User talk:Hughesdarren/Archive 9

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		For reviewing more than 500 articles during the backlog drive.

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For re-reviewing at least 25 articles during the backlog drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 623 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, thanks for organising. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Whiteguru. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Nepenthes longiptera, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whiteguru (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help deleting an user page

I was wondering if I could get your assistance. I accidentally created a new page in the "User" space and can't figure out how to delete it. User:Trichia Dromiaeformis. Could you help me please? Epachamo (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page, but will contact an administrator who will remove it completely. @Girth Summit: Could you help out here please? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! Epachamo (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review a new page

Hi Hughesdarren, You may review a new page (below) that is in a similar category from India as a previously reviewed page. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2021_Lynchings_for_sacrilege_in_Punjab Thanks Dhy.rjw (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you don't need to message reviewers though, we do all have a running list and some would take exception to being asked to review newly created articles. If you like you could help out by joining the reviewer team. See Wikipedia:Page Curation. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update and information Dhy.rjw (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Marander

Rock Photographer in the late 80's. Most commonly known for her work on the album "Bleach" by Nirvana.

The album cover was photographed by Tracy Marander during a concert at the Reko Muse art gallery in Olympia, Washington.

Rummored to have been romatically involved with Kurt Cobain Of "Nirvana" During his visits to Olympia with the band. At that time Kurt was being supported financially by girlfriend Claudia Shaffer at the apartment where Kurt spent time at home writing the majority of Album "Nevermind". Austin Francis Beres Cobain (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your position. This Page expands the encyclopedia accurately Austin Francis Beres Cobain (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have a happy Christmas and New Year

Hello Hughesdarren: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, JW 1961^Talk 11:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Your submission at Articles for creation: Great Iran Flood has been accepted

Great Iran Flood, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to draft, but that's not why I'm here. I notice that you reviewed this page[1]. You should never review a page you significantly edited, proposed for AfC, and so on, as that defeats the purpose of the review completely. Fram (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram, I have never read anywhere that you cannot review a page you have added to could you please point me to a policy where this is mentioned. Surely the part of the reviewers job is to help new editors help get articles up to scratch. The only reason I proposed the article for AfC is that I felt it was now up to standard and evidently User:Rusalkii agreed with me. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of having a review process if you can review your own work? This seems to be so obvious that it hasn't even been codified. Fram (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that if you edit any article to improve it then you cannot also review it? Strange, I though Wikipedia was a collaborative project. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the behavioral issue, but as AfC reviewer can I ask what was wrong with the draft? Rusalkii (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information "which would place the event as the 23rd largest flood-related tragedy in history." is sourced to this, which is sourced to "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods". This was the reason for the initial draftifying, but nothing had been done about it since. Fram (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the only reason you have put it back into draft, then maybe you could have removed it? Not that it it matters as now another reviewer has placed it back into the mainspace. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Junior Football Championship

Hughesdarren,

Your reasons for deleting this article are contradictory. You tell me that the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If this truly is the case then why have the following similar articles not also been deleted? Armagh Junior Football Championship, Cavan Junior Football Championship, Cork Junior Football Championship, Donegal Junior Football Championship, Dublin Junior Football Championship, East Kerry Junior Football Championship & Kildare Junior Football Championship.

The second sport in the GAA is hurling. There are also a number of similar (but different) pages that also have not been deleted, if your grounds for deleting this article are actually accurate. I have listed them here for you to also delete at your convenience. Cork Junior Hurling Championship, Dublin Junior Hurling Championship, Kilkenny Junior Hurling Championship, Laois Junior Hurling Championship & Waterford Junior Hurling Championship.

This article's sister article - Clare Junior Hurling Championship - was created in 2008 by User:Pmunited and was not an issue. So, my question to you is what is the problem with this article that you have just decided without just cause to delete?

I know you are acting on your honest judgement, and I respect that. However, a blanket deletion of a page when there are countless almost-identical pages already in existence is just plain wrong. I, and others just like me, create and edit this GAA pages in good faith and everything we include in them is as accurate as possible. I will resubmit the Clare Junior Football Championship again. I trust there will be no issues this time OR the above pages will also be deleted?

