Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  Policy  Technical  Proposals  Idea lab  Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Archives, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61

Was the album Truth Beyond... ever officially released on Morbid Records?

Could anybody help me out with this? Oxygene7-13 ( talk) 12:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There were replies (without an answer to the question) at WP:Help desk/Archives/2019 March 13#Neuraxis - Truth beyond (metal album). -- Pipetricker ( talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NBSPs in inappropriate places break template parameters

What happened here? Some spaces seem to be replaced by spaces of a different kind. After this edit, the items type and fatalities are no longer displayed in the infobox. -- FredTC ( talk) 07:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Those were "raw" (meaning not encoded like   or  ) non-breaking spaces (NBSP), and those don't work as separators in template parameter assignments like regular spaces do, hence the disappearing items – same thing happens if you replace a space with  . -- Pipetricker ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But how did such spaces get there? I have no way to detect that they are there. When I edit the version I mentioned, and select/copy (ctrl-C) the code for the infobox, then paste it to a notepad.exe file, I cannot see a difference. Can I produce it by accident? How? -- FredTC ( talk) 11:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Per the tag of the edit you linked to, in this case the culprit was the official Wikipedia iOS app.
Some text editors highlight NBSPs (for example LibreOffice Writer) or have an option to do so (the Show all formatting marks, ¶, option in Microsoft Word). There are feature requests for MediaWiki at Phabricator:
-- Pipetricker ( talk) 15:10, 15 March (UTC), 23:26, 09:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have copied the above to WP:Village pump (technical). Please make any technical comments there, and feel free to continue non-technical discussion here. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 15:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede section of Abiy Ahmed

Although last year the German Federal Foreign Office issued a statement saying that Prime Minister Abiy and President Isaias "have shown that it is possible to move beyond long years of animosity and to open a new chapter in their relations" and that the declaration of peace and friendship signed by the two leaders 'provides grounds for hope that the conflict, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of people, can be permanently resolved', [1] and the Pope stated "in the midst of so many conflicts, it's dutiful to point out an initiative that can be called historic", expressing hope that talks between the two nations would "turn on a light of hope for these two countries in the Horn of Africa and for the entire African continent", [2]

currently our lede characterizes the Ethiopian prime minister as having launched a wide programme of political and economic reforms which destabilized Ethiopia. Since Abiy came to power in April 2018, Ethiopia went into high number of ethnic-based beheadings, lynchings, rapes, lawlessness and barbaric murders; which led Ethiopia to be the country with the highest number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the world, for 2018 & 2019. [3] [4] As of February 2019, there are 3 million internally displaced persons in Ethiopia. [5] As international news medias reported on March 2019, Abiy's new administration is doing organised ethnic cleansing, and in some areas denying basic emergency food aid for displaced people in an effort to force them to return to their previous cities. He is doing this to glorify his new federal government administration's public image, and to avoid his administration being permanently associated with IDPs. However, these has led to a humanitarian crisis with children being malnourished & adults starving, since they are too afraid to go back from where they were displaced from, because of continued violence. [3]


  1. ^ "Statement by the Federal Foreign Office on the joint declaration by Ethiopia and Eritrea". Berlin: Federal Foreign Office. p. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 11 July 2018.
  2. ^ "Pope singles out 'good news' about Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict". Washington Post. Associated Press. 1 July 2018. Retrieved 9 July 2018.
  3. ^ a b "TheGuardian, "Shadow falls over Ethiopia reforms as warnings of crisis go unheeded"".
  4. ^ "Reuters, "Ethnic unrest tarnishes new Ethiopian leader's reforms"".
  5. ^ "EuroNews, "Ethiopia: 3 million internally displaced in escalating humanitarian crisis"".

