User talk:Hzh/Archive 9

Players
See Dweller's points about players at bottom of his section at FAC page. I am in two minds but don't have the sources (i.e. generally try to rduce listiness wherever possible but sometimes unavoidable) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm away from home at the moment, so I can't check the Goodwin book, although I have some of the ebooks. Vinny Samways was not signed by Venables I think, but I'll check that when I get home in a couple of days' time. Nayim was signed as a bundle together with Gary Lineker, but came earlier on loan.  The problem has always been who to add and who to leave out, for example, others may remember Erik Thorstvedt, David Howells, Steve Sedgley and others in that period, but adding everyone who has ever played for the club risks turning it into laundry list rather than something readable.  However, if anyone feels that they are significant enough to deserve a mention, I don't really object.  Hzh (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading is not who else to include but more justifying who is listed in the article already. Hence needing sources to add to a few why they are listed and maybe removing a few. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All of those I've added are sourced I think, I have also added sources for those added by others. Both the names mentioned are in the source, I'm not sure if more are mentioned there, so that needs checking. However, if you feel that some need to be removed, then by all means do so, and let me know if anyone given in the article needs sourcing. Hzh (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Erik Thorstvedt had surprisingly a big impression on Norway national team and Spurs, fans use to chant Erik the Viking during matches when he was playing. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thorstvedt was certainly a striking presence in the Spurs team at that time, and he could possibly be added to the article, but I'm not really sure how to add him, so it might be best to leave him out unless there is a specific reason to mention him. Hzh (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Aruna Mohanty
Please do not remove the word "Guru" from the article. It is a prefix conferred one one's teachers, and I have seen it in articles about other Indian Classical Artists. There are certain conventions that exist within the field the subject of the article belongs to, and those ought to be respected. Wikipedia has its rules, yes, but I am sure none of those were intended to be disrespectful to the very subjects that form the body of the encyclopaedia. About language that puffs the subject up, tell me which portions exactly, and I'll modify them. Many thanks. Icharp (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an honorific, and per MOS:HONORIFIC they are not normally added. Do give the guideline that says Guru is to be used, if not, then it will be removed. Hzh (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Name of Sichuan
Let me explain to you the name of Sichuan. Firstly I translate the corresponding chapter in Chinese article for you, I rewrite the chapter when I found it is wrong. Central government set Jiannan Xichuan Jiedushi（剑南西川节度使） and Jiannan Dongchuan Jiedushi（剑南东川节度使） in the early Tang Dynasty. (Jiannan is a Circuit (Dao) named Jiannan Dao（剑南道） in Tang dynasty. And there is no reference to explain what means Xichuan or Dongchuan, I can't guess the meaning subjectively). The two Jiedushi were abbreviated as Xichuan and Dongchuan, "Chuan" means flat plain. In Northern Song Dynasty, the central government set Xichuan Circuit （西川路） in 970 and split out Xiaxi Circuit （峡西路） in 971, and merge these two Circuits to one Circuit named Chuanxia Circuit（川峡路） in 981. In 1001, Chuanxia Circuit was split to four Circuit named Yizhou（益州）, Lizhou （利州）, Zizhou （梓州）, Kuizhou （夔州）. Abbreviated as "Chuanxia Silu" or "Sichuan Lu", "Sichuan" resulting from these two names. "Sichuan" as an official place name first appeared when the central government set the office named 四川都转运使、四川宣抚使、四川安抚史 in early Southern Song (I can't translate the office name, they are ancient government agencies).

I have check literature like《中国地名掌故词典》, 《中国地名辞源》, 《四川省志》, 《中国政区大典》, 《中华人民共和国政区大典·四川省卷》. There is no one express "Sichuan" means "four rivers". I know there is a folk saying "Sichuan" means "four rivers", I don't know what is the source of this opinion. And then, I read the article 《我国省区名称的来源》 which written by Tan Qixiang, he determined "four rivers" is an erroneous interpretation. In summary, every formal reference I have read express the name of "Sichuan" is a general name of "Chuanxia Silu" or "Sichuan Lu", there is no formal reference express the meaning of "four rivers". So, "Sichuan" could not be translated as "four rivers". If you insist in believing "four rivers", please show up the formal references. At last, sorry my English is not very good, thank you read my rough grammar😂-- Xiliu※heshui · criticize me  05:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I got what you mean. Thanks to your help. You can sort out my translation above and publish in the article if you want. I think readers could understand why it is general name easily. Sorry I can't do it because of my rough English.-- Xiliu※heshui · criticize me  05:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea is to give what people popularly believe the name means, then explain why this popular belief is wrong. Sources for "Sichuan" meaning "4 rivers" are not difficult to find, even in English - . Stating why a popular belief is wrong is important because otherwise people would often keep adding a mistaken belief into article. A fuller explanation of the circuit in different dynasties can be placed in the Circuit article which at the moment is not complete. Perhaps you can help expand the section there, adding references there where needed. Hzh (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yap, but these books are not rigorous professional etymology book, I think they are not formal references for the etymology interpretation. I agree you opinion starting why a popular belief is wrong. About the circuit, actually I don't know so much about it😂, maybe I will expand it when my English be improved. Have a nice day~-- Xiliu※heshui · criticize me  13:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can, can you add a reference to the meaning of chuan as "plain" since most dictionaries give "river" as the main definition? ("Plain" is also given as a definition but as a minor meaning). The first source I gave is actually an academic book published by Cambridge University Press, and it gives Sichuan as meaning "Four river districts". I don't have accessed to the references you gave above, therefore if they do explain chuan as meaning "plain", then please add that. Hzh (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, the character "川, chuan" also has two meaning in chinese, river and plain. I have added reference in the article.-- Xiliu※heshui · criticize me  18:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Aw, thank you. Much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Torchwood (audio drama series)
I am aware you've made a discussion relating to The Paternoster Gang. But sources were added to this page, and i speak here relating to Torchwood, a long ago time ago but another user i believe BigWhoFan continued to remove references after releases.

