User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about User:BlueMoonset. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 29

If you have a moment, could you take a look at this discussion and let me know your thoughts, or comment there (or at the GAN)? I don't like the idea of failing a GAN over this use of ELs, but at least a couple of the participants there are arguing that it is flat-out against policy to do this. A decision made at one GAN isn't going to be determinative for the hundreds of other articles Gfoley4 links to, so it seems to me best to put the discussion on a broader footing before deciding, but I hate to hold up the GAN for that too. Any thoughts? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I think it would come down to the GA criteria for me, and I don't know of anything in them that would require the removal of such links, regardless of general policy elsewhere. The removal could be discussed, even urged, but I don't see how the nomination would have to be failed if they remain. (It isn't something I've thought that much about, to be honest.)

As long as I have you here, I was wondering whether you would be interested in picking up Talk:Thomas's pika/GA1. The infrequent reviewer, Lythronaxargestes, posted a "retired" template on their talk page a couple of days ago, and the review itself has been dragging on for four months now. It's an article about a small mammal found only in China. Is this one you'd feel comfortable taking on? If not, I could always ask FunkMonk, who took over the other outstanding Lythronaxargestes review over a week ago. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I ended up doing exactly what you suggested; I passed the article while urging the removal of the links. Re the other GAN, you might want to try FunkMonk first, if he's already doing a related article; he's a very good reviewer. I'll pick it up if he's unable to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, can I ask you to take a look at Talk:HMS Lizard (1757)/GA1, which is the third of three GA reviews done in two days by a novice reviewer and not so experienced an editor, Ultimograph5? Actually, all three reviews were passed without a single correction requested, which as you know is quite unusual, so I'd like an experienced reviewer to check them. One of the articles being reviewed was nominated by Codyorb, and it had a plethora of images in it as compared to text. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think all three are OK. HMS Lizard (1757) is an outstanding article, which would probably pass FAC with very little trouble; I could only find a couple of minor typos. Codyorb's Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012 is so short it's hard to find much wrong. Ultimograph5 suggested removing some pictures, and I'd have done the same if I'd reviewed it, but I think it's acceptable to pass it -- a fail would have relied on the "relevant" images requirement in GACR, and I don't think that would have forced a fail. I spent less time looking at Thomas Ragon, Abbot of Vale Royal, but a quick read through found no obvious issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Mike Christie. I just took a look at Talk:Thomas Ragon, Abbot of Vale Royal/GA1, and the reason that there aren't any listed issues is that Ultimograph5 removed them when finishing off the review; there had been issues in previous iterations, but once fixed they were removed, which made it appear as if no issues had been raised. (The same may be true with the others; I haven't checked yet.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BlueMoonset. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Hélio Gelli Pereira at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Miniapolis. You did an impressive job. I've let the DYK reviewers know that they should check the nomination again. With luck, there won't be any issues still remaining, though if there are, it will be something non-copyedit related. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I was looking through GACR for a review recently and noticed that inline citations are not required. I'm aware that back in the day, it was OK to simply list a reference at the end of the article; the reader would assume that everything not cited inline came from those references. I've paused my review of group testing to ask for citations, but do you know if this has come up in the past? Can an article be promoted to GA without inline citations everywhere? The recent contretemps with Georgejdorner comes to mind too, of course; and as it happens I also noticed for the footnote the GACR footnote saying that quickfail was intended for frivolous nominations and should not normally be used; is that still in line with practice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, the footnote you mention was added by Prhartcom back in March 2016, and I frankly don't know whether it's accurate in its claim. It surprised me when I read it the other day, since it seems to contradict the rest of the section, and my impression has always been that quickfail was available (but as an option only, and certainly not encouraged in borderline situations) for articles that were quite far from meeting the criteria. The idea that it should only be used on drive-by nominations that are far from the criteria seems misguided to me; what should matter is how far from one of these quickfail criteria (or all of those listed) the article is, and therefore, whether it's worth it to spend the time on an in-depth review. (The quickfail appears to have been introduced to the GA criteria in May 2012 with this edit, and the criteria have been refined over the years.) Quickfails are generally not counted for the WikiCup and GA Cup competitions because they can be misused.

