Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 42

Drafts, talk pages and others

Hello. I wanted to talk not only about the draft, but also about other things. First, I am talking the part of the drafts. Remember the draft you denied due to many of its sections unreferenced, being very focused on the short instead of the character and the mention of a non-notable but existent fanwork? I have improved it by removing the mention of the animated series and I put 2 more sources, as well as I had to re-use some references to render the "Description" section less unreferenced. I have doubts about improving the draft: Do I have to add more references in the subsection where the Pixar character appeared for the first time? Do I have to move the part of the "Concept and creation" section (specifically where it focuses how the short film evolved) to the The Adventures of André & Wally B. article?

I also want to comment something on talk pages. Every now and then, I find sections which violates the talk page guidelines in a talk page about articles and then I remove them. So I recently found the talk page of Wolfwalkers (an animated film from "Irish Folklore Trilogy" I am not interested) and I considered it as the "worst" talk page I have ever seen, that is to say, all of its sections treat the talk page as a forum, even one of them (the "Wolfwalkers: Christmas Holiday Special" section) resembles mostly a fanfiction by its nature. That is why I came up with the idea of removing all sections of this talk page for violating the guidelines.

And regarding the edits which can be considered unconstructive, I can tell you one thing: I sincerely think that the list of Pixar shorts needs semi-protection because lately there are IPs that are putting false information, such as claiming that The Adventures of André & Wally B. was released theatrically with Luca, being the latter one my least favourite Pixar film.

In brief words, do you think I should keep improving more on the draft? Do you agree to delete all sections which violate the guidelines from the mentioned talk page? Do you think the list I mentioned deserves semi-protection?--André the Android(talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  1. The draft is definitely improved. It still has the same issues with notability, so I like your suggestion of adding the concept and creation section to the article on the short. I think that yours is better written than the production section in the live article. I would merge in any missing information or perhaps add this as a subsection to the production section if you don't wish to do that. I think that you could also create a section on the short's characters and add the content you've created for André. My only advice there would be to leave out anything unsourced and to make sure that it's not written too in-universe.
  2. With talk page articles, it depends on what is posted. In the case of the Wolfwalkers talk page, that was definitely a huge violation of talk page guidelines. I've gone ahead and cleared it out. The user in question had other talk page violations in the past, so I gave them a small block as a warning. In any case, if you're ever unsure about whether or not a talk page is appropriate, you can always ask myself, another admin, or trusted editor to review it. Thank you for letting me know about that page!
  3. With the page protection, you can always request page protection here. I would first recommend bringing this up on the article's talk page, as the PP request page will look for that as well as how heavily the page is edited. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: Ok, I will answer your responses:
In my idea of moving the content of my draft's "Concept and creation" section to the short film's article's "Production" section, what I came up with was to add as a subsection, as you said before. To do this, I would have to cut or alter these paragraphs:

Pixar was founded on February 3, 1979 under a Lucasfilm division called The Graphics Group. At that time, six of the Computer Graphics Lab employees, including Edwin Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith, were hired by George Lucas.

Development of the short film began on July 31, 1983, when it was tentatively titled Android's Awake and its original plot was about an android gazing at the forest happily after waking up, as well as John Lasseter left Walt Disney Productions and he was hired to work for The Graphics Group.