I have since managed to retrieve several of the news articles that were orginally in place and added several more for the more upcoming releases including from again Digital Spy, Gay Times, Radio Times and Den of Geek.

Does this satisfy yet the notability of the article for Torchwood (audio drama series).

I am also still searching for interviews in which the cast have also mentioned it.

R2Mar (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having multiple independent sources on the article certainly can contribute to the notability of the article. When you feel that you have added enough citations, you can remove the notability tag at the top of the article. Some of the content are not sourced, but that can be dealt with using other tags.  In general, an article on a series is less likely to get nominated for deletion because you are likely to get more sources, individual radio plays are more problematic, you can however try to find sources for them. Hzh (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Taking your point into consideration most but NOT all Big Finish production pages relate to individual audio plays however. The War Master (audio drama series), The War Doctor (audio drama series), The Eighth Doctor Adventures (audio drama series), The Diary of River Song. These are all ongoing series. The Paternoster Gang, I agree whilst not released til June 2019. This is also set to be an ongoing series. Torchwood, however, has been I would say the most heavily promoted due to the fanbase that persists from the original televison series. But articles pertaining to the series should be allowed some leniacy especially considering the connections to Doctor Who. Articles which can delve deeper into the particular series rather than being purely a list of their related audio plays. Especially considering their partial relevancy towards Doctor Who. Also just to finally add a big problem as stated previous i've faced with some of the articles has been users removing references upon the public release of a title. R2Mar (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Relating to these audio series in general in order to satisfy notability. Would sites such as Goodreads satisfy too? R2Mar (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean reviews by Goodreads, then I think not because the reviews are user-generated. Goodreads is specifically listed as an unreliable source in WP:RSP (this place is useful if you are unsure as to whether any site is acceptable as source, although it does not list all the sites, also the discussion on whether any site is acceptable or not is an on-going process). This is the same for many user-generated sites, we normally ignore them as sources per WP:UGC (Wikipedia itself is not considered reliable since it is user-generated). If you can find multiple professional reviews, then that will be a strong plus in considering an article's notability and the article will almost certainly be considered notable. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How do sites like DoctorWhoNews (formerly GallifreyBase) or Cultbox fit into the equation? I am currently working my way through some of the articles and have cited as many new references as possible but this is taking quite a while as there are many articles to sift through and update. R2Mar (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, I would say avoid fan sites because sources that are not linked in any way to the subject are preferred (fansites can be argued to be associated with the subject and therefore not entirely independent), some might also consider fansites to be self-published (therefore lacking editorial oversight, etc.). However, some people have argued for the use of fan sites if the information is not available elsewhere. Some content may be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I think reviews from fansites would be unacceptable. If you are interested in the opinion of the community about a specific fansite, then you can ask in WP:RSN (although I suspect most of them there would reject it). Try to go through the articles and fix them if you can, I certainly won't nominate them for deletion for quite a while yet. Note also that deletion is not the only option - the articles may be redirected, and the content can be restored once you have found suitable sources for these articles. Concentrate on the series articles first for now I think. Hzh (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that Dr Who fan sites have been discussed before Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 149, although opinions may have changed, and you can always ask if you are unsure. Hzh (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Slovenia
The list is needed for the category, same as all the other countries. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not how Wikipedia works. Just because there are pages for other countries does not mean that there should be a page for every countries. It is essentially the same content as the section on Catholic Church in Slovenia.  That page is already a stub, and there is no sense in having two stub articles covering the same thing. Hzh (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please look at Roman Catholic dioceses in Romania, Roman Catholic dioceses in Austria, Roman Catholic dioceses in Hungary as just three examples of these lists. Yes, the lists are fine as stubs because that helps people find the articles. These lists have been in place since 2008. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant what is found in other pages. If other articles are created erroneously, you should not repeat the same error. I see that List of Catholic dioceses in Romania is substantially different from Catholic Church in Romania, and are therefore valid as separate article.  However, the one on Austria is not that different in content, and it could be argued that the two Austrian articles could be merged, same for Hungary, perhaps more so.  I would certainly consider merging the two Hungary articles.  See the guideline on WP:CONTENTFORK, and on when it is acceptable to split content into its separate page WP:SPLIT. Hzh (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * sigh*. The pages have been there since 2008, without an issue. They are a navigational aid as a list. Content forks don't apply to lists because the purpose of a list is to connect different articles together in such a way as they can be found. Please do not merge without consensus. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter how long the articles have been there. Many long-standing articles have been redirected or deleted. Many pages have been created in ignorance of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it is only in the last few years that Wikipedia has started a more concerted effort in page curation to check whether new articles should have their own articles, so many old articles may not have been properly checked whether they qualify as individual articles. I should expect someone will merge the Hungarian ones soon. These list articles should only be created when the parent articles are getting too big, or the list section is too big and creates an imbalance in the parent article. At the moment the list of Roman Catholic dioceses in Slovenia is too small to warrant its own article. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So far the only wikipedia regulation you've cited is content forks which don't apply to lists. The lists were created so that the article stubs could be created in a reasonable amount of time. I would know because I was actually working on creating them. Far from being against wikipedia policy they were encouraged, as we managed to create several thousand diocese articles quickly. Some of the lists have been expanded, as time has gone on. Some have not. Slovenia was actually in the 'Balkan article', before that article got subdivided into the sections that you see today. I suggest you talk to the people working on this project before merging things. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lists are just content, and the two articles have the same content. I can always start a deletion discussion if you want input from the wider community, but I expect the result would be the same, i.e. redirect (or maybe delete). Hzh (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Anthony J. Hilder