Yours in sporting good faith, Muggins91 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muggins91 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Muggins91, Yes I tagged the article for deletion as I felt it did not conform with WP:GNG particularly WP:NSPORT. Evidently another editor disagreed and removed the tag. You may be surprised to learn reviewers so not read every other similar article, not that this makes any difference since the general rule applied is WP:OTHERSTUFF. The articles for review list is currently 9,700, maybe you could help us out. Read WP:NPP Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decades Arena

Hello, Hughesdarren,

You tagged this page as the subject of an AFD but didn't create a page for the discussion. It should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decades Arena but you haven't created and formatted the page with your argument about why this page should be deleted. Would you follow through on this? If not, then please untag the article. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry , just got called back to work, will check on it later, Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done now, first go using XfD on Twinkle, so easy! Hughesdarren (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iann Lopez

I’m not sure if this is the way to reach out to you, but is there a way I could get someone to help me make this autobiography not bias? I need help and I don’t want to be taken off of Wikipedia. People struggle finding my website and name because of this other man with the same name as me. Is there something I can do to be better or could you give me tips on editing this article without getting taken down? Iannlpz (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iann, the article needs reliable, third party sources such as newspaper articles. Wikipedia is not a web directory it is an encyclopedia. Read WP:GNG. A quick google search found very little so it would seem unlikely the article would stay. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Starburst (Cali Sade Song) (December 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hughesdarren was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There are no sources at all for this article and it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Starburst (Cali Sade Song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Starburst (Cali Sade Song), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hughesdarren (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hughesdarren! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hughesdarren (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year 2022

Happy New Year!

Hughesdarren,
Have a Happy and prosperous New Year, and Thanks for your Work on Wikipedia.

Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Species name is proper noun

Why they are written in lower case? --Yelena Vasilisa Marya (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it seems counterintuitive but it is scientific convention. To be honest I don't know what the actual reason is but all the examples of Binomial nomenclature follow this convention. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Baeckea species for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Baeckea species is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baeckea species until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Robert F. Titus

Following your report regarding the close paraphrasing from the this website on my article Robert F. Titus, I have made some edits to ensure that it is not closely paraphrased from the mentioned site. Could you check and see how it is? - Toadboy123 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Toadboy123:, I have passed my concerns onto an administrator who is way more qualified than I am to deal with copyright issues. Currently to [tool] is still rating as 71% but that also includes the block quote for the citation. The report is here [2]. The admin will still need to redact the article history as well so I will have to leave it with them. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove draft

I Put lot of work to do this page. It's 5 months i work on this page but my old pages getting draft. Hawkedits 27 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was placed in draftspace mostly because it has no references. If you can add some sources then it can be returned to mainspace. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leptogromia taxobox

I (Rugconites Tenuirugosus) checked the taxobox for leptogromia , as far as I can see , there is nothing wrong with it, thanks for changing the taxobox! with best regards.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]

Cheers, @Rugoconites Tenuirugosus, my pleasure. If you need a hand with that sort of thing in the future then just let me know. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helpin' me with that taxobox!

Thank you User:Hughesdarren for helping me change that Taxobox for Leptogromia. Have this Leptogromia-shaped cheese burger! Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

I'm not sure if you remember me, but I was wondering how to make those things in italics at the top of some pages, like the "for other people named this, see this", kind of things. In specific I was wondering how to make the "for people similarly named" and "not be confused with" ones, and I was wondering if you knew how to do it/could teach me. Thanks.AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, it depends on the situation but if there is an existing disambiguation page you can add "two of {" other uses "two of }" which will appear as at the top of the page. Is this what you were after? Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is, if either of you need it, a much more detailed thingo at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Hatnote JarrahTree 12:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help for draft taxobox

Hello, I would like to know why the taxobox for my recent draft Draft:Gastreochrea is still broken even though I added the "draft from sq986q2qe80" thing.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]

Talk page stalker: The acceptance of the taxon is perhaps dubious, the recognition at the paleobiology Db assigns it to "Triradialomorpha"; an automatic taxobox requires a 'parent' template (and article) to work correctly. ~ cygnis insignis 19:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Todd pages

Hello,

There are at least two and perhaps three Frederick Todd entries that should qualify for review as adequate for Wikipedia.

