User talk:Rosguill/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

I have several articles that could use reviewing

Hi, I have several articles that could use reviewing here is the list.

• 2020 NCAA Division I softball rankings
• Draft:Brian Jean-Mary
• St. Pete/Clearwater Elite Invitational

I would just like them to be reviewed so I know what still needs work. Please let me know. Thanks

Eibln (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Eibln, here are my assessments:

1. 2020 NCAA Division I softball rankings – the only one of the three articles which was actually in the NPP queue. No concerns here, I marked it as approved. The only things which you could have done to improve the article would have been adding more talk page wikiproject banners (which I took care of using User:Evad37/rater), and trying to tweak the formatting of the page a little so that the first set of rankings isn't cramped up against the infobox
2. Draft:Brian Jean-Mary – I don't think this one is quite up to snuff yet. It doesn't look like Jean-Mary meets the SNGs WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH, so you would need to provide enough citations to establish that he meets WP:GNG. I didn't look at each citation in detail, but just from the titles I would be rather surprised if there is significant enough coverage inside to meet GNG. Articles that just briefly state that someone was hired or fired from a position are considered routine press and generally don't count toward establishing notability. You can still use such sources to support claims in an article, but you're going to need to have additional, more detailed coverage to justify the article existing.
3. St. Pete/Clearwater Elite Invitational – It looks like SportingFlyer already reviewed this one, and I agree with their assessment: it needs additional citations to sources that are independent of the subject in order to more firmly establish its claim to notability _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you very much for giving me the feedback. I have tried my best to find as much as I can to get St. Pete/Clearwater Elite Invitational approved. I will continue working on it. Do you have ideas of what I could add to make Draft:Brian Jean-Mary better and get it approved? Thanks again,

Eibln (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Eibln, for Brian Jean-Mary you'd want to find articles in independent sources providing an overview of his career, or in depth coverage of a specific role of his career. That having been said, it's entirely possible that such sources just don't exist at this time, in which case the subject just isn't notable yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Jax Jones and Martin Solveig Present Europa

Hi, Rosguill! My name is Abraham. You have changed the “Europa” page to a redirect page which I feel is not fair. The initial page tells information about the duo which is what people actually want to read. Please don’t keep changing it to a redirect page! There is more to read about Europa. They have a background, discography, etc. So please revert your edits. Abraham Benno (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Benno, articles on Wikipedia need to have citations to reliable sources, which you neglected to provide when you were converting the redirect to an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Rosguill! Thanks for getting back to me regarding the issue. I have understood your explanation as to why my article was reverted to a redirect page. It has been helpful and I will cite articles from now on. I will get back to editing said page (with citations). Thanks for your help! Abraham Benno (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Edward Ardolino

Hi, Rosguill. Thank you for reviewing Edward Ardolino. I see you tagged the article, and I would like to work toward having the tags removed. One tag states the article relies too heavily on primary sources despite the 70+ published references. Perhaps you are objecting to the dozen or so listed projects that are marked with an asterisk rather than a reference? In the End Notes an explanation appears that an asterisk denotes the attribution to Ardolino can be found on his letterhead archived with the Papers of (noted sculptor) Lee Lawrie housed at the Library of Congress. Are papers archived at the Library of Congress not considered an acceptable source? I would appreciate your advice on this. Much thanks. In addition, another three or four projects are not marked with either an asterisk or a reference. I believe they are correctly attributed, but having no published sources I can delete them in order to assist in having the tags removed. Thank you in advance for your reply.E54495a (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

E54495a, I think that the issue with the article is that it's cobbled together from very brief mentions of Ardolino, or sometimes just coverage of buildings Ardolino worked on without mentioning Ardolino. At its worst, this brushes up against original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Ideally, we should primarily be citing coverage in secondary sources that directly assesses Ardolino's life and work. Before removing the tag, I'd like to see 3–4 citations to such sources, and claims reliant on synthesizing information from multiple sources should be removed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Saagar Enjeti

Hi Rosguill, we debated about deleting / redirecting vs. keeping the page "Saagar Enjeti". I was wondering if, in your opinion, this article would meet the criteria of reliable secondary sources to resurrect the article? There's a good deal of material on the subject (starts at the heading "A Curious Conservative"). Thanks. Mistipolis (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mistipolis, it's definitely a step in the right direction. I don't remember off hand what the existing balance of sources at the AfD, so I can't answer with confidence if this is enough to push Enjeti over the notability line. I think you'd probably be within your rights to try to boldly resurrect the article with that citation in tow, although I can't guarantee that it will be accepted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Rosguill. I'll give it a shot and go through the process. Mistipolis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work patrolling redirects, especially during the period they were falling off the back end! Sdkb (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent sources Roberto Venturoni

I have inserted sources declared by two State Museums, bibliographic that come from public Libraries, now I have to insert the authority entry of OPAC SBN, soon we will have the author on ULAN. How do I have other sources can I ask you to verify them? User:EXART2000 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