Hi Hzh, I see you've been around for some years and also you took an interest in the Anthony J. Hilder article which you revisited and voted to save. Yeah, you're right with what you said here"should avoid filling the article with references that don't contribute to notability, in fact obscuring what might be the useful ones". I see that it does need tidying up now and too much stuff just adds up to a jungle. I wonder if you could please keep an eye on the edits to the article and see if there's anything strange going on. I'm not referring to the editor that I have had very recent disagreements with over what should be in. However there's a newbie on the scene. I'm not asking you to get involved in the editing of the article. I'm just wondering if you could watch the history of the article and see if there's a move in the direction to remove some credible refs from reliable news sources which could de-stabilize this article which is being considered for deletion. Maybe, maybe not, but who knows. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you mean, but if you mean the most recent one, then I think his or her edits look acceptable to me or are just normal content dispute. It does look like there is too much trivia in the article, for example a local issue with the City Council is trivia and should be removed. I think you can start tidying up by moving the discography and filmography to the end of the article, and write in prose his more important work in the main body of the article. In this way the article can be read easier and not clogged up by every work he was involved in. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again Hzh, Thanks for the reply. What concerns me is the very recent registration as well as the comment by P. Thanks for the pointer about tidying up. Karl Twist (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is a different issue, and you can raise your concern at Sockpuppet investigations. I know about Jytdog, so I find that interesting and might keep an eye on the editor, although the writing style looks different. Hzh (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suppose that someone can change their writing style after being banned to avoid detection. Probably easy to do early in the game. I know that I have changed my voice on the phone when playing a prank on a friend and they were none the wiser until I felt guilty. Don't do that much now. Karl Twist (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again, What mainly concerns me is that this member may be creating a history of doing legit edits and then close to the time when the afd is closed, a major sabotage will be done on the page. I have solid suspicions. Already a couple of edits have been vandalistic. You may note that all of the page edits from 05:46, 2 February 2019 to 05:26, 4 February 2019 with the exclusion of the Hilder Talk and the Bilby Talk page have all been on Anthony J. Hilder.  I'll discuss more of what I think I've come across soon.
 * At the moment I'm not seeing anything particularly objectionable apart from one where the references were removed (I replaced them), and I would say most of those edits helped tidy up the article. Just an advice - refrain from throwing suspicion on another editor in the AfD discussion, it is more likely to annoy the closer of the AfD. At the moment it is looking like it will end up with a keep or no consensus, but if you keep doing that you may antagonize other editors and the closer. Hzh (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice. Good point. I may refine what I said. Thanks again. Karl Twist (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of the information deleted by this editor and others are trivia, although for some of them you can add them but rephrased in a different way. Hzh (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been trying to do that. I see what you mean about the edits but my strong suspicions remain. After I read what user Bilby said and then saw this, it rung alarm bells. I've did a bit of digging and also remembered something. I believe that sometimes an agenda-driven editor will do normal edits on a page to create a familiar presence and then when the time is right, take out large chunks so the article doesn't have many credible refs. Then along comes a few others who vote to delete. The arrival of this ID, whether true or not as per the investigation is strange in it's timing. Also very switched on for a newbie. The writing style I believe is to try and create a certain type of swagger, if that's the right term. Certainly the discussions by this editor on other matters appear to more refined than the style used to describe the edits. I can tell that's deliberate. Anyway, we'll see I guess. See if the article is still here in a few days. Thanks again for your advice. Karl Twist (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Dalida
Why did you remove the article if it was a sub. The album is in process of expanding, just as I recently started fixing all articles connected to her discography. The info will come, I just need more time. Agree to undo the redirect? Dalida Editor please ping or message me ' 14:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Find the sources first, otherwise it is just the same as before, and I did look for sources before I redirected it, but can't find anything significant. If you believe that you can find sources to expand the article, then place a tag  to show that you are actively expanding it.  However, it will be redirected if you fail to improve the sources after a few days. Hzh (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse, but regarding sources I won't use internet as it is old realease and widely neglected online. In the other hand there are plenty of books and documents of Dalida that I have which I can use for this. Also you can see other articles of albums by her, just to get impression what mess this was for the whole time... Dalida Editor please ping or message me ' 15:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources not archived on the internet is perfectly fine. Sources also need not be in English. However, use sources that specifically discussed the album, otherwise the sources would not contribute to notability (for example the first source given is about the song, which does not contribute to the album's notability). Another reason I redirected it is because I did not see any evidence that the album charted when I checked different charts, which also made it difficult to assess its notability.  If the album had received significant coverage in the press or in books, then it will be fine. Hzh (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Football FAC
Hi, with your recent participation in a football related FAC with History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C., I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at my current nomination, Cardiff City F.C., if you have the time. Any and all comments are welcome, thanks. Kosack (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article looks good at first glance, but I will take a close look in a few days' time. A brief question - do you have any images of the club (games, players, stadium, etc.) from the early period? Any image published before 1924 should be fine if you can establish that it was published before that date. Hzh (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm completely useless with images unfortunately. I've found an image at the bottom of this newspaper article of the first professional squad published in 1910. This would seem ok to upload, you think? Kosack (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends on whether it looks good or not on the article. You can always upload it first and see how it turns out, if it doesn't look good, then don't use it and see if you can replace it with a better quality one. It is establishing that it has been published prior to 1924 that is useful here, if you can find the same image in books/websites then use that. I can see a few other possible pictures here -, there might be one with the whole team somewhere. Hzh (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

