User talk:Intrisit

A look into my interactions with the various facets of the community with my first 24 months of activity here on WP is over here.

Welcome!
  Hello, Intrisit!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  02:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Have user rights icon on my user page
Hi, WP Admin community!! Since I've reach the extended-confirmed rights threshold here on WP, I want to see it reflected on/in my user page like those of other Wikipedians! Can you show me how to do it or can you do it for me, please?! Intrisit (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn't really an admin question but I'll do it anyway. They're called top icons, and the EC one is extended confirmed topicon. Add it to your user page as you like. Katietalk 17:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Always wanted these sort of barnstars!! I'm almost a year and 1000 edits old here on WP. This means that I'm close to either you or anyone nominating me for an admin or bureaucrat someday. Intrisit (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Confusion over page creations for Boomerang and Cartoonito TV channels
Hi, I saw you moved Boomerang Nordic and Turkey pages to Cartoonito Nordic and Turkey, by writing "The 2023 changeovers from Boomerage to Cartoonito need no explanations", what did you mean with that frase? Is Cartoonito it a transition or a replacement to Boomerang? I want you to remember that in UK, France and Italy they have both Boomerang and Cartoonito as two separate channels who broadcast together in the same country. As someone proposed to split in two pages Cartoonito Asia and Boomerang Asia and made that split, the same thing hasn't been done on Boomerang CEE, Portugal and Africa, affirming that Boomerang's transition to Cartoonito is a transition not a rebrand (check out this difference and this discussion), making other people misunderstand that Cartoonito is still the same channel as Boomerang, just with another name. Too bad in UK, France and Italy it isn't like so: Cartoonito coexists alongside Boomerang as the two brands are broadcasting as two separate channels, both of which are broadcasting different shows: Boomerang broadcasts some shows which Cartoonito doesn't. I'm proposing to split Cartoonito CEE, Portugal, EMEA, Nordic and Turkey pages in two pages for each feed, so we could avoid confusion between the two brands, which are completely different.


 * Boomerang is a kids-oriented channel with all Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry and Scooby-Doo stuff (also third parties), which moved to Cartoon Network on the countries above.
 * Cartoonito is a pre-school channel, broadcasting Lucas the Spider, Thomas & Friends: All Engines Go, Batwheels and Bugs Bunny Builders among other series.

What do you think it's better? Splitting the mentioned pages in two or leaving one page for two channels which only in appearance are similar? Remember what I said about UK, Italy and France. I propose for the splitting, since Boomerang and Cartoonito are two different brands of Warner Bros Discovery 79.21.5.118 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This IP address 112.200.8.53 requested via WP:RMCD for the Nordic/Scandinavian and Turkish channel moves, hence my reason put out there for the moves. By "no explanations", I meant with the exceptions you just gave with the British/Irish, France, Italy, CEE, Iberia (Portugal) and my region Africa, as it's transitions and not full rebrands, the split will cause confusions, as also these channels alternate content you already depicted. Cartoonito is modern, yes, but still airs pre-2010 programming. Also, the transitions are meant to arrive at total rebrandings for the forseeable future. Canada on 28 February just had "Boomerang" available on "old" Cartoon Network, with the current CN on former Teletoon. Splitting the two different brands into their own standalone articles may sound good, but may end up as a reversion in the not-too-distant future. So, I'd say, keep it. Only split them if the two still persists in a year's time and notability and verifiability become no issues at all. Intrisit (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, so let's wait if this transitions will be permanent or not 79.21.5.118 (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

RCat shell
Hello. Thank you for your edits wrapping redirect templates in Redirect category shell. Please be sure to keep a line break (i.e. hit enter) after Redirect category shell, between each category, and before the final two braces.

For example: Not: Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Since I came on WP, I always don't do line breaks when installing Rcat shells on rdrs, but if that is the accepted process, I'll align on toward it moving foward. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is the standard practiced for formatting redirects, as it eases readability when editing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, when you update rcats after a move, do not remove or replace the R from move template, instead you may add additional relevant rcats on new lines with the rcat shell. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

