This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I used to do that all the time as well, until EEng clued me in on a better way to handle those one-off discussions. It's usually less clutter-y to wait a few days, see if anyone's objecting to the result, and then use some kind of archiver to sweep it off the talk page. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Theleekycauldron: Yes IMO it is a confusing talk page, and I have to search around to find threads I am involved in. But I am open to better ways! Bruxton ( talk) 23:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm misreading history...when you close something with Twinkle, you need to do the four tildes. I know that seems like it should be necessary, but none of your recent closes at WT:DYK show you as the closer. Valereee ( talk) 00:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Valereee: Oh thanks, I can fix that. I did not sign any of them and did not use twinkle. Bruxton ( talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I probably don't use twinkle either. I probably use some other script. Valereee ( talk) 00:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Bruxton, are you still running around closing stuff that doesn't need closing [1]? I'm actually developing a perverse affection for you, so don't take this wrong, but ... it's really a net loss of editor time and effort to do that. Not only could your time be spent better (in building preps, for instance), but a close step, when the thread's no big deal and the close doesn't really do anything, churns a lot of people's watchlists for no reason. (And TDYK's already pretty churn-y.) Also, closing without archiving discourages the occasional followup inquiry or comment, while at the same time not actually reducing page clutter -- only archiving does that.
  So if a thread's run its course, and there's no further value to keeping it around, just One-click it and be done with it. (See User:Enterprisey/archiver if you don't have One-click, which is the best thing since sliced bread.) E Eng 01:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, don't discourage them. Closing is fine. Closing and archiving is fine too. But if someone just wants to neaten things up by closing, bully. All it does is delay archiving. Valereee ( talk) 01:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ EEng: Haha. a perverse affection...I will take it! Yes, regarding the discussions I am overwhelmed trying to find threads that still need attention. But I certainly would rather do other things that do not pull the tiger's tail! And those preps ain't gonna prep themselves. That is some slog in the preps. Bruxton ( talk) 01:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the archiving tip. I just tried it out. @ EEng: Bruxton ( talk) 01:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Stick with me, kid, and you'll learn stuff. E Eng 02:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Excuse the malformed pings. I just formed them so you will likely be pinged. Anything that makes the job easier is welcome. Bruxton ( talk) 02:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bruxton/Archives/2023,

Backlog

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

2022 Awards

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders

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

Thanks for the image additions to Elmer Carlson and Robert Spencer Finkbine. SL93 ( talk) 01:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The tag on the article needs to be removed, and the article discussion needs to be updated. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I will fix it. Bruxton ( talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing 'speedy' about this keep, please re-word your close. Giant Snowman 20:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ GiantSnowman: apologies if I screwed this up - from my reading, the nominator withdrew the nomination and it looked like a snow keep. I welcome your suggestions about wording. Bruxton ( talk) 20:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I would close it a 'keep' - it ran 7 days, clear consensus, in this situation the nomination withdrawal had no impact. Giant Snowman 20:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@ GiantSnowman: Ok thank you, I will change it to simply "keep". Bruxton ( talk) 20:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Giant Snowman 20:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that when you promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Bothie (dog) to prep area 5 you changed the wording to from "visit the north and south poles" to "set paw in the north and south poles", with "per recommendation in the nomination" in the edit summary. I was the reviewer and my recommendation was that "set paw" should be in quotation marks as it's from a source quoted in the article. I also suggested using either "set foot" or "visit" instead, and the nominator chose to revise the hook using "visit", which I thought was better. I approved the hook as revised.

