Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.
Yes, IPs can !vote. As with any !vote a closer will give more weight to policy/guideline based arguments. It looks like you did good job by citing NFF and providing an assessment of the sources. S0091 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I wrote an article on James Walkinshaw but saw you had commented on a declined draftspace article on the same topic. I just opened a requested move for my article to take the name from the redirect and wanted to ping you to let you know that was open for comments at James Walkinshaw (Politician). JustinMal1 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry to bother you again, but after the work you guys did on fixing my page, it looks like someone whose first language isn't English made a large number of edits that don't really make sense, as he wrote to me privately afterwards and explained he was trying to help. Don't want to hurt his feelings but would it be possible to just revert it back to how it was two months back when you and the other guys finished with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarrettLBrown (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Barrett after my last edit on May 18th, which was the last major change, there have only been minor updates but those were in May as well. Since May the only edits have been bots making formatting changes/minor updates to citations. Can you tell me the name of the editor to whom are referring? If you do not want to do that publicly, you can email me (see the "Emall this user" in the panel on the right under General). Note, I will not respond via email but I will take a look. I am assuming they did not ask you for money or anything like that. If they did see WP:SCAM. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrettLBrown I got your email. Yeah, those were good-faith edits so there's not a strong reason to roll back and because they are intermingled with other edits, mostly mine, it's not easy to role back. Let's do this, start a new topic on the talk page titled Lead and point out a couple of issues and we can take it from there.
On another note regarding email, you can change your preferences to not allow other editors to email you along with some other options. The default is to allow email which personally I think is problematic. For one, most discussions should take place on-wiki but also allows scammers to email naive new editors. Anyway, if you click on the person icon on the top right, you'll see Preferences, select that and it takes you to User profile. Scroll down a bit for email options. There's also Notifications, last one in the menu, where there are several other options I'm not sure what the defaults are because I changed mine, but you might consider emails when someone edits your talk page and when someone mentions you (it's not clear, but that's when someone pings you like I have done here). S0091 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on June 27. Please help translate.
The Wikimania Hackathon 2025 inviting project ideas.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Wikimania Hackathon 2025: The Wikimania Hackathon 2025 is inviting you to submit your project idea.
WikiWomen* Summit 2025: The WikiWomen* Summit 2025 will take place in a hybrid format on 5th August, the pre-conference day of Wikimania 2025. Register now.
Tech News: Temporary accounts have been rolled out on 18 large and medium-sized Wikipedias, including German, Japanese, French, and Chinese; The CampaignEvents extension has been enabled on all Wikipedias. More updates from Tech News week 27 and 28.
AbuseFilter: AbuseFilter maintainers can now match against IP reputation data in AbuseFilters. IP reputation data is information about the proxies and VPNs associated with the user’s IP address. This data is not shown publicly and is not generated for actions performed by registered accounts.
Favorite Templates: A new feature related to Template Recall and Discovery will be deployed to all Wikimedia projects: a template category browser will be introduced to assist users in finding templates to put in their “favourite” list. The browser will allow users to browse a list of templates which have been organised into a given category tree. The feature has been requested by the community through the Community Wishlist.
Wikipedia App: We have launched an A/B test of tabbed browsing in the Wikipedia iOS app. This feature allows users to open multiple articles in separate tabs, making it easier to switch between topics, explore, and return to previous reading spots. The test is currently running in Arabic, English, and Japanese in selected regions. We’re collecting feedback and plan to make the feature more widely available soon.
MediaWiki: The MediaWiki Platform team has introduced a unified Built-in Notifications system, as part of MediaWiki 1.44, that makes it easier for developers to send, manage, and customize notifications across the platform.
Advocacy: We have created The Wikipedia Test: a public policy tool and a call to action to help ensure regulators consider how new laws can negatively affect online communities and platforms that provide services and information in the public interest.
Wikimedia Research Showcase: The next showcase will center around the theme of "Examining the Impact of LLMs on Knowledge Production Communities" and will take place on July 16 at 16:30 UTC.
Administrative Update to Our Privacy Policies: Following personnel changes, we are removing the name of our former point of contact serving the European Economic Area and the UK for questions and requests related to personal data in the privacy policy and donor privacy policy.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
I have been editing Indian cinema box office articles for a while. Recently, there was some consensus reached regarding the source Pinkvilla WP:PINKVILLA, which I respect. However, both Pinkvilla and Bollywood Hungama have been consistent sources reporting box office figures, and they generally do not over-report numbers. You can refer to this page [1], where both these sources were consistently used. Notably, Pinkvilla often reports the lowest numbers, which suggests it does not inflate figures under producer influence.
