User talk:JDDJS/Archive 4

TV presenters, etc
Please read WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT. Presenters of TV series do not belong in navboxes for those series, and neither should they be categorised by those series. It's all very clear in the guidelines. Please revert your edits. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also WP:CAT, regarding not including a template in a content category. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It says nothing about it applying to talk show hosts. Additionally they all also serve as writers and executive producers of their shows, which is definitely not covered by what you mentioned. Samantha Bee is even the creator of her show. If you disagree, please start a discussion about this. JDDJS (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A talk show host is a "televison/radio presenter", so yes, it is there at WP:PERFNAV specifically, but even if it wasn't the reasoning is the same. And the point regarding writers and creators is also there in the guideline, which explicitly mentions "crew members" and "writers".  Please revert your edits.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I quote: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you want to establish a consensus to remove it, that's fine. But there is no direct rule against it. And the cat rule does not apply to crew members, films are always categorized by directors and writers. JDDJS (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're clearly cherry-picking the wrong bit of the guideline. This has nothing to do with edicts laid down by WikiProjects.  There is a direct rule against it which I have pointed out to you above.  What you're actually trying to invoke is WP:IAR, but there is absolutely no good reason why we should ignore the guideline in this instance.  Again, please revert the edits you made against the established consensus and guidelines.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert my edits. I'm not cherry picking anything. Generally, templates aren't included, but they make it extremely that there is no rule and it comes down to consensus. The cat rule does not apply to writers or producers and never has. JDDJS (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point yet again. The cat rule does apply to crew.  A film might be categorised by its creator, but a creator is NEVER categorised by the film.  So in this case, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee would belong in Category:Television series created by Samantha Bee, but Samantha Bee does not belong in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not going to change my mind about this. That is just a fact. Just start a discussion about this. If this is such a strict rule as you claim, you'll get support instantly and I won't argue anymore. JDDJS (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a third opinion at WP:3O, but also pinging who wrote the part of the guideline that you cite above.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PERFCAT and WP:PERFNAV are silent on categorizing shows by primary creators, but WP:FILMNAV requires it.  The same issue applies to both -  whether over-proliferation is counterbalanced by providing something that might be an essential and defining characteristic of the topic.  With the guidance silent, unfortunately seems like this would need to be hashed out piecemeal, such as here.   Also, I think a lead host for a long-running show would also dodge the over-proliferation issue, and would be a good candidate for including per WP:IAR.Grenschlep (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion questions
I accepted the WP:3O since I was pinged anyway as having a background in the applicable guidelines, am unfamiliar with the show or bio other than I've heard the names before (no pro or con bias), am a long-term template editor, have CfD and TfD experience, and don't interact much with either disputing editor, so I can be impartial about it. I've done dispute resolution here before, though am not presently in any of the "bodies" for it listed at WP:DR.

This appears (from edit history) to be about the content (broadly speaking) of both Samantha Bee and Template:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, both of which could affect what appears in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. There are multiple things at issue; the ones I can pick out so far:
 * 1) Should Samantha Bee be categorized in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, or is this against WP:OCAT and/or WP:PERFCAT?
 * 2) Should the article have the  on it, or is this against WP:PERFNAV?
 * 3) Do PERFCAT and/or PERFNAV apply to TV hosts/presenters? Does it matter if the person in question also has some other role(s), e.g. writer?
 * 4) Does the guideline material on whether to include a navbox or not pertain to content within navboxes?
 * 5) Should  have a centered heading at the top of it, reading "Samantha Bee (2016–present)", in the space that some similar templates have article links like "Correspondents &bull; Writers &bull; Guests &bull; Recurring segments &bull; Awards"?
 * 6) Should the template have a commented-out block for non-existent articles following a similar pattern: "Writers &bull; Guests &bull; Recurring segments &bull; Awards"?
 * 7) Should the template have two rows reading, respectively, "Episodes: Full list" and "Specials: Not the White House Correspondents’ Dinner"; or a single row (without a bold heading) with both these links?
 * 8) Should the template have a row reading "Related: The Daily Show &bull; The Colbert Report &bull; The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore"?
 * 9) Should the template include a commented-out block for a row with a heading of "Book" and a link to the non-existent page Book:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee?
 * 10) Should the template include a row with the centered content " Category"?
 * 11) Should the template be itself categorized in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee?
 * 12) Do some other mentioned articles, including Jon Stewart and The Daily Show (and presumably, by implied reference, the navboxes and categories on them) have bearing on these questions? If so, in what way(s)?
 * 13) Per edit-conflict with above comment by Grenschlep, is WP:FILMNAV a concern here?

