User talk:PK-WIKI

An article you recently created, John Burrows (architect), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI

Thank you for creating Davis Slough.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Burrows (architect), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1995 college football season. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 1956 college football season and 1957 college football season.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Burrows".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your recent edits on AP Trophy where you list the various trophies awarded over the years. However, it stops in 1965. Do you know the name of the trophy from 1966–present? Oluwasegu (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwasegu I've so far been unable to find any citations that show the "win 3 times to retire the trophy permanently" tradition carried on in 1966+. I would assume that in 1966 they started awarding individual (non-traveling) AP trophies, but haven't found a citation for that either.

By my calculations the next "3 time" winners would have been: Notre Dame 1977, Miami 1989, Florida 2008, Alabama 2012, Alabama 2020.

For the individual trophy years I'd like to track the design of the trophy; the wooden 1990s one in the infobox picture was replaced by a silver or gold one at some point, etc. Not sure what the early ones look like. Pictures of the early traveling Dickinson and AP trophies would great for Wikipedia too.

At some point the AP Trophy was possibly renamed the "Bryant" trophy but I'm not sure if that's the current name of the AP Trophy.

The award was known as the AP Trophy from 1957-83, when it was renamed the Paul Bear Bryant Trophy.

Any help on AP Trophy is much appreciated. I also want to create a page (or section at Coaches' Trophy) for the early UP / UPI trophies, which existed much earlier than the crystal football but have almost no coverage on wikipedia or the internet.

PK-WIKI (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PK-WIKI: I'm inclined to have it read AP Trophy (1957–present). I found on this site, 2 images of Nebraska's AP trophies from 1970-71, this image of Bryant receiving the AP trophy in 1978, and this image of Colorado's AP trophy from 1990 (which matches the infobox pic from Michigan 1997). The source you provided states that it was called the AP Trophy from 1957-83 (I can't find any other sources referring to the trophy as the Bryant Award). Oluwasegu (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwasegu:

• I don't think the 1970 and 1971 Nebraska awards shown here are the actual AP Trophies... I think those are separate plaques that are given alongside the award. The 1971 award even shows the trophy as an engraving on the plaque. The design of that engraved trophy image closely matches the design of the 1957–1965 trophy permanently won by Alabama. Many traveling trophies give permanent smaller awards or plaques to each year's winner.
• The fact that the Nebraska trophy case only contains the plaques and not an actual trophy supports the idea that a new traveling trophy was put into play for 1966 following the retirement of the original AP Trophy. The next 3 time winner of that AP Trophy would have been Notre Dame in 1977... and their trophy case contains a trophy that's identical to the 1957–1965 trophy. I think we can safely assume there was a 1966–1977 traveling AP Trophy permanently retired by Notre Dame. Confirmed here in this 1979 article.
• The Alabama "1" trophy for 1978 seems to be some kind of stunt put on by Good Morning America... they awarded identical "1" trophies to both Alabama and USC. Don't know what that year's AP trophy looks like, but that is definitely not the USC 1978 UPI Coaches Trophy.
• The first "AP Trophy" (1957–1965) was apparently re-named as the "Paul W. Bryant Trophy" upon the Tide retiring it with 3 wins. (I believe I'm reading that correctly, and it's the just-retired trophy that was named for Alabama. Not the next trophy...?)
• It was heavily reported that Miami 1983 won the first AP Trophy to be renamed the Paul "Bear" Bryant Trophy, after the coach's death in early 1983.