If you look at other sources listed under WP:ICTFSOURCES — for example, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, etc.— most of them, although generally reliable, do not conduct their own research to calculate box office figures. Instead, they often rely on producers' tweets, social media posts, or data from trade analysts without independent verification. At times, they even reference unreliable sources like Sacnilk in their reporting.
I can provide many more examples from currently accepted reliable sources that show similar issues.
What do you think should be the consensus regarding the use of these sources, given that so many of them present this problem? I'd appreciate your help in figuring this out. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tonyy Starkk it could be their box office numbers are the only thing for which are they reliable but as I said in the RFC, most of their content is about other topics and the RFC was about Pinkvilla's overall reliability. Per WP:CONLEVEL WikiProjects cannot override broader community consensus so if you want an exception I suggest starting another RFC at RSN specifically about their box office numbers.. S0091 (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not defending Pinkvilla, I am just questioning the reliability of all the other sources in the list. So what could be the solution for this, as all these sources just copy paste the tweets from producers and put up random numbers. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are questions to take to RSN but I think one of the differences is Pinkvilla is not a news organization unlike, say, Hindustan Times. Even so, at the very least WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to all of them regardless. As far tweets and the like, if all they are doing is reposting tweets without any independent reliable analysis, etc. then it is a best a primary source. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091, thanks for your AfC consideration and feedback on Draft:Open Process Automation Standard. The AfC was declined on 2024-09-11 and a response was issued on 2025-03-11. Kindly requesting review and feedback on the response when convenient.
Hi @Bwg21 if you want another review, you need to resubmit it. I do suggest posting a note on the draft's talk page with three (see WP:THREE) sources you believe meet the notability criteria outlined in the decline. If you do that, let me know and I will post a comment on the draft to let the next reviewer know to look at the talk page. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1 states: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The page further states: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline."
The record shows that Boyce "solved a major problem in their academic discipline:" the commuting function conjecture, which had been unproven for 13 years despite the efforts of other mathematicians. Boyce's paper on this, published in 1969, has been cited dozens of times, including 20 citations just in the last 5 years: see https://zbmath.org/authors/boyce.william-m (Note this is a lower bound on the number of citations; it's easy to find papers that cite Boyce but are not counted on Zentralblatt, such as "The Number of Baxter Permutations.")
Boyce's solution was also covered by at least 2 different independent sources: in an article called "A Good Question Won't Go Away: An Example Of Mathematical Research" published in The American Mathematical Monthly in 2014, and in another article "Coincidence Values of Commuting Functions," published in Topology Proceedings in 2009, which also covers some of his later research on the same topic.
Additional evidence of the impact of Boyce's work comes from the numerous papers on the subject of Baxter permutations, which were not well-known until Boyce used them to generate his commuting function conjecture counterexample. In fact, they are called Baxter permutations because that is the name that Boyce gave them, as acknowledged by the "Coincidence Values" article ("Permutations that are w-admissible were renamed Baxter permutations by Boyce [6] who subsequently used them as his main tool toward settling the common fixed point conjecture"), by a paper titled "Baxter Permutations Rise Again" published in the Journal of Combinatorial Theory ("Baxter permutations, so named by Boyce, ..."), and also by Knuth in his "Baxter matrices" paper ("what we now call Baxter permutations were originally called reduced Baxter permutations. See [Boyce paper]").
Boyce is also credited with pioneering the application of Baxter permutations to problems other than the common fixed point conjecture via his paper "Baxter permutations and functional composition." From the paper "The Number of Baxter Permutations," which is cited in the Baxter permutations article: "However, it has recently been pointed out by Boyce [6] that Baxter permutations are of more general significance in analysis than had previously been realized."
"The Number of Baxter Permutations" expands on a sequence of values started by Boyce: "The recurrence for T,(i,j) in (2) was derived in 1967 by one of the authors (R. L. Graham) in response to a query of W. M. Boyce, who had already tabulated the values of B(n) for small values of n (see [Boyce paper])." As noted in the paper, the original Boyce values were published in the original printed edition of the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. The Baxter permutation sequences in the online edition (A001181, A001183, A001185, and A214358) all cite Boyce. (Another sequence, A003125, also cites Boyce.)
Hi @WillisBlackburn a slight but importation clarification, I did not reject the draft; I declined it. A rejection means "no way" while a decline means it needs some type of improvement which is explained in the decline message. Because I reviewed this back in April, I do not recall anything about it. What I suggest is posting what you have here on the draft's talk page then resubmit it. Let me know once you have done that and I will make a comment letting the next reviewer know to look at the talk page. I also strongly suggest posting a note at WT:WikiProject Mathematics requesting someone from the project review the draft. Be concise, though. S0091 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. But I really don't know what I can add to the page.