The trend over time seems to be that more inline cites are better for clarity and checking, but the GA criteria only give six instances where inline citations are actually required. The thing is, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons can be stretched quite a long way, and one person's intuitive and non-controversial can be not so intuitive or not so straight-forward. I can't imagine a GA these days without any inline citations. The thing is, everything in the article does have to be covered by the references, but there is a tension between being able to confirm something, and being able to confirm something without having to spend hours searching through the sources. Verifiability is much easier for readers with inline sourcing if online sources are involved; if not online, it doesn't matter much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted at WT:GAN about removing the footnote; I agree with your take. I may start a conversation about the inline cites at some point, but not till the quickfail footnote discussion is over. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Lena Meyer-Landrut has been completed.

I think it should now easily pass a GAR.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Twofingered Typist. I've posted to the GAR's page; with luck, the reassessment will now finally be closed as "kept", but we need to hear back from the editor who opened the reassessment initially. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This DYK is also stuck, waiting for a second opinion. But the request seems to have been archived, so it is going nowhere and the original reviewer seems to have forgotten. Can you add it to your oldest list. (I'm not sure why it isn't there already). Thanks. MB 04:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MB, only unreviewed nominations and those that have the "review again" icon as the latest icon go on my list. I skipped over CISBOT because it had the "?" icon in its latest post. Now that you've pointed it out to me, I've added the "review again" icon along with a request for second opinion and linked to it from the DYK "oldest" list, so hopefully someone will soon start working on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, could I ask if you could review ALT7 at Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today for me please? I ask as I am desperate for this to appear on DYK on Sunday and made the article improvements specially for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your message. I want to complete the nomination process. I still interested in pursuing DYK so I will do that process in the near future.

Thank you very much.--Yeon So Jeong (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, BlueMoonset. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris troutman. Much appreciated! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, what am I supposed to do about a new user who refuses to list the criteria he checks? See Template:Did you know nominations/Speed skating at the 1924 Winter Olympics – Men's 500 metres. Yoninah (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, could you please take a look at this nomination? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I've just posted there; it's "within the past seven days", not 168 hours. If you hadn't already requested a new reviewer, I would have. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda Arendt has asked for a 200-nomination DYK award, but does not have a dedicated page listing all the credits. Is there a way to search for her DYK nominations and see how many there are? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, I'm afraid I've never been involved in that area of DYK, so I don't know how you'd count the nominations. (This is nominations of articles other than one's own, right?) It might be possible to search for created templates, but then a self-nomination and a nomination of another's creation/expansion look the same. If there are ways other than brute force drudgery, I'm afraid I don't know what they are. Sorry I can't help with this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This time with ping. Sorry about that, Yoninah. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the QPQ check says she has 1215 credits. If she has just reached 1000 DYK creation credits, could I assume the other 200 are her DYK nominations? Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you, Yoninah. Whatever you think best. Truly, this is one area of DYK where I have no interest nor involvement. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BlueMoonset! I sent the message that I will continue to complete the process of DYK nomination last time. Then, I tried it again but It was hard to do. So I want to know in detail how can I complete the nomination process. I need your help! I'll be looking forward to your reply. --Yeon So Jeong (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeon So Jeong, right now your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeju Oreum is waiting for a reviewer, which has to be someone who isn't involved with the nomination. Until that person shows up, there is nothing for you to do. Eventually a reviewer will start working, and will mention anything that you need to do at that time. Best of luck, and please be patient! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

GA nominee nominator field needs links to both user and user talk pages; adding the latter

Just as a heads up, the GA bot recognized my signature before your edit but didn't afterwards (thus I never got a notification that the review passed). I know it's finicky, so I don't know why this is the case, but wanted to let you know. I'm planning to use {{user0}} as my signature in future GAN templates as a workaround. Alternatively, I'm not sure where it's written that user and talk pages must be both directly linked in the template, but especially since my userpage redirects to my talk, could just leave it as it was. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 13:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have checked the sources and they seemed fine to me. I could not detect any significant problems to address in the article. You are of course entitled to do another review, if you do not trust my judgement. Anyway, thanks for the info. If I ever do a GA review again, I will take these points into consideration.--Seiya (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate your input here. The article was deleted by a bot because it was created by a sock of a banned user. The nominator just re-posted it and is asking for another review. What should be done here? Should a 5x expansion be required? Thanks for your input, Yoninah (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I created that article and missed the time frame to advance the article, because of work. Could you help? Thanks.842U (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

