This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.

User talk:Mattlore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This user set up and posted to your 2017 talk archive; not sure whether you've seen this

Just checking on the wiki pages I've created for TO Wolfpack players some have independent coverage from rugby league websites but is that not notable for wiki:sports or wiki:rl?? Getmefoodbb (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The player needs to meet WP:GNG or WP:RLN before you create an article. Playing in division 3 will likely not get it done. Mattlore (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You got mail[edit]

Did you get my email? Schwede66 20:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I have been on holiday for the last week, which is why I haven't replied yet. Mattlore (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Mattlore. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thanks Mattlore!

I saw you looked at the Alex Gilbert article. Please help if you can by expanding it as I see you are a fellow NZ Editor too. Take a look please. I think some of the wording is not exactly how it should be written. Not sure. Would love to know your opinion. The subject has appeared on several TV shows. Do we list these? Or maybe not? Thanks! --TheDomain (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Matt: re the Colin Craig page - several of the dates are wrong; and as this cite discusses me I have corrected the dates and inserted the appropriate links so readers can go to source Best ~ J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijohnstringer (talkcontribs) 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2[edit]

Hello Mattlore,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
A HUGE backlog

We now have 449 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.


This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Championship players??[edit]

I didn't realise that they weren't allowed wiki pages? I believe previously they were?? as the competition had a lot of history with teams being promoted to and from the top tiers over the years as it is the immediate second tier and about 4-6 clubs in the league are fully professional (London Broncos, Featherstone, Sheffield, Toulouse, Hull KR). The recent Toulouse players have all made appearances for Toulouse this season as that all gets very confusing I think all players who make an appearance in the RFL (Kingstone Press) Championship should come under inclusion meaning there would be mass deletions as there are plenty of other Championship player pages that would be deleted see Mitch Cahalane, Ryan Millar (rugby league). I can understand about the Toronto Wolfpack players being deleted though.Getmefoodbb (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Getmefoodbb, per WP:RLN a player is assumed to be notable if they have played in the Super League, NRL or a World Cup/Four Nations/European Cup or Pacific Cup. Other players may be notable if they meet the WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage they have. Therefore some championship players that have lots of articles about them (not just results or statistics, but actual profile pieces) may be able to have articles, but you cannot automatically assume that enough information is out there. Mattlore (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello there. I will admit that the very public Articles for deletion/Chad Bain was not the forum for seeking to understand your position on deletion, so perhaps I could seek to engage you here. I have reviewed your talk pages and yes I can see you are indeed a fan of rugby league and that you seek to remove articles that do not fit with the current iteration of the RLN. I would welcome your views as to why we should stay with the current position as I would love to have an outside view on things to add to my case for a return to the previous version of RLN. Keeping me honest with your 'required' position, and refining a RLN that is robust and fit for purpose in the world of rugby league in the mid 2010s.Fleets (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in a deletion discussion, discuss the policies and not the person proposing it.
The RLN needs to be set at a level where (almost) every article that meets it also meets GNG. This is because GNG is the main guideline and RLN is "rule of thumb/assumption" to go with it. Therefore, to build support to "loosen" RLN you should be able to point to lots of articles that currently fail RLN, but still pass the GNG. This will show that RLN is broken/set too high and it should be lowered to include more levels of competition. Happy to explain my thinking more or discuss your views. Mattlore (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely and hence the move here to rectify that error.Fleets (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for that feedback. I had considered that balance between the GNG and RLN, and will look to fully address that in a proposal that is fully formed in my head, but early in a fledgling state as something to put before a critical audience.Fleets (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I also think a weakness in RLN is it currently doesn't mention The Qualifiers, personally I count them to be part of Super League, but that isn't articulated in the current guidelines. Mattlore (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that the current guidelines need to say more, that is a major weakness and one that I hope to address over the coming days and weeks.Fleets (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I will have to work over the weekend to get something out that puts a new version of RLN that suits the UK market and closer to the 2015 revision, and see where that debate leads.Fleets (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Bustin is a great example of why we can't go to automatically accepting all Championship players - he has played in only one game in the Championship, and has no articles in independent sources about him. Instead the article only has routine coverage type sources and sources from Even articles that do meet the current RLN, like Jesse Ramien, aren't very well sourced yet and need more work. Mattlore (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You could counter that and say that the Jesse Ramien page ticks the broadest angle of RLN, but then fails it by not really having any sources. Whereas the Bustin page for a pro player in a pro league is well sourced, but because league is a minority game and does not get any significant national coverage and struggles for local it could potentially fall foul there. I am working on a fully-rounded offline proposal, that looks at things from both sides, and fixes issues such as non-pro players in the CC, all the while bringing us into line with WPRU which does allow Championship players in their caveats. It's a case of attacking all the issues from all-sides, rather than turning people off, looking to flesh out areas so that the game can be promoted, rather than hidden away, so that a pro-player in a pro-league can be found at wikipedia, rather than meeting a blank screen and the general fan being non-the wiser about their opponent in the upcoming game. I can understand where you are coming from, but I am trying to work with you, for instance on stopping the loophole to non-professional players from non-professional teams from the UK and France in the CC. Just trying to be fair and balanced in the new RLN proposal. I will disappoint some in some areas, and please some in others, but I genuinely want a more rounded RLN that accurately reflects the rugby league world as it is today.Fleets (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi, could you review the draft, Draft:List of Mohanlal songs ?. I believe it satisfy the requirements.-- (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3[edit]

