Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Could you make them for Richard Honeywood and Alexander O. Smith? Might work with Axem to get these to GA! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Done! Sorry I haven't been helping out more beyond these wikignome tasks; unless the stars align Covid-related changes have been destroying my energy for WP projects. I have an FAC and an FLC pending my response for over a week now... anyways, feel free to keep throwing these at me, I'm happy to do quick, accomplish-able tasks to keep this project rolling. --PresN 03:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Worry not! I know you have an FAC at the very least, that takes a lot of minding, and as it’s part of your ancient video game history project, it does rank above bringing C’s up to be B’s (at least for now :) It will be great to get you back at some point too though! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you do these too? Motomu Toriyama and Ryuji Sasai? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. --PresN 06:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

First off, congrats on your constant work on early video gaming. Second, I was wondering if this article qualifies for the Early history of video games topic. GamerPro64 05:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Yeah, it's a 1964 game, and the topic is basically "all video games 1971 and earlier", so it should be in the topic. I've nominated it for GAN, so once that passes I'll do a supplemental nom for the topic. --PresN 06:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sumerian Game 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 Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The article The Sumerian Game 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:The Sumerian Game for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I just noticed the introduction at WP:Featured lists seems to have been changed to "god dog religions had expired". It seems to run pretty far back in the history, so I'm not sure if it's a template causing that error. As you are a coordinator, I thought I'd drop it here, cheers. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kosack: It wasn't far back, it was in the lead template: [1]. Now sorted. Thanks! --PresN 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I noticed that the article for Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash I submitted was not mention on the recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements post. If this was a mistake, the article was accepted on July 2. Thanks again! Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a bug in the bot log the script uses when an article is moved out of draft-space and then moved again; looking at the bot log bottom to top, it shows up as the draft being created, then the draft was moved to mainspace and classed as a redirect. My script then interpreted this as an article that was created as a draft and then moved to be a redirect, which is not listed. I'll add it in. --PresN 21:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article The Sumerian Game you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sumerian Game for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Puddleglum2.0, a writer for the Wikipedia newsletter The Signpost. I was planning on putting together an interview with coordinators and delegates involved in the Featured Content projects for the August edition, but before putting together the questions, I wanted to gauge coords interest to see if it will be worth doing. Thanks for your work and thoughts! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 19:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Yeah, I'd be willing. --PresN 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll notify you when I have a page with questions ready. All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 23:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So, if you look at my sandbox, you can see I have slowly tried to add all our Square Enix biographies, many of which are music, to a tracking list. Many of our cleanup tags when we used to have them were related to music related articles and bios not having each work cited, and I have been working to try and fix that. But it turns out many of the sources used are not RS, and I keep having to go back through, strip them down, and try to find reliable ones. My biggest concern at the moment is our GA’s, which should have RS cites for their gameography and composition lists and many do not. I’m not asking for help, but I need it. I don’t want to lose any GA’s for that reason, or grow a new collection of cleanup tags. Also, I wanted to nominate some of these for GA status, but their foundations seem in doubt. Again, it’s in my sandbox with the number of sources I have (currently) identified that need replacing beside it. Although I just learned that the biography section of VGMO is not RS, so I have to re examine and re replace many of them. Just thought you should know! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Trials of Mana has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, - known also as Seiken Densetsu 3, and the steady flow of GAs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that List of mustelids – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 17. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to leave your thoughts at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 21 for File:Romero & Carmack home office.jpg ? There may be some way to make the image acceptable. Deltasim (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

