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]