User talk:Largoplazo

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

Archive index

Just wanted to say thanks. Azeriking55 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2020

Hello Largoplazo,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hello Largoplazo,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Largoplazo,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

{{Ping|Largoplazo}}

I'm new to editing, so I was not intending on resubmitting without edits. It appears the merge did not work appropriately. The updated submission is in. Apologies. Sabanas1987 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#‎User changing settlement-type to "Capital city": Moxy🍁 06:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a diphthong, calling for /w/" No, it's a diphthong, calling for an asyllabic vowel. Most of the instances I see of 'w' and 'j' at the end of a syllable should actually be asyllabic vowels, which are different from semivowels; in fact, portuguese doesn't even have semivowels, nor does spanish (not at the end of a syllable at least) Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sérgio R R Santos: Are you talking phonetically or phonemically? The Help pages given the conventions that are recommended for use on Wikipedia, which are meant to be somewhat generic. Consistency is a good thing. Largoplazo (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker of portuguese, semivowels don't occur in my language at any level. The reason the symbols "w" and "j" keep beeing used by linguists to describe portuguese phonology is because they don't understand the diference between asyllabic vowels and semivowels; it took myself a long time too to understand the difference, but it's quite simple: semivowels ( 'w', 'j', and 'ɥ'), in languages that have them, behave phonemecaly like consonants while asyllabic vowels (u̯ i̯ y̯) behave phonemicaly like vowels. For instance, the portuguese word 'pai' (father) is pronounced [pai̯] and not [paj], that's how the french word 'paille' is pronounced. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very funny, both the notion that linguists, of all people, the people whose job it is to understand these things, and who are trained to do so, don't understand a concept from the field of linguistics and the concept that native speakers of a language are more likely to understand its phonology than linguists who study it from a linguistic perspective do.

Be that as it may, I'm not doubting what you say as to what the actual phonemes or their realizations are. However, it's been my understanding that the motivation here is to keep the representation simple, avoiding symbols with less-known diacritics like u̯ i̯ y̯, unless a given language has both features and needs separate representation for them. Also, I see my premise was correct only for English: at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, it says that for languages other than English, phonetic transcription is normally used.

I'm not going to pursue it if you change it back, but in case anyone else takes issue with your version, it might be worthwhile to see if it's been discussed before at the talk pages of any of the pages I've linked to. Largoplazo (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is funny that professional linguists fail to understand some simple concepts of phonology, like the distincion between vowels and semivowels, as opposed to a guy like me who learned about it on wikipedia. The way you phrased it makes me think that you find me a bit arrogant and that i think i know better than linguists; however, linguistics, and phonology in particular, is not rocket science. We're not talking about surgery or astrophysycs, like i said i learned it through wikipedia (over a few years) - in fact, if it wasn't for wikipedia i don' know if i would ever get interested in linguistics. And yes, being a native speaker of a language gives you a significative advantage in describing said language provided you have at least some decent knowledge of linguistics.

Regarding "avoiding symbols with less-known diacritics like u̯ i̯ y̯", you could argue that most IPA symbols are unknown to most people, so, there's that.

"unless a given language has both features and needs separate representation for them" - well, english just happens to be one of those languages.

Regarding your last point i will check those pages and probably will have to start the discussion myself.

To finish, i don't think that symbols like u̯ i̯ are particularly "less-known" or difficult to understand, since they are regularly used in the description of english, so if you don't mind i'd like to revert your changes

Cheers. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I said it was funny, I meant it was absurd for you to think that. Who other than linguists do you think developed these concepts so that Wikipedia could report them? Who do you think wrote the works that Wikipedia cites to support them? Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read anything I wrote besides that? You are talking about the general history of linguistics (of which I made no mention), and I agree with what said about that; what I'm talking about is the correct phonetic description of a specific language. I mean, what's even the point of coming up with a whole phonetic alphabet with specific symbols for each sound, and then not use it properly? Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Largoplazo, I need a third opinion on a subject, discussed on my talk page: Strict logic offers a new perspective. In fact, it comes up with new solutions. It focus on the principle if identity and the principle of limitation. Its goal is a whole new logic, without antonomies and paradoxies. It can help readers to understand reality. Over many years of experience it paves a new way to reach problems. Experts on the field noticed a lack in other logical theories. Using this emerging theory will disrupt old ideas. It paves the way of a whole new understanding. Greetings, 123qweasd (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@123qweasd: How would I be the source of a third opinion when I'm the one who proposed deleting the article? My original opinion was "Non-notable theory from a non-notable book by a person who may not be notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, with no suitable coverage found via Google." Wikipedia isn't a forum for proposing new theories, regardless of the merit someone considers them to have. It's for presenting solid information on topics that are deemed notable. In the case of a theory, this would mean having received substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But i think, i tried my best. Obviously reading the version of syllogism is too much asked for. (As relating to the subject, is a minimum aquirement of every information) 123qweasd (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• requirement not aquirement

123qweasd (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Largoplaza, I was browsing Special:NewPagesFeed and came across this new article Pini Althaus. I'm almost certain it's some sort of promotional article but I can't really tell why. The whole thing seems kinda wordy and I can't seem to grasp exactly who this article is about, what it is they do or why they're notable. Just came across your telltale signs of candidates for deletion and thought to stop by and ask for your opinion on this. One of your signs is ... over X years of experience ...- well, the Pini Althaus article has that in the first line! Any ideas? Thanks Limmidy (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Limmidy: Hi, I took a look at it and found that someone's already done what I would have done: marked it as promotional and moved it to draft space at Draft:Pini Althaus. The person does seem to be notable, so it would be reasonable to have a neutral article about the person, but not a glorification like that on! I appreciate your referencing my rules of thumb. I should add a Biography section that makes heavy use of "under his leadership", "during his tenure", etc., attempting to cast every achievement by an organization as a direct accomplishment of the article's subject. Largoplazo (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: Hahaha so glad I reached out! Thank you. Limmidy (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions about creating a new article, send me your email Zayn Hesham (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Largoplazo, just thought I'd doublecheck if you actually do want to put all that personal information on Talk:Mauritius. You don't seem to have it on your user page, and article talkpages feel qualitatively more public than userspace or Wikipedia space. Best, CMD (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I appreciate the note. Yeah, my intent was to supply the background that Varoon and I had already had a discussion and that I'd laid out my reasoning. I'm not so concerned from a privacy standpoint but even so the amount of that discussion that isn't on-point would distract from the core points so it's a well that I don't direct attention to the whole conversation. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]