History merge
Hi, ! I saw you declined my history merge request. I thought a history merge request suffices beyond just cut-and-paste, copy-and-paste, cut-paste, copy-paste or copypaste scenarios. I requested it because in as much as they are separate creations, one is in the draft namespace (which could get published in the mainspace) and the other is already in the mainspace. Intrisit (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a history merge is to restore the history where material from one page has been copied to another, so that the history of the new page does not record where that material came from, and gives the misleading impression that the person who posted it into the new page was its creator. Merging two completely separate pages on the same subject, with no overlapping content, serves no useful purpose, and in fact it is better not to do it, as it gives a misleading impression as to the editing history. JBW (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are:, , and. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter
The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer, who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * , with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
 * , with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
 * , with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
 * , with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
 * , with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
 * and, both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
I've been patrolling content pages with the category "Pages with templates in the wrong namespace" for over a month now, but it seems that that the talk page sections of pages with the "WikiProject Templates" template is counted as such. Because of the assumption of numerous transclusions or usages of that template which could mean a template protection, I'm seeking answers or clarity from you, the Admin community, instead of using the template as to why so?! Intrisit (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Normally or  (forgot which one) protects them based on transclusions. Zippybonzo &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 19:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi and ! Happy belated New Year in advance! I want to draw your attention to this user (Amortias), who is still an admin, despite his/her last logged edit or action coming on 23 March 2023 (almost a year ago) per my latest glance at the user's contributions page. Per WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022 and WP:INACTIVITY, this user must have had his/her admin rights removed/revoked a long time ago. After it's done, please reply so I can remove this notice from my page. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You should use WP:BN for this, and Xaosflux usually handles inactive admins so I wouldn’t worry about it too much. :) Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 20:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Curiously, JJMC89's bot (JJMC89 bot III) also usually handles this by giving notices to inactive admins ahead of/prior to their desysoppings. It seems that this user slipped through their fingers, including Xaosflux's - that's why I'm bringing this up! But it'll be my first time reporting this at BN - how do I approach it so as not to go the wrong way and have myself blocked?! Intrisit (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me take a look here. — xaosflux  Talk 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Intrisit Which of the criteria do you think have been surpassed?
 * "Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period" - you identified an edit 11 months ago.
 * "Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period." - their most recent 100 edits span only ~25 months.
 * Perhaps you are confused and assume that the first criteria requires logged admin activity, which it does not. Should they stay inactive warnings and potential removal would be forthcoming later this year. — xaosflux  Talk 20:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Spot on first! Not confused, I thought this slipped through your fingers in what I replied to Zippybonzo. Through those INACTIVITY pages, it seems I was put off with what led to these two scenarios you've stated. I've been monitoring the WP:INACTIVE page for over half a year now, but I saw this user name in none of the pages of logged desysopped admins which you compile since this started in 2011. I haven't seen JJMC89 bot III give any notice as yet! Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing on timing, is we only process these in batch (because it is otherwise too cumbersome) - so someone may get their warning up to a calendar month "late" depending on where they are in the cycle, and the removals chase the warnings to the next month. — xaosflux  Talk 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Note on MediaWiki pages
Hi, and ! I've been monitoring and continue to monitor erroneous facets contained inside articles and pages indexed at Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace, but upon entering Category:Non-talk pages with an edit request template‎, I've found two MediaWiki/interface pages which may have errors in them. Due to my user rights, I'm unable to edit them. Should I leave them as they are? Intrisit (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They were transcluding the talk page, actually. I've put a around the request which appears to have cleared the category. Now you know for next time :-) Primefac (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:


 * , who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
 * , who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
 * , who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
 * , who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
 * , who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
 * , who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to, who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion
Please do not blank pages you are tagging for speedy deletion. A reviewer then has to go into the page history to see what the page looked like before it was tagged. It doesn't speed things up at all, it actually takes more time for the admin reviewing the page. Just add the appropriate CSD tag. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll add that to my learning curves in continuing my WP journey! First RMs, then RFDs, now this! It seems I'm not that good when it comes to these! As you've stated, I'll care less about the content in-page if I feel it has to go or it's inappropriate here at the immediate time! Okay! Intrisit (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Instrisit (adding to this section since it's related to deletion) but you didn't finish your nomination of {{-r|List of Decepticons]] at RFD daily page so the "entry" link on the tag goes nowhere. I'm not sure if your edit description was your intended rationale or not so I'm not creating it in your stead. Go ahead and complete the nom or revert the RFD tag, I suppose. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; unstable internet connections in my location are hampering my speedy RFD nomination. And please spell my name correctly when addressing me next time. Thanks for filling in for me by the way, though and nevertheless. Intrisit (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the typo. Happy editing. Skynxnex (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Archived RMTR entry

