User talk:Trainsandotherthings/Archive 3

DYK nomination for Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States

Hello! Your submission of Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. (Just waiting on QPQ, everything else looks good to me.) — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 02:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Waycross Air Line Railroad

On 11 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Waycross Air Line Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the route of the former Waycross Air Line Railroad is now an important CSX Transportation line? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Waycross Air Line Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Waycross Air Line Railroad), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pitney Bowes edit request

Hello! I'm a Pitney Bowes employee trying to get a few straightforward edits made to the company page. You might remember that I reached out to you on the PB Talk page not too long ago, but since I haven't heard back, I thought I would ask for your assistance a little more directly. Would you be willing to look over my proposed edits? Sorry if I'm pestering; I've just had a lot of trouble getting help with this request. I posted it in mid-January and have asked several WikiProjects and editors for help without any response. No pressure, obviously, but I would really appreciate it if you could review the request. Thank you! MTatPitneyBowes (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@MTatPitneyBowes: I will add it to my to-do list, but I have relatively limited time to edit right now so I may not get to it until this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waycross Air Line Railroad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Waycross Air Line Railroad 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 FormalDude -- FormalDude (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for the review, and let me know the next time you nominate an article that's outside my contribution area. (I'll add to the Salem & Lowell and Warwick articles when I get a chance; I managed to get a copy of a 1979 Shoreliner article on the latter.) BTW, per WP:GAN/I#R4, I don't think you need to subst {{GA}} like you do with {{GAN}}. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: You're welcome for the review, and I'll let you know next time I nominate something that fits that description. I'll also likely be nominating Stony Brook Railroad for GA soon, I made some progress recently but I've been particularly busy in real life this week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Salem and Lowell Railroad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Salem and Lowell Railroad 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 Rlink2 -- Rlink2 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Salem and Lowell Railroad

The article Salem and Lowell Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Salem and Lowell Railroad 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 Rlink2 -- Rlink2 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nine_Inch_Nails

This was one of the most clever AfD's I've seen in a long time! Khemehekis (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Khemehekis: Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Warwick Railway

On 15 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Warwick Railway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Warwick Railway successfully operated independently for decades despite having just three employees, two locomotives, and less than a mile (1.6 km) of track? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Warwick Railway. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Warwick Railway), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,067 views (588.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work!

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States

On 17 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while the United States Armed Forces are forbidden from using flamethrowers by an international treaty, there are no restrictions on civilian use in 48 states and the District of Columbia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,112 views (592.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work!

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waycross Air Line Railroad

The article Waycross Air Line Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Waycross Air Line Railroad 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 FormalDude -- FormalDude (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

PACCAR Original Research

Hi Trainsandotherthings, I'm trying to figure out what you consider to be "original research" in my edit to the PACCAR page entry. Is it "medium- and heavy-duty trucks....can be used to support the logistical needs of the Ukraine invasion"? Is that what you are disputing? Thanks!SearchN4Truth (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@SearchN4Truth: Per our policies on original research and synthesis, you cannot say things like "However, as one of the largest manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty trucks in the world, PACCAR products can be used to support the logistical needs of the Ukraine invasion, so their business activities in Russia is of more consequence than corporations that produce consumer products." unless a reliable source makes that conclusion. What you are doing with your edits is synthesis of sources. There's sources which prove PACCAR makes trucks, sources that they haven't pulled out of Russia, but you can't jump from that to the conclusion that they are or could be supporting the invasion of Ukraine unless a source directly makes this conclusion. Otherwise this is synthesis of sources which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please read the links in my message, especially the one about synthesis. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Then it would be OK if I leave off "so their business activities in Russia is of more consequence than corporations that produce consumer products"? Surely the "medium- and heavy-duty trucks....can be used to support the logistical needs of the Ukraine invasion" part is not a conclusion. SearchN4Truth (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That is absolutely a conclusion, because it's being implied that PACCAR specifically is indirectly supporting the invasion, which is not a claim supported by any identified reliable source. In summary, it's fine to mention that PACCAR is still doing business in Russia, and that they've been identified as "Defying Demands for Exit or Reduction of Activities." What's not ok is to extrapolate from that to the conclusion that their products can be used to support the invasion. This may seem silly, but we have these rules for good reasons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warwick Railway

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warwick Railway 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 Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warwick Railway

The article Warwick Railway 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:Warwick Railway for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, 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.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AFD