I'll post some of this to AP Trophy and Talk:AP Trophy as well. PK-WIKI (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The News Tribune Sun Nov 23 2008 Huskies Coug It Apple Cup.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northwest Championship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Newtothisedit -- Newtothisedit (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the recently added Historic occurrences table under College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, what exactly are you counting as a de facto matchup? Only matchups that feature No. 1 vs. No. 2? Had No. 1 Texas def. No. 5 Notre Dame in the 1977 Cotton Bowl, the Longhorns would've been named national champions by default. But since Notre Dame was voted consensus champion by both major polls should this be included? You can also make an argument that the 1971 Game of the Century b/n No. 1 Nebraska vs. No. 2 Oklahoma was for the Coaches title (which voted before bowls) and the subsequent Orange Bowl b/n No. 1 Nebraska and No. 2 Alabama was for the AP title (voted after the bowls). I'm just looking for clarification before others (including myself) contribute to the table/section. Oluwasegu (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwasegu: I see the list as having two inclusion requirements:

1. Described as such by WP:R sources. Needs language such as "national championship game", "will play for the title", "national championship will be decided", "the winner will claim the title", etc.
2. Both teams having legitimate/assured shots at the title if they win, and knowing that as they are playing.

End-of-season No. 1 vs. No. 2 would always(?) qualify, but is definitely not a requirement.

The 1966 Orange Bowl (No. 3 vs. No. 4) definitely qualifies, as No. 1 and No. 2 had already lost earlier in the day. The teams also knew there would be a post-bowl AP Poll, although that isn't a full requirement (due to other selectors and/or claims).

I don't know the full particulars of the 1978 Cotton Bowl Classic, but a brief glance seems to indicate that would not qualify as a NCG because No. 3 Alabama had a claim and there was no real reason for No. 5 Notre Dame to believe they would jump to No. 1 with a win. But the timing of the games and contemporary sources need to be examined.

That 1971 Nebraska team playing in two(!) NCGs is a great example and yes, seems like both should be included. I'm sure there will be a certain amount of "weirdness" in this list, but that's what makes college football special.

Thanks for your help in adding to this list. A collection of these historic NCGs is important for the article, as these are the games that administrators of the Coalition/Alliance/BCS used as precedent for setting up their own guaranteed national championship games.

PK-WIKI (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PK-WIKI: RE: 1975 Rose Bowl: reliance on the result of the 1975 Orange Bowl ---> In that case, the 1966 Orange Bowl needs to be removed b/c it relied on both the 1966 Rose Bowl and 1966 Cotton Bowl Classic for it to be a NCG. The Orange Bowl in those days was always scheduled in the evening, and so the two participants in Miami knew whether they had a shot based on the bowl results earlier in the day. Suppose the 1975 Rose Bowl and 1975 Orange Bowl swapped kickoff times (Orange in afternoon; Rose in evening)? Would that qualify as a NCG then? Unless a bowl matchup featured #1 vs #2, every team ranked in the Top 5 knew they had a shot at the NC (heading into NYD) if they won their bowl game, plus reliance on other results. If a match-up has (1) NCG implications in the pre-game w/ sources, and (2) BOTH teams had legit shots at a NC as you indicated then it should be included. The fact of the matter is that the winner of the 1975 Rose Bowl (OSU or USC) would've won the Coaches/UPI NC Trophy.

As far as the 1977 Sugar Bowl, history tells me that UGA "had a shot" since No. 2 Michigan lost their bowl game. The AP voters vaulted No. 5 Notre Dame in 1977 and No. 5 Miami (FL) in 1983 to the top spot, with No. 2 losing (Oklahoma, Texas) and No. 3 winning (Alabama, Auburn) on NYD respectively. As far as 1976, UGA might gotten at least a "share" by either the AP/Coaches Polls and vaulted to No. 1, with No. 2 Michigan losing and No. 3 USC winning just like 1977 and 1983. So clearly the AP wouldn't mind voting for UGA if they pulled off the upset against Pitt. Oluwasegu (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reliable sources

Every inclusion needs WP:R sources calling the game a "national championship game" or using substantially equal language.

"National championship implications" isn't enough. That describes a good Bowl Game, not a National Championship Game.

I think overall these are going to be No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchups, or close equivalents with a good explanation of why it's a NCG.

It's definitely not accurate to ipso facto call any bowl game won by the eventual national champion a "national championship game".