I have text for all of them,

Please do not stomp on my work when I am editing it is real time.

At least let me finish the work in progress.

Thanks,

-Chip

"Hold this spot" is not an article. Write it in your sandbox then transfer it to the mainspace. It is less likely to be deleted that way. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Than you very much. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin A GA

Looking forward to working with you on this. FYI - My doctoral thesis was on the effects of vitamin A deficiency and repletion on the immune system, so back in the late 1970s I killed a LOT of rats to add a LITTLE bit to scientific knowledge. David notMD (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm stretching my brain to follow some of the synthesis and health effects stuff, but it is all very interesting. Thanks for the message, I hope to finish trawling through by next weekend. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all of the queries to date. David notMD (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, will go check now. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to say this before the review was completed (although the information is on my User and Talk pages), but this is the tenth vitamin article I have raised to GA. Three to go. Thank you again for bringing a fresh set of eyes. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly know your stuff and can communicate a complex topic very clearly. Really enjoyed my first review, hope the rest of your nominations work out. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 40-year career explaining nutrition science to non-scientists. Yet I dread attempting Vitamin D. David notMD (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at Template:Did you know nominations/Vitamin A. An article raised to GA can be nominated to be a "Did You Know" appearing on the daily Main page. The DYK reviewer accepted my proposal for the DYK wording, but did request that improvements be made to the article itself. The points raised are the types of things you should be looking for as a GA reviewer. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub "Pavillón Municipal dos Deportes de Pontevedra": https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pavill%C3%B3n_Municipal_dos_Deportes_de_Pontevedra

Hello Hughesdarren, Yesterday I made the translation from French of the article "Pontevedra Municipal Sports Hall" (English name) that you reviewed, to expand a stub that was on Wikipedia that consisted of a few lines. The thing is that the stub is still on Wikipedia with the name "Pavillón Municipal dos Deportes de Pontevedra": https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pavill%C3%B3n_Municipal_dos_Deportes_de_Pontevedra and it is necessary to delete it since the other page created is the one that is complete and with all the references. After the necessary check, could you delete this page with the stub https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pavill%C3%B3n_Municipal_dos_Deportes_de_Pontevedra, please? Thank you very much in advance Kind regards --MJSB73MP (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, will ask an admin for help. Help please @Girth Summit:? Hughesdarren (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is deleting the original stub the right thing to do here? It's been there since 2006. Wouldn't it be tidier to merge the new text into the original article, and move that to the new title? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of "Arunagiri Mudaliar"

@Hughesdarren,

Though Arunagiri Mudaliar is a figure who's minor contributions had a large impact on Chennai law enforcement history, I do agree that it must be deleted for lack of detail. He is one of my ancestors and I wanted to make an article about him, however, I allow you to delete it ( for I know not how to), and hope that I will come back in the future, with more detail.

Yours truly,

Tarun Kumar ( Narutmaru ) Narutmaru (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren

I have successfully moved Article: Arunagiri Mudaliar to Draft: Arunagiri Mudaliar, and hope it counts as deletion.

Yours truly, Narutmaru (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Destruction of the Moskva, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the page history, there are significant copyvio issues here. I've resolved most of them, but am still untangling a few. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could have swore I ran the article through earwig before reviewing, my bad, thanks for the fix up. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may well have. I was finding violations down to the 5%-likelihood mark, and I wouldn't have dug that deep if not for the initial more obvious ones (spotted the first organically, then there were a few 20-30%ers on Earwig). I think Earwig was getting thrown because, on a highly-edited article like that (most of the content having been forked from Russian cruiser Moskva), there's lots of people touching up words here and there in ways that break things into chunks smaller than it looks for. The other aspect is that the most common form of copyvio on breaking-news articles is people just pasting a sentence or two at a time. So if "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" is changed to "The quick brown fox leaps over the lazy dog", that's just two four-word strings, and Earwig might ignore it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