In the past I tried nominating The King of Fighters XIV to GA but it had to be failed due to real life issues with the reviewer. I thought about it again but I would like to see your comments about it if possible. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand why some reviewers might not want to review and support "half a list", so I'm looking for any excuse to get the 2nd half of the list up at FLC. I see that, in general, people are nominating a second list without asking the delegates for permission (unlike at FAC), so there must be some kind of rule of thumb here for when it's okay to put up a second (but never a third) nomination ... is it when there are two substantial supports and no unresolved issues? Three? - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Stated rule is "substantial support"; general interpretation is 2 supports and 0 opposes. --PresN 14:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Things seem to be going well. One more question, since you've done taxon lists at FLC ... if you have an answer off the top of your head, great (if not, I guess we'll find out when we nominate!) We're not covering List of Apiaceae genera ... but if we were, what would be the best way to break it up? I see that some things at WP:FL are broken up into sublists alphabetically (like the 7 lists for "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people"). It seems to me that the alphabetical approach might not be best for a taxon (but we might have to go that route if we get too much pushback). We'll be limited to something like 100 genera per list at most ... Christhedude's browser seemed to be choking with lists of 100 images or more. I'd be tempted to go with sublists like List of Azorelloideae and Mackinlayoideae genera, List of unassigned Apiaceae genera, List of Apioideae genera (A–E), etc. ... is there any rule against that? - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: There's not a strong precedent or rule against it; for taxons it seems like we usually break it down to whatever level is small enough- I've been doing the families in Carnivora in their own lists to keep it small, though other lists go by order or other levels; Apioideae is obviously a problem though even with that. I'd say that your idea is the best one I can think of if you're listing genera (as opposed to species)- you'd be setting the precedent for what to do if a subfamily is just too large to divide cleanly and you still want images. Let me know if you start working on it and want something like {{Species_table/row}} - it's built for animal species and not plant genera, but I can probably adapt it. --PresN 13:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'll let you know what data fields we're dealing with as soon as I get some feedback from plants people. (Btw I think I'll rarely need "(A–E)" or "(Tribes A–E)", but we'll see.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Do I remember right that your templates pull data automatically from Wikidata? That would be a nice start, but plant genera on Wikidata don't usually have as much information as animal species do ... at best, what we could pull from the Wikidata page would be: genus name, authority name and date, occasionally an image, and sometimes a common name. I don't know how many species pages are likely to exist on Wikidata ... if Wikidata is a good place to get species epithets, then perhaps a query could generate them. I'll be following APG IV (mostly), so sometimes Wikidata's lists won't help me at all, but usually they would be about right, if Wikidata has the information at all. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: The templates themselves don't, no- they just have fields to fill in like any other and handle the look of the table. I have a program on my computer that I run that grabs a lot of information automatically and generates filled-in tables, but it's not going to be much use here as is- it's written to pull data from wikidata, grab species pictures from wikipedia articles, get species data from the IUCN and a useful website I found for animal lengths, and hang it all on a taxo tree from Mammal Species of the World. Most of that won't be useful for plants; I checked a handful of plant genera from Apiaceae and they all have wikidata items (ex. Fuernrohria), even if they don't have a wikiarticle, though they don't have much beyond the taxon author/year (and ids in various plant databases). It's hard to go down the tree to get species given a genus, though, and the species datapages don't usually have common names (sometimes they do). Better than nothing, though, so I'll give it a shot- if nothing else, it will be able to generate all of the templates with the names filled in, which will save you some busywork. --PresN 02:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Playing around with a table here... what information would be relevant for plant genera? For animal species I have Common name, Scientific name and subspecies, Range (image + text), Size and ecology (Size/habitat/diet), IUCN status and estimated population, which wouldn't be right for plant genera- most don't seem to even have a common name, never mind the rest. I'm thinking something like:

Tribe Careae (Sprengel, 1820) – 12 genera

Image	Name	Species	Range
	Aegokeras (optional commonname) Raf., 1840	1 species A. caespitosa (optional common name)	Turkey
	Aegopodium L., 1753	7 species A. alpestre A. handelii A. henryi A. kashmiricum A. latifolium A. podagraria (ground elder) A. tadshikorum	Europe and western Asia