The decline notice suggests that Boyce is not notable, but according to Wikipedia:Notability, the condition of the article is irrelevant to whether or not the subject is notable: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article ... The current state of the article does not determine notability."
Further, as I explained above, I think the sources *already* establish notability. The sources establish that Boyce solved the common fixed point problem, and there are two independent sources (mentioned above, and included in the sources) that discuss Boyce's work in detail.
Thanks for your comment on the article draft. Is it better to make pages for each individual award first, like the already existing one for the Michigan Author Award? Or to create pages for individual awardees, and link to the List of librarians after approval? Thanks, again, for any assistance. Verdunmh (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the better route may be to create an article about tourism then request the list be merged in to that article. S0091 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091, thank you for reviewing my draft on Space42. I would like to have some clarity on the notability requirements. Could you advise what additional or specific independent sources might satisfy WP:ORGCRIT in this case? I’ve included articles from SpaceNews, The National, and others but would appreciate insight on what’s still missing. Thank you! OmarWikiEdits (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You rejected Draft:Florence Road back in April, which has been resubmitted. I rejected (as you can't resubmit rejects?) and because I still don't see notability but I'm doubting myself a bit so just wondering if you think that was the right thing to do. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GoldRomean I don't recall why I rejected rather than declining to be honest but I can say the sourcing is vastly different now because of the new album they just released. Looking at the history, another experienced editor, Frost, added the submission template which is how the editor was able to resubmit and that's fine. Reviewers make mistakes and things change. @Frost do you recall if you thought it met notability now or weren't sure but thought there was enough it needed a fresh review? S0091 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, I do agree and I have self reverted following a message on my talk page. Honestly I don't know if it's even allowed to add a resubmission template after a rejection but the draft's not that bad now, + WP:IAR, so I guess I'm fine with it :). GoldRomean (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRomean it's fine to allow for resubmission unless it is an editor being disruptive which is not the case here. Same for an editor moving a rejected draft to mainspace. Like I said, reviewers make mistakes. sometimes there are good sources but they were in included in the draft so not clear they meet notability and in this case, sources become available that did not previously exist. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, at the time I didn't review the draft. I'd just created an article for the band's EP and thought it wasn't some unknown promo-only band looking to be published on Wikipedia. Hence, I was surprised by the rejection, but I probably should've brought it to your talk page before adding the template, so apologies. Frost05:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Frost no need to apologize! You did the right thing and no need to discuss it first. My only suggestion, in hindsight, is an edit summary with a brief explanation of why you are adding the submission template. All good! S0091 (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on July 11. Please help translate. The bulletin will be back after Wikimania with a special issue on the 19th August.
Get Ready for Wikimania 2025!
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Strengthening a neutral point of view: An overview of NPOV policies across Wikipedia projects, shows that 153 Wikipedias out of 342 (45%) don’t have easily accessible guidance on neutrality. The research was conducted to help understand how neutrality is ensured in our projects. and to provide an opportunity for peer learning across project communities. Read the full research and join the conversation.
Tech News: See all the 60 community-submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks in Tech News week 29 and 30. For example, the request to add Malayalam fonts in the Wikisource Book Export Tool was resolved and now, the rendering of Malayalam letters in exported Wikisource books are accurate.
Temporary Accounts: After the rollout of temporary accounts on 18 large and medium-sized Wikipedias, we are monitoring the impact of this change, and preparing for the next deployments. See the full project update.
Add a link: Administrators can now limit "Add a Link" to newcomers, as opposed to keeping it open to more experienced editors as well. "Add a link" helps newcomers to start editing, so restricting the feature to them enables Administrators to cater the feature to that specific group, which they can do via the Community Configuration feature.
Equity Fund: As it closes, the Equity Fund has announced its final round of grants to six past grantees. It will also be providing four "Connected Grants" to movement organizations who will pair closely with one of the grantees to collaborate together.
Don't blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
Content Translation: Translators who use the Suggestions feature in the Content Translation tool can now select and receive article suggestions that are customized to geographical locations of their interest using the new "Regions" filter.
Board selection: The Elections Committee shared a list of the all eligible candidates. As there are more than 10 eligible candidates, a shortlisting process is currently taking place. Representatives of Wikimedia movement affiliates that are currently compliant with their reporting obligations can participate in the shortlisting process. Learn more about this process and next steps on Meta.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
I would like to understand the reason of declining the article on Prof. Josie Hughes, to see if I can improve it and get it accepted. It was a huge work to put together this article and if I have to trash it I would like to be convinced that this need to be trashed.