EXART2000, I'm having a bit of trouble following your comment, but from taking another look at the article, the issue is that the article is overly reliant on database entries and primary sources. The gold standard of sourcing on Wikipedia are prose articles that analyze the subject in depth, and at a glance I don't see that on Roberto Venturoni. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I work on it to improve, then I'll contact you. User:EXART2000 09:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Asking for your comment

Hi, Rosguill. Can you please visit the Talk-Page of User:Drmies, and leave a comment on the relevance of adding the discussed word entry in the Disambiguation page for Vita, which you can access here. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

100+ redirects

As a result of this discussion, I'm letting you know that I have made over 100 redirects now, so if you want to look through them, feel free to. WP:There is no deadline, so take as much time as you need. It doesn't overly matter to me whether or not I receive the right since it doesn't impact my ability to do what I do. Clovermoss (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Clovermoss, noted. I'll give it a bit more time so that your most newly created redirects actually go through review and then will likely confer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Ninja

		Redirect Ninja
		For all the work you do reviewing redirects for Wikipedia. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Oooh, I Like that "barnstar." Did you design that, and is that listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect with suggested granting guidelines? (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 14:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I made it a while back as a spot prize for a NPP backlog drive. I've not listed it anywhere but if you know any appropriate places, feel free to list it there as a template. :) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, Ah, interesting. I'm not certain who can award this template or what the criteria are for awarding, but I would think the NPP WikiProject would be a good place to list it (might have to create an "Awards" subpage). Also, could we create a version of that template for creation of good redirects (i.e., same graphic, but different title), with good rcat categorization, that we could list at the WikiProject Redirect? It could be called "Redirect Creation and Categorization Ninja," potentially. It's a wonderful design! Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, Well, I added it over at the wikiproject. I'll drop it on the coordination page for NPP as well.— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: That sounds good. Since it's substituted, presumably, we can generate custom messages for why we're granting it, and it can have different usages listed at the two WikiProject areas. Wonderful award template you made! :-) Doug Mehus T·C 17:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Ooh, I noticed there's another meta group, Association of Redirectionist Wikipedians, which, interestingly, I noted Rosguill isn't a member of, surprisingly. I will probably join this group as it seems semi-inactive and could use some new blood and ideas. ;-) (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 14:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible early closure, per WP:SNOW, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 24#Nautical units?

Hi Rosguill,

I've got to try and remember I don't need to {{ping}} someone on their own talk page. So, I've remembered this time. ;-)

Anyway, from the above RfD discussion, as you will likely see, the participating editors are all in agreement with retargeting to the List of nautical units list article that PamD had created. Towards the end of the discussion, you'll note that I had asked Uanfala if they had wanted to withdraw their nomination early under the "speedy" provisions, and they said they'd prefer to wait for a non-involved administrator or editor to come along and see if early closure was warranted. In an entirely good-faith attempt to avoid bureaucracy, J947, as a participant in the discussions with me and others, closed it under the "speedy" provisions. However, as noted by Uanfala and I, there are important, albeit somewhat nuanced, differences in the meanings of "speedy" and "SNOW" or, indeed, just early closure. So, seeing as there wasn't concurrence with the nominator to withdraw their nomination yet, I have reverted the good-faith closure by J947 (see also the discussion at J947's talk page where I attempted to reach out to him first to see whether they would amend the closure result to "retarget" or "WP:SNOW retarget"), and was wondering if you can assess the discussion to see whether early closure, per WP:SNOW or just as an early closure to "retarget," is warranted, and, if so, close the discussion appropriately. If WP:SNOW wouldn't yet apply, perhaps you might be able to make a comment to let the discussion continue for a few more days?

Anyway, thanks for looking into this...I'm reaching out to you on your talk page since I had already alerted you to the discussion via an early {{ping}} in one of my comments.