But I don't know what other columns would be handy- cultivation? Fruits? A lot of the genera articles are pretty bare, so I don't know if you want columns that would be empty most of the time or not. I guess you said you were soliciting feedback, so I'll hold off. --PresN 02:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This all looks great. I've got a pretty good idea where we're headed ... botany keeps getting turned upside down repeatedly with new phylogenetic info, and the only way to be safe is for me to limit myself to the info in the sources that botany editors consider the highest quality ... I've done that and I have the books (mainly Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, and Plants of the World). Usually but not always, the information in any database you can access will be the same or similar ... so yes, I like the idea of starting off with a pre-generated table, even if it's got a lot of blanks. I won't be listing common names of species, but having a list of their binomial names will be great because I'll want to add them to the genus page (which I'll have to create, about half the time). I'll stop here and work something up. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm having 3 problems with genus lists: 1. finding images is hard, and I'm at the start of the learning curve on that 2. there's also a learning curve with interpreting the best sources and figuring out which parts WPians want me to extract 3. most of the tribe articles haven't been done. I can fix #3 by working on tribe articles and lists of tribes before I do genera. I'll get back with you after I've made some progress, but you're welcome to jump in any time, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Ok, well, I made a table'd list at User:PresN/Apiaceae - not 100% on it. I don't know that I like having the image be the first column like that if the name isn't there too, though that leaves it with very few columns if I combine them. The authorities are pulled from wikidata, and the images from the articles themselves (if they exist). I'm using the authority short name given in wikidata, and if not found the person's last name, but that doesn't seem to match what's at List of Apiaceae genera in general. Those abbreviations seem completely idiosyncratic- is there any published list of what abbreviations to use? Carl Linnaeus is Linnaeus in zoology, for example, but just L. in botany, so it'd be nice if the script could just generate that. --PresN 20:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fantastic work, thanks. See List of botanists by author abbreviation (A) ... not much chance of automating that data, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

My comments (and oppose) hadn't been fully addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry! You usually don't return to your reviews so I wasn't waiting for that, as the rowscopes and director links had been done and Giants had commented that those were the parts they wanted done. I went in and linked the languages and redlinked the one film. --PresN 16:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I do try to return to the reviews, and had done so a week or so back here. No harm done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

It list whoever reverted the last attempt to turn an article into a redirect. It should list who replaced the redirect with a new article. You had two bad results there. [2] Dream Focus 19:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a narrow bug- they had been redirects for a bit (a few days, aka since the last reporting period) and you unredirected them- if it had been a year, you'd be the "creator", but a few days clearly not. I'll need to decide on a time limit where a reversion becomes a re-creation. --PresN 19:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have a question. User:Iveagh Gardens is disputing about the markup of winners using double daggers for accessibility in the Oscar ceremony lists because he or she thinks the listing of winners first and boldface is enough to suffice for screen readers. Who is right?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The trick for accessibility is: if taking only the table, and reading it out loud, do you still get all of the information? In this case (assuming you mean 92nd Academy Awards), I think you need the daggers- bold doesn't count (screen readers won't distinguish it) and it's not entirely clear that "listed first" means winner (the indentation also has no effect). The text above the table isn't enough, because screen readers can jump straight to the table- it might be fine to have that text be in an actual table caption (e.g. |+ {{sronly|Winners and nominees (winners listed first)}} ), but honestly that comes out pretty awkward. I'd leave the daggers. --PresN 20:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PresN, I appreciate that explanation. For clarification on this point though, how would ‡ be read out loud on the screen reader? Would something like the text you suggest in the table caption actually be clearer? If not, I'm happy to drop this. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Birdienest81 and Iveagh Gardens: I don't know, actually- I've been told that using daggers is fine by the people at WP:ACCESS, but I don't know what it sounds like. --PresN 15:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that List of mephitids – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 16, 2020. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The FACBot doesn't know about a status called "promoting"; [3] it only knows about "promoted" and "successful". If you wish, I can instruct it to honour "promoting" as well. Let me know. In the meantime, I changed your status to "promoted", and the Bot carried out the promotion task. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: No need to change; that was in error and "-ing" doesn't make much sense as a status. Thanks for fixing it. --PresN 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you help newcomers when it comes to FA. I am new and would love your help on "Cups (song)" and how it can get FA status. If you can't, I totally understand! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Ultimate Boss: I'm not super-knowledgeable about song articles, but from a more general perspective:

• It needs a copyedit both for grammar and style; in the lede alone I see "... making other musicians to recordi cover ..." (recordi) and "music critics have praised the music and lyrics.", which not only has a lowercase start but repeats 'music' twice in eight words.
• The lede is a little confusing- it says that the song was released in 2013, based on the 1931 original, but then immediately says it was first performed by Lulu and the Lampshades in 2009. It then makes no mention that the 2009 version was where it got the addition of the cups, or that Kendrick based her song on that version. It also doesn't mention that it was only in the movie because she showed it to the producers, which is a unique point of interest.
• Similarly, the background section is out of order- it tells the reader about the history of the song in the order that the lay person learned about it, not the order that it happened. You find out that Kendrick watched the video, taught herself the song, then auditioned with it, but only after we read about the release process for the song after the movie came out. It should give the information in order (swap paragraphs 2 and 3), not hold it back for a "reveal".
• "The producers of the film were originally going to make the Mitchell character perform the nursery rhyme "I'm a Little Teapot" (1939), for her audition. Kendrick later introduced "Cups" to the producers, which was previously unused, and she performed it. Due to being heavily impressed with Kendrick's performance of the song, they decided to replace "I'm a Little Teapot" with "Cups" and write it into the audition's script." - this whole section is awkward. "The film's script originally called for the the Mitchell character perform the nursery rhyme "I'm a Little Teapot" (1939) for her audition. When asked prior to filming to show her singing ability, Kendrick performed "Cups"; the film's producers liked the performance so much that they wrote it into the film's script in place of "Teapot"." Note the changes- more clarity on who did what (and when), and the source didn't actually say that she "introduced" the producers to the song, just that she performed it.
• Reception has an issue with repeated "X said Y" composition- mix it up a bit, but more than that try to collect them by what they're talking about. Right now it reads like a list of pull quotes, one per review outlet, in whatever order you found them.
• "Heather Phares of AllMusic commended the lyrical content, saying: "Anna Kendrick surprises with some strong singing on 'Cups'."" - the quote adds nothing that the paraphrasing didn't already say; pick one.
• The whole section overuses quotes- they should be short when used, but instead more than half of the section is direct quotes.
• "The video captioned "How I feel" - fragment
• The entire Live performances section feels puffed up- every single cover gets a long description of who it was and what they did differently, and it's a bit much.
• Several refs (47, 52, 55) have the title messed up
• The External Link is just to one cover by an artist never mentioned anywhere in the article? I would have expected maybe the original Lampshades video, not someone else's cover of their version

--PresN 15:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review of the article. I have changed all the issues you have pointed out and changed the text you gave me because you are a way better editor than I am. I really do appreciate your help! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

