User talk:woodensuperman/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Woodensuperman. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Umberto Lenzi

Thanks for your vocal comments on the Lenzi page! Let's call for a vote on the talk page.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Am I being accused of vandalism for trying to fix the Lenzi page?

I just received this notice from the editor who has been harassing me for months on wikipedia and deleting all of my contributions. I thought you might be getting one as well? I'm getting accused of vandalism for trying to prevent my Lenzi filmography from being vandalized! weird huh?68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Here's the threatening notice that was posted on my wikipage..... ==ANI Notice==− There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't miss the voting, Wooden!

When are we voting on the Umberto Lenzi filmography thing? I'm sure you'll want to be there, no? Just to keep em honest.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your DVD collection Afds

I know it's a bit more work, but you seem to be nominating a lot of DVD collections with identical rationales. Please consider bundling them into a single nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shawn. I did consider this, but also thought maybe each should be judged on its own merits. --wooden superman 16:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Birds of Prey (David Drake novel)

What is wrong with giving Birds of Prey (David Drake novel) a real page instead of it being just a redirect to the David Drake page? I felt that I was doing a useful work for Wikipedia. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Since Wooden didn't answer you, there is nothing wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why I was asked about this - I don't recall any involvement. --wooden superman 11:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Woodensuperman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Victoria tv series title

In the talk page there is mention of you being involved in some other action that it is recommended that the action on the proposed title change to Victoria be on hold until some other action is resolved. What is that action and can you provide a link to it? I would agree with you about the title change as in the long run WP has to look at what can be done now to avert situations in future otherwise as articles increase there will be a need to address the issue and WP does have to look toward a more international approach to information gathering than just one group of people versus the world. Thank you.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Sunday Night

I want to let you know that I have reverted a part of your edit on this template because I can't see any logic in it. The lists of episodes is only for King of Mask Singer (one of two current segments of Sunday Night), it's not for the entire Sunday Night program, so it's considered as related articles. You can erase the show's name which don't have the English wiki page yet, as you have done, it's enough. You can read the page of Sunday Night to understand this template's structure. Kenny htv (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kenny htv, the main issue with the navbox is it contains the cast and crew, which isn't permitted per WP:PERFNAV. I'll remove those, but if you think it still needs restructuring, then, please do! --wooden superman 16:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Read and understood (maybe). But sorry, I can't find any common point between "Avoid adding" and "Prohibit adding". Kenny htv (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars templates

But first a 'happy holidays' to you and yours. I've moved the contents of the {{Star Wars planets and moons}} template to the main template as well as the listed-articles of the {{Star Wars species}} template. The new section-head link to 'species' handles all the individual lettered pages (in fact is its only content), which an editor had added to the main template and I removed. Maybe those two templates can also be deep-sixed (neither of them were or are included on the main Star Wars page, so this brings their content to that collection as well). If you agree can you put them up for deletion, I've never done a deletion request so my knowledge of how that works is cloudy. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Randy, hope you are enjoying this festive season too! I'm away with only my phone for access at the moment, so will have a look properly when I can! All the best! --wooden superman 08:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Vikings

FYI I've asked the editor who closed the RM to please undo it. It looks to me like an improper close. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I assist...

...in changing out the Yoko Ono templates on the singles pages or did you want to do them? I can start at the end of the section and work backwards if you'd like. Nice work on the merge. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, be my guest! I've redirected the singles template, so it should filter through eventually, but sometimes it takes a while to refresh, and you still see the old template for a while... Thanks, I think it could still be improved somewhat, as some of them are B-sides, so it probably needs looking at a little more closely, but it beats that vertical monstrosity that was there before! --wooden superman 13:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it's much better. As long as the code will pick them up I'll wait and let our bot overlords prevail. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nena + Nena (band)

any idea on how to reduce the overlap between Template:Nena and Template:Nena (band)? seems like almost all the links in "Nena (band)" are also in "Nena"? Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it could probably be done with one navbox. I think {{Nena}} covers everything, so {{Nena (band)}} could probably be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#T3. I'm a little stumped as to best layout. {{Nena}} isn't perfect, but I'm not sure of a better solution, except maybe using the band names as headers for the album groups? The other option would be to remove all the band links from {{Nena}}, but this seems counter-productive... Maybe nominate for a merge, see if anyone else has a bright idea? --wooden superman 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

okay, see the discussion. Frietjes (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