Thanks,
Doug Mehus T·C 14:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Tavix has reverted my reversion, noting that I asked for a "speedy retarget." That's true, but only if Uanfala was okay with it. Since they wanted to wait for a non-involved editor to come along and see if early closure was warranted, I just thought that we should respect that, particularly since "speedy" and ordinary results have different meanings in future deletion discussions. I guess it is fine since Tavix has reverted my reversion, but I'm not happy about it. The result should've been "retarget; early closure due to clear consensus" or "WP:SNOW retarget," as applicable. So, consider my request above withdrawn. Doug Mehus T·C 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dmehus: The end result is the same and everyone (including you) is in agreement to what that end result should be, so you really don't need to get too caught up in the Wikilawyerese. Also, I think it prudent to add that you are dangerously close to violating WP:ADMINSHOP if you haven't already. If you think something requires admin action, just be patient. There are enough admins patrolling RfD where you don't have to knock on your favorite admin's door to try to get what you want. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Tavix, Sorry, I wasn't aware of that policy; I will bookmark that to read later. I did contemplate listing it at the closure noticeboard, but (a) since it had already been closed and (b) since it would likely be attended to longer after the natural closure period, didn't go that route. Yes, I'm absolutely in favour of the end result—everyone was—but just like how (as noted above in an unrelated RfD discussion), "speedy keep" can have a different meaning in potential future discussions than "retarget; early closure per clear consensus." There's also speedy redirect, which seems to refer to a common outcome, principally, at MfD. So, like I said above and elsewhere, I didn't even have a problem with an involved closure; J947's closing it was fine, but my concern was with the wording of the result. Doug Mehus T·C 14:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• You can ask J947 to tweak it if you think it matters that much to you. Usually editors are perceptive to constructive criticism on their closes and will take feedback into consideration. I know I have. That doesn't mean you should invoke the nuclear option and revert them and try to find someone you prefer to close it instead. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Tavix, I did try and ask for the wording to be tweaked, but J947's reluctance to do so seems to stem from the idea that involved closures are generally frowned upon, which is true and they absolutely should be avoided where possible. However, in this case, given the unanimity here, I don't think anyone would've had a problem to removing the word "speedy" from the close. "Early closure" or "per WP:SNOW" could've been added, but that would be within the closer's editorial discretion, so I wouldn't have insisted on that. That was literally all I was seeking. Doug Mehus T·C 15:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  My reason for reaching out to Rosguill was only to assess whether it could be closed early. If they wanted to perform the close, great. If not, given that I had reached out, that'd be fine also, but was just looking to see whether early closure on non-speedy retarget/nomination withdrawn grounds was possible. I guess, in hindsight, was that maybe instead of performing the revert first, I should've reached out to Rosguill to peer review the close and see if they could engage in a discussion with J947 and I vis-a-vis the rationale behind tweaking the wording of the close/result a bit? Is that more or less what you are saying? Doug Mehus T·C 15:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  In hindsight, you should have recognized that J947 made the correct call and moved on to something that might actually be productive. There is no reason to pull Rosguill away from other things he is doing to clean up your messes. Again, you are caring way too much about the detail for a result that everyone is happy with. This was never complicated until you made it that way. This is another good example of why several editors are exhausted of your antics. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  But wording matters, as shown by the discussion between Uanfala and I. "Speedy retarget" generally means that the nominator has concurred with the unanimous argument of the other participants and, rather than withdraw their nomination and close as "speedy keep" and retarget boldly, they close as "speedy retarget." This wasn't that. Future hypothetical deletion discussions are often influenced by the previous results, even though they shouldn't be, and, so, I think this is point Uanfala was making was that they would rather have the closure be simply "retarget." I disagree with your assessment this being "antics," but merely trying to make things right. Nevertheless, I disagree with the inclusion of the word "speedy" in there, since there was not unanimity for that, but I will not worry about it any further. Doug Mehus T·C 15:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry y'all, had a bunch of stressful IRL stuff to deal with yesterday. For future reference there's really no need to hurry to close RfD discussions. The backlog there rarely is longer than a week and a half, which is ridiculously good by Wikipedia standards. The only reason I could think of off the top of my head for urging an admin to implement a speedy closure would be if for some reason we anticipate a ridiculous amount of traffic to that redirect in the coming few days such that having an RfD tag on there causes significant disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  No worries. Yeah, that was my concern, that it didn't really need early closure, at least not by an involved participant. That said, J947 is very competent, just as any of the participants in the discussion, so I'm not bothered by the early closure (involved or uninvolved). My issue was really just the inclusion of the word "speedy" because that has special meaning.

  As to the RfD backlog, yes, it does seem to be a little longer than sometimes (it's usually pretty good relative to the other XfDs...or requested moves, which are even longer). CfD seems to have a ridiculously long backlog. At any rate, I think I need to self-enforce my own wikibreak temporarily and tend to other things.

  As always, though, I appreciate your reply! Doug Mehus T·C 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, everyone, I must have suffered an uncharacteristic bout of punctiliousness, and I hadn't anticipated there'd be such a knock-on effect. I should have closed the discussion myself and spared you all the trouble. I don't think the particular wording of the close makes that much of a difference, even my own preference for having "retarget" rather than "withdrawn" doesn't matter in the big scheme of things - this is not the type of redirect likely to be RfD'ed ever again, so any close other than "delete" would probably not matter in practice. – Uanfala (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just on this in general, I do not believe this semantical difference is worth over 18,000 bytes of discussion. J947 ^(c), at 20:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• ...Wowwie... Brings back memories of the necessity of the recent DRV; this thread and the aforementioned DRV are both equally as necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

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

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

For NPP Training

Hello, I would like to get training from you for WP:NPP. GargAvinash (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GargAvinash, sure thing. Did you want to go through the entire course, or are there specific subjects that you want to focus on?

