User talk:Largoplazo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for participating[edit]

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

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello Largoplazo,

New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

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.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022


  • 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.


Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif

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!

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or 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.


Hi. It is simply useless to talk to him, because he has a long history of vandalism, sockpuppetry and wrong contributions to Wikipedian articles. Scheridon (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The city of Banjul has a dry-winter tropical savanna climate. The humid season in that place is the summer. So, the information (Aw) is correct. He changed to As (dry-summer tropical savanna climate). Totally absurd! Scheridon (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, there is A LOT wrong with it, in fact most of it is crap. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, Largoplazo![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 04:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help on the Bogota article.[edit]

Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated! 2600:4040:2A94:4000:19BB:2A55:E762:F435 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello Largoplazo,

New Page Review queue December 2022

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
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

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.

  • 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.

Talk page conventions...[edit]

Hello there - you've inserted your comment within someone else's comment. You should place it at the end of their comment. :) here regards, --Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Merbabu: Oh, thanks for catching that. Fixed. Largoplazo (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On footnotes and whether they link to Wikipedia articles or to URLs.[edit]

Hello! Thank you for the comment in your edit summary.

The reason why I believe in linking Wikipedia articles primarily over the citations in the templates is because Wikipedians need to examine the books themselves and their reputations, which are often apparent in reviews (especially scholarly book reviews). The way of doing that is to have Wikipedia articles on the books that serve two purposes:

  • Being a Wikipedia article about the book itself
  • Being a central clearing house about information about the work internally for Wikipedia purposes: the articles themselves summarize what the scholars wrote about the book, and the talk pages can contain additional notes on observations about the books seen in book reviews.

One example of a Wikipedia article serving that purpose is The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. People may cite the sections of Hmong history in this book without examining where that information comes from. The author revealed her source of info was Hmong: History of a People. That work was criticized by later scholars of Southeast Asian history, and lacks footnotes. By having that sourcing information on Wikipedia, readers can see that the sourcing is flawed. And instead of having to track down scattered talk page discussions, readers can just go on the article of The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down and see it all right there.

I would however prefer that the templates are re-engineered so that they can handle both a wikilink and a URL at the same time (the URL could be relegated to a "read online" link). WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WhisperToMe: I appreciate what you're saying. But if linking that way was the primary intent, then references would be easy to create to make that happen. The fact that you had to jump through hoops to get a link to the actual source at all, and were able to do that only because there happened to be a page number that you could link, should be a fair indication that that isn't what's intended. Certainly, the main purpose of a reference is to validate the article's content, not to validate itself.
Besides that, it's only an unusual happenstance that a cited source is itself the subject of an article. It's not as though we can rely on that in general as a basis for assessing reliability. That purpose is better served by noting the author and the website or publisher where the reference was published. Those can be wikilinked without any trouble. Largoplazo (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Academic books frequently have reviews written about them in academic journals, and multiple book reviews mean WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS are met. In my experience many, many academic books could potentially have Wikipedia articles written about them. Also for general layman books, Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus Reviews (except for self-published books that have paid-for reviews), and various newspapers often have reviews of such (though there are cases where articles can't be written because not enough RS reviews exist about the book). For layman books it may be a tossup, but IMO it's good to have an article written about the book if one can.
As for validating the content versus validating the book itself, I see validating the book as an inherently important step in validating the content. If say Joe cites The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down but does not read about The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, Joe may believe that he's validating the content about say Sonom being a Hmong king. But if he reads the criticism of Hmong: History of a People (which The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down relies on for sourcing), Joe may find out that he in fact did not validate the content at all: his sourcing is shaky.
Even for books that are generally well written/generally reliable, minor errors of fact do occur; authors are human, after all. I have seen published book reviews document minor errors of fact (and I myself refer to such in talk pages of Wikipedia articles on books). Having Wikilinks of articles about books make Wikipedians consider this aspect.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have millions of references to articles within online journals and news sources. Those articles and individual articles are never going to be the subject of a Wikipedia article.
If the user has little chance of finding a link to the material that validates the content, then there's no point validating the source that we're making it very difficult for the reader to see, and no point in having it at all. Further, there are many of use reviewers are notice sources on their way in and are validating them then. Every reader isn't going to go through the same exercise, nor do they want to. Largoplazo (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is true a journal article itself or a news article itself is not likely going to be the subject of a Wikipedia article (though its author may be, and the journal itself, newspaper, TV channel, etc. often is). However Wikipedia does rely on books as a significant part of its sourcing diet. I feel that making wikilinks for book articles more prominent is doing what I can do in that regard.
If the concern is that a wikilink would make it harder for the reader to find a general way to read the book online, one solution could be to link all external ways to read the book (such as Internet Archive, DeGruyter, JSTOR, Project MUSE, etc. and maybe Google Books book previews) in the external links section of the book's Wikipedia article. I also notice FRwiki has a specific "lire en ligne" links for URLs on citations (example: fr:Québec#Bibliographie), and so having such in my opinion still highlights the URL enough for the casual reader.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#In_citations_of_books,_should_wikilinks_or_URLs_have_primacy? to raise the issue to a wider audience. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a reasonable approach. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] (talk · contribs) was refactoring numerous film-related articles. After checking a number of references, I simply reverted everything. The anon is now blocked for three months.
I see "mixed to negative" (or positive) a fair amount in viewing edits for wp:RCP. I've assumed it means "mixed trending toward the negative". Not sure how to verify such a statement. I don't have any investment in the film. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright revdel[edit]