Is anything missing or incorrectly stated in the above? (I mean anything pertaining to the content or policy/guideline-interpretation disputes, not behavioral complaints; I'm not an admin and carry no banhammer.) For all the template layout questions, the default presumption is "some other layout option is possible"; i.e. it's not a binary choice between what's already been argued over. WP:IAR, when applicable, isn't limited to anything in particular; it can be integrated into examination of the extant line-items and doesn't need its own.

Feel free to ping me with agreement or disagreement with this list of what to cover (and on later responses); I'll be around intermittently all day. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding #13, my comment is that WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT are silent regarding primary creators of performances, unlike parallel guidance for films, and therefore do not disallow including primary creators.Grenschlep (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion answers and analysis
Waited a long time for a pingback. I am going to answer the questions as I've laid them out, to the best of my policy analysis ability. I've done this in more depth that usual because there are some clear problems that need to be resolved in the wording of the guidelines to help prevent disputes like this in the future, and such an analysis is necessary for that to happen.

PERFCAT and PERFNAV are interpreted as a pair, for years now. Consensus is never going to entertain a WP:LAWYER/WP:GAMING argument that a wording variance between them (or between sections in them) means anything other than that they need to have their exact wording synched again better (which I will go suggest after I'm done here, because the inconsistency leads to disputes like this one). So, let's just not wander off in that direction. See also WP:P&G and WP:NOT: WP policies and guidelines are interpreted in the spirt they were intended and in the way in which they interoperate, never with an eye to loophole exploitation, over-literal nit-pick readings, or in ways that make the contradict each other [when such an interpretation can be avoided; actual conflicts have occurred].
 * &alpha;. Points of order::

I'm inclined to say "yes", on balance, and after a whole lot of guideline interpretation (and reversing my original "no" instinct). It ultimately resolves to a WP:Common sense matter, and the majority of individual categories on talk and variety shows do the same with people with such a show in the public mind. This is clearly either a strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or (more likely, since I can't find a discussion concluding to do this programmatically) it is actually evolved general consensus, and the guideline should be updated. I would think it would require either an RfC or a cleanup CfD, addressing these categories all at once, to undo it. Undoing it might be bad idea, because the practice is helpful to readers, the categorization would be confusing without it, and it does not trigger the WP:UNDUE and WP:OVERCAT concerns that are behind WP:PERFCAT.
 * 1. "Should Samantha Bee be categorized in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee"?:

WP:PERFCAT is largely about creating new categories, but the general advice is applicable to inserting someone into an existing one; that's been discussed many times before, it simply doesn't come up as frequently. Grenschlep's hand-waving argument that PERFCAT somehow doesn't apply to Bee is clearly incorrect. PERCAT's examples include use of "artists", "performers", and "entertainers" as blanket entertainment industry terms for people in the field. Bee is obviously included in any and all capacities with regard to the show. There is no word anyone can apply to her (writer, originator, host, star, director, showrunner, etc.) that acts as a magical escape clause. The fact that the page-top discussion about "performers" focuses on actors, musicians, comedians, etc. is irrelevant when later clarification in the page includes production people. However, Bee also qualifies as a comedian; her show is a satire program.

The basic rule (in pertinent part), under Performers by series or performance venue: "Avoid categorising performers by ... performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific ... television ... production (such as The Jack Benny Program ...)." It even gives an example of a similar show, though one that does not have its own category.

However, guidelines are not followed with blindly robotic adherence, to senseless ends. The WP:Common sense meta-policy always applies. While an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument isn't valid at Wikipedia (the use of "what about [something else I found on another page]?" when the something else is also against the rules and is demonstrably a bad idea. At some point actual practice can override this concern; i.e., when it's not a bad idea and is clearly a good exception. We often update guidelines to account for good exceptions we figure out.

in the individual shows' categories, (or a very long run of it)  We see this at, to just pick a few examples: Category:The Tonight Show, where it lists a few of the longest-running people on the show, but omits shorter-running ones who are just as famous (e.g. George Carlin, one of Johnny Carson's most frequent substitutes over 30-odd years but not for entire seasons); Category:Late Night (NBC) and its subcategories (: even when the name of the show already includes the name of the host); the subcats of Category:The Late Late Show (U.S. TV series) (same note as the for the last example); Category:The Late Late Show (Irish TV series), Category:The Daily Show, Category:Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, Category:America's Got Talent, Category:Australia's Got Talent, Category:Late Show with David Letterman; and many others. Curious exceptions are Category:The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (includes Stephen Colbert (character) but not Stephen Colbert bio) and Category:Britain's Got Talent‎ (includes no one). That there are some gaps is normal for Wikipedia (thousands of volunteer editors working randomly; perfection is not required).