British Empire
Hi, I request your help, the user AlbionJack has just reverted my edition even after I complied with sourcing it, and what's more: he has just deleted the message you left in his talk page where you said that he was censoring Wikipedia.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion has started in the talk page, so the best thing is to let the discussion run its course. A user is free to remove messages from other editors in their own talk page, so that is not something to be concerned about - the assumption is that the user has read the message, therefore if the same problem is repeated by the same user, then the warning can be raised to a higher level. Hzh (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:British_Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath".The discussion is about the topic Talk:British Empire. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Diablo del Oeste (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 14, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 14, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the honour, I did not expect that, but it's much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! A year ago, you were recipient no. 2184 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spurs book resources, citations.
Hiya, just thought I let you know I added a few Spurs books that I have to the booklist, so I have access to some info if you need me to look anything up. Regards, Govvy (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you. If you can check, I'd be interested to know whether there is a photograph of White Hart Lane before 1923 with attribution in these books. I've been trying to find when this photograph File:West stand of White Hart Lane in 1909.jpg was published. Although I found another photo of the stand published in 1909, the picture quality isn't good enough to be used in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing I can tell you the date can't be right, that roof with the central cockerel was built in 1912. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Initially I thought so too, until I found the other 1909 picture of the stand with a cockerel on top in a newspaper - this is the link to the article, although you may need a subscription to see it - (Runcorn Guardian - Saturday 18 September 1909). Hzh (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I don't know, I could email the Club historian and see if he replies. What would you like me to ask? Govvy (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not that bothered about the exact date or facts as they can sometimes be hard to establish - I've read different books and sometimes they give different information. Here I'm just interested in finding an image of the stand that can be used in Wikipedia - i.e. one we can established beyond doubt published before 1923. At the moment the one used in White Hart Lane, although given in the source as being from 1909, cannot be firmly established as such, therefore if someone wants to quibble about its use, they have a legitimate reason to do so (I removed the image from History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. because of such concerns even though it is probably of the correct date). Hzh (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Spurs chairman
Do we have a list of Tottenham chairman? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The list of chairmen can be found here after the list of managers - . The chairmen after Charles Roberts (Fred Bearman, Fred Wale, Sidney Wale, Arthur Richardson and Douglas Alexiou) were all members of a few families (Alexiou was related to Wale) who held major shareholding in Tottenham Hotspur until most of their shares were bought up by Irving Scholar and Paul Bobroff. Berry was also one of the major shareholders until he sold his shares in the 1990s. Sugar then became the major shareholder and then ENIC bought his shares and others'. Hzh (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks for that, was trying to find the right chairman to add to the season page I had created. Govvy (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tottenham Hotspur F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enfield ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C. check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

American idol judges table
Hello, i think the new table was easy to understand which season had what judges. sorry for making that edit without talking about before i published it.
 * The problem with the table has always been that people keep wanting to change it to many many different versions, there must have been a dozen different versions that people have tried. In reality we don't need a table because the information is in the text, but we keep it just because it will stop people keep adding another table. We finally settled on this, it is stable and small (and can be made smaller if necessary), it is also unobtrusive, those who want to see the table can click on it to have a look.
 * As for your version, the problem I see is that it is too big - it is already larger than my screen, so you can't actually see the entire table, and it is going to get worse with more seasons to come (you would need to drop the year). There is also no reason to have them listed as guests (people might then ask why other guests aren't listed, if you list them all, it is going to be excessive). Most of all, it doesn't look good at all, personally I dislike the kind of table used in The Voice as well as the excessive number of tables you see there - it is not how article should be done, where the advice is to use prose wherever possible. The version in the American Idol article now is small and unobtrusive, therefore preferable, however, if you want your version used, then propose it in the American Idol talk page and see if there is support for your version. Hzh (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

thank you, I now understand.