Hello Mattlore,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 449 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Rugby Union Notability[edit]

Hi Mattlore - thanks for reviewing a number of the rugby union player pages I have created - see Kieron Lewitt and Gary Kingdom. I see that several have been flagged for notability and I take it this is based on the rugby union guidelines that recommend restricting pages to players with international or Premiership experience. What improvements do you feel that these pages need as I believe that the players are notable as they are record breakers in the (national) leagues they play in and they are well referenced from a variety of sources? Appreciate your thoughts on how they could be improved. (Jgjsmith006) 14:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes the flags were based on my understanding of WP:NRU and the level of competition these two play in. However they are well sourced and I think you have done a good job on them, so they probably pass WP:GNG. For what its worth, I think Lewitt does a better job of establishing notability than the Kingdom article. However I must say I am not an expert in the field so can't offer too much more advice than that. Mattlore (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Lewitt is ex-Bath and England youth international while Kingdom's claim to fame is playing for Exeter Chiefs and winning county championships with Devon so I see where you are coming from with regards to the notability. Thanks for your feedback and the extra work you have done on pages. (Jgjsmith006) 19:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Lee Patterson[edit]

Hi Mattlore, It's funny how these things come around, it was nearly 6-years ago when I realised that there wasn't just one Lee Patterson, but actually two similarly named people, and that the Lee Patterson (rugby league) article had become an inadvertent duplicate of the Lee Paterson article. Not having the opportunity to create a Lee Patterson (rugby league) article at the time, I made it a redirect until I could get around to it… and now, nearly 6-years later my nemesis has re-emerged. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Bill Johnston[edit]

Hi Mattlore, I've just seen your message about the Bill Johnston page I created. Does playing for Ireland U20 not count, as that team is recognised by World Rugby (governing body of rugby union) as a national team? Regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey MunsterFan, from what I understand of WP:NRU it is just test matches. But I am not an expert, so perhaps ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union where someone should be able to help. Mattlore (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Hurley (rugby league), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Shail Kaushal[edit]

Hi Mattlore,

Happy to incorporate any suggestions / recommendation you may have to improve the Shail Kaushal article.

Doesn't make sense to delete it. Please remove your delete request, and lets fix the article as a Wiki community.