The number of categories for individual talk and variety shows with their own categories is quite small, so an exhaustive examination of them doesn't take long. Most of them follow the pattern of including key figures.

This is practice is applied to actors on fictional shows (the main thing PERFCAT was written to address as a category profusion problem); e.g.: Category:M*A*S*H, Category:24 (TV series), Category:Doctor Who. Some of these categories do presently include key production people (as at: Category:Breaking Bad, Category:Game of Thrones, Category:Saturday Night Live which is predominantly fictional skits, etc.), but this is done frequently or consistently; an RfC would probably remove them. I.e., it is not evidence of a WP consensus to include production people.

The purpose of our category system is primarily as a means of reader navigation to related material (internal maintenance purposes are secondary). Bee has no category of her own, into which her show's category could be be put.

This rationale would not apply to a show with dozens of notable people associated with it, nor to someone not closely identified with the show and vice-versa; otherwise the "include key people" practice would not be so tightly constrained as it is; editors concerned about PERFCAT would have dealt with them and consensus would have agreed with them.

It's so frequent and so nearly consistent for talk and variety shows' categories that I think it would take an RfC or mass cleanup CfD to undo it, because it appears genuinely useful for readers, and triggers neither the WP:UNDUE nor WP:OVERCAT concerns behind the PERFCAT guideline.

One issue with it would be that it could inspire profusion, e.g. of actors, etc., which is why I suggest it should be removed from all of these cats. or put into the guideline as a special rule.

Yes, as standard operating procedure for cases of a close connection between the bio and such a show, and no good reason not to. Bee is mentioned (and in one editor's preferred revision prominently linked) in the navbox, and she and her show are obviously relevant to each other and closely connected (i.e., there is a navigation need). None of WP:PERFNAV's rationales are triggered: There are no WP:UNDUE concerns (e.g. if a particular movie's navbox were on the page of an actor with a long career, giving undue weight to one film, or the navbox was only on that one actor's article, giving undue weight to one bio among many notables in the film). Nor are there any profusion-of-navboxes concerns (i.e., multiple shows, bio subject having her own navbox, subject notable for more than one thing with navboxes, etc.). This, too, is a candidate for either a multi-article RfC or a guideline clarification. The apparent intent behind WP:FILMNAV suggests that it should be clarification, not deletion.
 * 2. "Should the article have the  navbox on it?":

The WP:PERFNAV material cited: "Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, televison/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others."

Samantha Bee is mentioned in the navbox by name (whether that name is linked or not, a different matter, below), so it would be "user-hateful" rather than user-friendly for us to not have the navbox on her page. It largely would defeat the purpose of the navobox's existence. There's a strong argument for making this a combined bio/show navbox. There are solid precedents for this, such as the Howard Stern and The Howard Stern Show navbox. The last thing we want is two navboxes that mostly overlap. TfD will determine whether one at all is needed here, but while it exists it would seem to belong on the article. We should proceed as if it will be kept.

PERFCAT's only stated rationales are undue weight (does not apply in this case) and navbox profusion at the article (also does not apply here).

We might revise this assessment years from now if Bee's career diversifies, or if the show changes hands, or other various other conditions.

Similar talk show host bios of comparable people (notable especially as hosts of particular talk/variety shows with navboxes about the shows) typically have the navboxes on the bio article: Johnny Carson, John Oliver, Craig Kilborn, Craig Ferguson, Jon Stewart, Steve Allen, Jack Parr, Gerry Ryan, Pat Kenny (arguably has navbox overkill), Ryan Tubridy (ditto), Gay Byrne, Larry Wilmore, Alex Magala, Brandy Norwood, and Stephen Colbert (character) (see below for bio).

There are exceptions to the inclusion, which can be generally catalogued with clear rationales we simply haven't put into the guideline yet:
 * It is not done at some articles like Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert (biol), etc., because the subjects have their own bio navbox with the show links, rendering a show navbox redundant clutter.
 * Oprah Winfrey, James Corden, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, Ed McMahon, Jay Leno, Frank Hall (broadcaster), and some others do not do this because the person is notable for more than the show, so dwelling on that would be UNDUE and could also lead to navbox overkill if one was added for everything (such people are often good candidates for their own bio navboxes).
 * It's also not done at some "behind the scenes" people's bios that are in a show's category, like Amber Ruffin, Rob Burnett (producer), Barbara Gaines (television producer), Robert Morton (producer), because the articles really shouldn't be in the category, as not integrally associated with the show in the public mind (in my terms – i.e., not likely navigation targets that the absence of which would confuse readers; i.e., they fail PERFCAT.).