Hello Hughesdarren,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 807 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 848 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aaron Violi (June 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Aaron Violi instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aaron Violi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aaron Violi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

Hello Hughesdarren,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14010 articles, as of 00:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol \| July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Hughesdarren

Thank you for creating 1602 in piracy.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The reference for Hawkins being imprisoned is incorrect, there appear to be no mention of Hawkins at that reference

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page reviews

Thank you for reviewing my pages. Could you also review Agustín Cruella Tena, Rafael Raich, Ramón Belauste, Manuel Carrasco (footballer), Luis Hurtado (Spanish footballer) and Severino Zuazo (If they are in line with Wikipedia standards of course). They were created very recently but never reviewed. Barr Theo (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, there is currently a queue of over 10,000 to be reviewed, so don't be too surprised if your articles take a few weeks to get to. Thanks for your contributions. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Simon Peter Hughes. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bashah Aboye, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Simon Peter Hughes:, Article looks fine to me, am I missing something? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK to me too. I didn't mean to unreview it. That was my mistake. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Giraffer. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dzhabarov, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Giraffer:, page looks legit to me, both the links work, have I missed something? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I remember reviewing this one and I didn't seem to have any issues, but the log shows that I unreviewed it and then instantly reviewed it again, yet it only triggered a notif for the unreview. This seems to be the same issue as above... anyway the page is reviewed and there are/were no issues with it (the unreview was unintentional). Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A10

Hi, I noticed that you tagged Deepa Shankar for WP:CSD#A10 twice as a duplicate of Draft:Deepa Shankar. This speedy deletion criterion only applies when an existing article is duplicated, i.e., it does not apply when the duplicate is a draft outside of article space. This page does have sourcing issues at present and needs further review, but it's not an A10; just be mindful of this in the future. ComplexRational (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ComplexRational:, I wasn't aware of that and won't do it again but the article keeps being recreated by the same editor after it has been moved to draft, What would be a better way of dealing with this? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend doing a quick WP:BEFORE search to see if there are plausible indications of notability, and if you don't find anything meaningful, send it to AfD. There isn't really a quicker way because G4 only applies when an old deletion discussion is still valid, and if draftification was contested, PROD will likely be contested as well. The creator has already been warned about their disruptive behavior, though in any case, AfD should resolve the issue of notability and repeated recreation. ComplexRational (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Shankar

Please take another look at the article. Sources like BBC should be considered right? DareshMohan (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken another look and withdrawn the nomination. You did a great job on saving the article @DareshMohan:. I had done a quick google search before nominating and not found the sources you had and also the article creator was being very problematic and my patience had worn thin. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment in Samoa

Thanks to moving this to draftspace - it clearly wasn't ready (being incorrect for a start). I've had a go at it and turned it into a decent start-class article. Unfortunately I'm unable to move it back directly. Can you reverse the move, or should I just do it by copy-paste? IdiotSavant (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @IdiotSavant:, Great job. Please do not cut and paste the article back in the main space. I'll submit it for review in case anyone else had eyes on it otherwise will review it myself later tonight. Looks fantastic and thanks for your efforts. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, just have to wait for an admin to delete the redirect page, usually this happens pretty quickly, if it's not done by tomorrow I'll get in touch with an admin to sort it. Once they have done that I'll accept the draft and it will transfer over automatically. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. IdiotSavant (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Capital punishment in Samoa has been accepted

Capital punishment in Samoa, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hughesdarren (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ganga Narayan Singh (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Ganga Narayan Singh instead.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This page was in article space until 23 July, when it was moved to draft space. A stub was then created in article space, and has been nominated for deletion. This page has serious tone problems, because it appears to have been written to praise its subject, but also contains useful encyclopedic information, and should be improved.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ganga Narayan Singh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get this Page Approved

Hi there,

I am being paid by Staffing Future to get - Draft:Staffing Future onto wikipedia. I am a team member on the team and have been making edits to the page however, I was wondering if anymore would still be needed. I have added more sources than before and been as factual as possible asking co-workers and even partners to make sure info is correct. Could you please advise me?