To whom may may concern, I have put up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee for deletion. There is no coverage of railroad rulebooks in the media. Also the GCOR article is literally a copy/paste from a Trains article lol Ironmatic1 (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stony Brook Railroad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stony Brook Railroad 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For working so diligently on making sure all reviews were checked and participants awarded barnstars during the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Thanks for your hard work! VR talk 03:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For reviewing at least 3 points worth of articles during the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present myself with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Very well deserved! Thanks for sticking with it!! Mujinga (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Trainsandotherthings. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider applying to become a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warwick Railway

The article Warwick Railway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Warwick Railway 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 Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

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

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Year Zero (album) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Year Zero (album) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 14, 2022. Please check 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/July 14, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stony Brook Railroad

The article Stony Brook Railroad 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:Stony Brook Railroad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stony Brook Railroad

The article Stony Brook Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stony Brook Railroad 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

One Astor Plaza

Hi there! I am new to reviewing GA articles. I went and reviewed One Astor Plaza, and I did have my review checked by a mentor. I've noticed you declined some reviews for saying there is no review done, but those reviews look the same as mine. Please can you look at my review and let me know if it's okay? I want to help, but ensure I am doing it right. I feel like reviewing articles against the criteria is helping me learn how to make my own edits better also. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MaxnaCarta, the declined reviews are related to the June 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, which is a friendly competition that awards points to reviewers. They are "declined" only in the sense that per the rules of the competition, to gain points reviews must be up to a certain standard. The articles in question are still GAs even if the reviews don't get credit as part of the competition. Hope that helps! Also, you reviewed an Epicgenius article; his articles are known for being exceptionally well written and needing very few changes at GAN (he has made several hundred GAs). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Trainsandotherthings :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

delisted rhode island for good article nomination

im sorrryyy!! i didnt realize that the article was so far from being considered a good article, it looks alright to me. and i didnt realize you need to edit it to nominate it as a good article!! my bad boss. i just love my state lol. dw, i learned my lesson, i won't do it again! SusImposter49 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@SusImposter49: It is general practice among editors not to nominate an article you haven't contributed to. And I strongly suggest you review Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions before nominating any other articles. A good place to look is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rhode Island/1 which shows a number of issues with the article. Make sure all the issues there are resolved before nominating the article, this will avoid a quickfail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

got it boss!! SusImposter49 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Moshassuck Valley Railroad

On 15 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moshassuck Valley Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the two-mile-long (3.2 km) Moshassuck Valley Railroad (pictured) operated independently for 105 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moshassuck Valley Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moshassuck Valley Railroad), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,981 views (748.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Stony Brook Railroad

On 16 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stony Brook Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Stony Brook Railroad was in business from 1845 to 2022, but never owned a single locomotive or ran a single train? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stony Brook Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stony Brook Railroad), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,224 views (768.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Take a look

Hello. I hope this message meets you well. If you aren't too busy, I'd like you to review this page Cross (BBNaija). Amaekuma (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Cedar Hill Yard

Congratulations, Trainsandotherthings! The article you nominated, Cedar Hill Yard, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Congrats on your first FA! W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 07:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Quick question

What do you mean by, approximately, "that's four more than in List of locomotives" at the AFD. As i see it, I found 45 more than can reasonably be found in the categories. A "list of lists" is a list; i prefer simple "List of locomotives" as title. --Doncram (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doncram: My point was that none of the preserved locomotives of Colorado are on that list right now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying for me. --Doncram (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Trainsandotherthings,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11292 articles, as of 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. 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 a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything 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. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability of train stations

Let me say that I think you do good work and that I appreciate you as a fellow contributor, and it's in that light that I express my disappointment with how you structured Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations. At best, it's going to perpetuate the status quo. At worst, it's going to lead to a series of time-wasting deletion discussions. I don't disagree that the existing informal consensus needed to be clarified, but as written it's an invitation to Option 4 (notability regulars hate inherent notability) but as you can see from the responses there is no agreement as to what that option means. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mackensen: It's not a secret that I personally am leaning towards option 3 or 4, but I tried to make it neutrally worded. I'm sick of the arguments every time a train station appears at AfD, and an RfC was the only way I could think of to try and get to some sort of consensus on the issue. I will say that I've never written an RfC before, but I genuinely intended it to be neutrally worded, and I specifically mentioned the unresolved issues from the 2019 RfC to bring them to the attention of participants. Option 2 in the RfC also accounts for the definition of a train station. Someone else likely could have written a much better RfC than I, but I didn't think it was going to happen at all unless I did it. At this point I agree this will require a follow up exclusively focused on the definition of a train station. As someone who's fairly committed to clear and easy to understand policies and rules, the existence of a completely informal consensus bothers me. If we want to decide that heavy rail stations are presumed notable, that's fine, but it needs to be written down somewhere.