NYC year nav

what do you think about templates like Template:NYC year nav? to me, this seems fine if it's only being used in category-space, but misleading if used in articles. what do you think (there many more)? Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'd not seen these before. I agree with you completely. These should not be used in article space, not least because of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but also because of WP:EGG. --wooden superman 16:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

RM rationales reverted

[1] That wasn’t an evaluation of the arguments. It was just all the arguments. I was thinking it might aid discussion if we’re able to see all sides at once. It was meant for us, not the closer. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's really not helpful as it skews the argument towards your interpretation of the summary. It's not a good idea. If you must do something like that, do it normal text as a comment in the conversation thread, but I don't think it's worth it. --wooden superman 16:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s why I left it open to editing by anyone else. But I don’t think it started off particularly skewed, as I included policy-based arguments for and against all sides. But, noted. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Telenovela -> Mexican TV Series.

I agree that the change in article names is appropriate, however, I've run into two articles that have had their name changed that have needed additional fixing. When you do the moves, could you also change the DEFAULTSORT and DISPLAYTITLE entries in the articles appropriately?Naraht (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - will bear this in mind if I make some more moves. --wooden superman 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the DISPLAYTITLE is done automatically if there is an infobox television, but the DEFAULTSORT is likely to always be an issue.Naraht (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, usually it is, but I guess there are some cases where that won't be the case. I wouldn't have thought that the sortkey would be too much of an issue, as it's only the last part of the article title that's being changed, but I'll still update when I come across it. --wooden superman 14:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Have fun. :)Naraht (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Agatha Christie video games

Now it seems OK to me. Regards.--Carnby (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok

I already proceeded to revert my edition. I will not waste my time with you. Well here it will be done from now on what you order.--Philip J Fry / talk 16:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Venevisión telenovelas

I will ask you to please leave the templates as a redirect to Template:Venevisión telenovelas, since the previous templates are linked to too many articles, and then I will not replace anything.--Philip J Fry / talk 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that what I did in the first place? --wooden superman 10:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Child ballads

Hi Woodensuperman. I have added a namespace switch to Template:Child Ballads complete index, it will no longer display in mainspace if someone ignores the documentation and uses it as a navbar. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I still don't think we should be using navbox markup for this - let's see what others suggest at the discussion. --wooden superman 15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is an alternative markup that would work in the same way that would be fine, I could convert it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with all those pagemove redirects. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Was just about to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music/Child Ballads/Child Ballads complete index/doc. --wooden superman 12:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

CBB reverts

Wow...don't appreciate all the reverts without at least giving me a heads up. Simply deleting the template from the mainspace wouldn't have been good enough? Thanks. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? --wooden superman 22:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:George Hickenlooper

It's common practice to not link non-existant articles in nav boxes. Has been for as long as I can remember. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You either link them, or remove them. See WP:EXISTING --wooden superman 22:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Denmark

Hello, in respect of the editor moving various articles and categories from "...of Denmark" to "...of the Kingdom of Denmark": no, I don't know of any consensus supporting these changes. As you know, we normally use the short form of country names. I can only presume the editor's motivation is to somehow mark the distinction between Denmark proper and the entire Danish realm, which also includes the Faroe Islands and Greenland. It's a plausible idea, in fairness; see for example the separate articles for the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is a comparable situation. In that case, they both have relevant categories. For Denmark, however, the idea is somewhat muddled and I don't support the changes unless we restructure our articles along Dutch lines first. Jellyman (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jellyman. I also mentioned the matter to Favonian, who seems to be of a similar opinion to you and suggested dialogue should be opened with the user in question. I've left a note at the editor's talk page, but as it's not really in my wheelhouse, I wonder if one of you two would like to take the matter up... --wooden superman 10:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll have a crack tomorrow if I get time to do so! Jellyman (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Parker

Please cleanup Special:WhatLinksHere/Parker (character) so that the appropriate ones link to Parker (Stark novels character). -- Netoholic @ 12:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Done --wooden superman 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Neighbours (TV series)

has a nice ring to it. -- Netoholic @ 10:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirected templates

Hi, when you merge templates and redirect one to the other, could you check if any articles contained both templates, as it results in the same template appearing on a page twice? I've just noticed it with Template:The X Factor (UK) and Template:The X Factor (UK) contestants, where the winners were listed on both templates so several articles potentially have a duplicated template. Thanks. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 19:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, in addition, if you redirect a renamed template to another template, you end up with a double redirect, with as result no redirect at all:

as of the 30th of July 2015‎)Template:Enderseries redirects to Template:Ender's_Game,
and as of the 31st of May 2018, Template:Ender's_Game redirects to Template:Orson_Scott_Card.