Tottenham Hotspur F.C.
That last edit of yours, DMY was out of format, but can't see it in the article. Govvy (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the two references, but someone else did -, I just happened to notice that they are missing the website. It seems that the citation template can parse the date correctly (it's one of the acceptable format - ) and output it in the UK date format. Hzh (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strange, when did the template start doing that? That's why I am confused. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like something was changed in the template in April 2019 - - there appears to be a template  added that changes all correct short date format into long date format.  I was thinking of changing it to fit MOS:DATEUNIFY, but if it does it automatically, then that may no longer be necessary. Hzh (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Game of Thrones title sequence
Sorry about the mistake I made when reverting your edit on this page. When I looked at the diff page, I misread it as you adding the sentence, rather than removing it. -- Ted Edwards  15:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ajax ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Yid check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Yid?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Marina Sirtis
Thought you might like the second photo on the page! Govvy (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have seen that photo before, but I'm not sure whether there should be any photo in that section. Adding just one photo might give undue prominence to that person, perhaps doing that is done in West Ham United F.C. supporters might be the answer, although WP:GALLERY suggests that such gallery of images should be used with care. I'm undecided, but if you like it there then go ahead and add it. Hzh (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing it out, thought it was a good example of what some people goto to show their support to their club like a tattoo of the club crest on their body. I am still against galleries and list craft. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: citations in "Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology"
Dear Hzh: I am confident that you are a sincere and dedicated editor, and likely interested in the topic of weapons and armor in Chinese mythology. However, your apparent belief that there are no in-line citations is incorrect. The article contains parenthetical referencing to four reputable sources, Birrell, Christie, Eberhard, and Yang Lihui (please see Parenthetical referencing for more information about using parenthetical reference citations on Wikipedia). The jian material is mostly adapted from "Category:中國名劍" on zh.wikipedia, although also largely verifiable from other sources. Perhaps you are being unduly harsh in your demands for better referencing in this article, considering that it is new (begun 20 April 2019) and that I have been working on it in my spare time? My plan has been to add more reference citations as I went along and have the time. There is no original research, just need for more work on the article. Frankly, it is somewhat discouraging to the process to have you treat the article as though it were a nomination for good article status! Please don't mistake this Start class article (actually barely more than Stub class) for something more developed. I would certainly welcome any positive contributions to the article you might care to make, or if you would at least refrain from making it harder for me to work on it! Thanks, Dcattell (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the content are are not referenced, the fact that some are referenced does not change the need for better referencing. You should have just left the tag in, work on the referencing, and remove the tag when you have finished.  The tags are not a diss on your work, simply reflecting the need for verifiable information in the article per WP:V, a central part of Wikipedia policy.  The fact is that the article reads like it's been randomly thrown together, I have no idea why some of the content are in there (I've mentioned some of those in the talk page). With sources it would have looked much better, and remove any suspicion it is original research. Hzh (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to delete Symbolic Language (art) discussions
Please do not assume original research or at least be open to hearing responses when you raise issues. I'm adding a note here after you suggested that I could be banned for writing articles and responding and addressing deletion requests. Please see the full discussion related to Symbolic language (art), but I include my remarks below should you succeed in getting the articles deleted. I believe in Wikipedia although I'm getting concerned about the effort required to participate.