The full course is as follows:

• Notability guidelines
• Identifying and verifying sources
• Content Policy
  • Article titles
  • BLPs
  • Copyright
  • NPOV
  • Original research
• Speedy deletion
• Other deletion protocols
• Tagging articles for improvement
• Communicating with other editors _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I have read Notablity Guidelines here, also aware of Neautral Point of View, Original research and Maintenance Tags. It will be good if I focus on subjects other than these. GargAvinash (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GargAvinash, ok, I'll set things up for you in a bit. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:

• If you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).
• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI
• User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history
• User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)
• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title
• User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles
• User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  GargAvinash, here is your NPPSCHOOL page: User:Rosguill/GargAvinash NPPSCHOOL. Feel free to take this at your own pace; once you've answered all the questions in a section, I'll grade them and add additional material to the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

De Vorm

The article De Vorm is considered notable because of the design awards the subject had collected (the links were checked). If you think otherwise, please add the "notability" tag on top of the article, so it can be reviewed by other editors. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

JohnThorne, awards are not in themselves a criterion for notability for companies, although they may themselves be a cause for additional reliable coverage to exist. Our notability guidelines for companies are intentionally very strict because nothing churns out trivial and promotional coverage quite like a company. I actually did place a notability tag on the article, which was removed by the initial editor before you removed the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that now and place a notability tag again on your behalf. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

JohnThorne, thanks. The article also had improperly placed external links (i.e. they shouldn't be in the article body) so I've tagged it for that as well. In the future, do check the page's edit history before completing a review. In addition to potentially finding unresolved tags, you may find other relevant details, such as content split from other articles or edit wars over whether the article should be drafted or converted to a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

NPP Enrollment

Hello, Rosguill. I am a Wikipedia member since 2010 but actively started contributing from the last few months. While creating new pages I came to know that there are a good amount of backlogs to be reviewed. I would like to get enrolled under you for improvements in NPP and become a Page reviewer one day. Let me know if you find me eligible to take under you. The9Man | (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, are you asking to do the WP:NPPSCHOOL course, or are you just asking for the NPP permission? I think your track record at AfD is strong enough that if you wanted to jump in with a trial run of the permission I would be willing to confer it. Alternatively, if you think you need to learn relevant policies better first, then NPPSCHOOL is the way to go. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I am glad you found my track record is satisfying. I have read most of the policies and looking forward to getting some tips from experienced veterans to improve myself. However, if you find it appropriate please give me a trial run. I will keep learning along with the process. The9Man | (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, I've granted you reviewer rights for 10 days, please try to review 10-30 articles in that time. One word of advice off the bat is that while it looks like the articles you've created generally meet WP:NFILM, I would generally expect stronger sources from new articles than you've typically been providing (in particular, quality of coverage is as important as the publication's prestige or reliability. Q&A interviews in the Times of India or Deccan Herald or photo galleries should not be considered significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you for showing trust. The more I go through the backlogs I realize it is surely not an easy task to perform which leads to the long backlogs. I believe the better judgments come with experience. I will try to complete at least the number of articles you have mentioned during this 10 days period. Is there any way I can reach you if I am double-minded while taking decision calls? Also is there any other tips or suggestions you would like to share?
Regarding WP:NFILM articles I create, I will keep in mind your advice. Thank you for the same.
The9Man | (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, feel free to ping me on the talk pages of articles that you're on the fence about. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I am having some good time with learning new things and playing an active role in Wikipedia. I have reviewed around 15+ articles so far. I request you to take a look in your free time and give me some feedback for improvements. - The9Man | (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, Excellent work overall, I've gone ahead and conferred the permission to you indefinitely. I only see three mistakes: It's not clear that Jathi Ratnalu actually meets WP:NFILM, the coverage seems largely promotional and it's not clear that principal photography has begun. Sonali Vishnu Shingate is a notable subject, but we simply cannot accept unreferenced BLPs; if you're going to accept an unreferenced BLP, you need to add at least one reliable source. On a related note, while editors disagree on the extent that new page reviewers should tag for wikiprojects, at a minimum you should tag BLPs because they're categorized as such through the wikiproject template. Finally, I don't think that I need to say anything beyond the AfD discussion at Rupa Gurunath. Once again, great work overall, and don't hesitate to ask questions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you very much for extending your trust and appreciating the work.
Regarding the points you have mentioned I have got your concerns with Jathi Ratnalu and will keep it in mind for future. Sonali Vishnu Shingate not reviewed by me but I have added the tags unreferenced, blp sources (Possible that I have reviewed by accident and unreviewed later).
I would like to know what went wrong with Rupa Gurunath, you mean the nomination was not needed or you concerned with the points I have raised?
Once again, thank you for your time. - The9Man | (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, for Rupa Gurunath, the provided sourcing is only a bit shy of GNG––given the subject's role as a cricket executive, I think that it's quite plausible that additional sources exist, and thus I probably wouldn't have tagged as needing more sources and approved it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, noted the above. Thank you.
Btw, in the case of WP:NFILM, what would you suggest if the principal photography is not started but the same time it is a high profile announcement? Drafting or Afd? The subject in my question is Heropanti 2. The9Man | (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man since that one's a sequel, you can redirect it to the article about the first film and instruct the initial editor (either through a long edit summary or by leaving them a message on their talk page) that it doesn't meet NFILM and that they should consider adding relevant content to the article about the first film until it meets that standard. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Noted in this case.
But I would like to know what is the general action against a FILM which doesn't start the principal photography. Is it case to case or a fix draft/afd call on that? - The9Man | (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, it's a case by case basis. If the subject is clearly generating buzz despite not having begun filming, drafting is appropriate. Otherwise, I'd advise you to go the AfD route, especially when you're new to patrolling. There isn't currently a community consensus on when draftifying is appropriate. There's a solid chance that some of these AfDs will close keep, but as long as you're courteous at AfD you'll get less flak than if you draftify an article that someone takes exception to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks for the above.
Will be coming back with more queries soon. :) - The9Man | (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That CIR Block