Is some balance needed in our biography of an important political person still alive? -- BushelCandle ( talk) 09:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The Pope is free to think whatever he wants, he's no authority on geopolitics. And whatever people hope happens, what matters is what does happen. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To quote Joseph Stalin, "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?" The case is the Pope's opinion should not supersede reliable sources (I am operating under the assumption the article in question is adequately sourced), and using a quote from the Pope to contest the existing information smacks too much of WP:OR. SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I apologise that my original posting was not clear.
The "meat" of our article on Abiy Ahmed, the current prime minister of Ethiopia is balanced and reasonably well sourced.
Unfortunately, in the last week or so one prolific editor has heavily slanted the opening lede section so that it is no longer a balanced and fair "executive summary" of the rest of this BLP. -- BushelCandle ( talk) 21:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
BushelCandle, I changed the heading of this talk section to make it clearer. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 15:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Happily, the opening section has now been reformed to be a fairer "executive summary" of the rest of the article and subsequently effective administrative action has been taken. -- BushelCandle ( talk) 02:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


I've written a few sentences about essays below. This isn't an RfC, although I would appreciate feedback on whether this is valid or if I'm a bit out of my depth.

Wikipedia:The value of essays basically states that it's impossible to determine the value of a given essay, even if all essays are supposed to have some sort of purpose. There are at least 1,959 self-described essays in Category:Wikipedia essays (although some are not actually essays).

  1. What's the point of reading unsolicited opinion pieces?
    • Wikipedia:Essays states that the reader is expected to use "common sense and discretion" to understand whether an essay is contextually important. If essays are supposed to be related to the project itself, isn't it impossible for a new user to actually understand whether an author's point of view is sensible (regardless of whether an essay was written in good faith), since new users usually aren't aware of Wikipedia's internal affairs to begin with?
    • By extension, if those who read essays are expected to understand the importance of individual essays in order to understand the essays themselves, aren't all essays just preaching to the choir (since the target audience is effectively just other experienced editors)?
    • If it's impossible to objectively consider essays to be important, is it a waste of time to read them? In other words, if I wanted to figure out the consensus of the hive mind on a particular topic, why would I want to read a dozen separately developed opinions instead of reading a short summary?
  2. Are all essays created equal (or put another way, are all essays equally unimportant)?
    • If importance cannot actually be determined, why is there a large navbox (among several navboxes) which contains a limited subset of essays but which may appear to be presented as a collection of important essays? (Alternately, if there's a navbox that supposedly links to all 357 essays of value, why is it stated that importance cannot be determined?)
    • The only actual metric mentioned by Wikipedia:The value of essays is page views. If no one is reading an essay (and no one has read it for years and years), is that enough to consider it unimportant?

Should essays be actively curated by the community in order to reduce the amount of required reading for someone aiming to actually understand the culture/hive mind? 2,000 essays is probably overkill, and the massive number of forgotten essays probably diminishes the perceived value of more important essays.

  1. Only experienced users tend to create new essays. Is it useful to read those essays?
    • Only 13 categorized essays were created in the 76 days between 1 January and today. In the same period, only one tagged essay (ignoring the three Signpost-related pages) was nominated for deletion. All 14 of the aforementioned essays are in the Wikipedia namespace.
    • A majority of the creators of those 13 new essays have more than 10,000 edits, and the few who don't joined Wikipedia more than ten years ago. If only the "old guard" and otherwise experienced users are creating essays anyway, wouldn't it make sense to make the effort to actually ensure that those essays are useful in some way, instead of letting them all sit around with ambiguous significance?
  2. Is it appropriate to unilaterally redirect redundant essays, just as articles can be unilaterally redirected? (Or should essays always be taken to MfD?)
    • If an essay's content or point of view is substantially duplicated by the text of a policy or guideline, would it be appropriate to unilaterally redirect the page to the related policy or guideline?
    • Similarly, if an essay is duplicative of another essay which has more page views, would it be appropriate to unilaterally redirect the lesser-known essay and/or merge the contents?
  3. Should more essays be semi-formally established as being actually important, at a level below guidelines? (I know there's already a large amount of guidelines, but that number is an order of magnitude less than the number of essays.)
    • Would it be appropriate to separate essays that espouse particular viewpoints from those that describe multiple editors' viewpoints (e.g. by "officially" labeling them as information pages or explanatory supplements)?
    • Would it be appropriate to move unimportant or redundant essays – particularly old essays that don't have many incoming links – out of the Wikipedia namespace?

