VP discussion and it reinforced other SNG/GNG discussions I looked for in wikihistory. I hope that helps. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.
Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, 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. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