Both O'Brien and Leno have navboxes about The Tonight Show, but highly specific ones rather than the general one. Stephen Colbert is an unusual case; Stephen Colbert (character) is in the relevant shows' categories but neither is true of Stephen Colbert, the bio. Obviously, some hosts, like Dick Cavett and Jonathan Ross, have no such navbox, because there isn't one for their show(s). And a few articles on people notable for multiple things have an undue show navbox that should be removed, e.g. Howard Stern's for America's Got Talent. Inclusion is sometimes even applied to a show's long-term bandleaders, e.g. Doc Severinsen, and some have their own cat. under the show cat., e.g. Category:CBS Orchestra members; these are rare, presumably because a very strong association with the show is uncommon, and the individuals are usually notable for prior musical work.

This case is very simple, and the single navbox doubles as both a show and a bio navbox, whether explicitly or not.

Depending upon one's interpretation of PERFCAT, this may be another case where we either need to codify an exception, or do an RfC to impose a more strict interpretation of PERFCAT tightly across an entire class of articles.

However, the WP:FILMNAV material at the end of these analyses provides additional very strong evidence of such a consensus, of exactly the kind I've described, between a work that primarily is [or is seen as] that of a particular bio subject, where the bio subject is [or is seen as] its primary creator. It's just poorly articulated and integrated, like much of the rest of these guidelines. It appears that the exception exists, but has been so poorly written it is one-way (work info in bio navbox) and daftly only includes video media.

Yes to the first, no to the second. This is quite clear. The short version: They're interpreted as having the same applicability, despite wording differences. They apply to everyone in the arts and infotainment sphere, because the examples given are "not limited to" those examples, and they include both on-camera and behind-the-scene roles. This has long been the interpretation at WP:CFD, etc. But their general applicability does not mean they are rigidly enforced like laws, especially when another one, FILMNAV, appears at least in intent to provide an explicit exception, though it fails to in its exact wording.
 * 3. "Do PERFCAT and/or PERFNAV apply to TV hosts/presenters? Does it matter if the person in question also has some other role(s), e.g. writer?

The end. There is no question about this matter at all, and it is the standard interpretation. Obviously, this material needs to be rewritten for better clarity and agreement, but that doesn't affect the analysis here, only the time it takes to produce it, and whether extra coffee is needed.
 * PERFCAT: Explicitly includes "artist", "performer", and "entertainer" examples; that includes everyone from make-up artists and writers, to presenters, to anyone helping produce/create the "entertainment". More specifically mentions "Examples of 'performers' include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc." The "etc." is important here, and this is only an example series of "performers" not "artists" and "entertainers" more broadly. It continues "Similarly ... producers, film directors or other artists", so "artists" explicitly includes production/creation roles. Further, the "Performers by series or performance venue" section specifically includes a talk show example, so, yes, their people are included.
 * PERFNAV: "Entertainers ... or crew members ... includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc." The "crew" and the "includes, but is not limited to ... etc." construction include the entire industry, by design, and the enumerated examples specifically include both on-camera and behind-the-scenes roles as examples to make this clearer [not that it helped much].

Any variance sought in a case like this has to rely on a WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:IAR argument, and/or an argument that WP:Consensus has actually changed or was not correctly reflected in the current guideline wording. See question 13 for the PERFNAV connection in detail; it strongly supports the view that consensus exists and is not quite written in correctly.

Generally, but it is not a hard-and-fast rule. A 1:1 relationship between what's appears in the navbox and where the navbox appears is ideal, but exceptions are made (though I don't think WP:NAVBOX enumerates any specifically). It doesn't seem applicable here anyway, though it raises WP:FAITACCOMPLI issues. The status quo ante was that the article was linked in the navbox and the navbox appeared in the article; any WP:NAVBOX 1:1 conflict arose as a result of removal of one or the other (on reasonable but in my view ultimately uncertain PERFCAT or PERFNAV grounds, per the above). Removal of both would also resolve it, but obviate the very existence of the navbox, a catch-22 situation.
 * 4. "Does the guideline material on whether to include a navbox or not pertain to content within navboxes?":

The PERFNAV material already quoted in analysis 2 can be compressed to: "Avoid adding performances ... or crew members into navboxes for ... productions .... [It] avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates ... and avoids ... WP:UNDUE weight ...."