And then I would paste that part in my own sandbox I will create later. Once it is ready to be transferred to the appropiate article (in this case, the article about The Adventures of André and Wally B.), I cut and paste it again. Meanwhile, the character development part would have to be written differently and it would included a text where it explains how Wally B. was created and the short film's title was eventually changed to the actual one.
As for talk pages, thanks for removing one of the pending tasks I must do... and you're welcome!
And about semi-protection, I didn't know there is a page where anyone can request semi-protection in pages. So I can request semi-protection in case there are more IPs which try to put false information on the list of Pixar short films.--André the Android(talk) 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: I'm glad you liked my idea of moving content to the appropiate page. While I edit this text in the sandbox, I don't know what I should do with the copied text from the draft's "Concept and creation section". But I imagine that in that section of the draft, the text about the short film and its background will be either very brief (in the case of some articles such as Bowsette) or absent (in the case of many articles about fictional characters, such as Pichu and Buzz Lightyear).
And one more thing: about the semi-protection of pages, it seems that the list of Pixar shorts isn't having disruptive edits as of yesterday. So I have decided to ask an admin to render the list of creepypastas semi-protected instead because, despite I am not a big fan of horror fiction, I'm worried that this list would still be vandalized if no one acted.--André the Android(talk) 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @André the Android: With the first point, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking - are you asking if it would be OK that the section would be more about the character than the short? If so, that's fine. The reason I say that is that while it would be more about the character, the character creation is still an important part of the development process. Also, while it would be more about the character, that would only be for now - there's always the possibility of you or someone else coming in and expanding it with additional information. If you're very worried, you can always make this a subsection within the development section entitled "Character creation". This would set it aside as specifically for the character.
For the list, I've given it a week's protection with pending changes enabled. This would allow IPs and new editors to suggest new edits but would require editors who have confirmed accounts (ie, enough time and edits) to accept the proposed changes. It's actually pretty surprising that it hadn't been protected before, to be honest. I can extend the protection once the time period is up and more unhelpful/problematic edits occur. I say when and not if, since the edit history makes it seem pretty obvious that it will continue. We have to work up to the longer page protections with this sort of thing, which can be a bit frustrating, but so it goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: It is exactly what I meant: that the "Concept and creation" section should focus more on the character than on the short film where he appeared. As of January 6, 2020, I currently own a Spanish copy of Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1 (which title is "Los Mejores Cortos de Pixar - Volumen 1", which literally means "The Best Short Films of Pixar, Volume 1" in Castilian Spanish, something the Spanish equivalent of the article about the compilation hasn't put yet) and I was checking if the audio commentary about The Adventures of André and Wally B. said any more information about the character development of André, but it turned out that it didn't say anything but the short film's initial plot, how they modeled the character and how they revolutionized computer generated images. As I move the text where it talks a lot about the development of the short film to my sandbox, I will go looking for some more information (and, of course, sources) about André's character development.
About the newly semi-protected list, thanks for doing it! I have been able to take advantage of it by correcting a word all in lowercase, reverting a (in my opinion) disruptive edit made by an IP in the process. Therefore, this prevents vandals who are either IPs or newly created accounts from editing disruptively the list.
And one more thing, I have observed that, after deleting all the sections of Talk:Wolfwalkers which violated the guidelines, some IPs created new sections which, instead of discussing about improving the article, treated the talk page as a forum.--André the Android(talk) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: Prior to the creation of the sockpuppet investigation, I didn't know that these IPs mentioned in the newly created sockpuppet investigation was used by the same person, despite their similar writing style. And speaking about sockpuppet investigations, I have seen that, in the talk page of the sockpuppeteer StevenBInc, it contains a section full of personal attacks which makes an obvious reference to a subculture of Internet videos which involves grounding, and it was the origin of how he created accounts only for sockpuppetry.
An I discovered that an IP added content claiming that Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins counts as one of Pixar's theatrical films by mentioning it on feature films which aren't being accompanied with a short film. In my opinion, I would say that I disagree with the IP because its edits are not helpful to be honest.--André the Android(talk) 23:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I have had another look on the talk page of the article about Wolfwalkers to see if someone violates a guideline and I found one more sockpuppet from the bookworm-turned-cinephile.
And as for the edit from the List of Pixar short films I mentioned, never mind. I have seen that another IP took care of removing the mention of the direct-to-video animated film from the list.--André the Android(talk) 21:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: You're welcome for thanking me with a barnstar due to finding an user who violates the policies and guidelines. I wanted to comment on some of the edits made by the IPs: I just found out that an IP who makes disruptive edits on anime-related articles has been changing the years where each season started and when it ended in the list of Digimon episodes and films.
And as for my draft, I learned that there is a guideline about naming conventions on articles about characters who appeared on films so I thought that my Pixar-themed draft should be renamed to either "Draft:André (Pixar)" or "Draft:André (The Adventures of André & Wally B.)" according to the naming conventions. What do you think about this possible change on my draft?--André the Android(talk) 18:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Sleetbow

Hello!

