User talk:Piotrus

: 632

: 82

: 6

: 22

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.

Please start all new discussions at the bottom of this page and include a heading. When in doubt, click the "New Section" button above.

If I left you a message on your talk page, please answer it there by indenting one line and starting your response with a ping: {{Ping\|Piotrus}} If you leave me a message here on my talk page, I will answer your message here by pinging you.

Always sign your message (by clicking the sign button or by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~). Thanks in advance.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms.

Lurking stats

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days

Detailed traffic statistics

DYK for Big Three (World War II)

On 22 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Big Three (World War II), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there could have been as many as five individual leaders of the Big Three in World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Three (World War II). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Big Three (World War II)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,473 views (644.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wesołych Świąt" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wesołych Świąt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 23 § Wesołych Świąt until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ochaco Uraraka

This article have been nomed to FAC before then it was GAN rn but after checking the reception, its all trivia. Do you think this is notable? I know the editor wkrked hard on this, but I think its all trivia. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza! Generally I use SIGCOV as a test for whether something is AfDable. First step - articles mentioning the subject in the heading, used in reception/analysis. In the article, I see quite a few articles, all from CBR/Screen Rant. They tend to have so-so quality, there's at least one listicle, but overall, that may be enough to make her notable (the better ones are 1, 2, 3, 4). Of course, it would better to see something in a more reliable publication. But I'd not AfD it myself. Btw, these days AI with deep research is getting pretty solid. Before AfD, I'd ask AI to look for SIGCOV meeting sources, with explicit request to check Japanese sources. I have not tried it in BEFORE yet, but I am getting good results in some other fields with this approach. Just a hint regarding BEFORE in AI era. Anyway, thanks for checking with me. PS. I'll ping the article creator - maybe my AI hint will help them find more good sources for this. @Z. Patterson _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know this Piotrus, but many ditorsaid that Valnet sources shouldn't help notability . 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza! and Piotrus: I trimmed the product and special appearances in the reception section as I believe they are WP:ROTM for anime characters. The reception section uses sources besides those from Valnet, such as IGN and Den of Geek, but I plan to remove the less important Valnet sources, as Tintor2 suggested in Talk:Ochaco Uraraka#Reason for WP:GAN. Z. Patterson (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza! Maybe we should have a wider discussion about Valnet sources somewhere - if there was one, I wasn't aware of it. The sources don't seem to be marked as problematic by RSN, RSN/P or Headbomb script, so IMHO any criticism of them is not based on wide consensus. I am not saying they are high quality, but they are, AFAIK, acceptable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This consensus came from the WP:Film (see at its talk page "Valnet, Collider, and MovieWeb") and WP:VG (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources states at the sources that Valnet couldn't contribute to the notability and its a common practice to every editor of WP:VG, including myself). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic science fiction" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Classic science fiction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 26 § Classic science fiction until a consensus is reached. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artykuły o polskich politykach

Dzień dobry. Zauważyłem, że na angielskojęzycznej Wikipedii znajduje się pełno artykułów o polskich politykach, które nie mają swoich odpowiedników w plwiki. Są to postacie często o wątpliwej encyklopedyczności, np. Wojciech Papis (lider ruchu z nieistniejącym plwiki), Katarzyna Cichos, (lokalny polityk bez szczególnych osiągnięc), Aldona Skirgiełło (artykuł pełen słów, brak moim zdaniem ency osiągnięć), Romuald Starosielec, Wiesław Lewicki (prezesi ruchów politycznych, skoro ency tu, to czemu nie w pl?). Jako, iż kojarzę Pana z polskojęzycznej Poczekalni i wielokrotnie wypowiadał się tam Pan o enwiki, chciałbym się spytać czy istnienie tych artykułów na enwiki wynika z przeoczenia czy z różnic w zasadach. Z góry dziękuję za odpowiedź. 2A00:F41:802F:D0E6:98F6:5BCC:4C07:C9CF (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Witam (polecam rejestrację konta/logowanie, by otrzymywać powiadomienia o odpowiedziach, jak moja tutaj). Co do sprawy - i tak, i tak. Niekiedy temat uznany za nie-ency w jednym projekcie, przetrwa w drugim. Powody są różne: niekiedy w drugim projekcie nikt go nie stworzył, niekiedy nikt go nie zgłosił do kasacji w nim, albo tu i tam był inny konsensus. Są też niekiedy różne zasady (kryteria encyklopedyczności). Np. pl wiki ma zasadę, że każdy kto ma habilitację jest auto-ency. Na en nie ma na to zgody. Tak na szybko zerknąłem na razie na Wojciech Papis i spora szansa, że wyleciałby on z en wiki bo z hasła nie widzę ency. Ale - ktoś to musi zgłosić. Zapraszam do czyszczenia. Najłatwiej z kontem, i podpiąć pod nie WP:TWINKLE i z tego narzędzia zgłasząć. Aha, zapraszam też do watchlistowania i komentowania co tydzień np. na dyskusjach pod Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]