This does not directly address whether navboxes for a production should appear on the article of someone associated with the production. The general rule of thumb we've been operating under for years is that any subject mentioned in the navbox should have the navbox in its article, and ideally any article with the navbox should have a link to that article in the navbox. The latter half of this is frequently suspended in practice; e.g. many "micro-topics" on football or some other broad subject include the navbox for it, but are too drill-down to warrant their own navbox entries or including the bloats the navbox (disputes about this situation are the main genesis of split-off, subtopical navboxes). So, a 1:1 correlation is desirable but is not strictly observed.

Samantha Bee mentioned in the navbox by name (because her name is in the shows name, whether a link to her article is included in it or not.  So the question appears to be moot.  One can even argue that simultaneously removing the article from the navbox and vice versa is a fait accompli and circular reasoning, that removing links from the template then TfDing on the basis of too few links is the same, and that arguing simultaneously for applicability of PERFNAV to remove the navbox due to lack of an bio link while denying PERFNAV applicability to include the navbox per its link (or vice versa) is self-contradictory.  This dispute was raised by removal, and has been WP:BRDed, repeatedly, so the WP:Consensus default is to return to the status quo ante: the navbox has the link and the link is in the article; so at least the reciprocity aspect of the guideline is satisfied by that version.

...in the space that some similar templates have article links like "Correspondents &bull; Writers &bull; Guests &bull; Recurring segments &bull; Awards"?
 * 5. "Should  have a centered heading at the top of it, reading "Samantha Bee (2016–present) ...":

No, for numerous reasons, but the link should remain in some form. This is a Web usability (20+ years experience) and copyediting (ditto) matter; my professional advice is a regular link to the bio, on the same line as other actual links, not imaginary ones hidden in HTML comments.

Several of the questions that follow on this one are of the same character, and have arisen because the navbox author has exactingly duplicated another navbox's layout without any regard for whether it makes sense in this context with this data.


 * It's a terrible waste of vertical and horizontal space. Unless and until we have a whole bunch of supporting articles to add to such a line, there's no rationale for a whole line (table row, technically) being taken up by this. Such articles are unlikely to happen for years if ever, because there's not enough material for them; if they were created any time soon, they'd be merged into the main article as sections.
 * Except on a skinny mobile device, a centered short phrase is a readability problem, and many people will miss it entirely.
 * "(2016–present)" serves no purpose at all unless there's another presenter with whose tenure to compare it. Bee's tenure as host is exactly co-terminous with the lifespan of the show to date, and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future, and probably permanently (most shows with names like this never get re-branded with a new host's name, they simply stop).
 * The link is important to retain for common sense (see analysis 1) and for WP:NAVBOX "1:1" compliance (analysis 4, etc.). See also question 13; the actual intent or spirt behind WP:FILMNAV supports this.

No, obviously. It's dead code and these articles will probably never exist. If the template's creator (or whoever) wants to WP:SANDBOX furture "what if" scenarios, they can do that in userspace. Our reader-facing namespaces (including main, template, category, and portal) are not used for WP:CRYSTAL material, as a matter of policy.
 * 6. "Should the template have a commented-out block for non-existent articles?":

No, just a single line (and maybe on same line as other links), since there's only one entry for each and the latter is subset of the former. I think much of the editwarring over this was due reducing it to nothing but links with no context. The obvious compromises are these:
 * 7. "Should the template have two rows for episodes and specials":

Interpret Episodes here as a header:


 * Episodes | Full list &bull; "Not the White House Correspondents’ Dinner" (special)

Note the style fix: titles of individual TV show episodes go in quotation marks (MOS:TITLE).

This may not even need to be a line of its own. Depending on how it's coded and what remains of links, it's possible these links could be on a single line, for a nice compact navbox. Or maybe two lines total. To add it on one line with other links, try:


 * &bull; Episodes &bull; "Not the White House Correspondents’ Dinner" (special)

No, only with link[s] to the show or shows directly related to this one, which appears to be only the show it is a spinoff of. The fact that the other shows all relate to that one show does not mean they all relate to one. If I'm friends with John Densmore and Julia Roberts and you're friends with me, it doesn't make you friends with them, or them with each other. It is original research of a particularly forbidden kind to try to "steer" or "lead" the reader into drawing connections an editor wants to them to imagine are strong but which are tenuous or illusory. We apply this to content in templates and even to categories, too.
 * 8. "Should the template have a 'Related' row with those three other shows in it?":

Four times no . It's more dead code; the target page will likely never exist; this is not how the "Book:" namespace is used (it's used in WP menu interfaces for the most part to autogenerate a "book view" of articles in a series as one document); and it is not what "book" or "books" means in a navbox (that always refers to real-world books, just like everything else in the navbox is to a notable topic or the category for it.
 * 9. "Should the template include a commented-out block for a row with a heading of ' Book ' and a link to the non-existent page Book:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee?":

No. It's yet another terrible layout idea. Just include it as a regular link on the same line as other links. It is relevant to include, because the category has more contents than the navbox.
 * 10. "Should the template include a row with the centered content ' Category'?":

That said, some of the cat. contents may fail PERFCAT, and if the contents of the cat. end up being the same as the navbox, then the cat. link in the navbox would be removed as redundant.