Symbolic language is an important thing in engineering. It's critical to be able to communicate a great deal of information concisely. That's a fundamental truth that doesn't require footnotes (like the Wikipedia example that Paris is the capital of France). The articles began when I turned to Wikipedia for something related to computing or engineering and I found many, many articles that discuss 'symbolic language' that had nothing to do with what I needed. We use disambiguation articles to assist with this, but in this case, the disambiguation alone is a jumping off spot into large independent scholarly areas. Take a look at the Wikidictionary definition of symbolic logic linked in the article - it doesn't address symbolic language in art or in music. The categories and "See also" links (which are extensive for each article) are completely different depending on the context. Each context article is complex - it links to many other Wikipedia articles to help readers understand the topic in the context in which they are interested. In turn, it provides an internal and appropriate link when this common term in used throughout Wikipedia. There are many JSTOR and other references as well as extensive, art-specific, links to related internal and external useful, notable, scholarly works are provided. I believe in good faith that all issues have been addressed, that it warrants an article, and that combining all these areas into one would be more likely to confuse than support readers (as evidenced by the very different categories selected for each different article). "Symbolic language" just means very different things depending on the discipline. Thus, I have removed the original research question and replaced it with a more formal definition. I have removed the notability as this topic is covered in notable sources specific to the field of art and visual imagery. Again, the articles are in response to my own attempt to use Wikipedia to find information that was not yet provided. There is no original research in any of these, except that the article itself didn't exist yet (which is why it was written). Writing a useful, well-connected Wikipedia article is not original research. I'm quite sure any active editor can be blocked. I believe Wikipedia is one of the greatest resources available and one of the most important, collaborative undertakings ever done by humanity. We don't all agree, but I'm grateful for every person who takes time to participate. The article is better for your suggestions.Cypherquest (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We can only go by sources, so far you have not produce proper sources, for example for the definition, and the assertions made in these articles are therefore likely to be original research. It is not for you to make assertions that are not backed up by proper sources. If you keep removing tag without addressing the issue raised, then you may be blocked from editing. Hzh (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This topic IS a known thing in engineering - so much so that it doesn't require citation anymore than Paris. If this is underlying your motivation for deletion, please accept the new information that both I and the original reviewer have provided and remove your request. Also, Wikipedia doesn't limit 'novel synthesis' as you indicated. From those discussions: "It's a novel synthesis every time a person writes a new Wikipedia article. If I turn to Wikipedia for information and it's not available, I want to fix that, and I'll write an article. In addition, the guideline doesn't say you can't write a "novel synthesis" - we do that all the time. It says we can't write a "novel synthesis that advances a position". There is no position to be gained and as you can see from the earlier reviewer, symbolic language is just a known thing in engineering."Cypherquest (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is a known thing, then give the appropriate sources, and all problems solved. If not, it is just an assertion you made, and possible original research. Hzh (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggesting improvements is welcome, and actually making them is even more valuable. Recommending articles for deletion because one or more editors aren't aware of all things in all fields is contrary to our purpose to serve as a key source across many disciplines. We're willing to spend hours addressing issues raised, but once a position is formed, it is rarely updated. If editors choose to delete articles outside their field, they are generally able to do so whether appropriate or not. Further, you've suggested I could be banned for making updates and removing the notice. Your position is unlikely to change regardless of any additional edits. Again, especially if the articles are outside your area, what is the worst possible downside to allowing them to remain and evolve? I'm having a hard time understanding the motivation behind your statements and the lack of understanding of the differences between an encyclopedia as a collection of synthesized knowledge and original research.Cypherquest (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No article has any right to exist simply you think it should exist. Articles need to show that they satisfy the criteria for new articles for notability per WP:N, such as verifiability, no original research, etc. It is irrelevant whether it is my area or not, all articles need to satisfy the criteria. I could start an article Symbolic language (dance) or Symbolic language (genetics) or hundreds of other such articles and give them plausible sounding definitions, but if I can't find sources that can support them then they should not exist. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent! I'm guessing dance would be a great article and dang - likely genetics as well. A concise representation of information that becomes a widely accepted means of communicating. It's more that as an encyclopedia, WP has articles on nearly all 'things' or concepts even (or especially) those widely used but often not defined, for example, allegory, the, home, ownership, even Pokémon and television show.  Viewing these, we can see that not all critical first statements in WP articles include definitive references, precisely because they are a synthesized collection of many, many sources. Way too many to point to a single, key source as providing the quintessential definition. The broad us of 'symbolic logic' is much the same.  I wish the article or articles had existed already, but they didn't, and they should. I needed it. You haven't needed it yet, but really quickly you can see that we still haven't covered these topics. It's still different in dance - and the whole history of the subject in genetics would be a fascinating article.Cypherquest (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They may make interesting articles, or they may not, and entirely irrelevant here. The concept of verfiability is a central to Wikipedia, please don't disregard the policy. Hzh (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * <-- thank you, I learned this from you. :) Verifyability is critical - absolutely! I have no desire to ever disregard any policy that keeps this excellent resource the first and unbiased go-to reference for most subjects, whether common, cultural, technical, or academic. If your own search and the addition of more references convince you that 'symbolic language' is widely used - and categorized correctly within each discipline - would you remove your requests to delete? Cypherquest (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting I could be banned after removing maintenance templates after suggested updates
You suggested deleting Symbolic language (engineering) in part because you didn't know it was a thing in engineering. Both myself and another reviewer have assured you that it is, and widely recognized facts (e.g. Paris as capital of France) don't need a specific citation as per WP policy. After addressing your issues, I removed the template - as your instructions on my talk page told me to do. You restated your opinion and restored the template and mentioned that I could be risking getting banned. As noted on that discussion, recommending articles for deletion because one or more editors aren't aware of all things in all fields is contrary to our purpose to serve as a key source across many disciplines. We're willing to spend hours creating articles and addressing issues raised by people outside the field, but once a position is taken, it is can be challenging to affect any updates (even though the deleting notice specifically requests specific actions). If editors choose to delete articles outside their field, they are generally able to do so whether appropriate or not. Further, you've suggested I could be banned for making updates and removing the notice. Your position is unlikely to change regardless of additional edits. Again, especially if the articles are outside your area, what is the worst possible downside to allowing them to remain and evolve? I'm having a hard time understanding the motivation behind your statements and the lack of understanding of the differences between an encyclopedia as a collection of synthesized knowledge and original research. I was searching for this information, Wikipedia didn't have it (although 'symbolic language' appears in over 200 hundred articles) and the definition we link to didn't help, so I wrote the missing article. Every article in Wikipedia is a novel synthesis of information from outside references. These are the best distillation of commonly used terms I could find (after a considerable amount of trying to find one). What you're asking for doesn't to my knowledge exist out there - there is no WP article on it yet - except the ones written that concisely, with additional internal and external links - describe what this thing is in the context of engineering. Which is a very different thing than when used in the context of art. Even the most general use of 'symbolic language' branches into different linguistic categories very early in the classification. These disambiguation articles are helpful to others looking for similar information. The fact that it doesn't exist yet is exactly why it was created. Does this help?Cypherquest (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. If it is indeed widely recognised, then there should be sources.  If you can't find sources, then it is not widely recognised. This is not a "the sky is blue" situation where no citation is required.  Another reviewer added the original research tag, so I very doubt he supported you on the idea that it is a widely recognised fact. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many sources that use the term, but it is never clearly defined - that's why it was helpful. See the discussion above: As an encyclopedia, WP has articles on nearly all 'things' or concepts even (or especially) those widely used but often not defined, for example, allegory, the, home, ownership, even Pokémon and television show. Viewing these, we can see that not all critical first statements in WP articles include definitive references, precisely because they are a synthesized collection of many, many sources. Way too many to point to a single, key source as providing the quintessential definition. These articles are similar. It can't be a single article, because as you pointed out dance, and genetics use the term to mean very different things as well - those articles would be great additions. The history of symbolic logic in genetics is critical - how to communicate massive amounts of information concisely and clearly, and symbolic language in dance, folklore, and/or performance would be helpful as well. Authors use this term widely, but we can't define what they mean. This is part of what Wikipedia is best at - choosing the right summary gleaned from a large number of disparate sources. Where else does one go to find a precise, informative summary of super-basic, often-used terms, like word (a lexical unit), hyperbole (a technique), or editor (an occupation, or in the case of WP, an unpaid role that often involves discussions with other passionate volunteers who care a great deal about keeping WP excellent and upholding its mission)? :) Cypherquest (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. I just picked some random unrelated examples and you treated them as serious (see if you can find anything sensible about symbolic language in genetics). All that needs to be said has already been said, you provide the sources and it should be fine, if not, then persistent violations of Wikipedia policies will get you blocked. Hzh (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not violating WP guidelines and will not. I follow the guidelines and respond to your requests. Once they are addressed, the guidelines suggest you would withdraw your requests for deletion. There is no position being advocated, so the 'novel synthesis' objection does not apply.Cypherquest (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Uyghur_Americans check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Uyghur_Americans?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hotel California, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rock and Pop ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hotel_California check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hotel_California?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tottenham Hotspur F.C. supporters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Crace ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._supporters check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._supporters?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

100,000th edit!

 * Thank you! Much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and here's to the next 100K :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dam, that's insane amount of edits. Congrats. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antoakrom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yam and Plantain ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Antoakrom check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Antoakrom?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this image of any use?