Cheers for that, they've been in my watchlist all day making zero sense. Might be worth semi-protecting those articles in case they decide to edit logged out, given how determined they seem to be? Cheers, -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Alfie, thanks for the vote of confidence. I have the pages watchlisted so if they come back as an IP I'll add protection, although I hope that's not necessary. It's also possible that if they're a Russian speaker maybe they'll listen to advice in that language (their edit history and some of their comments suggest that they may be Russian, although the username seems Filipino to me). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

This seems to be a losing battle, they're also blocked indefinitely in their home language (pt wiki). Praxidicae (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, yeah you're probably right, although their contributions there don't really suggest proficiency in Portuguese either... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

2600:1008:b04b:4a75:d875:e4cd:a0d6:f9b7

user:2600:1008:b04b:4a75:d875:e4cd:a0d6:f9b7 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

CLCStudent, just took care of it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer Request

Hi Rosguill, I am an Journeyman Editor and I have over 2150+ edits in wikipedia and I am very familiar with WP:PC. I have several pages in my watchlist sometimes I have to watch pending IP edits sit there and I can't do anything about them. I have also read through WP:PC and WP:RPC.I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines/policies. Would be lovely if I can get this permission.Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  08:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Padavalamkuttanpilla, I'm not involved enough with the pending changes system to feel comfortable granting the permission, but you can make a request here _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh Sorry, I just copied this request to there, and thanks for your valued reply..have a nice day -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  08:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit on "Sexual harassment in education"

Hello, you recently placed the copy edit tag on the page Sexual harassment in education. I've made a few changes, but am not sure whether to remove the copy edit tag because you haven't specified the reasons for it. Could you look over the page and see if the issues have been resolved and, if they haven't, briefly summarize what needs attention? Thtatithticth (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

My page was recently removed? :(

Good Afternoon, I recently contributed a page based on an essay called A Sudden Illness by Laura Hillenbrand. The page wasn't completed removed but it was redirected over the the authors page, on the authors page there is nothing mentioning the essay as it was not one of her major novels. The reason for the "removal" was because the sources mainly came from blogs that aren't reliable sources. While I understand the reasoning behind the sources, a complete removal and redirect to a page that doesn't mention the essay at all does not seem effective to the purpose I entailed. The essay is not well known as it was one of her first smaller works as she began her writing career and it mentioned various times on the author's personal website which I did source. I choose the essay as I wanted to contribute a brand new page to a work of art that was not well recognized. I dont really know what to do now. Thank you in advance. --Cgonz562 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Chelsea

Cgonz562, hello. Article subjects on Wikipedia are expected to meet notability guidelines; briefly summarized, that means that we need to have multiple examples of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources before we create an article on the subject. Based on my research of "A Sudden Illness" and what you've written here, it doesn't seem like "A Sudden Illness" meets that standard. Looking at Laura Hillenbrand, it seems that the essay is mentioned there already, otherwise I would advise you to add such a mention. I'm sorry that this has meant that work you've done has gone to waste; in the future, I would suggest that you make sure to collect WP:THREE independent, reliable sources before starting an article to ensure that notability standards are met. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Before I make a fool of myself, I wanted to run this by an expert. Would I be incorrect to nicely suggest to an autopatrolled editor that they should not create the article page for other (non-autopatrolled) editors to actually write the article, because it bypasses important new page checks? Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, your intuition is correct. If they really want to keep publishing articles for other people, they should ping an admin or someone with new page reviewer permissions to unreview the page whenever they do.