I was the original creator of the Sleetbow page that you had moved and deleted. I had originally started that page when I witnessed the rare weather phenomena of a sleetbow - which is an offshoot of a rainbow, that is caused by falling frozen precipitation (ice) instead of the traditional liquid water. It has been documented on few different occasions across the United States, which I would like to also reference. At the time I had not been able to finish my work on the topic. I would like to have this page restored so I can continue to work covering this rare weather phenomena, including adding a background on how and why it occurs, when it was first spotted and documented, and when and where it has been documented since. There are further subcategories for sleetbows, including the possibility to see monochrome ones. I am in fact a degreed meteorologist as well, and would like to continue to document this weather phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeathermanWill (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with Userspace Draft

Hi!

I wrote a response to your post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alohaaimee#Welcome%21 and could really use some guidance in navigating this. I want this article to be as neutral as possible. I'm going to create a Userspace draft, and if you are still willing to proofread to make sure it's sufficient, I'd really appreciate it.

I'm also not sure if I'm doing this talk page thing right, so please advise if needed! Thanks so much.

Alohaaimee (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The Craiglist Killer

Thanks for digging out so many great sources. I did look WP:BEFORE and did not have near the success you did. I appreciate your hard work! BOVINEBOY2008 12:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your kind help and edits on the page I created! Maganolla (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Bibliophile to bibliophile

Unrelated, but as I am about to DYK Now: Zero I am still surprised no RS describes it as an example of breaking the fourth wall. Because it is, isn't it? Unless I misunderstood the concept... PS. Oh yeah, if you need a QPQ, Template:Did you know nominations/Now: Zero is open :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

February flowers

... for what you said to Flyer22 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Luca draft

A poster was released yesterday and, later today, a trailer is expected. Would that satisfy nff for the removal of the redirect? Starzoner (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, a copy-paste move has been done and a new article has been created with an incorrect title Luca (upcoming 2021 film) per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 14#"Upcoming"_redirects. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  • Scotland ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  • Rwanda Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  • Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  • Botswana The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  • Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  • Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  • United States Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  • England Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 04:28:23, 20 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jmkrangers


Response to feedback on declined article submission I was aware that listing the news articles was insufficient for a Wikipedia article. I have some pretty big conflicts of interest with this topic as I stated on my user page but I feel it is important that this article be written. I'm not sure if I should even attempt to write the article because of this but I wonder if a non-biased person would read the links I posted and write it themselves if I post about it on the topic talk pages. Do you think I should just try writing some paragraphs summarizing the news articles despite my conflicts of interest?

Thanks.

Jmkrangers (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @Jmkrangers: I say go for it. The great thing about working at the Articles for Creation process is that it's not a live article (yet, anyway). This means that not only do you have the extra time to work on the article, you can also fix things if there are any issues.
As far as conflicts of interest go, per your userpage it looks like your main COI is that you're part of the church. That's honestly not something that would pose an insurmountable COI as long as you're careful, which you're trying to be. Now if you were involved with one of the cases (survivor, accused, investigator) that would pose a larger COI, however that's also not something that would be insurmountable as long as your work was reviewed by other, uninvolved editors. This brings in another good part of the AfC process, as your work will be reviewed. I'm also more than happy to take a look at it as well, once you're finished. This area isn't totally my forte on Wikipedia, but it's still in my general area of editing enough to where I can be of assistance. I don't think you need to worry a huge amount, I think you will be fine since you're trying to be very mindful about everything. On a side note, if you need general training then these modules may help as might this video guide on using Visual Editor. They're something I like to keep handy. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ReaderofthePack: Thanks for this information and advice ReaderofthePack. You recommended soliticing help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, how exactly do I go about asking for help from them?

Jmkrangers 11:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Time's Arrow (short story)

Nicely done again. Maybe I should send you short story articles for review before I add them :) Anyway, I think this is now eligible for a WP:DYK. Would you like to submit it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @Piotrus: I ended up dePRODing it - I left an explanation on the talk page. I'm still searching and this will likely take up much of the remainder of my night, so I won't be able to get back on until Monday, but offhand I think that there's enough to justify inclusion. Kind of surprised at what I found. This didn't really seem like it had all that it had out there about it. The first search really wasn't promising and didn't really improve much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Time's Arrow (short story)

On 10 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Time's Arrow (short story), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Time's Arrow" from 1950 predicted that paleontologists may learn about dinosaurs by analyzing their footprints before the method was implemented in real science? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Time's Arrow (short story). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Time's Arrow (short story)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Freaked Out" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Freaked Out. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Freaked out until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation, files and others

Hello, I wanted to comment on many things, as this section is a follow-up to "Drafts, talk pages and others" section, which was archived.