Never, ever. See Categorization. Anyone who continues to play "You're not going to change my mind" WP:IDHT games on basic matters like this will end up at WP:ANI. Given that the editor in question has been here for years, I know that they know better (which doesn't make it better, it makes it WP:POINT).
 * 11. "Should the template be itself categorized in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee?":

Not on their own. As small bits in the total analysis of our handling of this type of show and host bio, they matter, as much as any article. But any argument that this bio, this show, and templates pertaining the them have to closely match those other two specific topics is baseless. WP likes consistency to an extent, but it is not an end in itself on such matters. It is in WP:AT, WP:MOS, and the category naming system managed by WP:CFD, but those are unrelated to anything under discussion here. We and our readers pretty much totally DGaF about nav templates' consistency; they come in all sorts of styles and appearances and exact layouts, and it really doesn't matter as long as they don't have serous usability FAILs like this one. The primary criterion for a navbox to not suck is efficient use of space, so that it takes up as little space as possible (for the form-factor) while still being easily readable.
 * 12. "Do the Jon Stewart and The Daily Show articles and templates matter and if so, how?":

Only in spirit. I've already demonstrated above that the idea that "WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT are silent regarding primary creators of performances" is not true at all; that's what a "performer" is most of the time, and both guidelines also cover writers, producers, directors, crew, etc., though their wording on the matter badly needs clarification and synchronization. It is correct that neither treats primary creators of anything in a special way.
 * 13. "Is WP:FILMNAV a concern here?":

FILMNAV does, and looks relevant, at first: "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question." That certainly describes Bee's relationship to the show. But it isn't applicable to this navbox. The rule is about including film [or TV show] links in a bio navbox, not about including a bio link in a film or TV show navbox; the relationship is backward to our case, and it can't be reversed because the rationales for the rule are applicable to bios not to TV show or film articles (though it could be rewritten to fix this – UNDUE and navbox profusion concerns apply at such articles, they're just not identical to the bio-article ones). If, as I've suggested, this particular navbox is changed into a combined bio/show navbox, like Template:Howard Stern Show, the question is moot because, well, if it's both combined then it's both combined, and the links are there no matter what.

The one thing we can take away from FILMNAV is a clear consensus intent to treat creators of shows (films, whatever) with more WP:CLNT leniency than usual when it comes to navboxes linking them and their works. (And presumably, but not yet explicitly the other way around, for works that are the primary output of one entity). That is fully consistent with my entire analysis above. (Though I believe that integral association between the creator and the creation in the public mind, i.e. in reliable source treatment, is both a more sensible approach and actually a more accurate assessment of the observable de facto consensus; "primary creator of the material" doesn't really get at it (all the material might be written by some non-notable employee), and is one-way.

FILMNAV is yet another place where the guideline needs revision (both to apply this "treat primary creators differently" consensus more clearly, broadly, and both ways – i.e., as I've reformulated it – and to stop tying the FILMNAV wording to visual media in particular; films/TV are not magically special compared to books or music or stage performance or journalism or whatever. We do not draw such a distinction elsewhere, so we shouldn't be accidentally doing it here.  Even the shortcut is wrongheaded.

I don't see anything at WP:OVERCAT or WP:COP not already covered above. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * &Omega;. In closing::
 * The RfC to proposed the guideline cleanup is now open, at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing shows from the "worst sitcoms of all time list"
Okay simply put, what is by your personal criteria (even if there's fairly enough evidence on the contrary) a "truly bad sitcom" that absolutely warrants being on that list? Just because you personally don't think that there "that bad" (even if it tips in the favor of "negative") doesn't necessarily mean that they by sheer virtue, don't merit any sort of consideration. If we're going to be so subjective than it's going to be extremely hard to determine something. BornonJune8 (talk), 00:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Majority of the shows that you entered have received "mixed" or "average" reviews according to the very posting you listed. That is not that bad at all. Look at the shows that are already on the list if you want to know what qualifies for the list. JDDJS (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Category reviews
Hi User:JDDJS, can you take a quick look at the categories of Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and Mac (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) articles please? And let me know if you think their over-categorized or which categories are unnecessary? Thanks, --Theo Mandela (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