2. Timing

The 1966 Orange Bowl No. 3 vs. No 4 is included because it's described as a NCG in reliable sources. The timing of the No. 1 and No. 2 losses was essential... it's what made sportswriters call the game a NCG. The two teams knew they were playing for the national championship due to the losses earlier in the day. At that point it's essentially the same as a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup.

Yes, the Orange Bowl being played in the evening is "unfair". The Orange Bowl might produce more NCGs as a result. But that's the way it was, and the timing of the games is essential.

I don't think you will find sources calling the 1975 Rose Bowl a NCG because while that game was being played, Coaches No. 1 Alabama was still unbeaten.

3. Reliance on selectors

A national championship game is one where the national championship is determined/claimed on the field. That's what makes NCGs so unique/desirable in college football, vs. the normal situation of waiting for a selector to award the title. That's why the sport has been attempting to always have a national championship game since 1992.

In a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup, the "final poll" is a formality. The selector set up the game as No. 1 vs. No. 2, so the winner will be that selector's national champion. It's determined and claimed on the field. (Other selectors are of course free to select a different national champion.)

The 1977 Sugar Bowl can't be a NCG because it relies on No. 5 Georgia jumping the winner of the No. 2 vs. No. 3 1977 Rose Bowl. I'm not saying that can't happen. A win vs. No. 1 is big and they might have jumped from No. 5 to No. 1. It's happened in the past. But it relies on the AP voters and is announced days later. It could go either way.

Both teams in a NCG "control their own destiny". When you win a NCG you know you're the champion. That's what defines a NCG @ Oluwasegu. It's stronger than "have a shot", despite me writing that above :)

PK-WIKI (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PK-WIKI: Should the 1963 Rose Bowl and 1964 Cotton Bowl Classic be included? Yes I know the AP did not consider bowl results, but it is very likely that winner would've received the FWAA Grantland Rice national championship trophy (which voted AFTER the bowls). OR is this table only considering NCG based on the AP/Coaches?? Oluwasegu (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwasegu I would say those most probably are. All selectors should be considered, and even no-selector "self-claims" should probably considered if the NCG is what gives them the reason for the claim.

But as with all of these, the real test is finding mentions of them being NCGs in reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Los Angeles Times article reads: "The national championship was at stake - USC was ranked No. 1 and Wisconsin No. 2..." and this Washingtonian article reads: "the Middies (Navy) in that year's Army game–an invitation to the Cotton Bowl and a chance to play Texas for the national championship." Oluwasegu (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished reviewing your good article nomination for Northwest Championship. I left a few comments to fix and once changed I can pass the article. Newtothisedit (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newtothisedit Thank you! I responded on the article talk page. PK-WIKI (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northwest Championship you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Northwest Championship for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Newtothisedit -- Newtothisedit (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a state championship for Roosevelt in the Metro League page. I believe the championship you are thinking of is the Tukey Bowl, not the state championship. On 11/28/1963 Roosevelt beat Chief Sealth 33-0. Chilcokr (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I read that as a list of Metro League Football Champions, not a list of State Champions from the Metro League.

Source added. @Chilcokr feel free to delete if Roosevelt did not qualify.

I would like to create a page for the Turkey Day Game (Seattle), which is what brought me to that page in the first place. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times published a list of the Metro League state championships in the March 25, 1998 edition with the article titled "METRO LEAGUE STATE CHAMPIONS". It was a useful resource for this Wikipedia page. I like your idea of making a page for the Turkey Day Game. That used to be a really big event in Seattle. Chilcokr (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northwest Championship you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Northwest Championship for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Newtothisedit -- Newtothisedit (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this back. Happy to discuss, but the major media outlets refer to it as descriptive rather than proper noun. Examples:

• The New York Times uses lower case here
• Boston globe here.
• Washington Post here.
• ESPN here
• Los Angeles Times here
• Chicago Tribune here

Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a move request at Talk:NCAA transfer portal, let's discuss there. PK-WIKI (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious and probably dumb and naive to you, but why is this even listed in the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision? Please enlighten me. Demrep (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both teams played in the highest level of college football until the Gaels team was disbanded in 1951. The table for "top level competition" is currently labeled "NCAA Division I FBS" but also represents previous top-level play.