Govvy (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, it can probably be used for something but I'm not sure where. I'm considering adding a section on statistics in the stadium article, although there are very few things to add at the moment, if I need an image for the biggest home defeat at the stadium, it might be useful. Come to think of it, you can probably add it to the List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics as the biggest home defeat in the Champions League if you think that it's worth mentioning, although I see that people have removed that entry when others tried to add it. Hzh (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't think about the stats page, that's a good one, I added it there. heh. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if you have any pictures of the interiors of the the stadium that can be used in the stadium article? I thought I'd get some good pictures when I go on a stadium tour, although when that will happen I'm not sure since it needed to be booked beforehand and I don't know when I can go to London. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Got a few on my phone, not sure they are that good, I can upload some maybe. Govvy (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Hzh (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Confusing edit
This added basically the same information and used the same citation as the one at Imperfect_Circle but it was also not saved in the reference template like the rest of the references in that article. Can you explain your thinking here? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the information down there. Anyway, it's better to have a separate section, I'll replace the reference up there. Hzh (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sounds good. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Amir Khusrow
Can you go to the talk page and explain WHY you reverted the move? There was an RM discussion which had been closed, perhaps too soon. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not moved correctly. The person who moved it do a cut-and-paste, which is not how it should be done, because the edit history was not preserved. In fact, in this case, because it was a cut-and-paste, it raised a notice that there is a copyright violation because of similarity to an article found in a website. Without the edit history, it would in fact look very much like it is directly copied, and risk being deleted for copyright violation. You are welcome to close the discussion, and move the article correctly. Hzh (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please say there there. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should consider reopening the discussion so that it can be properly closed and the article moved by an admin. If you consider it closed, then perform a correct move if that is possible. Hzh (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the closure, though I don't want to do any more there. YOU STARTED THE PROCESS, PLEASE FINISH IT! Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you think I started it. When the move was performed, the discussion was not closed. The person who moved it did it without closing it first, only closing it after I reverted the incorrect move. I was only correcting something that wasn't done properly. But nevermind, I'll replace the tag, it's no big deal. Hzh (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant starting the reversal of the move. I'm not saying that was wrong, but you left the process in limbo. If you start something you should do it properly. Will it be listed again at WP:RM? Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not leave the process in limbo. Like I said, it wasn't closed when I reverted it. I was simply restoring it to the correct state (the move should not have been performed without closing).  It was the person who closed it afterwards who left it in limbo. We'll see if it gets relisted, but it doesn't really matter if it doesn't since there are already comments there to get a rough consensus, and you can just get an admin to close it in a week's time and move the article. Hzh (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There have only been two actual votes, plus the nominator. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * More important is that there is no objection. Should be good enough, we'll see what happens. An admin can have it relisted if he or she thinks that the votes are not sufficient. Hzh (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It has reappeared in the RM page, but with me as the nominator. I probably should have relisted it instead, although I wasn't sure if relisting something that's been closed would work. Anyway, the discussion is there for for a closer to close it properly in a week or so. Hzh (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A question to be considered?


Good afternoon Hzh Why are the Simple Wikipedia versions of https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelique_Rockas https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalist_Theatre

more to the point than the half-baked Wikipedia EN entries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelique_Rockas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalist_Theatre

Do you think you could find time to fill in the gaps in the EN Wikipedia entries from which serious performances and reviews are missing, removing copyright violations? Thank you {````} appropriate signs of signature not available on this bashed up computer sorry. CatoCatullus — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoCatullus (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Both the Simple Wikipedia and English Wikipedia were probably very similar at some point, but over time, some of the content in the English Wiki article got deleted because some editors weren't happy with them. See for example an early version of Internationalist Theatre on the English Wiki - . I think someone simply used the old version of the English Wiki article as the basis for the one in Simple Wiki. Be careful if you want to restore them to English Wiki, because there are reasons why they were deleted.  Most of the information in the article are sourced, therefore referencing is not that much of an issue with me apart from a sentence or two. There is also no issue with copyright violations, someone in the deletion discussion simply misunderstood what COPYVIO entails, and the quotes in the article have been removed. I'm not that familiar with both subjects apart from participating in the deletion discussion. I can have a look another time, but let me know if you want anything specific added, although I cannot guarantee that I can fix them. Hzh (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

-
 * Good afternoon Hzh.

Thank you for your attention. You may like to consider the following suggestions: There is obviously a need to provide a citation requested in the Angelique Rockas EN opening paragraph ,although an explanation is given in the Internationalist Theatre section of that same article. The Time Out link with the rejection of a Pakistani and /or American actor performing in  Mother Courage would be I think a good citation. Or maybe the FT one Maybe with an additional note from you. --- What is missing in the Acting career of the EN article are performances and reception. As it stands there is nothing notable about the acting career, mentioned in the British Film Institute archive profile, as well as in the Wikipedia entries of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Julie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Bar_of_a_Tokyo_Hotel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Balcony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_(1967_play)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Courage_and_Her_Children

https://en.wikipedia.og/wiki/Enemies

What is obvious in the Simple Wikipedia`s  version is that there were notable and ground breaking performances. About 5-6 performances are omitted. As an editor you can choose what receptions are valid and check to see if they are taken from the original digital sources or not. -- Regarding the Internationalist EN entry well it has been reduced to a stub of low importance. You may as well chuck it out. This is not a reflection of the contribution by this company  to British theatre ,archived in  the Brecht archive of  Berlin  and  in the British Library which does not take in any old stuff. Look at the provenance of the reviews. The premiere performance by Internationalist Theatre of Griselda Gambaro`s The Camp which has its own Wiki entries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griselda_Gambaro and The Camp (1967 play), and written about by Michelene Wandor a well known UK feminist writer has been totally omitted.