I've actually noticed a weird edge case, which is that if I create an article, I don't have the ability to mark it unreviewed. However, if I publish a draft written by someone else, it gets marked as automatically reviewed but my NPP UI lets me mark it as unreviewed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh, that is weird...and doesn't make much sense either. Anyway, thanks for the sanity check. It looks like a one-time thing, but I didn't want to say anything to them without checking. Appreciate the quick reply! Schazjmd (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer

I don't deserve to fail a request to become a new page reviewer. I'm tired of you reviewing pages for me. If I become a new page reviewer, I would review those pages myself. I really want to do that. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

NASCARfan0548, new page reviewers don't get to review their own pages, so that's not a reason to want to become a new page reviewer. If you're just tired of seeing notifications about it, you can turn that off in your settings. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I still want to review pages. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

NASCARfan0548, participate more in deletion discussions, continue creating articles that meet notability guidelines, and consider volunteering at WP:AfC to build up a track record of work that demonstrates that you have the necessary knowledge to review articles. Alternatively, you can sign up for WP:NPPSCHOOL, which is a crash course in training for new page reviewing _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

NPR

Hiya, I don't usually like doing this but I have some serious concerns about Berrely's reviewer rights. I came across them earlier due to some strange CSDs and draftifications and was surprised to see they'd been granted the right with barely any content work and barely scraping by the 500 mainspace edits. However, I don't think they have a satisfactory understanding of our guidelines or policies. As an example, see this CSD, which clearly does not apply for either A1 or A7, this a2 which definitely doesn't apply, this a7, though I am loathe to say it, doesn't apply, this a1 which also doesn't apply. I could continue but I think it's fairly obvious that it's a bit too soon for them to hold any sort of advanced perms, especially for reviewing new pages. Praxidicae (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I hadn't seen the CSD tags, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I gave provisional permissions for two weeks so it won't be a big deal to remove them. I'll take a look later today and if I see any abuse or significant errors with the page curation tool specifically I'll remove them early. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, another admin stepped in and removed the permissions before I could get to this, which was probably the right call. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for feedback It helps us improve Newstartashu (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Technology Sources

Hi Rosgull,

I am a passionate student with an interest in data storage, hardware, and cloud technology. I recently started wiki edition and wish to be good at it. I want to be neutral and bring to light technologies, products that are really path-breaking. Your recent edit to one of the page I create MSys was insightful. I am trying to source relevant sources and will update the content. This time I will stick to data storage products only. I also created another one for Talon Storage. There are others too, I will have a look and if worthy, I will try to create. These are only for the fastest growing companies in the space of storage in the world. Some products would really great and worth mentioning, but what if there isn't a good source as required? This would depend on the company and how they place their product and where they have content online. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newstartashu (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Newstartashu, if there aren't good sources, then there really isn't anything that we can do. Wikipedia is designed as a lagging indicator of real world importance: we don't write about things until other reliable sources do first, because as a community project worked on by non-experts, we can't trust editors to conduct original research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Need Help Updating My First Three Articles

Hello, I create a few articles on some interesting public figures and a sports company. Can someone help me research and update these articles for me?

Article (Pharaoic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoic Article (Spzrts): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spzrts Article (Davion Robinson): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davion_Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson28.7 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Johnson28.7, I would suggest asking for help at the teahouse. Additionally, when creating articles in the future, I would suggest using the Articles for creation process, rather than putting things straight into mainspace where they may be deleted for not complying with policies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bi Nguyen

Hi! Thanks for your pointing out that there are WP:NMMA in en-wiki. I haven't heard of these criteria because I don't know much about MMA. Now I see that my article about Bi Nguyen met the criteria indicated by you:

Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization.

If so, then my stub should be restored because Bi Nguyen has already fought three professional fights for ONE Championship which is the largest MMA organisation in Asia. BTW, I'm fond of foreign languages, too. So I've added my lovely Vietnamese girl to bg-wiki a. et-wiki which recognise her as a notable woman. It is easy for me to add her to a number of other Wikipedias and prove her notability there, but I can't become reconciled to the fact that an article on her in English is currently lacking. Judging from WP:NMMA, such an article corresponds both the criteria of notability and the aims of our WikiProject Women in Red. I think you'll admit her to be notable when you take a look at her photo. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Janggun Dungan, I'm not an expert on MMA, but WP:NMMA defines top-tier as listed at WP:MMATIER, where ONE Championship is pretty clearly listed as second tier, not top tier (FWIW, it looks like Shooto is the top-tier fighting organization in Asia).

I'm not terribly surprised that other language Wikipedias have accepted the article. With the exception of the German project, the English Wikipedia has some of the strictest notability standards, and enforces them more consistently than virtually any other language project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can be mistaken because I am not interested in MMA. Besides, I did not read the English article on ONE Championship and limited myself to the Russian article about this organisation because I wrote about Bi Nguyen in the Bulgarian language which was nothing but a modification of Russian. According to ru-wiki,

ONE Championship является крупнейшей ММА организацией в Азии.

As you know Russian, I do not have to translate, yes? Relying on the statement in ru-wiki, I added this information to Bulgarian and Estonian Bi Nguyen:

"on suurim sportliku vabavõitluse (MMA) organisatsioon Aasias" (=Russian: является крупнейшей ММА организацией в Азии, i.e. Estonian translation of the above-mentioned statement in ru-wiki).

