User talk:Zanygenius/Archives/2010's/2019/1

Draft:The Big Fun Crafty Show
Regarding your query about changes to Draft:The Big Fun Crafty Show, the answer is yes, that is a distinct improvement over earlier versions. I am not convinced the show is notable, so I expect you will need to find better sources before it could be placed into article space -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thank you for your post. What would be the best methods of determining an article's nobility if it's a television show? Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 21:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability in general is established with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and WP:TVSHOW provides a bit of guidance. Consider putting your work through Articles for creation where the reviewers can evaluate your sources and provide comments. -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That should be beneficial :). I'll send it in to the AFC tomorrow and let you know what they think. Thank you, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 22:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I sent the draft article into the Afc, and got a mostly unhelpful response.  However, it looks like we're doing fine so far. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 17:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. 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. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
 * Royal standard of England (1406–1603).svg Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
 * 🇺🇸 Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
 * Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
 * Pirate Flag.svg CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
 * The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included 🇺🇸 L293D, 🇻🇪 Kingsif, 🇦🇶 Enwebb, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski and 🇳🇵 CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 🇺🇸 L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Global economic recession moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2020 Global economic recession, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. Do you think the article has a good start so far, and do you think it has a chance at being a notable subject? From, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 19:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't really follow financial news, but basically what is needed is some good quality sources arguing that a recession is not just likely to happen soon but actually ongoing (I would look at The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and other respected newspapers that cover current global finance.) If the balance of sources are not saying that a recession is ongoing, then we should not have an article on it. buidhe 19:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,, Sorry for the long delay. This is a list of sources I found so far discussing recession. Would you agree? Thanks, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 18:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , It would be much more helpful to link to the individual articles that support existence of a current recession. For example, when I visited it seemed that most of the articles were focused on a potential future recession rather than one that's ongoing. 20 hours ago, WSJ published an article with the title, "Economists See Rising Risks of Recession World-Wide". I'm still seeing that most of the coverage is warning of a potential future event, which probably shouldn't be created per WP:CRYSTAL. We already have articles on the stock market crashes—Black Monday (2020) and Black Thursday (2020) as well as on the economic effects of coronavirus epidemic.
 * Furthermore, the page as it currently exists has almost no information and is a borderline speedy deletion A3 candidate. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 18:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * has a lot more expertise than I do on this topic, perhaps he'd like to weigh in. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * has a lot more expertise than I do on this topic, perhaps he'd like to weigh in. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

2

 * Thank you for your comments. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so I tend to take a while getting the information in the article. While there are a lot of sources saying the recession hasn't hit yet, others are saying the economy is already there. I definitely agree that some aspects we'll need to wait on for sure, and we can defintley wait fo fill those in, however, the stock-market/government responses/stores is evidence enough that the US may as well already be in a slump. And it doesn't help that people are panic-buying everything from freezers to hand sanitizers to toilet paper. . Overall, I am willing to hear what everyone says about this, and I'd be willing to wait out a few months, however I think there is more than enough evidence for a recession right here and now. Sincerely, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 18:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

3

 * , I don't know much about seeking alpha, but doubt it's as reliable as New York Times or WSJ for current finance news. Forbes contributors are not reliable per WP:RSP. Panic buying is related to coronavirus, rather than a recession per se. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeking Alpha is not a reliable source being a blog of financial views without editorial oversight (e.g. I could write my own article on it). The title of this article is currently very problematic as we are not yet in a confirmed "global recession".  It seems very likely, if things continue, that we will, but we are not as yet, so such a title would have to stay in Draftspace until RS confirm it.  You should consider a title like "Economic impact of the 2019-20 conavirus pandemic" (which would mirror a whole other series of articles like Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic).  Such an article is needed and there are lots of high quality RS (e.g. WP:RS/P sources) covering it (e.g. Bloomberg, CNN, and long list of others).  If you stick with "global recession", your article is going to be repeatdly moved to Draftspace until a global recession is confirmed by high quality RS like the WSJ, FT, etc. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have been questioning that title too. Although there is a good number of causes, Coronavirus (COVID-19) is the main event here. Also, I have seen rumors that we could have a "U" or "L" trend, so the title would be a waste in 9 months, right? Anyway, I could move (or ask to move) this to either Economic impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic (currently a redirect) or maybe Coronavirus (or COVID-19) economic slump? Another title I noticed was Financial Impact of the 2019-20 Coronavirus outbreak WP:RS/P is definitely a through list that I'm surprised I haven't discovered yet. So I'll certainly use it moving forward. One last thing, you definitely think this or a related article is needed, and has a foreseeable future? Thank you to you both, and your input helped clear a few things.  Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 21:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would first try to work on the article Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and make splits from that as necessary. There are a lot of other editors working on this topic and I doubt that you can get ahead of them working in draftspace. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 21:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)