Jc86035 ( talk) 16:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've numbered your questions, to make it easier to follow along.
From the first set:
  1. Who says that they're unsolicited opinions? I've written essays at the direct request of other experienced editors. In other cases, I've written essays because I keep having to explain the same things over and over, like Wikipedia:Secondary is not another way to spell good or Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.
  2. Essays are not all created equal. But since we don't realistically expect inexperienced people to encounter many of them, that's okay. If the essay is well-written and you have some experience, then you should be able to identify its boundaries. This process is helped by links to related essays, e.g., BLUE linking to NOTBLUE, so that interested editors can see that different views exist.
    • We do have some that aren't well-written in that regard. For example, WP:BRD was called an essay for years, although it was changed to a "supplement" a year or two ago, and every now and again, it's necessary to go back and re-emphasize its purely optional only-for-the-grown-ups nature in the face of editors who wrongly claim that it's a mandatory process.
From the second set:
  1. The fact that essays are created primarily by experienced editors is probably correlated with their practical utility. An essay from a brand-new editor on how sourcing ought to work is very likely to be wrong.
  2. You can WP:MERGE redundant essays, using exactly the same best judgment that you would use in deciding whether to merge articles. For example, a few years ago, I merged WP:3PARTY and WP:INDY. In the end, I talked about it on the various talk pages for more than two years before I actually merged the pages.
  3. No. The trend is to declare popular essays to be "supplements" to guidelines and policies. That works passably well in many cases, but it's a problem in others. For example, WP:INDY was tagged as a supplement to two policies, but it's actually a supplement to explain a term used in at least four policies and all of the notability guidelines. (Just imagine what that tag would look like. ;-) Ultimately, I think it ought to be a guideline, but IMO that will require a serious re-write for cohesion and concision, which I haven't made time for.
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ WhatamIdoing: Thanks for responding. I largely agree with your points. Having actually nominated two essays for deletion, in hindsight I think the main issue with my reasoning is that I underestimated the utility of certain essays by incorrectly assuming that most useful essays would already be linked to from {{ Wikipedia essays}}. I also didn't realize that most of the recently created essays had already been edited by more than one user.
Regarding "not all created equal": I think it might be appropriate to modify Wikipedia:The value of essays to reflect this a little more and mention the navbox effect. Only a few essay authors have added their own essays to that template. Jc86035 ( talk) 05:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Syed Nabeel

Can someone take a look at Syed Nabeel (playwright/director/actor) which has content and redirects to Syed Nabeel. Any idea what's happened ? Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 21:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@ GrahamHardy: There were duplicate articles created, and that one was redirected without the content being removed.  Done -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(The content of) the article now at Syed Nabeel was originally created at Draft:Syed Nabeel, which was then moved to Syed Nabeel (playwright/director/actor). From there the content was copied and pasted onto the former redirect Syed Nabeel (which had been blanked), and Syed Nabeel (playwright/director/actor) was redirected to Syed Nabeel (without removing the article content from Syed Nabeel (playwright/director/actor)).

All this was done by the same user, so the pasting of the article text onto Syed Nabeel was (presumably) done by the original author, but the pasting (without mentioning in the edit summary where the text was copied from) made this less clear than it would have been if Syed Nabeel (playwright/director/actor) instead had been renamed by using the move function. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 10:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the attribution of the copy-pasted content, even though being copied by (presumably) the original author, it maybe wasn't strictly required. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 14:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Strange things

I've just started making repairs at Category:Pages with broken reference names. I don't understand how people make changes without see if it works probably.

Really strange things are fairly infrequent. Yesterday I had trouble with Ateneo Lady Eagles Volleyball Team. It transcludes a chunk from {{#section-h:Ateneo Blue Eagles|Ateneo Lady Eagles Volleyball Team Pool}}. But before it had {{#section:Ateneo Blue Eagles|Ateneo Lady Eagles Volleyball Team Pool}}. I don't know #section is but made the page absolute terrible. Who could not see it was wrong.