1989–1992 Rugby League World Cup squads[edit]

It's simple, i got them from a site called Rugby League Project (which i used as source), where there were the full lineups of the squads in the match reports. I just put together the players who played the various matches of the tournament in the pages. i think that the renaming would be an excellent solution. --KoreanDragon (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome.--KoreanDragon (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony Barrow (rugby league), and Tony Barrow (rugby league, born 1971)[edit]

Hi Mattlore, I'm just about to initiate the Tony Barrow (rugby league) article, who is the father of the recently departed Tony Barrow (rugby league, born 1971). Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Tony Barrow (rugby league, born 1944). Incoming links need to be tidied up. Schwede66 21:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator[edit]

Wikipedia needs you! Take the poll.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Turner (rugby league), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NSW Blues (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi Mattlore,

I de-proded a couple of articles you put up for deletion as they've played for the PNG national team. Technically, they still don't meet WP:RLN, but I feel the Pacific Tests are high-profile enough to pass the criteria even if it's not stated specifically in the guidelines. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi J Mo, no problem I wouldn't have prod'd those two if that information had been in the article. Mattlore (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4[edit]

Hello Mattlore,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 449 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Trophy.png Thank you
You made my first article look nice so I wouldn't look a fool Kofi100 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Les Tonks[edit]

Hi Mattlore, in the Les Tonks article I noticed you've changed 'Featherstone Rovers' to 'the Rovers', with Featherstone Rovers more likely to be called 'Fev' (I've never heard of them being called 'the Rovers'), and Featherstone Rovers' nickname being 'the colliers' (I believe the use of club nicknames in articles is confusing to the lay reader), and with Les Tonks also playing for Hull Kingston Rovers, I think it would be better to use the 'Featherstone Rovers'. Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dynamo, in the context of that article I didn't think "Featherstone Rovers" needed to be repeated numerous times, especially as it is the only Rovers team mentioned in the prose. However if you think it would be better shorted to "Featherstone's" instead then thats fine. Mattlore (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


Hi Mattlore, I've never understood the "problem" with overlinking, it's not as though it makes the article difficult to read, and the reader is not obligated to use the links, so why is this a problem? I realize that somewhere there'll be a 'Manual of Style' that states overlinking is non-preferred, but what's the actual problem with these links? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dynamo, have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and especially WP:SEAOFBLUE, which should explain the concerns around overlinking. Mattlore (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Read it, disagree with it, not prepared to create articles that conform to it, not willing to accept articles being edited to obey it. Best regards 08:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
You're just blank "not willing to accept" articles being edited to conform to Wikipedia's main guidelines? If there is a particular problem we can discuss the issue - otherwise the consensus goes as you know. Mattlore (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I brought up the issue of overlinking at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Linking, I got a response from the apparent guru of linking; Tony (talk) . He then appears to have unilaterally run-the-rule over the Les Tonks article, and as you may see, he made minimum modifications, and only removed the linking from England, and English (which I dont agree with, because in my experience many non-British (and some British) people wrongly assume that Great Britain, United Kingdom, and England, are interchangeable, and that British, and English are also interchangeable). At the very least this shows that overlinking is a matter of perception, not hard-and-fast rules, and that the consensus of a small number of people can never truly representative of 125,000+ editors, and that of all the issues on Wikipedia, overlinking is one of the least important, and that our time is better spent creating content. Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Dynamo, I see with great regret that you've been ignoring the guidelines, and treated a few articles on your contribs list—a list that shows really goood contributions by you, in all respects but this. Please do not add low-value links, because that makes more work for those who then have to go around editing them out. Tony (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe any of my queries regarding overlinking, and duplicate/repeat links have been adequately addressed. If overlinking is such an heinous crime, then why were only the minimum modifications of removing the linking from England, and English initially performed by Tony? I don't believe any Wikipedia lay-user will have ever said "what this article needs is less links". I do believe that a number of Wikipedia users will have said is, e.g. "Why doesn't George Davidson have a Wikipedia article, he played 17-test matches for New Zealand back in the 1940s, and 1950s, and Wikipedia has nothing about him? Wikipedia is shit." It is times like these that I think to myself "Why am I wasting my fucking time on Wikipedia"… then I realise, I'm not doing for me, and I'm certainly not doing it for bureaucrats of Wikipedia (although without content, what would the bureaucrats have to bureaucratize), I'm doing it for the individuals whose contributions to society would otherwise go unrecognised. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, you're doing it both for them and for yourself—like all of us. It's disastrous when such productive editors as you leave: please don't. Redlinks are a special matter. I wish they weren't such an intrusive, saturated red; but they symbolise something (which you point out) quite different from blue links. But they're of no use to our readers, unless they edit. Blue links ... I encourage you to take a look through the gigantic RFC in 2009 to see how it played out, to see the arguments on both sides. I believe the roughly 60–40 split would nowadays be more like 90–10, although that's just my speculation. the cultural acceptance of rationing links to high-value ones was accepted remarkably quickly. It surprised everyone. Echo-thanks are common for treating overlinking in articles. Tony (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Alan Tennant[edit]