The result looks utterly clumsy at the pages where Template:Enderseries is used: "1. REDIRECT Template:Orson Scott Card" instead of the actual redirect:

like Ender's_Game_(series), which would suffer from the same issue as mentioned above (same navbox twice),
or Ender's_Game_(short_story).

Anyway, this solution is not ideal (not at all):

for the issue with twice the same navbox (due to a redirect), both navboxes should not have been present on the same page to begin with (and the redirected can be removed?);
as for the issue with the redirected and renamed navbox, is this a known issue?

Also, I was not aware that such changes are allowed without any (recent) discussion (ie. is duplication always reduntant)? Clockworkske (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the redirect. Duplication/redundancy is a speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#T3. --wooden superman 15:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Everything should be fixed now. --wooden superman 15:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: The Time Opener

Hello Woodensuperman. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Time Opener, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Umm..Not uncontroversial.Please initiate a RM. Thank you. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Well, it isn't controversial per WP:UE and this discussion, which had no prejudice against a move once English translations have been published, which they have... See [2][3][4], along with many, many more... --wooden superman 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the previous RM discussion and the remaining links.I would have probably moved, had you not initiated a RM.Anyways, more heads are always beneficial:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Winged Blades of Godric: I've also instigated an RM for the other remaining article in the series that is still at a French title, as that's a bit more complicated. See Talk:Les Mauvais Rêves#Requested move 20 April 2018 if you're interested. --wooden superman 08:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Template Playmates of the Month

Athanatophobos April 23rd 2018 15:25 CEST

Hello, why would you like delete this template although there already are other templates for the previous years? eg here is the template for 2017 : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Playmates_of_2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanatophobos (talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated multiple templates for deletion. There is nothing to navigate between, so the navboxes are pointless. --wooden superman 13:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A.R Rahman music template.

Hi,I recenlty edited the A.R Rahman template where i was only able to find very of his soundtracks listed in the template. For the convenience of the people i edited and made sure every soundtrack released by the artist is present there. I have seen that you have undone the edit stating that the link are leading to film article. Many soundtracks does not have a page been created yet. It is been part that particular film. But i have edited in a way it directly leads to the soundtrack section of that page. By doing this edit it does not tarnish the image of the article or violating any of the Wiki policy. It is just small edit to make it more correctly. If you have any concern please let me know. Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, per WP:FILMNAV, we only link to the soundtrack articles, not the film articles. He was not primary creator of the films, just the soundtracks. --wooden superman 06:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But the other films in Soundtracks section ( Roja, Kadhalan, Bombay(1995)Jeans, Padayappa,Alaipayuthey) were also films. Only the studio albums were producted by him. every others were part of a film that is the way is it done in Indian films. The reason some has seperte page is because of more content. those soundtracks gets dubbed on few different languages. More it gets there wont have enough space in film article so they creted sepertae article. For example u cant put the entire jeans article in one section. I think you should consider other Indian editors as you are not familiar with how things work. Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean, especially as you're not including links, but I would suggest that Jeans (soundtrack) should probably not be linked at all at {{A. R. Rahman}}, as the article is not about a soundtrack by Rahman, but a various artists album. --wooden superman 11:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost every album listed as soundtrack is part of a film. It is not like Pop artist where they make a album. Here a film is made and music director creates a Soundtrack with Songs sung by many singers for the film. It is Part of the film and the soundtrack album will be released. It is not just for Jeans, for every film album it is the same. Please consult with other Indian editors. When the Album is made by the Artist why it should not be added there. Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's difficult to understand you. However, per WP:FILMNAV, we only link to soundtrack articles in navboxes for composers, not film articles. See {{Randy Newman}}, {{Hans Zimmer}} or {{John Williams}} for equivalent. --wooden superman 07:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

May i know what is the part that you dont understand. Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not being very clear. Are you still suggesting that the film articles should be linked alongside the soundtrack articles? This goes against WP:FILMNAV. We only link to soundtrack articles from a film composer's navbox, not the films, as they are a primary creator of the soundtrack, but not the film. If you want a bit of history, you could start with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 3#Template:Anthony Marinelli. --wooden superman 12:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Navboxes

