User talk:Iseult/2022/July

Archives

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol \| July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Bruxton. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pricking iron, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIBA U18 Women's Asian Championship

Hi. I re-reviewed 2022 FIBA U18 Women's Asian Championship as part of our backlog drive, which you had patrolled. I don't see a claim of significance per WP:NSEASONS and the article relies upon sources from the league, itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation, Technology and Industry Bureau

I re-reviewed Innovation, Technology and Industry Bureau which you had patrolled. The text had an entire paragraph of COPYVIO from a website not explicity marked public domain or CC-BY. In checking the history of the article to see if editors had attributed additions of material they thought was free to use, I found that COPYVIOs had been repeatedly added to the article, lending to the belief that the author(s) were part of Hong Kong's governance. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for being awesome. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 01:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer- Concerns about your record.

Hey- I've been reviewing some of your New Page Patrols- as has another user, and out of the six we have reviewed thus far- five have failed quality control. You might want to slow down and take your time- you are missing BIG copyvios- including one page that was 94% copied from another source. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightenbelle: sure. I'll switch to different stuff. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightenbelle: hold on. I'm looking back through them; the articles I reviewed aren't the ones you've listed. I reviewed redirects; you're tagging the targets, and so far as I know, redirect review doesn't consider targets. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Asia Rugby Championship division tournaments

I re-reviewed 2022 Asia Rugby Championship division tournaments and found that most of the citations are self-published and I don't see how this individual tournament is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa at the 2018 African Youth Games

I re-reviewed South Africa at the 2018 African Youth Games and sent it for A7. There's no case for notability and the sources look weak. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Iseult

Thank you for creating Koduvai.

User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Reminder: it is considered good form while reviewing to add the article to relevant wikiprojects.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4th Army Division (Peru)

Hi I am working through the NPP queue this morning and see that you tagged 4th Army Division (Peru) for notability. I was going to pass it so just wondered what your concern was. All the best Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I'm concerned that the sources supporting notability are either affiliated with the source/the government of Peru or do not actually mention the subject (see source 7, Associated Press). I'm generally more skeptical about articles about military units, because in peacetime, extant sources tend towards governmental press releases and not actual activities. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks I see. There are some kinds of organisation, like government ministries, which we regard as notable even though most of the sourcing readily available will be primary (often the ministry’s own website). The same is true for the larger military formations (army, division and usually, regiment). AFAIK the Peruvian army has not been involved in a major war for a long time so there may not be in depth coverage in RIS for its divisions. However if you want to check with the military history project the view will be that Peruvian divisions are notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: well, to be fair, WikiProject Milhist would certainly want to say that. It's a balance, I think, but it's not necessarily one that I think is correct at the moment, per your RS Peru note, and hence my tagging. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysical Journal International redirect

Hi, you've reverted this deletion of a redirect, claiming Template:R_from_former_name applies. But the redirected title did not change to the current title; instead, the "merged titles" changed to Geophysical Journal first, and only later did the latter change to the current title Geophysical Journal International. See the talk discussion. The publication that existed under the redirected title was abandoned two titles before the current one, and so its title vacated. And since titles are not copyrightable, the publisher's claim over the title from before before the current title is just their marketing puffery. There's nothing to redirect, my point. Yreuq (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yreuq: I don't think I follow that argument. Just because a publication is no longer officially named as such does not mean that it forgoes its links to its previous incarnations, predecessors, or former names. If, say, Denali, formerly known as Mount McKinley, comes in the future by another name, both Denali and Mount McKinley should then redirect to the newest name. I don't see how copyright figures into this. If a new journal pops up with the same name, we'll create it under that name with a DAB up top. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A mountain peak is not a legal entity that conducts business, so copyright laws don't apply = faulty logic. Back to the point: this is not an issue of (present or future) DABs, but of the fact that no one can claim a publication title they are currently not publishing under. So this redirect misrepresents facts, allowing one company (not a mountain peak!) to feed into Wikipedia.Yreuq (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yreug: I meant it as an analogy, not a direct comparison, but it seems that I failed in communicating that. If you can supply a policy page regarding this copyright policy on redirects, I'll be happy to concur. Otherwise, perhaps this would be better served at RfD, or letting a third opinion come in (that's more of a stretch, as RfD is the general forum for this). Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An analogy would work if this was about yet another Wikipedia redirect/technicality, but it is not (so it's neither a DAB nor an RfD/3O matter). This is about Wikipedia and fact-checking, which is why only direct comparison (sources) will do. Can you supply a legal academic source supporting the publisher's claim over the title of a former former periodical? (Note they currently do not publish under that title and it didn't immediately precede the title of a current periodical of theirs.) You can't as only current titles can be claimed and titles aren't copyrightable. Yreuq (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yreuq: I'm not sure if I was clear. My position is that the redirect should stand regardless of the legal situation up until there is a better target or another publication with a more similar name. I think we'd better take this to RfD. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you believe Wikipedia should be complete rather than reliable, I deleted the redirect. You can take it to RfD, but you'll lose per this admission. Yreuq (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete nonsense argument. This is one of the former names of the journal. Legal standing has nothing to do with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I'm inclined to take it to RfD and get a SNOW keep just to get this over with, what say you? It's tendentious. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the disruption resumes, a WP:BLOCK per WP:DE/WP:EW is the solution. But if things end here, no need to escalate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters vs values

Just thought you might like to know, the parameter in "weapons = Shotgun" is the "weapons", not the "Shotgun". While the visible word's not a sentence, it is like an entry in a bulleted list and should be uppercase. If there were (was?) a second common noun offered, such as "birdshot", then go lower. Anyway, easy mistake. Keep up the otherwise fine work! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Thank you for your recent edit to Stereocaulon arenarium , but please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag. Thanks. PamD 06:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]