Looking back now, I probably should have asked for help at WT:TRAINS about drafting the RfC before making it live. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly you would have encountered plenty of obstruction from some folks in the Trains project. That's the nature of the thing. But I'm not being wise after the fact in saying that I would have helped. The ambiguity of Option 2 and inherent/presumptive distinction is tripping people up and driving everyone to Option 4 as a safe harbor, but the range of opinions there creates something of a no-op. I don't know, maybe it turns out okay in the end. To be clear, I agree completely that something needed to be written down and that the status quo was somewhat untenable. The lack of significant participation so far from TRAINS regulars is...something. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this comment of yours at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan'an South railway station: Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly. That's an appalling thing to say and calls into question the entire RfC. Apologies for saying so, but I can't overlook that. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I just left a reply stating I'm ending my involvement. This has gotten to me emotionally. A certain editor has shown up to badger every single AfD with "Keep. All train stations are notable because I say so." and totally refused to move an inch. It has pissed me off quite frankly. The RfC was NOT started just to "win a dispute". I would respect whatever consensus came out of it, even if it were against my personal beliefs on the issue. But I'm disengaging with it now and going back to actual content work instead. I'm starting a FAC and a new GAN and again, not engaging with the issue any further unless specifically asked. Me swearing at another editor wasn't called for, regardless of the level of my frustration. It wasn't my intent to make a "malformed RfC" but someone had to do something. The status quo is untenable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're upset. I'm somewhat upset myself. Having worked on railway station articles (among other topics) for fifteen years or so and seeing all that work called into question (and unfairly so in my view) has been incredibly difficult. I'm not sure people intended to do that, but that's the outcome and I feel like I'm not being listened to. Taking a break from the topic is probably for the best, for both of us. When you're ready, I agree that it's worth revisiting, but more thoroughly, and with greater preparation. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I'm very pleased to present the Triple Crown Jewels to Trainsandotherthings, for your work on "Did you know?" and the good and featured article processes! — Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on the award! I was surprised when I checked to see that you've been an editor for just under a year, because you're definitely making a name for yourself and have had lots of major content creation achievements in that time. You might be interested in a userbox I made, {{User crown}}:

This user has been awarded a Standard Triple Crown.

— Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States

The article Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Saved you the time of nominating yourself

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Cedar Hill Yard. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I oppose this or...? /j — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Only editors with at least one Good Article are allowed to oppose. Unfortunately this excludes you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Another award

	Too much content award
	The reason I don't have any GAs is because y'all keep taking all the content! Leave some minor disused unimportant railway stations for the rest of us won't ya? — TNT (talk • she/her) 03:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855)

I have expanded the article Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855) to hopefully read more as a class of locomotive instead of an individual locomotive. I would probably also suggest to remove 'Ariel' from the article name to have the locomotives of Victoria, Australia all conform to a standard. As for changing the wheel notation of '0-4-0T' in the name to '0-4-0VBT', I've only ever seen it referred to as a tank even though it does have a vertical boiler.
As for notability, it was the second locomotive manufactured in Australia. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have had time to review the changes to this article yet. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