I think you misinterpret WP:PERFNAV and WP:FILMNAV sometimes; neither guideline states that all names should be removed from the respective navboxes. Do you do the same thing with musicians' navboxes? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As it was me who wrote the guideline, I don't think I am misinterpreting those points. Actors have not been allowed in navboxes for a very long time. --wooden superman 17:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Direct me to the discussion where that consensus was met, please. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 11#Proposal for WP:PERFNAV (or similar). --wooden superman 07:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So you closed the discussion that you initiated yourself? You're not supposed to do that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Film scores by A. R. Rahman

Please see my comment to the closer. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Richhoncho. Did you have an opinion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3#Film soundtracks by language? --wooden superman 11:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Edith Alice Morrell

I can understand why you reverted my deltion of the link between this article and the one on John Bodkin Adams and can also understand the basis for your comment about fixing it, although this was probably made without knowledge of the issues involved.

Put simply, there is no basis for saying Mrs Morrell was murdered as there was no Inquest verdict to that effect and the only person accused was found not guilty. The article is based almost entirely on a single, highly speculative source and includes several unsupported suppositions and unsourced comments. It also adds little or nothing to the article on John Bodkin Adams.

As to fixing the Edith Alice Morrell article, I think it's beyond redemption as the basic premise that this was a murder is unsupported, and it should probably be put out of its misery. I'm not sure if it meets the criteria for deletion, but that would be the best solution.

Finally, although I may have been hasty deleting the link, there may be some onus on your part to ensure that any link is to a reasonably credible article.Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sscoulsdon, I do understand your concerns with the article, but it should be linked while it exists. To orphan it wouldn't be the appropriate measure as the topic is relevant to the article. However, I do share your concerns with regards to the claim of "murder" (I was reading about him after a visit to the Hastings True Crime Museum last weekend), and note that it was moved without discussion a while ago. I think that the first step would be to move the article back to Death of Edith Alice Morrell, unless you think it really is beyond redemption, then it should be taken to AfD. Not sure whether to move before the discussion or not, as either title might prejudice an Afd... --wooden superman 08:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for this. Probably my main objection to tackling the article was its current title Murder of Edith Alice Morrell. With a title like Death of Edith Alice Morrell at least there is a level playing field of whether it was or wasn't a murder.

There are significant problems, because John Bodkin Adams comes up time and again in collections about mass murders written by people who haven't studied the case, whereas by a three-to-one majority, the writers that attended his trial believe that the was rightly acquitted based on the case presented against him, while regretting that there are question marks and by a three-to one majority of more recent researchers that his claim to have "eased the passing" of dying patients shows his intent.

In view of what you say, I think the best way forward is to revert the title to the more neutral one and see over the next few days whether the article is salvageable by putting in alternative sources. Once I've done this, I'll let you know.

Best wishesSscoulsdon (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! I've spent longer than I thought looking at the Murder of Edith Alice Morrell article, but have now completed a draft which I've parked for the time being under Death of Edith Alice Morrell. It's not 100% complete, in particular I've a problem combining two references to the same page and source, but in terms of content it's as near as can be. I've tried to preserve as much as seemed valid from Murder of Edith Alice Morrell but either ditched the speculation or added correctives.

I'd be grateful if you would take a look at it and give me your view. My current thinking is that it might more properly be "Trial of John Bodkin Adams" with some additions about the Committal Proceedings.

There is, by the way, a further link to the John Bodkin Adams article, called Death of Gertrude Hullett, also substantially sourced from Pamela Cullen's highly sensational and speculative book and not much else.

Best wishesSscoulsdon (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really familiar with the subject, so my eyes may not be the best for the task, but one procedural issue is that we now have two articles on the same topic, so this really isn't a good situation. You should probably get an admin to WP:HISTMERGE the two articles, as we're left with a bit of a mess as it is. --wooden superman 08:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Or, as the rewrite of the article was done by yourself, for WP:ATTRIBUTION purposes, you could probably revert your changes to a redirect, put your rewrite over the top of Murder of Edith Alice Morrell and get it moved to Death of Edith Alice Morrell. That may be easier than a history merge, although would probably still need to get an admin involved. --wooden superman 08:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and many thanks for you two comments. I'm sorry for the delay but have only just seen your posts. My own feeling was, as the original article was Death of Edith Alice Morrell and as I've tried to include as much as possible from Murder of Edith Alice Morrell , which itself included the original Death of Edith Alice Morrell, a redirect seems best.