Another one was Windows XP now and before

However, there is another kind of mistake which could be bad in the wrong hands. Basically, many different infoboxes, e.g. {{ Infobox Wrestling event}}, can have unknown parameters, and they can be swallowed nothing happens. E.g. WrestleMania 34|theme= 'theme' is not a parameter " Celebrate" by Kid Rock<ref>{{cite web|title=It's a party on The #GrandestStageOfThemAll, "Celebrate" by #WWEHOF Class of 2018 Inductee @KidRock is an #OfficialThemeSong of #WrestleMania 34.|url= 16, 2018|publisher=WWE on Twitter|accessdate=March 29, 2018|deadurl=no|archiveurl= 4, 2018|df=}}</ref>
"Let The Good Times Roll" by Freddie King<ref name=33Theme2/>
" New Orleans" by Kid Rock<ref name=33Theme3/>}}. It's not good here, but not bad either.

But something sinister, see White Eagles (paramilitary). {{ Infobox military unit}} there were pseudo-parameter |ideology={{plainlist|

Obviously (?) now the messages are harmless, but what I'm saying is that there should be better control of non-parameters. The easiest way would be for the 'publish changes' button to be "greyed out".

Other places which allow the same sort of thing, to me is {{ reflist}}.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Talk about confusing ( talkcontribs) 07:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I suspect many do not realise they are doing anything wrong, and do not know how to do it right. Sometimes I will have a wrong parameter, but I don't have time to find out the correct name. So I will save the page to get it preserved, and then hopefully come back to fix it up. Other times I wish there was such a parameter, so I add in the parameter and its value so that when it comes live sometimes in the future it will be filled in. I do this for the infoboxes, and not so much for references though. I suspect most people don't know about the tools that help fill in the fields. But some are not in the assistance, such as cite thesis or cite patent. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

anti- vs neutral vs patriotic search results

On one Wikipedia page I searched from upper right search box for "constitution of the united states.' The autofill suggestions made me type all the way into 'united' before it brought the United States into play. This site should know if its users are based here in the US vs elsewhere and provide its user's country first under certain searches, especially searches which are clearly tied predominantly to a user's country's history. And it's not about the number of keystrokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't believe the chances are very good that someone is going to implement a complex technical solution to ensure that you are required to type a few less letters, on the off chance you happen to be searching for a topic that is related to your geographical location. Be strong. Be brave. I am confident you will survive having to occasionally type words in their entirety. GMG talk 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You could also have searched for "US Constitution" if you wanted to save yourself the keystrokes. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey that was rude, the author was just trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Do you think your comments here really do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Government Man ( talkcontribs) 14:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How would you do that technically? I mean, it's easy to point out one example, but actually implementing it seems difficult. One could maybe look at page views by country to populate, but I suspect anything too complicated would be slow and resource-intensive enough to negate any good done by the marginally improved auto-complete. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 14:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania data science space

Hey guys, I'm leading a space at Wikimania 2019 in Stockholm on data science. I do not want it to be restrictive with a subset of artificial intelligence at all and want it to be as diverse and easy to approach as possible. I'm looking for co-leaders to organize the space with me and lead it in the event I cannot make it to the event. Here's a link to the proposal: . Any feedback, criticism and suggestion can be thrown my way. Or else, do you just want to present a subject related to this space? That's fine too, just apply when the call for submissions open and I'll get in touch with you. Do you think someone else is a good fit for this space? Do let them know! I'm available on my talk and email and suggestions on how my proposal can be improved here are all greatly appreciated. -- QEDK ( ) 17:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

New Results and third experiment to understand Wikipedia citation usage

Hi everyone,

We performed some analysis of the data collected last October reflecting readers' interactions with references in English Wikipedia. Please find our first analysis of this data in our project page. This work is part of the "Citation Usage" research project, which aims to understand how Wikipedia readers interact with citations, and the role of external citations in Wikipedia reading. The analysis resulting from this project could inform the editor and tool developer communities about the usage (or not) of citations by Wikipedia readers.

After the second round of data collection, which ended on 2018-25-10, we have modified the code behind our instrumentation to address a number of bugs related to specific fields of the Schema, and we will start a second round of data collection next Thursday, March 21st. The structure is similar to last round of data collection: we will collect data that captures readers' (not logged-in users only) page views, as well as their interactions with references and footnotes. We will initially sample 1–15% of the traffic to validate the data quality, then turn at 100% sampling rate for a period of one month. All details can be found at this task.