Saint Mary's brought back lower-level football in the 70s/80s but (as far as I'm aware) never played Oregon during that time. If the teams did ever meet during that time, I'd support moving the rivalry into the Rivalries involving FBS and FCS teams table instead. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. At the minimum, I learned St Mary's, like Gonzaga, used to field a top-level football team until circumstances dictated otherwise. Appreciate the response and continue the good work you do here on Wikipedia. Demrep (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they won the 1939 Cotton Bowl! Yes, very interesting. Gonzaga is another old football team that could use more coverage on wikipedia. I have no ties to Saint Mary's but I'll probably end up writing their rivalry article with Santa Clara too if no one beats me to it. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northwest Championship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northwest Championship for comments about the article, and Talk:Northwest Championship/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Newtothisedit -- Newtothisedit (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jack Gunter, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jack Gunter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Gunter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jamiebuba (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. Thank you for your work on Art Hansen. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the stub article on Art Hansen. The article can be improved by adding more biographic information about his life, his work, exhibitions and collections. I've added two museum collections to insure that he meets notability for artists WP:NARTIST. Please consider continuing to improve the article. Thanks again for your contributions!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, when deleting a redirect is an expected result of a move of an article or draft to that same name, it need not be listed at RfD. The RM or RM/TR is sufficient. Cheers! UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gunter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jack Gunter, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI,

This article was going to be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion after it was just moved to main space without any improvements being made to the article. I moved it back to Draft space to prevent its deletion. I thought you were going to work on improving the article before submitting it! I won't be around to "save" this article next time so please do not move it to main space if it is identical to the article that was just deleted at AFD. I'm disappointed that you just submitted it to AFC after I bothered to restore it for you without making any changes to the article. I think I'm done with this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Oh... I didn't realize you were were expecting me to make improvements to the article before submitting to AFC. IMO the article already clearly meets WP:GNG with its current citations (and was wrongly deleted via AFD). So I just submitted it to AFC after the draft was restored. I was expecting it to take several weeks, not a one-day turnaround.

Note that I didn't move it to mainspace myself.

I thought the proper process was to submit to AFC. @The AFC reviewer who approved it seems to agree that the article's current citations meet GNG... I thought that would "undo" the AFD mark against it. Does the AFC reviewer's approval mean nothing in this situation? Not sure how this works.

I will work on the article some more, but like I said the article already has 8 citations meeting GNG. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry for the confusion. I accepted your draft and do believe it meets the GNG. The concern being brought forth is that it is identical content to something that was deleted by AFD. There are many reasons that an article can get deleted and the GNG is not always the trump card when considered deletion and we do need to respect that. I reviewed your edit history when I reviewed the article. I made my decision based on that and my review of the article. If you can rewrite or rephrase it I'd be happy to support you however I can. Sorry for the confusion. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Litkenhous Ratings

added links pointing to 1956 college football season, 1957 college football season, 1958 college football season and 1959 college football season

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gridiron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to include page numbers for book and journal sources, such as the ones added to Stanwood, Washington. The Oregon Quarterly source did not include mention of Pearson or his connection to Stanwood, which needs to be made explicit to be worth including. Also, long quotations are still not appropriate for most uses, and may constitute a copyvio. SounderBruce 23:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Snow Goose Produce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:NCORP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snow Goose Produce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow Goose Produce until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SounderBruce 04:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raiders–Seahawks rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiders–Seahawks rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PontiacAurora (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jack Gunter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Adam Friedland Show is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adam Friedland Show (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raiders–Seahawks rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiders–Seahawks rivalry (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PontiacAurora (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deke Houlgate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Stop de Kindermoord, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Deke Houlgate".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Skallas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Skallas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Governors' Trophy Game you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Governors' Trophy Game for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for reviewing. You said:

"The page is very short to the point where its completeness comes into question (WP:GACR 3a). It is a nice page, but it's also unclear what more could be said."