re: Thomas Rhett
He is a singer and a songwriter (occupations). The article does not support him being a singer–songwriter (genre). The person already has a cat of singer and of songwriter.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  01:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between being a singer and a songwriter and being a singer-songwriter? JDDJS (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The best place to look would be at Singer-songwriter. Follow up there by reading the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 36 and an earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 7. Essentially, my take on this is that singer + songwriter = singer/songwriter (which would be two different categories for singer and songwriter), not a singer-songwriter (which is a single category) unless that is how they are sourced.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  23:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says "artists who write and perform their own material" which does apply to Rhett, 100%. JDDJS (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep reading the rest of the sentence, and the consensus at the RfC. Nowhere in the article does it mention singer-songwriter other than the category. References call him a singer and a songwriter, not a singer-songwriter. The term for s-s is unique and is not a concatenation of s+s.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a source. JDDJS (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Kallan Holley
I just skimmed Articles for deletion/Kallan Holley and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3961562/ says she had a recurring Role as JuJu in Creative Galaxy. This article lacks a character section so I do not know how prominent it is. Interesting in developing CG to find out? ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bitcoin Magazine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Theodore Roosevelt and Category:American politicians with physical disabilities
Just a thought: he might have been in that category due to the boxing injury while President that left him blind in one eye p  b  p  00:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Very Potter Musical


The article A Very Potter Musical has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Student musical production with no independent sources nor claim to notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Very Potter Sequel


The article A Very Potter Sequel has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Student musical production with no independent sources nor claim to notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disney XD navbox and Disney D|XP shows
It looks like another editor removed Parker Plays from the navbox. Can you check with them on whether it will go back in, along with other Disney D|XP shows? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP address who removed it from the navbox also removed Spider-Man from the infobox and offered no explanation. It seems like vandalism to me, so I reverted it and warned them about removing content from articles without explanation. JDDJS (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Blake Shelton
Hey there. I noticed you reverted the edit I accepted on Blake Shelton. While the change did not have a source, I'll point out that Shelton is specifically mentioned on the Bro-country article which is why I allowed the change in the first place. Thanks! Operator873 CONNECT 23:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you made the edit in good faith; however, currently bro-country is not used as a genre on any artist, song or album page, with one of the main concerns is that some consider it to be derogatory term. Personally, I am okay with it being included in genres on artists, songs and albums pages, but it has to either be consistently used or not used at all, and current consensus is not at all. However, there has never been a major discussion about this, so if you care enough about this, feel free to start a discussion at WikiProject Music/Music genres task force or WikiProject Music. Personally, I don't care enough to start a conversation about this, but I will support it if you start it. JDDJS (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Fix-It Felix Jr
Hello, JDDJS,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Fix-It Felix Jr should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Fix-It Felix Jr.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sandlot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Adams ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Sandlot check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Sandlot?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) 09:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

Other notable events section in 90th Academy Awards
Hi, I agree with the user who deleted the entire section, but if you think it should be kept I would highly recommend deleting such trivia as "first super hero movie nominated for screenplay", anything where its the first since (fill in the blank) or anything where it isn't the very first time it happened, and all of the other ridiculous details. Its a very silly section.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

John Oliver edits
John Oliver is actually running for Prime Minister of Italy. It's not a joke, just like how he opened his own church, Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption. See Time's article: http://time.com/5175069/john-oliver-italy-last-week-tonight/. It's also on the 2018 Italian Election page on Wikipedia. Gabrielmeir53 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * He said in the segment that he wasn't serious. Get a consensus before re-adding it. JDDJS (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krysten Ritter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Krysten_Ritter check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Krysten_Ritter?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

Thanks
Thanks for thanking me. I always appreciate it. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

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

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Thank you for correcting my deletion error
I apologize for disruptively editing my sandbox deletions/pages. I thought it was an error in my editor until I saw the warning messages. I have moved my pages to the correct locations. Apologies and thanks again. Dbmcdonough Dbmcdonough (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

ATLA
Sorry, I didn't know that if there are more than 5 writers then we shouldn't include them. My bad. Diogatari (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem. I should have clearly linked to the page with the policy with my first edit. Thank you for not continuing to edit after you saw the policy. JDDJS (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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