Prof. Josie Hughes is an outstanding person who reached a position and awards hardly achieved at her age, she has outstanding contributions from institutions like MIT and EPFL, and is contributing to gender equality in robotics. She meets (to my knoledge, I cannot check all the point) at least 6 of the 8 criteria mentioned for academic people, and for the other 2 I should make a bit of research, I have not full information on her.
The publication place (the ranking of the journal) shows the importance of the publication. Yes, it is rare that an associate professor can meet the notability criteria. It is also rare to get an IEEE Robotics and Automation Society’s Early Academic Career Award as she got, one of the highest awards for this age. Can I improve the article or the decision is based on the fact that she is associate professor? LeRoboticien (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeRoboticien read the above linked criteria from top to bottom. If she is an IEEE Fellow that would count as would a Nobel Prize. Also note it says if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. (bolding mine). You cannot use publications she authored to support claims of significance regarding her work. S0091 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask why my article on the wargame Turnip28 was declined. The only sources (rulebook and lore) are the Google Drive documents; would there be a way to attach these that would be acceptable? I understand the article did not contain lots of information, but I assumed it would be acceptable for other players to contribute after publishing.
Hi @Gallowsgeese Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan website like Fandom. In order for a topic to warrant inclusion it is needs to meet the the notability guidelines which requires sources that meet all four of the criteria: reliable, secondary, independent and provide in-depth coverage directly about the topic. The draft does not meet that and a Google drive does not meet WP:published. S0091 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! Reading the guidelines, I’m not sure there’s enough material about the game yet to actually meet the requirements.
@Gallowsgeese that happens. It is not uncommon for editors to create drafts while they wait for enough sources to meet notability which can take a while (months and sometimes years). You are welcome to continue to work on it. Draft are deleted 6 months after the last human edit. To keep it around, just make an edit (anything will do, including just a space) but even if it is deleted, you can have it restored. You'll be given instructions how to do that. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know - I’ll make sure to keep it from deleting while I look/wait for sources.
I have one more question, if that’s okay; if I cited suitable sources would it have enough substance and information to be acceptable, or is it in its current state too short? Gallowsgeese (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BBB XY I just declined it again so see my comments. It is so full of AI/flowery cruft it does not resemble an encyclopedia article. S0091 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 27th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 2025! Boy, does it feel good to kick off the year with an issue. Yep, it's been a year since we cleared out the 2022-2024 backlog with issues 23 and 24! Good times. Though in this case "a year" just means... 6 months? 😯 The salience of whatever joke I was planning to make here has vanished speedily. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
WikiTextExpander by Polygnotus, is this edition's featured script. At the click of a configurable hotkey, this script will find and replace or link a configurable list of phrases within the selected text in all source editors (even in the comment/reply field!). Besides allowing the quick insertion of templated messages, this script greatly mitigates the WP:WTF? problem by providing both the legibility of familiar words and the convenience of shortcuts. And to those asking, the capitalization of "Wikitext" as "WikiText" was a necessary sacrifice for far-more-memorable acronymy.
CanonNi: AlertAssistant has been fixed and rewritten using OOUI instead of Twinkle's Morebits. Such modern, very tool. (Do note that the maintainer has since become inactive.)
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader has been updated to use modern JS APIs that replace the browser's URL bar with the link you clicked on to load in place. The "back" (and "forward") buttons also work now. Cool, innit?
andrybak: Unsigned helper no longer shows an error when the message to sign was added in the earliest 50 revisions of a page's history. This is especially relevant to pages with short histories.
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
In breaking m:Tech/News, Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons are now also available. The documentation has examples.
Appo/Globstory integrates OpenHistoryMap, updating the map whenever hovering/clicking on a location or year, the latter of which changes the map to be (hopefully) accurate to the year selected. It's pretty interesting.
linkinfo Somewhat similar to WP:NavPops, Awesome Aasim/linkinfo(pictured) provides a collection of links to replace the right-click context menu, presented beautifully.
PreviousDiscussions provides a link to search for your username on subpages of another user's userpage and talkpage conveniently.
Twineeea/noRedLinks brings you to the "read" instead of the "create" tab when you visit a red link. Contemplate life's mysteries as you stare into the blank! Deeply.
No, this is not going to be the enduring tradition of S++ for the future. This was meant to be a joke for the special occasion on the first day of the fourth month but was delayed by four months because I'm lazy.
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Miscellaneous
New scripts