Thanks Stander60 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Stander60:, I think you should definitely start by reading Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you haven't already done so and go through those processes. The article has alot of sources included but they don't appear to be reliable, secondary sources. Newspaper and journal articles would add far greater weight, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If can add reliable sources it would confer notabilityand would be far more likely to be sent back to the mainspace. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hughesdarren,

Thank you for your reply! Reading through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources, let's say if I was able to add some secondary sources from partners and writers who are in the same industry as us, who carry weight in the market, would this help our cause? Also, would you be able to review the page once this has been completed? It's my first time doing a page like this so i've been reading all the articles and following all the guidelines but just trying to get expert opinions where I can.

Thanks, @Stander60 Stander60 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Stander60:,I'm not really much for reviewing articles of companies, it's a bit beyond my scope of expertise (or interest). The best sources are newsites/newspapers or journals. Once you think the article is as good as it can be let me know and I can submit it for review and other editors will comment and/or review. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @hughesdarren, i’ll let you know! Stander60 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation of stubs on plants

Hi,

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You currently appear to be engaged in the mass creation of articles on plants. Such mass creation can be disruptive, and if you wish to continue creating large quantities of short, similar articles on this topic (or any topic) you should first see if there is a consensus to do so, or if the community would prefer this content be provided in a different manner.

Thank you, BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm creating each one manually not by any automated process. One or two per day is hardly a mass creation. Haven't you got anything better to do? Hughesdarren (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One or two a day doesn't sound like much, but over the years it adds up to several thousand such stubs. At such scale it is important the community actually endorses their creation. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I totally endorse Hughesdarren's creation of plant articles that would otherwise be redlinked, especially since there are, (or have been) bots such as Polbot that created thousands of stub articles with the approval of the Wikipedia community. Articles such as Carex prolongata are referenced, have adequate categories, and a Wikidata identifier. Dozens of other Carex articles are stubs created by editors other than Hughesdarren, and hundreds of others have nothing. The "mass creation" link refers to "large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation". Nothing like that is happening here. Gderrin (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation is slightly ambiguous; it also applies to manual mass creation with the use of templates. As for Polbot 9 and similar, a lot has changed in 14 years; what was accepted then would not be tolerated now. BilledMammal (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What template has been used by Hughesdarren? Tolerated by whom? Gderrin (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry GD I think this is a bit of administrivium gone mad. Maybe BM hasn't noticed none of the ~4300 of the articles I've created have been nominated for deletion or sent to draft etc.. it seems that there is no problem. So thankyou so much for the advice. I'll take it on board. If you are really short of things to do you could head over to WP:NPP and give us a hand patrolling, only ~8,500 articles in the queue over there. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what the..., the edit history of this user has been exemplary, and to suggest that there has been anything like the mad (totally mad) stub creation by users with no edit history who used to dump thousands of one line stubs is both a insult to the hard work that this editor has conducted, as well as the Australian biota project.

The articles have been attended to in a way that shows a conscientiousness that is thorough, and of particular attention to detail that has created well established articles. To misuse and misread the notion of mass creation against this editor or any other in the Australian biota project suggests a very problematic perception of what contributing to wikipedia is WP:ABOUT. JarrahTree 09:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: The articles are not mass created. They make Australian plants' descriptions accessible. They are properly sourced and exemplary. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT are not the clearest policies, but I do believe they apply here. In addition, while I appreciate the work this editor has done and believe it is better than having no content on these plants, I also suspect that the community would prefer that the information available at articles like Carex prolongata is presented in a list format, with a redirect from the name, for the benefit of the reader.