Thank you again for your help.Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Superman Characters

Categories such as "Superman Characters" have repeatedly been deleted from Wikipedia for many reasons. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's here Category:Superman characters. Why would the encyclopedia delete Category:Superman characters? Seems like a good category. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually they haven't. And do not accuse me of being a sock as you did on one of your reverts. See the CFD for the batman character category. --wooden superman 09:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Presenter

When you converted presenter to a DAB page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. User:DPL bot reports that the change has generated 2,767 errors, every one of which will have to be checked and fixed manually. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Template: Inside No. 9

If you genuinely believe there is a problem here, please explain your reasoning on the talk page, but I'm afraid the guideline you are referring to does not support your edits at all. In future, perhaps you consider following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?

Hi Woodensuperman,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself. I notice that you have done a fair amount of CSD work already.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Woodensuperman. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. – Joe (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Colorblind

At least you should source the section you are leaving. Also, you should give context to readers (""Colorblind" received positive reviews from music critics upon the release of Hurt: The EP, who praised Lewis's rock interpretation." [Who are those critics?]; "The EP charted on national single charts" [which national charts?]; otherwise you are making a WP:V violation. Articles are independent from each other and you shoudn't expect readers to go to other articles for information you are removing. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Woodensuperman. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:A Stitch in Time, book cover.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Woodensuperman, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Coope Boyes and Simpson

I added a couple more sources to Coope Boyes and Simpson. Allmusic has a non-trivial bio on them, and I found several album reviews from the Guardian. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Time Team

Hi Woodensuperman. You recently removed Category:Time Team from a number of biographies of archaeologists, citing Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance. I'm not sure that really applies, though. The subjects are not performers, they're scholars, and consequently their appearance in Time Team tends to be a noteworthy and defining aspect of their career. Overcategorization is unlikely to be a problem because few of the members of the category have "performed" in other creative works. – Joe (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of this going on. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 12 too. Lots of "delete all the entries, then delete the set because it's now empty" stuff across Ruth Goodman, QI, Time Team and even the People's Vote. Then edit-warring to push it further. Which noticeboard would be best? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm only tidying stuff up per our guidelines. Stop WP:STALKING my edits. --wooden superman 12:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You doth protest too much. If you think complaining about your bludgeoning on navbox deletion is "Stalking", then you'll find ANI in the usual place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As it's a TV series, anyone's performance on that programme, scholarly or not would fall under WP:PERFCAT. The defining category would be the type of role they play, not the individual broadcast. --wooden superman 12:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. And Ruth Goodman, or Fry, are the branding for that series. Their collaborators (except Alan Davies) would be replaceable, they are not (or with great difficult and a Toksvig) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, I really fail to see how Category:Time Team specifically was overcategorisation on any of these articles. Would you be happier with a subcategory like Category:Archaeologists appearing on Time Team?

(edit conflict) I don't have an opinion on the other categories. – Joe (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A suitable category would be along the lines of Category:Television archaeologists or similar, mention of the programme would be a WP:PERFCAT --wooden superman 12:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

But sources don't talk about these people as "television archaeologists", they mention specifically that they appeared on Time Team. I think you are taking WP:PERFCAT (and WP:PERFNAV) rather too literally. They are guidelines remember, not hard-and-fast rules, and the spirit is rather more important than the letter. I'm going to go ahead and revert your category changes for now. Please gain a consensus at an appropriate venue, e.g. WP:ARCHAEO or WP:CFD, if you want to reinstate them.

I also just noticed your edits to {{Time Team}} and its transclusions. I agree with Andy: creating a circumstance, then using that circumstance as a justification for removing content, is really not a good idea. – Joe (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Andy's comments are not applicable to Category:Time Team or {{Time Team}}, as I'm not nominating them for deletion or anything, just tidying up in line with the established guidelines. --wooden superman 12:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiya superman. Nice reference to Hounding.

For what it's worth, Tread carefully around Andy. He is quite senior, enormously prolific, and takes particular offense when someone, as he says above, "Deletes all the entries, then deletes the set because it's now empty". This is a no-no, and this was the sin that brought him into my sphere years ago. He has been haunting my edits with his Revert Button ever since. He often leaves the "Discuss" completely out of "Revert and Discuss", and his Edit Summaries will often be quite offensive. That said, he's not a bad person. His goals are pure.

Bottom line: He's just someone you have to live with when you volunteer your time contributing to Wikipedia.

Some advice: Do NOT link to him or his user page directly in your conversations. When I did so on my User: page, he reported it (my user page!) as an "Attack page" and reverted my text there.

Happy editing! Riventree (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Woodensuperman, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)