To follow the progress of the project and monitor our research results, please also look at this task. If you are interested to know more, or if you have any question, or any observation, please ping me or leave a message on the project page! Miriam (WMF) ( talk) 16:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Miriam (WMF), oops, sorry, I didn't see that you wanted messages on the project page itself -- I just created a the 'discussion' page, sorry to post in the wrong place! I was commenting on the stunning finding that 1 in 4 articles has no references at all! -- valereee ( talk) 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"1 in 4 articles has no references at all" whatever methodology gave you those numbers is deeply flawed. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, that can't be right. Are you sure you don't have a decimal point misplaced? Report says 24.5% have no references. -- valereee ( talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that 24.5 percent of articles do not have a single reference. My interests are mostly obscure geographical and historical subjects, and only rarely do I find an article without footnotes. I realize that my experience is anecdotal, but I'll have to be persuaded that your finding is correct. Smallchief ( talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely but not impossible. I just sampled 20 random pages and two ( 1 2) had no references at all while a third had only a single external link (not a reference) in a References section. That being said, today I happened to come accross a completely unreferenced page (and an ex-DYK at that) and added a reference to it, and I don't remember the last time I did something like that. It could well be that unreferenced pages are somehow outside our interest/hyperlink sphere as regular editors. Daß Wölf 20:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It could be that it's 24.5% without either {{ reflist}}/</references>, 24.5% without a cite template, or 24.% without <ref></ref> tags or something like that. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
If they're counting articles which don't use a cite template as unreferenced it would be a larger percentage -- but that would be misleading. I'm careful to reference an article -- but I don't use cite templates to do so, because I can't figure out how to use them. Smallchief ( talk) 23:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There are over 200k in {{ unreferenced}} which is about 4%. But that list is incomplete so a double or more would be possible depending how you define "reference". That gets up to 10% easily. Then looking at pages that contain marginal references that may or may not count as a real reference, and stubs and list-of articles and set index pages and yeah could see 25%. -- Green C 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Assuming that we do actually have this many articles without sources, it would be helpful to know if there are any patterns that could help us resolve the problem... for example, do they fall mostly within the same topic area (Pop culture? Geography? History? STEM topics? Etc) ... or the same kind of article (mostly Lists? mostly Stubs? Etc.) Blueboar ( talk) 20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Smallchief, you might be interested in the 'A' section for Articles_lacking_sources_from_November_2006 -- valereee ( talk) 21:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Thanks for your question and flagging this. Miriam and team are looking into it and they will get back to you as soon as we have a definitive answer. -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 00:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for your comments! I can confirm that ~25% of the pages have not standard references. The misunderstanding is on the definition of reference: we considered only the references used in the body of the article. For example, external links without a context in the text (i.e. [1]) are not included. Here some example of pages that are considered without references by this analysis:

Tizianopiccardi ( talk) 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments! We have updated our project page with a more clear definition of reference, and we will get back to you shortly with a more detailed analysis of breakdown of pages without references by topics and quality. Thanks! Miriam (WMF) ( talk) 11:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. I assume that most un-referenced articles are stubs -- and stubs make up more than one-half of Wikipedia articles. So, a recommendation might be for reviewers to look more critically at stubs without in-line references--and delete a lot of them. Maybe a one-line article without an in-line reference is not worth having? I'm an inclusionist -- but only for verifiable, i.e. referenced, articles. Smallchief ( talk) 21:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Size of non-non-free SVG

What's the point of restricting the size of non-free Scalable Vector Graphics files? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This tends to come up relatively often. The most recent, I think, was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Small logos and svg which has links to previous discussions too. I doubt anyone will say anything new, we'll all just re-argue the same points again and continue to have no consensus. Anomie 21:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Change of EC numbers by a bot