However, I am not going to press it for now, both because there are larger issues to resolve, and because due to the proper sourcing and clear structure it would not be difficult to get a bot to merge these articles into lists if there is a consensus that they should not exist as single-paragraph standalone articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our standard policies have been that species articles are notable as standalone articles. And yes we have genus lists as well. However redirects sometimes confuse readers (and potential writers) that an article might exist. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the guideline? I was under the impression that there was no relevant SNG. However, notability isn't the point here; actions that are uncontroversial done individually become more controversial at scale, and WP:NOPAGE would be the relevant guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I plan to open a discussion in the next few days requesting the community determine whether there is a consensus for these mass creations, unless you open one first. BilledMammal (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal:, are you planning on opening a discussion specifically about Hughesdarren's creations? Or are you talking about the broader mass creation discussion you're working on? WP:MASSCREATE mentions "anything more than 25 or 50". No time frame is specified, but I would assume that is per day. Hughesdarren is creating about 2 article per day. That does add up over time, but it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that a new editor (or a longstanding editor who doesn't dig into Wikipedia minutiae) creating 2 articles/day would consider themselves involved in "mass creation" and would consider needing to seek permission/consensus to create stubs. If mass creation is going to be considered as two stub articles a day (or more than 25-50 articles over a Wiikpedia editor's career?), that limit badly needs to be brought up at User talk:Valereee/draft before that discussion is launched more broadly.Plantdrew (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hughesdarren's creations. As for what is mass creations, it is when an editors creates more than 25-50 very similar articles. For example, Carex dahurica, Carex truncatigluma, Carex simulans, and Carex shanensis are all very similar, and because Hughesdarren has created more than 50 articles of that sort, they have engaged in mass creation and need to seek approval.

Most editors won't run into this, because they are manually creating articles with a variety of sources, rather than using a template and a database to create articles. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you're quoting from 1) says that 25-50 is a rough guideline, not a precise threshold that there is consensus for 2) it's the bot policy page. That means it only applies when the pages are created using a bot or other software tool automatically, not if they're written by hand. What you're objecting to is the subject matter and the sourcing, which is a question of notability. There are editors who've created thousands of articles about places, restaurants, species, or even weather events like hurricanes or tornados. It's totally silly to suggest this one editor needs to stop and ask permission to create plant stubs. Go ahead and propose them for deletion if you want, but Hughesdarren doesn't need to change course here if they're only creating articles manually. Steven Walling • talk 04:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I absolutely agree that it's totally silly to suggest that any editor, not just this one, needs to stop creating plant stubs without "permission" (no-one has authority to give "permission"). All species are notable, so creating a stub on a plant species is inherently justified. Yes, problems are created if it happens too quickly, since there isn't time for other plant editors to review them if they think it's necessary, but this isn't the case here.

You also seem to imply that there's something wrong with using a template and a database – if it's a highly reliable taxonomic database, this is an entirely appropriate way to create a stub. I've created many stubs, some later expanded, some not, using an Excel template and Plants of the World Online. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go on @BilledMammal:, open up your little discussion if that is what you want to do, unleash a whirlwind of administrivium upon us all. Or you could help out over at page curation, there only 10,000 articles in the queue over there. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Tsumyoki

Hello Hughesdarren. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tsumyoki, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the source provided is enough for CSD. Take to AfD if required. . Thank you. Ged UK 12:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Hello! Just noticed that the user who created this page decided to remove your deletion template, so I went ahead and re-added it. Just letting you know! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Homo contemporary

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Homo contemporary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Fram (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late NPP Drive award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		Here you go, you made a couple of hundred patrol actions during the timeframe of the drive, so here's your barnstar.Zippybonzo \| Talk (he\|him) 09:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Philippines 2023

Hello, Hughesdarren,

Please do not tag articles for deletion 3 minutes after they have been created. I think it's usually advised to wait at least an hour until tagging a brand new article unless the content violates copyright standards or BLP rules or is advertising. You tagged this page as an empty article but by the time an admin (me) went to look at the article, it was no longer empty. Now, the article still may be deleted but it's best to give content creators a little breathing room to write content, find sources and polish up articles. Not all editors work on drafts of articles in their sandbox that they simply move over to main space. Some create an article right in main space and improve it as minutes go by. I don't advise editors to do this but some do any way. Thanks for your work! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to waste your time. I must have refreshed the NPP list without noticing. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error rate