Hi there,

Is there a template or method so that sorting for accolades can be arranged starting with "Won" and descending thereafter and vice versa (i.e.: Won-> Runner-Up/2nd Place -> 3rd Place -> 4th place -> Nominated)? I nominated List of accolades received by 1917 (2019 film) for featured list status. However, User:ChrisTheDude noted the sorting was weird.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: Looks like Harrias sorted it out. --PresN 14:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Magnavox odyssey gameplay.jpg. 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) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't mean to be pedantic, sorry! I don't use the nominations viewer or whatever that is, and counting supports certainly has almost no bearing on the coordination process. When I'm scanning the page to determine whether I need to start thinking about actioning a nomination, the bolded support/oppose declarations definitely help me track my eye to who is saying what, so it actually throws me off to see those declarations next to the wrong name. I hope this makes sense. I view my job as to make the jobs of nominators and reviewers easier, not vice versa, so hopefully I didn't put you off. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain: No worries, sorry for the bother! Wikipedia:Nominations viewer just collapses the nominations at FAC/FLC/FPC to single lines, which makes it easier to navigate to specific ones or see at a glance if a nomination has had a bunch of reviewers or bolded words; I and some of the other delegates use it at FLC and I know some of the reviewers at FAC do, and it didn't occur to me that it might not be part of your process. I wanted the bold word there mostly because it throws me off a bit when scanning a nomination to see a long review without one at the top or bottom since it takes a bit to tell if the reviewer is done or not; it didn't occur to me that seeing the nominator's name next to the support would be just as jarring. I'll remember that if it happens again. --PresN 19:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've started the next list at that link. This list will probably stretch over 4 pages. I couldn't tell how excited you were or weren't about this project ... if you want to participate, or even co-nom, you're welcome to do that, and if not, that's fine too. I struggled with the question of how many genera to include ... and decided that including every possible genus would leave me with lots of blank lines, relatively poor sourcing, and a list that no one really wants to read. I'm relying on our old friend Stearn to sort the wheat from the chaff. (Standard disclaimer: I don't even try to avoid plant puns anymore, it's impossible.) One thing that needs doing that's right up your alley: I need the corresponding family and order generated automatically for each genus in my list. If I had a single Wikipedia page that included everything I needed, I could write some regex that would produce the table columns I need ... but I can't find anything in the "lists of plant genera" cat that even comes close. You may be able to work some kind of database magic to produce such a page. (Anything that roughly follows APG IV will do.) Or, you can work on any part of the list you like ... I can mail you a book or two if you'd like to peruse some of the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: I'm definitely interested in helping out! I'm trying to find a data source- its surprisingly difficult. Wikipedia, as per WP:PLANTS, follows APG III, and wikidata is a mess when it comes to contradictions. As far as I can tell, GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) seems to follow it, given it's using Catalogue of Life data, which is the group that set up the APG IV dataset for GBIF? It's all a bit difficult to follow. I'm pretty sure, though, that if you, for example, search for Maackia in GBIF, select the genus that comes up, and then select the Catalogue of Life entry for Maackia to be safe, then you get a page that will give you the family-order+, and all of that is scriptable. There's got to be a cleaner way to do it, but I haven't found it, presumably because this kind of larger-scale taxonomy tree creation just isn't something most people ever need. If you know of a specific family that moved between APG3 and 4 I can verify, but I'm pretty sure this will give us what we need. If you can get me a list of the genera you're interested in, I can script something to make a csv or wikitable with family and order filled in. How many genera are we talking about? Presumably less than the ~13,000 in Angiosperms? --PresN 02:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Great! I'm guessing fewer than 1000 genera per page for 4 pages. The differences between APG III and IV are small ... APG III is fine. Okay, I'll prioritize coming up with a list of genera that links to the proper WP pages. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've got all the M's up ... not the whole rows, just (hopefully) the links to the right pages, and I'm almost done with the L's. I use Meum athamanticum as the link for Meum, because there's no better page to link to, and supposedly the genus is monotypic ... but opinions vary on that. For the (few) pages where a dedicated genus page doesn't exist, I have linked to the family. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Over to you ... the first-column links should be all done now. If you'd like them by themselves on a page of their own, I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some of the M's so that I can work on them in my userspace and avoid conflicts. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I plan to get to this in the next few days. --PresN 19:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There's an issue that isn't urgent, but I'll mention it now because I'm thinking about it now. These lists have a lot of people in the second column that are linked to en.wp articles, and a lot of people who don't have a link. Conceivably, a reviewer will say that these lists aren't FLC quality because they have too many unlinked people who deserve red or blue links. If so, my reply will be: historians have skills and resources that let them sift through the sources of the last few centuries, resolve conflicts, and make judgment calls ... I don't. If reviewers want to suggest that some of the unlinked people should be linked, that's fine. If they want to oppose, then the fix will probably be to add "descriptive" to the page titles (as I did for the first two lists) and remove all the rows that don't list meanings. That would be a shame, but such is life on Wikipedia. You might have thoughts about whether this is likely to be a problem and what we could do about it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry ... the more I read, the more I have doubts about my approach here. I have G7'd it while I ponder. I'll get back with you. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll restore tomorrow (L to P this time) ... with more attention to sourcing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's good to go. I'll finish filling in the 2nd P column today. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Finished with my part ... John is working on images in userspace now, so feel free to edit. Do you still want to do families, and would you like to co-nom? - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Alright, got around to working on this; seems like I've gotten the script working. It takes a while to run, just waiting for the gbif site to load the page, so I'll let it run overnight to finish it off. Not interested in co-nomming- I don't think I've been involved enough in the creation of the page itself for that, and my FLC nominations list is already backlogged. --PresN 04:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much, looks like it was a lot of work, I hope it's not too much trouble now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Per your question above, Here are 3 places where the database wasn't up-to-date. But I just checked from Lindelophia to the end of the Lu's, and in each case where there was a database problem, your edits today had already fixed the problem. Looks like you're on top of it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, realized halfway through the run that gbif has both the current and old genera in the results, and sometimes gbif was putting a "synonym" or "doubtful" result up top in the search results, instead of the "accepted" one, and my script wasn't catching it. I fixed it starting at the Ns and re-ran the Ls and Ms this morning and I think I caught everything now. It wasn't too much work, mostly just having to wait while it ran in the background, so whenever y'all get around to A-K or Q-Z it should go pretty smoothly. --PresN 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A few months ago, I was looking over the complete collection of Featured Lists and was a little disappointed by the emphasis on pop-culture topics (I may be partly to blame). I decided to work on several biological lists going forward. List of amphibians of Texas is the first product of my work in this arena. I'm still not paricularly confident and I have noticed that you're pretty active in this specialty and I would really appricate if you could give this nomination a look. Feel free to tell me no if you don't have the time. Thanks! ~ HAL333([4]) 17:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: Gave it a look-over and left comments at the FLC; overall it's looking good and I'm happy to see an "animals-by-region" list at FLC. Hopefully my concerns aren't too much work to address. I agree with you on the overfocus at FL on pop culture topics; it's a major reason why I started doing my animal lists-we have dozens of FLs on the discography of 2010s pop singers, but I couldn't find even a bad list to answer my stray question on "what species of cats are recognized now anyways" and had to dig through Felidae (that very... colorful table wasn't there at the time, someone made it in response to me creating the list of felids). I'm very glad to see your amphibian list! --PresN 03:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I really appreciate it. It looks like a good thorough review. ~ HAL333([5]) 05:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Over to you (if you're ready ... take your time). Everything's done except your two columns, the second column, and the images. John's looking forward to his first solo FLC nom. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Alright, done! Just let me know when D-K and Q-Z are ready! --PresN 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic, will do. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Dank/List of plant genus names (D–K) is ready for the D's. We're going to do everything for the D's first, and move that to article space, before we do the rest of it. I'll have an "in use" template up when I'm editing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Ds done! --PresN 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks ... I'll ping you when E–K is done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