Hi, I'm sorry if this is totally wrong section, as it probably is, but I didn't want to bother where I shouldn't. But feel free to direct me to something more appropriate.
Anyway, there is new class of enzymes in biochemistry. This change has been already reflected on the main page of Enzyme Commission number, but this would require to change the numbers on pages of many enzymes. This would be probably best done by some bot.
Also, I changed the number on page of ATP synthase (in the panel on right), but it doesn't work. It's been a while since I was working on Wiki (and on Czech one mostly), but if I remember correctly, that panel on right has some page of it's own that should be editable?
-- HlTo CZ ( talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Try WP:BOTREQ. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The panel on the right is Template:Infobox enzyme. You can try its talk page or the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology talk page. (By the way, the parameter IUBMB_EC_number isn't used by that template anymore.) See also Template:EC number. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


At 2019-03-22T01:06:49Z, EmausBot (operated by Emaus) performed revision 888888888 on the English Wikipedia – a perfectly mundane double-redirect fix to Oxford High School (Oxford). Let's hear it for the WP:GNOMES!

Runners up were:

See you all again at 999999999 (about 2 years if edits continue at the same rate as the last week). Face-smile.svg —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 01:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Which also means 1 billion edits. -- Izno ( talk) 01:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations to the winner and the runners-up, but the prize for gnoming (churning?) goes to Wikidata which now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the best method for article creation?

I've been on hiatus for the last 4 years. The usual method back then was to create the article in your userspace, then move it to main space and hope it doesn't get nominated for deletion. Is there now a better way to create an article where it's worked upon in neutral space and when there is a consensus it's then moved to mainspace and not likely to be deleted? I want to create an article on " aspirational recycling". Technophant ( talk) 16:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Technophant creating a page in mainspace now requires auto-confirmed userright (you're well past that, I'm just updating you on that detail.) Articles created in mainspace or page-moved into mainspace are initially noindexed (the article is live, but search engines won't pick it up yet.) They get reviewed by New Page Patrol, a basic review for obvious problems or possible AFD/speedydelete tagging. Experienced editors can directly build an article in mainspace, however unless the very first save is well developed some an over-hasty NewPagePatroller will likely tag-bomb the incomplete page within minutes. You can try warding off over-hasty Patrol tagging with an {{ Under construction}} at the top of the article.
Developing an article in a userpage is fine, but the Draft namespace is the preferred place to develop an article (i.e. start it at draft:aspirational recycling). It's a public area, and it increases the chance people will help develop it. Note that pages which are abandoned in in draft space (six months with zero edits) may get deleted.
Experienced editors can page-move from userspace or draftspace out to mainspace, which will go on the list for NewPagePatrol. If you're specifically looking for review prior to moving to mainspace, you can have the draft reviewed by AFC. More specifically you can go through the Article wizard link - that will give basic info about new articles and then it will create your article-page in draft space, and it will put a template on the article to simplify the AFC review process. There will be a handy link that requests that the draft be reviewed for promotion to mainspace. Review standards at AFC might be a little high, with requests for cleanup of things that aren't absolutely necessary to survive in mainspace. Note that a page promoted to mainspace by an AFC reviewer will still get reviewed by NewPagePatrol.
Note that AFC review and NewPagePatrol are each done by an individual experienced editor. There's no consensus involved. The only special power of a NewPagePatroller is to mark the page as patrolled, but anyone might still nominate the page for deletion discussion. AFC reviewers don't really have special powers either. If an AFC reviewer unreasonably declines your draft, simply requesting another review may get a more lenient reviewer. Mostly AFC helps new users attempting to create their first article. That means AFC deals with a very high percentage of completely non-viable submissions - a lot of selfpromotion and non-notable topics. I haven't checked lately, but I think AFC is generally backlogged a few weeks before a page gets reviewed. Experienced editors really don't need to go the AFC route, and unnecessarily going though AFC increases the general workload. The main reason I focused on AFC so much is because you seemed to to be specifically looking for extra review before moving to mainspace. But there's nothing that can prevent a random editor from nominating any article for AFD. You just need to make sure your article has multiple solid sources to demonstrate notability. Another possibly relevant point, there is somewhat less tolerance for weak articles about companies. The NCORP guideline has somewhat raised the standards for corporate/organisation notability. Some sources about companies which may have previously been accepted are now considered routine coverage, which does not contribute to notability. Alsee ( talk) 05:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)