List of largest towns in England without a railway station

Hello, I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest towns in England without a railway station (2nd nomination) was closed as delete, with part of the closing statement being The individual entries in this list seem to be fairly well-sourced, so it can be understandably frustrating to delete a well-sourced article. However, keep in mind that verifiability and notability are two entirely different concepts. Consensus is that while most of the information in this list is verifiable, the list itself is about a non-notable topic, and therefore must be deleted.. I do find it a bit frustrating to be honest, as this is content clearly valued by our readers with thousands of views per month. I knew it wouldn't pass the strictest definition of list notability and so I didn't bother voting. I tend to get shot down if I try suggesting WP:IAR, but I think that's relevant here. I am just curious, how do you think removing this content benefits the project? Folks who previously Googled and found this summary will no longer have that available to them; they won't be drawn in to our project and potentially become new editors. I think removing these articles is detrimental to the project for this reason. NemesisAT (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And yes as we discussed, we could write a new article about the impact of the Beeching cuts. However I don't feel very encouraged to do that as that could probably be classed as WP:SYNTH too and deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@NemesisAT: I'm not sure what you want me to say. The article was WP:SYNTH. We have these policies and guidelines for reasons, not just because we wish to have bureaucracy. And the subject for an article I suggested would not be SYNTH, because there are multiple reliable sources discussing the legacy of the Beeching Cuts in significant detail. Your quarrel isn't with me, but with WP:SYNTH. We fundamentally have different views to some extent on what Wikipedia should be. I have the view that we should have a somewhat limited scope, and worry about quality. You wish to see a broader scope and inclusion of things which may not quite meet the letter of policy but you believe are useful to readers. I'm not saying either is inherently wrong, but that's just how we view things. If you think the way SYNTH is currently applied is wrong, you could certainly start a discussion on that at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations on getting Cedar Hill Yard to FA! Best wishes to you in your future endeavors. Fritzmann (message me) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: Thank you! Knowing that others appreciate my work is what keeps me writing articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan'an South railway station

If you keep being disruptive by deliberately ignoring the consensus clearly reached at the RfC, I will be seeking sanctions against you. Please don't let it get to that point. Please do not ever accuse another another editor of being disruptive and threaten them with sanctions for expressing their opinion in good faith at an AfD. May I suggest that you remember that we are all entitled to our opinion and we are all trying to create an encyclopaedia. My record on that front speaks for itself. I do not appreciate your tone and I suspect other editors will not either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: You are being disruptive, and you know it. Don't come at me and appeal to civility after the multiple times you've attacked me. Either you will respect consensus, or I will take you to ANI and make you respect consensus. I don't appreciate your condescending, "I'm so much better than you" attitude. You are completely out of line with community consensus on the issue. Intentionally ignoring consensus is not a good faith action, and you know it. Do not test me. Please review the results at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations, specifically "There clear is consensus that train stations have no inherent notability". If you do not respect that consensus, I will promptly seek sanctions against you. Now get off my talk page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Noting I have removed a cruel personal attack by Necrothesp from my talk page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As has been said here and there, making demands and threats does not help deescalate any situation; it would likely be seen negatively by the community should you turn to ANI. Please disengage, as Necrothesp has indicated they have done. If I were you, I would trust the community to deal with any issues here, at least in the short term. Should you feel more immediate action is needed, I suggest contacting a friendly administrator for advice. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wjemather: So it's fine to allow Necrothesp's egregious personal attacks to go without any response? I guess civility rules don't apply if you're an administrator. Very disappointing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't ok; and it hasn't gone without any response. Hopefully, since it has been brought to their attention, such remarks will stop – they are certainly uncivil, even if they insist that they are not personal attacks. Unfortunately, ANI is a drama show, and those reacting strongly to such comments often get the short end of the stick, hence my suggestion to find an admin for advice should there be any further issues. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Take a break

I've been looking at the interactions between Necrothesp and yourself — their personal attacks were out of line and I have warned them accordingly — but I do feel the need to say that I found a lot of your recent comments (to them, and elsewhere on similar topics) to be heated bordering on inflammatory. I know as well as any of us how easily comments and situations can get under your skin, and I've regrettably lashed out in the past. Stepping away, from the topic area or the project as a whole, is good for you in these moments. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Believe me, you don't have to tell me to take a break. After the horrible things Necro said about me, I don't exactly have much desire to interact with anyone at any noticeboard. Nice to know my "arrogance has no bounds" and I have a "massive superiority complex". When I see something I think is wrong, it can be hard to resist pointing it out, be it the attempt to partially unblock a serial copyright violator before the user in question requested an unblock, or an editor intentionally ignoring community consensus to prove a point. But having a sitting admin say things to me worse than any vandal or LTA has ever said to me, that particularly bothers me. No matter how heated I've gotten I have never said anything on that level.

I don't know, I guess I thought with a year of editing experience it was ok to engage on the noticeboards sometimes. Obviously not since it clearly brings out the worst in me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruth, Washington and the great National Railway conundrum

Hey T.A.O.T.

Thanks for the edit to that page. I am by no means a railway expert (I still think a caboose is gonna be on the end of every next train), and I messed that up but the weird thing was that I read old newspaper articles and a blog post that did a deep but unverified dive on Ruth, WA and they did call it the National Pacific Railway. I couldn't use the sources because they weren't informative/ref'd enough, but I never noticed that other articles mentioned it correctly. I wonder if there is some national newspaper committee who awards large sums of cash for people who find mistakes from issues over a hundred years old. The husband wants a new table saw and I ain't spending my money on it.