Even if you aren`t au fait with the history of the artist or the company there is no reason why some of the points with relevant links cannot be added don`t you think? Thank you {````} appropriate signs of signature not available on this bashed up computer sorry. CatoCatullus
 * In general, the lead is a summary of the content of the article, therefore references in the lead can be omitted since the references should be given somewhere else in the article. However, most people do give references in the lead, if only to avoid dispute over sourcing. In this case, I see that the sources appear to be notes written by someone, who I'm not sure, and some may quibble whether they are valid sources (they are also in Spanish, it would help if the translations of the relevant parts are given). I'll have a look round later and see if I can find other sources that may be used.


 * You are free to improve the articles, adding valid sources wherever necessary.  Someone delete some of the content in the Internationalist Theatre article because they felt it too promotional and that the editor who added them may be a sock. The content may be added if you can make sure it is written in a neutral and non-promotional manner. The article certainly looks like it could be improved. Hzh (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Good afternoon Hzh Any progress on the citations. The Simple Wikipedia entries are full of them. You suggest that I too can post, but you are the expert judging from your Wikipedia acreditations at the bottom of your page,  and a bashed up computer with a faulty i key is not for posting. Thank you {````} appropriate signs of signature not available on this bashed up computer sorry. CatoCatullus — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoCatullus (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Angelique Rockas article looks generally OK at the moment, perhaps needing just a few minor tweaks to the wordings. As for the simple English article of Internationalist Theatre, the objection to the EN wiki would still apply, it is simply that fewer people scrutinise the article to tidy it up (and they may well delete the information in the article for being promotional when they do scrutinise it).  Most of the sources looks OK, it is the way it is written that some people find problematic.  I'd suggest that if you want to put the information into the English wiki, you write a simple description of the play, and any quote should be properly attributed. If they are from review articles, state them to be so. For example the entry on Griselda Gambaro's The Camp, simply write "The Camp is an anti-junta protest play written by Griselda Gambaro." Then add a few production details if you can find any information on those.  The quote from the Spare Rib must be explicitly stated as an opinion (Spare Rib is a polemical feminist magazine, therefore their quotes should never be presented as anything but opinions). Since the article is about the theatre company, it is their performance that matters, therefore opinions given in the article should be about their performance, not about the play itself (I'd omit the entire quote myself). If you feel you can't edit them properly, I will do it another day when I have the time to do it. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Hzh. The Angelique Rockas article has been the target of promotional editing by socks since 2017. Since I put extended-confirmed protection on the article, the only way the persons responsible can still try to change the article is by persuading experienced editors such as yourself that improvements are needed. You should probably be skeptical of these requests. You might take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea/Archive. User:Berean Hunter is the checkuser familiar with these issues. The person User:CatoCatullus talking to you above is one of the socks of Amfithea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and it has been the subject of paid editors as this post at COIN by shows.
 * I'm not doing I wouldn't do in any other article. If you read my response to that person, it is to encourage that person to edit it themselves. What I have done so far is merely simple tidying up of sources and wording, nothing that could be considered controversial. Hzh (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Hzh. Now that you are aware you are dealing with a banned editor it isn't reasonable to 'encourage that person to edit it themselves'. There is no objection to you fixing up the article on your own initiative, if that's the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ed, I've already fully-protected the Rockas article to prevent other editors from getting into this mess. The manipulation by the sockmaster has been forcing an escalation of protection levels. If they persist then the other articles like Internationalist Theatre will likely face that eventual outcome. It would be better for editors to make requests on the talk page and allow admins and checkusers to look at the situation closely.
 * The point is that I encouraged the editor to edit themselves before I was aware that the person is a banned editor. I wasn't doing anything untoward. Anyway, in this case, having an attempt to fix an issue that has been tagged as needing fixing reverted is really odd. Hzh (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A friendly reminder ~

 * If you want to know the reason, the wordings are unclear and don't indicate what colors they mean. If you mean the azurite and malachite then that would be repetitious, but it is doubtful that they are considered precious stones, so what exactly is it?  It is not in the source of the online version. Hzh (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) ~ :: I'm not talking about the edit itself ~ I'm talking about ~ when I see an edit on a page that I am watching ~ with out a summary and not knowing the editor ~ I have to actually go to that page and see what was edited ~ and there are a lot of us out there that watch pages ~ being such an experienced editor you probably have a lot of other editors learning from you ~ it is a bad habit to teach ~ by the way nice to meet you ~ regards ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer about the precious stones ~ first I don't have a subscription to national geographic ~ before you added the online URL ~ it was a magazine type cite ~ I have the magazine and if you are challenging me to the magazine cite ~ I will be glad to scan the page to you ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Page 86 ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake for not adding an edit summary to that edit, normally I would explain for any edit that requires explanation. Personally I always check the edits in article I keep an eyes on whatever that may be written in the edit summary. I don't trust edit summary because I find people don't always give the correct summary, often sneaking in contentious edits but wrote something innocuous in the edit summary.
 * Anyhow, given that you wrote it, can you clarify what that "precious stones" means (i.e. what kind of precious stones, what colors, on which figures or parts of figure)? Personally I find it a dubious assertion even if given in the magazine, semi-precious stones perhaps, but odd if used routinely. It sounds too much like hype. Hzh (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All it states is, precious stones "ground up into a fine powder" ~ ~ I tell you what I'll start doing some research on the terra cotta ~ and see if I can find out which paticular stones National geographic is talking about ~ and ~ about how others sneak in the summary ~ "vandals will be vandals" ~ once again nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course