842U, you said you were still interested in pursuing this nomination, yet it's been over a week since this was posted and you have yet to respond to the issues raised. Please respond at your next opportunity. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I went and looked at the nomination and when I read that someone of was accusing me of copying the Italian Nolder article, I just decided it wasn't worth it. I wouldn't copy another article, and furhter more, there is no Italian Nolder article. I didn't copy anything. A while back, I had noticed that it was getting harder and harder to get a DID YOU KNOW article succesfully nominated. But to be accused of copying another article is beyond the pale. Thanks but no thanks. 842U (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

842U, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. Although you didn't translate this article, having translated articles being nominated at DYK is a normal thing; indeed, people are encouraged to translated one Wikipedia's article for another Wikipedia—it isn't considered copying or anything like that. I can understand your annoyance that the mistake was made (you were doing original writing, not translating someone else's prose), but there was no accusation of having done anything wrong, just an honest mistake by a reviewer who knew that both types are articles were eligible. If this has turned you off DYK, I'm sorry for it; unless I hear otherwise, I will respect your wishes and close the nomination as withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've closed this - my apologies, ignorance rather than anything else. I think I've done it the right way but if you have a moment to check, that would be great. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11, thanks for letting me know. I made a few edits to the FailedGA template, and posted a quick note to the review page indicating that the review had closed and the nomination failed. You might want to take a look at the Good Article nomination instructions for future reference; they have a sample FailedGA template that you can copy and paste, and then copy the "page" value from the GA nominee template, and the "subtopic" value from that goes into the "topic" field of FailedGA. (That's all you need to do.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the message, I will try and sort the issues out as soon ass possible. GreatLakesShips (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. I think it would be useful if we started formulating a list of upgrades to the GA bot, separate from the discussion to have someone else take over the bot. Just to name a couple of big ones off the top of my head:

• Add GAR initiation and archiving
  • Time to complete: medium
  • Time saved: medium
  • Mistakes avoided: medium
• Automatically place in the GA list
  • Time to complete: large
  • Time saved: small
  • Mistakes avoided: medium

I prefer to include how long I think it will take to complete, and the general benefits of them, so they can be prioritized. Do you want to try to hammer out a list with me with priorities? When the list is decent, we can take it to the GA and GAN projects to further refine it. Kees08 (Talk) 00:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Kees08, the most important enhancement, which shouldn't be difficult, is to finally implement the new subtopics that we asked for years ago, and that have been used for a long time at WP:GA. And absolute priority should go to fixing all the current bugs.

I'm ambivalent about adding the GAR process into this bot. If the reassessment process needs more of the process automated, I think it should be separate from GAN. So that's another level: should we have the bot do anything beyond the GA nomination process, or keep it restricted to that functionality.

I believe I've mentioned this before, but I honestly don't believe it's practical to have the bot place new GAs in the GA list. I believe it was done at one time, but I think it was before so many subtopics were fragmented into sub-subtopics. The GA nominee template has subtopics in it, because the GAN process uses subtopics to keep the individual sections of nominations on the GAN page at a reasonable length (though some of gotten unreasonable because the GAN page hasn't been able to incorporate new subtopics since Chris G gave up GAbot and Legoktm incorporated the code module(s) into Legobot). However, I don't see how any bot can look at a subtopic such as Albums and determine that the newest GA needs to go into the "2001 to 2005 albums" sub-subtopic, or "Soundtracks", or whatever. The nominator would need to supply this information, which would add a level of complexity (and a significant change in process) if we had them do so. Not saying it's impossible, just wondering if it's practical and worth the time needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. When I brainstorm automation and UX improvements, I like to think most everything can be possible, and then narrow it down later after discussion with a larger set of people that can come up with better implementation. For example, you could have the user select a topic from the dropdown, and have a text box with auto-complete.