If the Russian article is correct, then my Vietnamese cutie is notable. So I cannot help taking into account the corresponding rules of Wikipedia, according to which you had to nominate my stub for debate instead of cancelling my revision. As for the strictest notability standards in en-wiki, I have to notice that my Kazakh girl C.C.TAY has been adopted by en-wiki, but she was nominated for deletion in ru-wiki last month. It seems that there aren't any standards in Wikipedia. Everybody adheres to those standards which he wants. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Janggun Dungan each language Wikipedia project is independent; the contents of the Russian article have no bearing on what we do on English Wikipedia. Moreover, there's a distinction to be made between article content and a WikiProject's recommendation: the latter represents an explicit consensus of Wikipedia editors who have agreed to establish a given standard to guide other editors, the former does not necessarily have the support of an explicit consensus and is not being written as a guideline for further editing. When evaluating articles, new page reviewers go by the community standards written by editors on enWiki: ruWiki's content has no bearing on our decision making process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Then I'm compelled by you to add her to a modification of the German language where notability standards are not so strict. If Dutch Wikipedians delete her, then I'll carry her from one WP to another, e.g. a modification of Dutch. To our fortune, we have got a lot of Wikipedias. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Request

Sir, I really didn't understand why I'm not promoted. Can you tell me clearly sir. I created 5 articles. You are telling sources are not there but sources are there. What's wrong in them. Please tell me sir. Whatever you tell, I'll do that sir but please promote me to New page reviewer. Please kindly look into it sir. Thanking you Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sri Harsha 191817, the sources that you have provided for the articles that I identified do not have independent analysis of the subjects in question; rather, they are primary sources, which are not sufficient for demonstrating notability on their own. Please read through the guidelines and policies that I linked in my original response, as they explain the standards that need to be met. Being a new page reviewer requires a near-admin level of knowledge of Wikipedia's article creation and sourcing policies. If you can't identify the issues with these articles even after I have explicitly pointed them out, then I'm afraid you're not ready to do page reviewing yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir. Thank you sir

Verification

That's a ton of languages. Anyway, low importance but when you get a chance could you check my couple recent reviews to make sure I'm on the right track with current policies. I don't want to get a ton into these and not be following the guidelines. A lot of these look like they'd be better for AfC such as the Bhagwa article. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 23:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Cliffsteinman, a few issues do pop up. Bhagwa, Jammu and Kashmir is poorly sourced but should be a shoo-in per WP:NGEO; I would withdraw the AfD nomination and mark it as approved given that it's already been tagged (also, don't forget to write a statement explaining the article's problems when creating the AfD nomination. If you're not already using it, WP:TWINKLE has a great built-in feature for filing AfDs, among a ton of other features). It's also not clear to me why you're nominating drafts for deletion through AfD (articles in draftspace are only deleted once they've been abandoned, in which case there's a speedy deletion protocol that applies), or why you're patrolling drafts at all (leave that to AfC). You can find articles to review using the Special:NewPagesFeed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I was on the New Pages Feed and there's a radio button to look at AfC. Figured I'd look. Will avoid. I do use Twinkle, I tagged using NGEO but it looks like it takes the actions separately. I did include the reasoning in the tagging which goes to the user. There's a user that appears to create a lot of sports players like college hockey players that didn't do anything significant. Should I use WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for these? cliffsteinman -- Discuss 23:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Cliffsteinman, oh hmm I'd forgotten that AfC was merged into the feed. Well, feel free to look at those articles, but bear in mind that the two processes have different requirements, and that AfD is not going to be appropriate for them.

Regarding AfD and Twinkle, I just meant that you should make sure that you've added your deletion justification so that it shows up on the deletion discussion page. Additionally, if you want to withdraw an AfD, make sure to actually specify that you're withdrawing it on the AfD page, otherwise it's going to stay on noticeboard lists and a bot will re-add the AfD tag. I'd suggest taking a look at logs of discussions (which can be found by following links at WP:AfD) to get a better sense of how they go.

Regarding the sports players, have you checked if they meet relevant guidelines at WP:NSPORTS? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have been historically hesitant to use CSD in these sorts of situations but the various WP:Nx information hadn't been established like it is now. It was a lot of judgement. In the case of hockey players it does give a clear reasoning I can cite so that's perfect. I'm also going to message the user so they don't keep wasting their time making pages for people who won't meet the criteria. Thank you. Also new pages have really picked up, there are a lot. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 23:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Eclipse13 actually has a lot of deletion tags under their talk page and it looks like they keep making people just hoping they stick. I'm not sure what you admins usually do in that situation. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 00:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit-- Some of them are but many look to be ok, or were handled. Disregard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffsteinman (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick request

Could you please revdel this? Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

BlackcurrantTea,  Done. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The Forsyte Saga: To Let article