First, I wanted to inform you that a possible suspected sockpuppet of the Wolfwalkers fan who violates the talk page guidelines has created a section called "‘Wolfwalkers’ Back To Theaters On Friday, March 19", which contains nothing but the IP's signature. It is obviously that it was evading the block and the mentioned section, like any sections which contains nothing but a signature and a date of when it was created, should be removed.

Also, I wanted to comment something about files, specifically pictures. Today I found in the File:Rayman.jpg a photoshopped selfie of an teen made in WhatsApp, which has no relation to Rayman. I honestly say that it is quite misleading so it should be speedy deleted. The file used to be a picture that served to illustrate how the namesake character was depicted in Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc since May 23, 2009 until September 15, 2009.

Besides, I had told you anything about my Pixar-themed draft. A month ago, I read a guideline about name conventions on film-themed articles and I think my draft should be renamed to either "Draft:André (The Adventures of André & Wally B.)" or "Draft:André (Pixar)".

In brief words, can we confirm that this IP address is a suspect sockpuppet? According to the actual file's deceptive nature, does this file deserve speedy deleted? Do you think my draft deserves to be renamed?--André the Android(talk) 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @André the Android: I've removed the section as a hoax and tagged the IP as a sockpuppet. What I've noticed is that they tend to edit from multiple IPs, so it's not entirely worth blocking the IP since that hasn't really stopped their actions much in the past. I'm going to wait and see if they will post again before protecting the talk page, but I think it's likely inevitable.
With the image, it looks like this image was uploaded in November 2020 so it wouldn't have been the image that was on the page. A look at the page history on Wikipedia shows that there used to be a Rayman (game) image there, but it was deleted because it was unused and there wasn't enough justification for it to be in the article. It's not uncommon with copyrighted characters, to be honest. It looks like it's a selfie of Reynmen, which poses a potential copyright issue so I'll nominate it for deletion on Commons.
As far as the draft name change goes, either would be good but I prefer the shorter of the two. That's more of a personal preference since I don't like long article names, though. I can move this to whichever name you prefer. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: I didn't know that Wolfwalkers is going to be re-released in 4 days. Thanks to one of your contributions, I saw that there are reliable sources that confirm this re-release date.
About the file, I didn't know that the young man from the selfie is actually a notable Internet celebrity from Turkey. If the file didn't pose a potential copyright issue, its name would be corrected into an accurate one (for example, "File:Reynmen.jpg") according to the naming convention about files.
Regarding my draft, I remember that the draft's name was modeled after certain articles about Disney characters (such as Bolt, Megara and six of the twelve official Disney Princesses). I remember that there are some articles about Disney characters which name ends with "(Disney)" instead of "(Disney character)" (for example, Figaro, Iago and Stitch) so I don't know if I will have to change its name to "André (Pixar)". I think in order to reach a consensus, I would need someone (or even myself) to create a section in the draft's talk page in order to vote whether they are for or against the name change.--André the Android(talk) 22:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @André the Android: No worries about not knowing - I was surprised in both cases to find that the hoaxer was correct in this case and that the person was a celebrity. With the draft, you don't need to get consensus since it's your own draft. The only times you really need to get consensus is if it's a live article or it's a draft that many, many people are working on. I think that "André (Pixar)" is a good article name, if you want to change it to that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: Ok. I can move my draft to "Draft:André (Pixar)", but what I don't know is whether to leave a redirect or not. What do you think?
By the way, I wanted to inform you that two IPs who are Spanish speakers have made disruptive edits on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle For Dream Island (BFDI) by turning it into a crude draft which violates many content policies (for example, one of them replaced most of its content with an introduction about the web series about anthropomorphic objects (which I don't mind) and then criticized destructively the animated series). It happened five days ago. I wish I could revert these disruptive edits to its deletion review state, as well as it needs protection.--André the Android(talk) 20:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know! I've reverted the AfD discussion! I'll keep an eye on this to see if they do anything else, since it looks like sockpuppetry might be involved. I've given the IP a short block for the time being. For the redirect question, I generally leave behind a redirect for the most part. It helps when I've linked to it in various places or are more likely to (at least temporarily) remember the original name first. If you don't want one then I can delete the redirect for you.
On a side note, I'm really impressed on how vigilant you are with finding and reporting vandalism and sockpuppetry. You may want to look into getting some of the extended user group statuses at some point, once you feel more comfortable with that. Definitely don't feel rushed - it took me years to feel comfortable with getting any of the extended user groups, as I wanted to make sure that I was comfortable on Wikipedia. But still, you've got a great eye for that area and I want to cultivate that with you! :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, with this edit, I need 281 edits to reach the extended user level. And thanks for praising me for being vigilant.--André the Android(talk) 22:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ReaderofthePack: I was wrong about the number of contributions that I have counted: I wanted to say I needed 251 edits to access extended confirmed user access right.
Now with this correction that I have made, I have 250 edits left to reach that level.--André the Android(talk) 07:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination for deletion