D–G is done in List of plant genus names (D–K) ... feel free to work on them now or wait till I'm done with D–K, whichever is easier. - Dank (push to talk) 05:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

All done with the first column of D to K ... I'll add the last column soon (in one edit), then add all the other columns in one edit when I'm done with them.

I'd like to go ahead and get the nomination in, and I'm not sure if you want more time or you want me to finish up manually ... i'm happy either way. Let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. First column of List of plant genus names (Q–Z) is now ready (and that's the last one). - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Awesome; just finished up the gaps in D-K (after nomination, but before any reviewers got there!) so I'll go ahead and start on the end of the alphabet. --PresN 03:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Great ... it will be at least a couple of weeks so no rush. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Alright, all done, A-Z! Looks like the FLCs are going well too. Let me know if you have another project in the future that you think could use some programming assistance! --PresN 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work, thanks so much! - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

After making The King of Fighters XIV GA, I thought about nominating Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 4. Do you notice any issues in regards to what the article needs in particular? It was recently copyedited but I don't wanna nominate that fast. Any notes or edits will be appreciated. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I think there's still some awkward phrasing/grammar problems ("A new addition to the gameplay is the tag of characters with image showing the duo of Naruto and Sasuke", "As both suffer sever wounds, losing each others' arms", "misses Himawari Uzumaki's birthday due to having become a busy person due to his job as the Leaf's leader, the Seventh Hokage"), but the only large problem I see is that the gameplay section focuses almost exclusively on what is the same/different between 4 and the prior games in the series; having never played any of them, after reading it I still have no idea what the gameplay actually is; seems likely it's basically a fighting game with a tag-in system and cutscenes separating them? But then what makes some battles "boss battles", and what are the "hack and slash elements" in them, and how does the open world thing work that apparently is only in the post-game part? It's a bit confusing to someone who hasn't played the game, is what I'm saying. --PresN 02:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

hello Nathaniel. i have a question: how long does it take for closing an Fl's nomination? would you help to closure of this? Regards.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mojtaba2361: The next time one of the delegates does a pass through FLC it will likely be evaluated. --PresN 15:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks. i'll happy if you closure it.2 month passed and all of the points,are addressed and amended. Best--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. the other works will be done by FACBot, correct?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. --PresN 15:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I sent this to Masem, but was left unanswered. Maybe they're busy?

Hello PresN! While waiting for Paper Mario: The Origami King to finish being reviewed for GA status, my head got spinning about getting the article to be featured. I looked into the rules and got to work. Shortly after it became a Good Article, I began the process of looking at suggested things to do before nominating the article, and just started a peer review for the article. It also suggested that if you're new, its best to get help from a mentor who knows the ins and outs of the process. I saw your name on the list, so here we are today. If you want to help, these are my first questions: A) Is there anything else I should prepare before nominating the article? B) Any starting suggestions from you? Le Panini ^Talk 10:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I don't have anything major from a brief glance; I'll read through it and respond at the peer review. It's a pretty solid article from what I see, so my more general "process" comments are that no matter how much work you put into it, the reviewers will still find something, so don't take it personally. Additionally, some of the comments may get very nitpicky; if you disagree with something, explain why politely instead of just refusing. If you're finding it difficult to address a concern (the usual one is a criticism of the writing quality that isn't a point-by-point breakdown), reach out to find someone who can help you with it. It may take some time to get reviewers; you can ask for people at WTVG, though the coordinators prefer to see reviewers that aren't video game-focused as well. If the article doesn't get promoted (due to lack of reviews or otherwise), don't worry too much about it- fix whatever comments weren't addressed, and you can renominate 2 weeks later. Other than that, getting a solid PR is a great step, so you'll be in a good position for nomination. --PresN 05:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

PresN, Thanks for the input, there were some concerns raised by Spicy in her peer review, which I seconded and am waiting for response on. For example, she had a lot of suggestions about plot, but its already capped at the 700 word plot limit.

Also, what is WTVG? I searched it up and couldn't find a link. Le Panini ^Talk 10:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Sorry, WT:VG. --PresN 14:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

PresN, Ah, yes, already asked there. No response, but I expected that. Le Panini ^Talk 14:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

PresN The peer review is going well. Spicy has given their suggestions with more on the way, and I got Atsme to review based on general copy-editing. Additionally, you and SandyGeorgia are going to give your suggestions as well, and I reviewed Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game) in hopes Gerald Waldo Luis will as well. When would be the proper time to close the discussion?