It seems like your error rate on these Carex stubs you are creating is getting worse, not better. Take for example the corrections I had to make to Carex distracta. Please double-check with Plants of the World Online on matters such as the distribution, and use WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD categories. Abductive (reasoning) 07:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your supportive comments, so encouraging knowing there are editors such as yourself working on this project, keep up the good work champ. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been on Wikipedia for a long time. If you look at my contribs, you'll see that I corrected quite a few of your stubs for typos recently, and didn't bother you about here. But errors beyond mere typos have to be brought to a user's attention, because the rest of us can't be sure how these errors are being generated and have no reason to believe that they will not continue to occur. For example, I use semi-automated methods to create my stubs, and over time WP:PLANTS editors have corrected my errors, and remonstrated with me on my talk, and I have altered the template I use to create my stubs accordingly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I have made a few errors recently between a shitty internet connection and COVID fog it has been difficult. But finding a message from a long term editor who I've never had contact with before starting with It seems like your error rate on these Carex stubs you are creating is getting worse, not better is not a great start for any communication. I've created over 4,000 articles and a few errors are to de expected. Work on you your people skills. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have poor people skills, I'm sad to say. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, Can I ask what is the story here [3]? I had copied that after seeing it in other plant articles. Is including a year (of publication) in the taxobox not acceptable? I can't find any reference to this.

I was told that the animal articles include the date, and the plant articles don't (and that this is the standard with taxonomy outside of Wikipedia). I have been asking for a sample "minimal stub" with all the basic info and necessary templates be added to WP:PLANTS/Template for everyone's edification, but it looks like I will have to do it myself. The problem is that there is no stub at present that uses the Cite POWO template and has a Subtaxa section, but doesn't have other extraneous stuff that would confuse users. As soon as I create one I will attempt to make it the "beginning stub". Abductive (reasoning) 03:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard author citation format for animals include the year, and excludes it for plants. Most plant articles on Wikipedia do not have a year in the taxobox. I believe this stems from a difference in how the codes handle priority. In zoology, priority lies with the epithet. In botany, priority lies with the combination. Given the hypothetical species Primus examplus published by Jones in 1900, and Secundus examplus published by Smith in 2000. What happens if Brown, in 2022, decides that Jones species belongs to the genus Secundus? Under the botanical code, the combination Secundus examplus Smith (2000) has priority and, and the Jones species would need to be renamed. Under the zoological code, the epithet examplus Jones (1900) has priority, and the Smith species would need to be renamed. Under both codes, the original authority is placed in parentheses when a species has been transferred to a different genus. Authority citation under the zoological code gives the year for the original authority because the epithet has priority (but doesn't include the combining authority). Authority citation under the botanical code gives the combining authority because the combination has priority (but doesn't include the year). Botanical authority citation perhaps ought to include the year that is relevant for priority purposes, but there isn't an established shorthand way to cite the year when there's a combining authority. Should it be "(Jones) Brown, 2022"? It certainly shouldn't be "(Jones, 1900) Brown". And if there's not an established way to cite the year when a botanical author citation has a combining authority, should the year be included when there isn't a combining authority? Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's traditional in the limited area of paleobotany to include dates – I've never found a source that explains why, but I suspect it's because it's often necessary to list fossils found in a particular location regardless of the code the names fall under, and it seems more natural to use the same format for all authorities.

The problem with following the format used in the text of ICNafp itself, such as "Smith (2000)", is that this is really a reference to a publication by Smith in 2000, so it only works if you include "in" and "ex" where necessary: e.g. "Jones in Smith (2000)" or "Jones ex Smith (2000)", in both these cases meaning that "Smith (2000)" is a Harvard style reference to a full citation somewhere. It looks very odd with transfers: e.g. "(Jones in Smith (2000)) Williams (2020)" or "(Jones ex Smith (2000)) Williams (2020)".

So in general the best approach does appear to be to follow the existing practice for ICNafp names, i.e. omit dates altogether, except, possibly, in paleobotanical articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Christian Porter

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christian Porter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for taking it on @Mike Christie:, looking forward to your review. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Christian Porter

The article Christian Porter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christian Porter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2,000 article reviews during 2021. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Hughesdarren,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You,

Also, long time no see! BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, good to see you again too. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2020

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2,000 article reviews during 2020. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Hughesdarren

Thank you for creating The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (Moran).