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


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

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Power Rangers RPM: Kids Drama or not?
Why do you keep erasing "Drama" I know the 17th season has dark themes and dramatic writing, but my guess is that it's a drama and a cyberpunk tv series. I have seen it with my own 2 eyes and i know how they feel and the music that describes the fight and feelings. Tell me why? I'm not a liar. I just told you the truth! PascalMuganyizi (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others
Articles that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others&mdash;have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —  A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 15:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Goosebumps Haunted Halloween Slappy Voice
Can you plz read this Source about Avery Lee Jones voiceing Slappy by click a link plz https://deadline.com/2018/04/goosebumps-2-cinemacon-sony-1202375147/ so plz read it Sincerely GoosebumpsUk1Fan GoosebumpsUk1Fan (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The source you posted here is not the same one that I removed. The one I removed made no mention of Jones. The one that you have provided here is an adequate source for Jones voicing Slappy. JDDJS (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newsies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Jordan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Newsies check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Newsies?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why you took out the African American classification on Naomi Osaka's page?
Hello there. I notice that you took out the African-American female tennis players category from Naomi Osaka's page with the explanation that "Haiti is not in Africa". I will be restoring that classification but wanted to hear from you directly.

Your removal of the Haitian female tennis players classification is also problematic (given that Osaka identifies as Haitian through her father) but I won't contest that on the technicality that we do not know whether she possesses a Haitian passport.

Any American citizen who has African ancestry is considered African American. An African American does not need to to be a descendant of slaves. A good example is Barack Obama whose father was Kenyan. If you are unfamiliar with the history of Haiti, please read up on it. Kunkuru (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you need a geography lesson? Haiti is considered to be a part of North America, not Africa. Not every black person is African. I don't know why you mention Obama. Yes, he's African American because his father is from Kenya, which is in Africa, unlike Haiti. JDDJS (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. You need a history lesson. This is why I suggested you read up on the history of Haiti. Haitian people didn't drop from Planet Mars I promise.

All black people are descended from Africans and majority of blacks outside of Africa, particularly in North America are in the Americas because of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.

I think your motivation for deleting the African American category from Osaka's page is now clear as daylight. Kunkuru (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any other Haitian-American articles classified as African American? Because I have not. Same thing with Jamaican people. And all people are descended from Africa, so using that argument we would have to include every American in African-Americans category. From my experiences, many Jamaicans and Haitians do not like being classified as African Americans. JDDJS (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There are numerous examples, check out Pastor Troy and Blake Griffin come to mind. The problem I have with your perspective is that you are denying that Naomi Osaka is Haitian because we have no evidence that she possesses a Haitian passport. If you are fine with updating her page with the Haitian-American category then I have no quarrel with you. Kunkuru (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, she definitely belongs in Haitian-American categories and Haitian descent categories. I only removed her from Haitian Tennis players cat because those cats are generally reserved for citizens of said country, which she is not. However her Haitian heritage is notable. JDDJS (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We are all good now. Apologies for the earlier snark. Kunkuru (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I was being unnecessarily snarky myself in my response, so I apologize too. JDDJS (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


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


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


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

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

Could you please explain...
You moved page Hannah James (actor) to Hannah James (actress), with the uninformative edit summary "proper gender". You are not the only contributor who wants to return to using old-fashioned terms for occupations. I am 62 years old, and for my entire life, we have been moving away from using language that distinguishes between workers based on their gender. Professional fishermen are called fishers. Firemen are called firefighters. Why would the wikipedia buck this trend, and single out women who act, and use a separate name for their occupation?

Can I assume you made this move without first consulting anyone?

Are you able to link to a wikidocument that justifies moves like the one you made? Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I made that move a year and a half ago and nobody has ever complained about it before now, so the fact that I didn't consult anyone is completely irrelevant. There is strong precident on here to use actress for female actors. I really don't get what the problem with the term is. Majority of sources use the term actress and Wikipedia is soapbox. JDDJS (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why RPM Not a "Thriller"
Why was Power Rangers RPM not a thriller? The show had a lot of drama and a lot of cyberpunk elements from cyberpunk movies, I know it was a dark drama season, why?PascalMuganyizi (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thrillers are almost never marketed towards children. I can't think of a single exception to that. Therefore, I find it extremely hard to believe that Power Rangers made a season that was a thriller. If you can find a reliable source that shows that it is, I'll relent. --JDDJS (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SPD: A police procedual?
Why would you say that? "Having police on the show doesn't make it a police procedural" Why? the characters are in a police procedural because SPD is Police. And they arrest aliens from different dimensions. Why?! I know everything from those Crime shows such as Law and Order & CSI. Why would you say it? PascalMuganyizi (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look at our article on police procedural. Police procedurals are about the process of gathering evidence to convict criminals, not just arresting them. JDDJS (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Deaths in 2018
Hey, could you not delete the redlinks at Deaths in 2018? They’re deleted after 30 days if they don’t achieve notability in that time. Rusted AutoParts 22:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)