Anyways! Thanks for catching the error, and if I can pester you for a favor, could you recommend a solid website that I could use to add railway info on certain town/city articles in Western Washington? Say, annual traffic, tonnage, ownership...it is a nightmare of knowledge to me.

All the best Shortiefourten (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shortiefourten: I'm a New Englander, so I'm not as familiar with sourcing for the Pacific Northwest. I spend quite a bit of time browsing articles and sometimes get down rabbit holes. I saw the listed railroad name, thought to myself it seemed odd, and verified it was an error. Granted, National Pacific Railway -> Northern Pacific Railway isn't too crazy of a change to have happened by mistake, but that's why when I'm looking at sources I usually check with several when there's confusion on a name of something. This is the trouble with blogs - while they may go very much into detail, there's no editor checking for errors. We do have a very comprehensive list at List of Washington railroads; if a railroad isn't on that list, it probably never existed. As far as a reliable website, there's not really one out there that is comprehensive and reliable. I rely on a mix of newspaper archives and specialist publications (I own a book on all of the railroad lines in Southern New England).

I did find that WADOT has an interactive map showing who owns every active rail line in the state [1]. If you're curious, there's still an active railroad in Ruth, the Chehalis–Centralia Railroad. Articles on things over 100 years old are kind of my thing, I wrote a featured article on a rail yard built over 100 years ago. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Trainsandotherthings

This is going to be very helpful! Can't thank you enough. Hopefully I can disseminate the railroad verbiage enough for it to be understandable on some of the Wiki pages I hope to expand on here in Western WA. And you're spot on about the blogs - just enough of it is factual and true to get you going, but then you run in to just enough that throws the whole time you spent into the garbage.

All the best to you and in spirit, hope you all over there are handling the same type of heat wave as well as us non-air conditioned Puget Sounders are. Shortiefourten (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Haven and Derby Railroad

The article New Haven and Derby Railroad 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:New Haven and Derby Railroad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Styyx -- Styyx (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Preserved locomotive drafts that need fixing

Hey, so um. These drafts, namely Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States and Draft:Preserved locomotives in Canada, have been made, but mostly aren’t looking too good. If you would do anything that would improve them whatsoever, that’d be neat. 2600:100C:B21B:B7BB:98B5:847D:87C5:4896 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@2600:100C:B21B:B7BB:98B5:847D:87C5:4896: Wow... that's a mess. I think we have an issue with too large of a scope. There are easily thousands of locomotives that could fit within Preserved locomotives in the United States. The list may need to be broken down into smaller lists. Perhaps by region? A list with thousands of entries becomes a massive pain to navigate. I don't normally do articles on individual locomotives, I find that's an area not lacking in editors the way articles on railroad companies and rail yards are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey. There are also several more drafts, namely Draft:Hampton & Branchville 44 Draft:St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway 5 Draft:Sumter & Choctaw 103 Draft:Polson Logging Co. 2 Draft:Cherokee Brick & Tile 1 Draft:Nickel Plate Road 755 Draft:Nickel Plate Road 757 Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 10 Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 9 Draft:Dardanelle and Russellville Railroad 8 Draft:Phenix Marble Company 1 Draft:Leviathan (locomotive) Draft:East Broad Top 12 Draft:East Broad Top 14 Draft:East Broad Top 15 Draft:East Broad Top 16 Draft:East Broad Top 17 Draft:East Broad Top 18 Draft:Wilmington and Western 58 Draft:Wilmington and Western 98 Draft:Virginia and Truckee 11 Reno Draft:Virginia and Truckee 12 Genoa Draft:Virginia and Truckee 21 J.W. Bowker Draft:Lowville and Beaver River Railroad 8 Draft:Union Pacific 4420 Draft:Southern Pacific 1233 Draft:Southern Pacific 1269 were all created by someone with the tag 70.189.24.158.

Excuse me?! I'm NOT bullying you, I'm being nice to you. What the heck is your problem? Are trying to offend me? Trains13 (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

User:trains13, dude, chill out. I just like to mess with you AND test your coping skills. That’s all I was doing to you for the past night.

You're LYING, aren't you? You need to learn some manners and chill out. Trains13 (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you two argue somewhere besides my talk page? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Trainsandotherthings,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)