An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America1000 11:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about a book award

Hi ReaderofthePack. Do you happen to know whether the Nautilus Book Awards are legitimate? I've noticed that they charge money to enter and give honours in many different categories. Cheers, gnu57 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Genericusername57: They look a lot like a vanity award. While they don't have 10+ books winning in each category, there are so many categories that generally speaking, the chances of winning something are very high. At 35 categories and 5 winners per category, that's 175 winners total. The entrance fee is also very steep, at $200 per category with only a small discount if you apply early. Their page on how winners are selected is a little vague about who is judging and on their "what winners get" tab they mention publishing, implying that this could be an award. The PDF you linked shows that the winners are for the "2017 season" but specify that it is from "Sept. 2017- Feb. 2018", implying that they likely hold the awards several times each year. This is a common tactic for vanity awards as it allows them to squeeze in as many entries as possible. So if they hold it twice a year that's 350 winners. Assuming that those winners all paid the early bird special, that's about $63,000 in entrance fees. It hits a lot of the hallmarks that SFWA highlight in their vanity/scam award contest article.
Now evidence in their favor would be that some major publishers have submitted their books and list them on their website, plus they do offer a cash award other than just a sticker or some trophy. I also don't see any info about the winners having to pay for their awards either on the website or elsewhere. That doesn't mean that they couldn't just be sending this info privately, but that they don't have it posted on the website is encouraging.
Aside from that, there is very, very little coverage for this award online. The coverage that it does get tends to be the local interest type of coverage, meaning that it's a local paper writing about one of their residents winning the award. There's no coverage of the award itself on its own. I even checked Newspapers.com on this and it's just more of the same, just some light coverage of local interest stories. I don't think that there's even any coverage of outlets listing the award winners. I also noticed that there's not a lot of chatter about the award as far as general blog posts and forums go. There's some, but there aren't a lot of people talking about this award in general. Now the SPS wouldn't be something that would establish notability, but it is a sign that the award is likely non-notable.
So long story short, the award gives off a lot of signs that it's probably a vanity award but there is some evidence suggesting that it may be at least somewhat legitimate. Legitimacy isn't a reason to delete in and of itself, but notability would be and I can't really find anything to suggest that this would be considered a notable award despite it being long running. I'd suggest nominating this for AfD, personally. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very helpful. Cheers, gnu57 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  • Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
  • England Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
  • England Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
  • Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
  • Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hadith of the pen and Paper

If you wish, please help the German version of the article "Hadith of the Pen and Paper". Thanks.

Draft:Imagined_Life

Hi ReaderofthePack,

back in November you reviewed the draft for an article about the "Imagined Life" podcast. Back then you said that with just 1-2 more sources the article would be fine for release. I have now added two new sources and resubmitted the article for review. May I ask you to take a look at it? Thanks a lot in advance.

San Andreas (novel)

Not sci-fi, but, well, a book is a book :) Anything you see to improve this? It was AfD on pl Wikipedia, I started to look for sources to save this, but I am not seeing much to even warrant keeping it here, although it's possible there are some reviews in the newspapers c. 1984-1986? One is cited, but not sure if it is in-depth... PS. Each time I think I found something it is not about this book but about his Goodbye California which mentions San Andreas in its plot... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive_38&oldid=1030987475"