And shouldn't it be "on" not "in" the North Pole? HazelAB ( talk) 13:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that the nominator had simply revised the hook, which originally included the "set paw" wording, rather than creating a new ALT hook. Probably wrong procedure and likely to cause misunderstanding. First time nominator and absent minded reviewer. HazelAB ( talk) 13:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@ HazelAB: Thanks for the message. It seemed like some fun wording for DYK to say "set paw". The word "Visit" is mundane IMO. Also the given source says "set paw" so I put quotation marks around the words in the hook and I used the word "on" instead of "in" as it is stated in the LA Times reference. Let me know what you think. Bruxton ( talk) 15:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, but since the source says "set paw on both the South and North poles", the last part of the hook is now a direct quote from the source other than the transposition of North and South. Is that permitted without expanding the amount within quotation marks? HazelAB ( talk) 16:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@ HazelAB: I think so since the last part of the hook is reordered. It may be a matter of opinion but if there is an issue an administrator will bring it to WT:DYK for discussion. Bruxton ( talk) 16:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. Just pinging @ ResonantDistortion: the nominator for information and possible comment. HazelAB ( talk) 16:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies - it seems I got the process wrong. I now know better for next time. Thanks for the hook improvements - agreed more fun to include the "set paw" wording. Resonant Dis_tortion 16:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Bruxton,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
– Davey2010 ^Talk 00:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

Hello Bruxton: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, FeydHuxtable ( talk) 11:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

Bruxton/Archives/2023,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
~~~~

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

Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Besides, I often remember your encouraging support to me entering the NPP team. I try to patrol an article a day and if possible I review some more. I usually do the approving. In deleting, I am not yet enough confident, but I am learning. Nice knowing you are around. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Paradise Chronicle: cool. I am not as active there since the drive. But I do a few articles a week. Happy editing! Bruxton ( talk) 23:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

On 17 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glock switch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Glock switch is a device that can turn a handgun into a machine gun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glock Switch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Glock switch), 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,380 views (1,031.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I assumed bad faith of you, and I apologize for that. I'd like to explain a bit where I was coming from. You're welcome to not care, but I think one is titled to an explanation when someone assumes bad faith in that manner.

I think a thing that's easy to forget here is that some articles have emotional significance to people. In this case, I wrote that article while Bellwether was dying, and she died in between me submitting it for DYK and the DYK running. I was, suffice it to say, moved. A self-published author who spent much of her adult life unable to work for a mix of medical and legal reasons, Bellwether was nonetheless an incredibly influential figure in the field of transgender sexuality. The hook you took issue with was, despite its perhaps eye-catching wording, about her most significant intervention in that field—one that, without exaggeration, revolutionized how people write about trans bodies. One without which we would not have works like Fielding's Trans Sex (source of the quote at issue) or the groundbreaking Trans Bodies, Trans Selves.

So it was hurtful—not intentionally, I realize now—to have a characterization of that revolutionary idea dismissed as, essentially, smut. I get how it may have looked that way to one less familiar with the topic, and since DYK is of course for those not familiar with a topic, it was a fair critique to take issue with it on that basis. But after a few weeks of working on this article, on and off, including getting it to GA, it hit me on a personal level. I responded poorly—I don't think poorly in substance, but poorly in tone. And, having made the decision to back off and not fight things further when my third-choice hook was swapped in, it reöpened that wound to see (what I perceived as) a second round of criticism of that hook.

(And to be very clear, this isn't to say I'd get emotional over any old hook in this topic area. Even where I have emotional attachment to an article, I think of myself as good at checking those emotions, but, as I say in the poem I linked, there's something very personally impactful about the death of someone in whose world one lived for a time.)

None of that's any excuse for being a dick, but I hope it at least explains why I saw these interactions very differently than you did. I look forward to continuing working with you around DYK. I thank you for your many contributions to that venue—needless to say, far more extensive than mine.

-- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin Thanks so much for that message and background. I was also feeling bad about our interactions. Check out this hook and see the comments: hook. Not comparing the hook to yours but just showing how some dyk regulars are not as bothered by risqué hooks.
I know that we will both contribute mightily to this encyclopedia and I hope to work with you. I consider any grievances squashed. Bruxton ( talk) 22:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Funny enough, I don't have much patience for that kind of wordplay either. It strikes me as juvenile. I felt my original proposed hook was okay because it was, in plain English, what the subject was about; I'd say that if people want an excuse to put sex-related terms on the Main Page, they should earn it the hard way, by writing an article on sex. Lord knows we have many, many articles in that topic area in need of a rewrite. (Maybe that's a kind of idiosyncratic opinion set to annoy both sides, but hey, those are kind of my specialty.) -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin yes the guy was a prolific DYK contributor but he was topic banned from DYK for repeatedly making hooks like that. Bruxton ( talk) 23:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diana and Endymion (Langlois), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endymion. 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) 06:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)