Hi Mattlore, could you please cast a critical eye over the Alan Tennant article? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dyanmo, if it was me I would be consider the following changes (I decided to explain them here rather than just make them):
  • I wouldn't capatalise either right or centre in the text.
  • I think the sub-header "Club career" is redundant and would just remove it.
  • I would pick either 1952 Challenge Cup or 1952 Challenge Cup, but not both as its not clear what links to what (especially for readers unfamiliar to Wikipedia).
  • Similarly, I would have "benefit season" either link to Benefit (sports) or Benefit season (which only talks about cricket).
  • I find the Genealogical information section hard to read, but I'm not sure how I would re-word it. Currently I struggle to read it out aloud, which I always use as a test for good writing.
But overall, keep up the good work with historic biographies! Don't stop. Cheers, Mattlore (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
If I may chip in, external links should not go into the prose section. These ought to be converted to inline references. Schwede66 20:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe I've implemented everything, except the capitalised right, and centre, as on WikiProject Rugby league I have requested a lowercase variant of the template, e.g. {{rlp|ce}}. Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

NZ Fistball[edit]

Hi Mattlore,

I am the President of the NZ Fistball Association. I was disappointed to see that you organised deletion of our page'New Zealand Fistball Association' Under the grounds that 'Doesn't appear notable. No other Fistball Associations have articles and NZ is not a world leader in Fistball'

We have relied more heavily on Facebook this year but had every intention to continue our Wiki page so coming back to update it and see it was deleted was disappointing. It looks like you have just made a judgement on your own knowledge and not done any research on us first. NZ isn't a world leader in Fistball because our Association started 12 only months ago and we have put tireless energy into getting ourselves established. I'm not sure being a world leader is a condition for having a wiki page anyway. We are the governing body for the sport in New Zealand and have association with the International Fistball Association (IFA) Your request to delete came two weeks after our first ever Internationals against the Australians in Melbourne. Prior to that we have been covered in Stuff and TV3 News (Newshub) and we have an obvious presence online if you'd jusy Googled NZ Fistball:

Yes we haven't used the page since Feb but I still don't think there were grounds to delete us without looking into more than I suspect you did. I don't know but appears all the effort we put into that page is gone and we'll have to start again. What's disappointing is as a Kiwi you haven't done your resaerch on a developing NZ sport.

Blase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blasedowall (talkcontribs) 01:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blasedowall, Wikipedia is different from a social media site and and not every organisation can have a page dedicated to it. Have a read of WP:ORGCRITE for the criteria used in determining notability. More articles in independent sources such as stuff and newshub will help establish notability of the Association. Mattlore (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Mattlore, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 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.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Stating Facts[edit]

So is stating facts about Rugby League players something that is worth removing?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully198787 (talkcontribs) 06:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If the facts are referenced and so conform with Wikipedia:Blp then they can be added. But make sure they are relevant to the rugby league player in question, and don't just concern the club. Mattlore (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


I have reworded, per your invitation, the questions that you have proposed. I have merged one and separated out another, so not to fall foul of sportsperson. Good work all the same. We may be on the opposite side of the aisle, but hard work is to be respected all the same.Fleets (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fleets, I appreciate the open and constructive discussions and that we both recognise we have the same goal - trying to improve rugby league articles on wikipedia! Mattlore (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)