But WP:GACR 3a states:

"it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics"

So I don't really think short articles should be quickfailed, especially when "it's also unclear what more could be said." Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

PK-WIKI (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Stanwood, Washington, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. SounderBruce 23:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theo Baker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Baker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Theo Baker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that reporting by Theo Baker, a freshman student journalist, led to the resignation of Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theo Baker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Theo Baker), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Walk or bike has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Walk or bike until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stanwood, Washington shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SounderBruce 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this; 3RR respected and informative edit messages written by both sides.

I guess I reverted what I would call obvious vandalism for a 4th revert, which I see you also reverted.

Would appreciate your take on the Lushootseed in infobox and lead.

19:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) PK-WIKI (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you are the wrong person to talk to this about, but i found you on the Seahawks-Broncos rivalry talk page

I think a Chiefs-Bills rivialy page should be made. Even before Mahomes-Allen, the two teams had history with each other in the 90s and obviously now it adds more fuel and reason to add to the history. I think a page should be a made, do you agree MichaelFansz (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know too much about that rivalry or if it exists. The story below might be useful:

• https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-buffalo-news-buffalo-fans-in-kansas/131255820/

PK-WIKI (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PK-WIKI. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WakeyLeaks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WakeyLeaks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Andre🚐 03:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Jaahnavi Kandula is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jaahnavi Kandula until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Kailash29792 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. Thank you for your work on The Eufaula Tribune. 9H48F, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I am not sure this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. But having read WP:NEWSNOTE to note how this paper meets a few of these guidelines and understanding the importance of articles of newspapers to establish notability within Wikipedia, I'm not marking it PROD or AfD. I recommend building this article out further to better establish its notability to the casual reader.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|9H48F}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

9H48F (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PK-WIKI. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The New York Times College Football Rankings, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1906 college football rankings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this ranking is a notable one.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article High school basketball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High school basketball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 04:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Helfrich.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of roundabouts in Washington (state) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There are thousands upon thousands of roundabouts in the world (as the article states, 430 in Washington state alone), no idea why we would want to list them all. What's next, list of level crossings?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of roundabouts in Washington (state) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roundabouts in Washington (state) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise you are now at 5RR since 03:45 (UTC) today.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Each of those is a revert for WP:3RR. You might want to self-rv. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the Talk page, these are reverts of a contentious BLP item "poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy" and falls under Wikipedia:3RRBLP. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that only applies to content that is "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" which doesn't apply to your edit. I've just noticed that an admin has said the same thing to you on the article talk page, which I didn't see previously. You would definitely be blocked if you were taken to AN3. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content IS poorly sourced: it's stating in WP:WIKIVOICE what the reliable third party sources attribute only to a press release by the subject of the article.

Per WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I have no problem with the content of the press release being added to the article, but it must be attributed to the WP:ABOUTSELF self-published source and not stated in wikivoice.

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you that won't wash at AN3. The rule is about protecting the subject. You're making the text, from the subject's perspective, more not less controversial. But I've got no dog in this fight - not my concern. I thought you'd done it inadvertantly. Your funeral, as they say. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PK-WIKI. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PK-WIKI,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you a member of WikiProject AfC, and/or do you have the AfC helper script installed? 2025 College Football Playoff National Championship was a pending AfC draft, and I tagged the base title for G6 speedy-deletion to make way for an afc-move. As this was an accepted AfC title, you need to be notifying submitters when their AfC drafts are accepted and listing it as such on the talk page, instead of removing all connections to AfC after moving the page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. 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) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]