User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work, I sent the creator a note

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @Bruxton:, you keep up the good work too, Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2019

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1,000 article reviews during 2019. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your review for the article All Souls. It's the first article for which I've created a page from scratch on the English Wikipedia as I'm Italian.

I have also created another article, which is currently a draft awaiting for its review (Draft:Anthology (Garbage album). It has been rejected a week ago as it had very little info and sources, but now I think it meets the criteria for approval. I would be really grateful if you decided to review it and/or leave any comment or critique on my work here on Wikipedia! Should I get this approved, I plan to move on to other projects in Alternative music.

Kind regards. Vitaazerokelvin (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vitaazerokelvin:, I'll have a proper look tomorrow but at a glance I will say that twitter and instagram are not secondary or reliable sources. Stick to magazines and press sources. Also, there are no deadlines, as soon as you click publish then other editors will draftify or delete if articles are unsuitable. In future if you have an article which is not quite ready just leave it in your sandbox an publish it when it is ready. Reviewing exists mostly for this reason and thousands of articles are deleted and thousands draftified for the same reason. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited an Instagram post for completeness as the album and its artwork were first announced low key on the band's social media, before appearing on websites and music stores. My mistake at the beginning was indeed to write down all that was available, thinking it would be relevant and reliable enough to be accepted, before adding more sources and context. Thank you for your advice, I will keep it mind next time. Vitaazerokelvin (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special message

Good day!

This is to express my gratitude to User:Hughesdarren for its roles on reviewing this draft-turned-article 1967 Cavite bus crash. Its acceptance is not only the accomplishment of mine, but this credit is also yours, along with other editors. Being the creator of the article, i recognize editors' efforts as they matter, how big or small it is; this wouldn't be possible without you and your works.

Hoping you'll achieve and accomplish more in this site. Keep up your good work! Long live Wikipedia!—Raider000 (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Hughesdarren. Thank you for creating The Pope's Exorcist. User:Robert McClenon, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This is an unreleased film and does not meet the guidelines for unreleased films.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Robert McClenon}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm GeneralNotability. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Mid cap company, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

GeneralNotability (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page review

Hi @Hughesdarren

Could you please review this page? Sagheer Hamoud Aziz

and of course see if it is in line with Wikipedia standards.

It was created two months ago but not reviewed yet.

Thanks for reviewing pages. Awam King (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discord invite

Hey there. Congrats on being on the backlog drive leaderboard already. Off to a great start! If you want to hang out with other NPPs, consider joining us on the NPP Discord. Discord is live chat software that can be really fun. If not no worries. Thanks and see you around :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I noticed moved my page to draft. Humbly, to inform you I've attained the auto-confirmed user right, as a result I'm not under obligation to submit my article in Article For Creation. I can directly publish in mainspace. If you have concerns regarding my page, please address those in the talk page, and I or other editors will work to resolve those. Rather than moving it to draftspace. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangladeshbatelion (talk • contribs) 08:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which page are you referring to? Hughesdarren (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are referring to Draft:Avik Anwar. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MB. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, 2022 The Centaurus Mall Fire Incident, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MB 22:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I noticed moved my page to draft. Humbly, to inform you I've attained the auto-confirmed user right, as a result I'm not under obligation to submit my article in Article For Creation. I can directly publish in mainspace. If you have concerns regarding my page, please address those in the talk page, and I or other editors will work to resolve those. Rather than moving it to draftspace. Thank you. Rosedaler (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Raxmanbek Usmanov

A tag has been placed on Raxmanbek Usmanov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

repeated creation of unreferenced BLP; already moved to Draft:Rahmonbek Usmonov, with another copy speedied

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Hughesdarren,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Early end of the backlog drive

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Drive Awards

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given to Hughesdarren for collecting more than 200 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo \| Talk (he\|him) 09:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Asymmetric Epicyclic Gears Award
		This award is given to Hughesdarren for collecting more than 50 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo \| Talk (he\|him) 09:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] t including another ~6,000 redirects

[2] The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

[a]

[b]