 * The DAB has now been restored.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Remember that this title was DABbed out of users promising, but not materializing, entries. We all love DABs but not when a title is unnecessarily DABbed in the name of "no primary topic" for entries which never materialize. It's infuriating, because WP:DEADLINE and WP:TIAD though essays, have exactly why I brought this up in the first place. Intrisit (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See the discussion among the same parties below. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See the discussion among the same parties below. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Other discussions
Morning I thought we discussed all this last week... the incorrect primary topic grabs by this now-retired editor should just be reversed, particularly since you're asserting "no primary topic claim". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Morning to you back and I thought I said this before remove my last entry set as withdrawn that, "expect more of these to appear here". By looking at the page histories of these and the other ones I've listed here, at the time, Wikipedians thought of DABbing titles with articles in them, like say "Mingo" (which they rename it to "Mingo (TV series)") so there will be space for "Mingo (café)" and "Mingo (film)" only for say 5 years to pass and nothing was/were created for "Mingo (café)" or "Mingo (film)", and then another user in 5 years' time uses the PRIMARYRED instance to revert back to where it was before. I stated the "no primary topic claim" so you won't bring it up in your reply. You know what, I'll be considering proposing a policy that will check the "unnecessary" DABbing of article titles for the "other similar ones" when those ones aren't created within a year of the DAB creation, that way, this issue will be resolved completely. I wholly support the continuous encouragement of article and DAB creations and improvements here since it helps in building the encyclopaedia, but I fear that this continuous "left-overing" of red links in DAB titles when they were originally and should still be actual articles will degrade this tool (WP) rather than uplifting it like we wanted and hoped. So my point is, this ain't primary topic grabs like you're stating, I want to help eliminate the instance where when titles are DABbed, the other entries, especially those focusing on info relating to some recent events or media releases, are left as red links when they could be created or proposed for creation. Intrisit (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your contention here, I'm afraid. PRIMARYRED is clear that the lack of an article does not mean a particular topic is not in contention for primary topic, and the actions of that now-retired user in unilaterally blanking disambiguation pages without consideration for whether the extant page might be primary topic over the red link, is not in line with the guidelines. It makes no difference whether the article is created within a year, two years or ten years, it's still worthy of consideration. I get that something should be done in these cases since the situation is now inconsistent following this editor's unilateral actions, but the default fix in the absence of a positive and active determination that there's a primary topic (possibly through RM) should be to reverse the undiscussed blanking of the disambiguation pages. Looking at Boune, for example, I see nothing to suggest the tiny patch of desert in Niger is more important than the hamlet in Senegal. These are certainly not uncontroversial moves. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By you not getting my contention means at least you get my confusion of even listing them here. Of course all these bothers on the actions of/from that one user, but it could be any other user doing this as well and that is where my focus is/was on. The fact of it not being a policy or guideline is also my suggestion of it to be that so this won't pop up again. So does this mean that through that contribs page where I get these entries from, I straight up instigate RMs for them so the community will have their take on which direction these titles and target could/would go? Because that's where I feel the issue will be resolved. Intrisit (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not just reverse the blanking of the disambiguation pages though? That blanking was made as a result of a misapplication of guidelines, and the prior stable status quo should be restored absent any other consideration. The situation with these pages is incorrect, and I can see why you listed them here, but I disagree with that approach. There is not "no policy or guideline", there is WP:PRIMARYRED, which states that we should have disambiguation pages and the previous edits that nixed those dab pages were wrong. You could start RMs if you feel that any of them merit primary topic treatment, but in the majority of cases these are fairly small entities anyway with not a lot of page views, and we rarely bother too much about one tiny entity being slightly more prominent than another tiny entity. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the infuriating thing, because WP:DEADLINE and WP:TIAD though being essays, have exactly why I brought these up in the first place. If those entries have existing articles, a discussion like this would have been non-existent. Intrisit (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned editor used the wrong edit summary for their bot run. The correct edit summary would have been "redirect to only entry with valid blue link". While doing that via an unapproved bot was wrong they were correct on the merits - unless a valid blue link can be added to the other entries then this must be done. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the edit summary was even incorrect. WP:PRIMARYRED also makes clear that each entry still needs to have a bluelink where it's mentioned, linking MOS:DABMENTION. SilverLocust 💬 17:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, in the case and context of the other entries in those "DAB titles", WP:DEADLINE though it being an essay exists as a primary guide to deal with these. Intrisit (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing templated draft articles from talk pages.
Hi, I noticed you removed a draft article that was embedded in Talk:Scandia (theme parks), Doing so caused the templates surrounding it to show nothing. May I suggest in the future substing or wikilinking them instead? -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 04:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is why the Draft namespace and the userspace subpage function pane are there in the first place. May I suggest in the future substing or wikilinking them instead? That's exactly what you should do or be doing. What I removed was what alerted two hidden WP categories which I track almost every time since October 2023: "Draft topics used in the wrong namespace" and "AfC topic used in the wrong namespace". Also, why is a draft article in an article talk page where errors like this/these will pop up instead of your userspace subpage or sandbox? I will recommend you relaying/repeating these questions you asked me using admin help and also as to why these two categories are caught with this before replying to me or this again. Intrisit (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:


 * with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
 * with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
 * with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
 * with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)