And also, are Featured Article and Today's Featured Article two separate things? I'm trying to get the article to appear on the main page, so are there extra steps I need to take to do so?Le Panini ^Talk 04:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are separate ... instructions at WP:TFAR ... I will look at the peer review tomorrow ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Yes- "Featured Article" is an article classification, meaning that the article has gone through the nomination process (at WP:FAC) and passed review. Once an article has been promoted to "Featured Article" status, it is eligible to be featured on the main page (one per day) as "Today's Featured Article". The coordinator for that area picks articles to be featured, though people also nominate articles for consideration; generally if there's a date that works well (like the anniversary a game came out) but also if you just want something to come up sooner rather than later (there's a points system; see WP:TFAR as SandyGeorgia said for details). --PresN 04:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

PresN, Noted. When I finish Sandy's requests, I'm gonna close the review (unless if you have some suggestions), and will spend some time doing refurbishments before nominating for FA. I'd like the article to appear as TFA, so when the process is finished I'll nominate it and shoot for February 5, 2021; this date will be the 20th anniversary of the series in North America. Le Panini ^Talk 04:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

PresN Although I said I was closing it soon, I got some good replies by czar and left it open to make some changes. Now I'll be closing it soon. Le Panini ^Talk 13:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

PresN I've nominated the article for review. Although I've gotten some good comments, it's starting to stall a little bit. Is there something I could do, or do I just be patient? Le Panini ^Talk 13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Mostly just be patient at this point, as it's only been a few days- if it goes a week without a comment, make another post at WT:VG, but usually things are a bit slow in December in general. --PresN 14:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

PresN, It's picked up some speed now; four supports! Yahoo! Just keeping you updated thus far. Le Panini ^[🥪] 07:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that List of procyonids – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 21, 2020. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be able to improve this new article I created? LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Oh, looks like you ripped out a (pretty huge) bulleted list from Deer, right? Yeah, I can see if the script I used to generate the carnivore lists gives something useful, if that sounds alright. I'm not going to have time to fill in any gaps for quite a while (it'll be missing most sizes and prey information) but it should be enough for a decent stand-alone list for people to work on. --PresN 03:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Alright, done. As mentioned in the edit summary, the list as before didn't really match MSW3 (aka en-wiki's base standard)? Sometimes because species got moved due to more recent research, sometimes because every subspecies was listed as if it was a species, and sometimes... it's not clear. There's a couple species on wiki that present themselves as a different genus than MSW3 as if it just is, but there's no sources explaining why given (in one case, it leans on a paper that came out before MSW3, so...). I don't know much about deer, and if I'm wrong feel free to move things, I just wanted it to be internally consistent at the outset. As mentioned, there's a bunch of gaps where my script couldn't automatically pick something up, but all those gaps were things that weren't in the bulleted list to start with, so it's no big deal. Have fun! --PresN 04:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

Thanks for the continous support PresN. Happy a nice Christmas

— 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

— 17:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello PresN, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, HAL333 03:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Since these 6 lists have gone well, I've started working on roughly 15 more lists in the same format, covering all plant genera, that provide lists of related words instead of etymologies (when the sources mention related words). First problem: can you point me to a web-based SQL server that can handle 14k rows? I'm terribly out of practice, but I should be able to handle a SQL join between User talk:Dank/Genera and User talk:Dank/Families#APG IV template to generate a table with both families and orders, if I can find a suitable web-based SQL app. (I can run this by WT:VPT if you like.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: I honestly don't know of any, but I don't have any experience with that (beyond larger-scale solutions like Amazon Web Services, which is probably too much standup work for this); I'd personally just download postgresql on a computer and run it locally. --PresN 19:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ... I'll try that and sqlite. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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