Hi, Largoplazo. You quite rightly posted a request for revision deletion in the article Bobotie, and I have now done that. Thanks for flagging it. However, I thought it worthwhile mentioning that it's best to remove the copyright infringing material from the current version of the article, as well as requesting revision deletion.JBW (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now seen that you did that at Jalebi, so I guess it was probably just an oversight not doing it at Bobotie. JBW (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JBW: Oh, my, yes, I customarily revert such additions before posting the tag, it was an oversight. Thanks for catching/mentioning it! Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Greetings Largoplazo, I apologize for not making clear my reason for asking the talk question regarding Starlink and Kiribati. I authored and have occasionally monitored and updated the section re telecommunications capabilities available to the country, which is a crucial aspect of daily life in the Gilbert Islands. It can be hard to get current information since I no longer have contacts in-country. Regards, and thanks for your patrol work. Zatsugaku (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zatsugaku: Ah, that explains the relevance. But, while I understand you were seeking the information, talk pages aren't meant to be used to ask general questions about their articles' topics, only for discussions of the state of and improvements to the article. Largoplazo (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. And another apology for not noticing your kind note on my Talk. I've been offline for 18 months and the Articles for Improvement messages have been piling up. (Not to mention a hundred or so watched pages not being watched.) It turns out that I initially missed a signifiant new article on the topic of Starlink and Kiribati and so I now have the information I need to improve the section. Zatsugaku (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes this tool "private"[edit]

You have removed external links added by me to tools on this page, saying that they are "private." What does this mean? They are webapps that do not require any signup or payment to use. Some of these EL sections contained other simmilar tools for a long time before they went offline, which was pretty useful. (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:EL and WP:NOTLINKFARM for guidance. Also, see WP:BRD about not restoring additions that have been removed without opening a discussion, as you did here, and trying to gain consensus before restoring your contribution, as you didn't do. And, in general, don't be dishonest and show bad faith by claiming that I hadn't given a reason for my reversion, and by giving the impression that I'd been unresponsive because I hadn't responded to you within 10 minutes of your having posted your message to me above. Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologise for my hastiness: I was frustrated after being accused of spamming. Neither of the pages you linked explain what "private" means or suggest that links to relevant web tools should be avoided. I think this discussion shows consensus that such tools are useful on the page where I re-reverted you (not consensus for this specific tool, but all of the previous ones are defunct). I'm unsure how BRD applies here when my original edit was based on precedent and not particularly bold. (It might apply on the pages that didn't have the precedent of including such tools, but on those I did not restore my edits.) Across your edit summaries, the only justifications I see are that I'm spamming and that "private tools" should not be included. (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. After asking at the help desk, I still don't see what makes a tool private, or why some (all?) tools should not be linked in EL sections (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]