User:Rosguill, if you re-direct this article (The Forsyte Saga: To Let) you are also *disappearing it*, therefore readers cannot see/access the information on Season 2 of this TV show. This article contains unique information (Season 2 episode descriptions) not found in the main article The Forsyte Saga (2002 TV series). Please re-read my edit summaries on the article's history page and be so kind as to restore this article so readers can use it. Cordially, History DMZ (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

History DMZ, you need to provide independent sources discussing the subject in order to demonstrate that it is notable and should have a wikipedia article. If you can find 2-3 reviews of To Let in reliable sources, I'd be happy to restore the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Rosguill, thank you for your quick response, but I'm quite confused. The user who originally re-directed this article justified it as it being "superfluous", now you say it is justified because of lack of sources. This article has been online since May 2009 (for over 10 years), so why is it being challenged now? Also, if you are going to disappear this page because its not notable, then you need to disappear all articles like this one that are about tv show episodes, that would be thousands. Could you please apply the same criteria as all the thousands of TV show episode articles? Cordially, History DMZ (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(watching) (edit conflict) See also User talk:History DMZ#The Forsyte Saga: To Let article. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

History DMZ, this is a partly a content issue, and partly a matter of explaining basic Wkipedia policy to you, thus Rosguill's talk page is the wrong venue for this discussion. It would be better taken up at the article talk page, the redirect page, or your talk page (for those portions which correspond to explanations of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy). Can we please follow this up at your Talk page, to the extent that you need explanations of why this correct revert by Rosguill took place, and what you need to do to get your content included? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

as panelas tocarem

Hi Rosguill, do you have a sense what's meant by "as panelas tocarem" in the phrase, foi a gota d`água e fez as panelas tocarem no país inteiro in the first paragraph of this article? I'm getting something like, "was the straw that broke the camel's back in the whole country" as the sense (from a more literal rendering about "the drop of water that made the pots overflow"--except I don't see "overflow" in there) but what is "panelas" doing there, and are they talking about cooking pots, or does that word have another meaning? Drops of water "touching (striking?) the pots" or making them overflow or something, akin to our idiom? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, I think your hunch is correct. Foi a gota d`água is equivalent to "straw that broke the camel's back". Fez as panelas tocarem is not part of the idiom, but rather refers to Cacerolazo, a form of protest that involves mass banging of pots and pans that's common across Spanish-speaking countries, and perhaps Portuguese-speaking ones as well. So, my understanding would be that a translation should be along the lines of it was the straw that broke the camel's back and unleashed a wave of discontent across the country (cacerolazos are often a stay-at-home protest, so saying that this caused mass protests across the country would be misleading). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. I knew about the pot-banging in that sense, but hadn't made the connection here, and also didn't know it had a name, either; so thanks doubly! Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP vandalism disaster; block needed

Howdy! You're at the top of the "recently active admins" list and this disaster is underway at Michael Douglas : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Douglas&action=history

AIV isn't responding; I'd greatly appreciate your help! Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You can stand down: Drmies did the honors! Belated congratulations on your adminship; take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

myjobhereisdone.jpg _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

TCPWave

(I assume things are somewhat alphabetical in this list)

The move page article did not explain how to move an article's contents and restore an earlier revision of the page. If you could take "TCP Wave" older revision that talks about the company and move it to "TCPWave", that would be awesome, I don't know how to.

Just to clarify the situation, "TCP Wave" refers to the internet protocol and "TCPWave" to some company. Neither articles are good, but there are special interests at play that would like to hijack the "TCP Wave" article/name, deleting "TCP Wave" makes it ripe for takeover by "TCPWave". I'd really not delete either articles before they could be cleaned up or improved by people and serve as disambiguation pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interneedus (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Interneedus, at this point you should make any arguments about why TCP Wave should have an article at the relevant deletion discussion. We can worry about which article should be where once we've established that we should have an article to begin with. For future reference, talk pages are organized chronologically; new sections go at the bottom (or you can hit the New Section button and it will insert it there automatically once published). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

RFD for "guee" and "guei" redirects

It would take me way too long for me to do it myself, since I don't have any automated tools.

Most redirects containing the strings "guee" or "guei" are actually Eubot redirects for "güe" and "güi"; these are used in Spanish to indicate that the u is pronounced (although there are a few Chinese ones thrown in). Is there any way to nominate them for deletion (checking each one first, of course)? If you don't have automated tools, is there someone else who could? HotdogPi 23:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

HotdogPi, the only relevant tool that I'm aware of is WP:TWINKLE, which is available to all autoconfirmed users. Once you have it enabled, you can nominate pages for RfD, AfD, etc. with minimal effort using the XfD option from dropdown menu that will appear next to the search bar. Once you've nominated a bunch of RfDs that belong in the same discussion, you can just copy-paste the generated code snippet into one consolidated section, deleting any leftover text (you can see examples of editors doing this in the history of most RfD discussion pages, usually with an edit summary along the lines of grouping. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)