In terms of bug fixes, I am not sure we have a comprehensive list of all the bugs (unless we do..) and the priorities therein. We could come up with both a list of bugs; and a list of enhancements. That is typically what I do when I manage projects like this; though admittedly I am not an expert in said projects. Kees08 (Talk) 05:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know this. But ... when Yoninah suggested renaming the article so it more narrowly reflected the subject, not only did I do so, I also realized it then made sense to change the Crowdless Game redirect left behind to behind closed doors (sport) as people searching on that would probably be looking for information on such games in general, not that one in particular.

So, anyone not knowing this would be led to the wrong article from the nom and have no way of knowing what the right one was. It was a special case IMO, and I'm sorry, but I hope you understand. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I didn't realise. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. Kosack (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Kosack. Glad everything's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies again, I thought using the DYK tick like that would do what was required. Sigh, I will get it right. Kosack (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Kosack, what I do is copy/paste the entire "{{subst:DYKtick}}" (or whichever icon I need) from the area above the edit window that gives the icons and their templates. It saves me from typing, and from typos. The key is to include the "subst:", so the template is substituted with the underlying image text, which is what the bot is expecting to see. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I really thought it had been a week so my goof on that (and fair enough on waiting longer). Are you able to do the technical backend to reopen the GA as that's beyond my knowledge. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, it looks like we crossed edits. The nomination is already reopened; my edit to the article Talk page did that. It should show up again on the GAN page in another minute or two. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I've asked you this before, but my memory is like a lumber room. The instructions say not to add the star, but to let the bot do it. I know I've undone one or two nominators' additions of the star in the past, but I don't recall the reason the instructions say that. Can you remind me? And is it still an issue? I ask because Ribbet32 undid my undo, pointing out correctly that the bot doesn't seem to be doing it's full list of tasks right now, and I don't remember the details well enough to know if it matters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, the bot will add the GA plus-sign icon in the normal course of things after a GA nominee template has been replaced by the GA template. I think if the icon is already there, then the bot will ignore matters and won't do the other things, like adding the oldid parameter to the GA template on the talk page, and maybe skip the notification step as well. However, if the bot has been short-circuited earlier in the process (someone adding an onhold or onreview status to the GA nominee template before the bot has a chance to do so itself and tranclude the review on the article talk page, or if there's a previous FailedGA template on the page making it think that this was a fail rather than a pass), then the icon doesn't get added even with the new GA template (an unfortunate bug)—this happens maybe once in every five to ten passes, on average. Generally, it's best if people wait over 20 minutes after the passage is done for the bot to do its thing if it's going to, and only then take matters into their own hands. If they pre-empt the bot, well, the oldid can be found at a later time, hopefully if an Article history template is initiated. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds like it's only worth undoing the addition if I know the bot is running and they do it before the next pass after promotion. I think I can remember that. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the GA reviewing process and remembering me the dates and deadlines, BM. apreciated. Mdob (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mdob, you're welcome. Please don't forget that you have another review open that will need your attention: Talk:Schloss Bruchsal/GA1. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you again! I totally forgot about it. Oh my, there's a problem with that nomination :-(. I didn't write any complaints (i.e. there are no red crosses in that page, only green ones): I was supposed to add them later and screwed it up. What should I do? Restart the nomination again and tell Dom497? Close the nomination as failed? Any help would be welcomed. Mdob (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Mdob, you should neither restart the nomination/review from scratch nor close it as failed. What you need to do is simply continue the review, checking all of the GA criteria. As it says at the GA reviewing instructions, Using a review template is not a requirement; it is simply a way to help keep the review organized. It doesn't matter whether you fill out the form you used—you can always edit the page and add any appropriate information as you go—or write additional comments in a section below the section that's already there. Just remember that when you've completed the review, it is typical to allow at least seven days for the nominator to address the issues you've raised, unless there's so much to do that there's no way that the work could be done in around a week's time.

If you'd prefer, I can always try to find someone to take over the review for you. Just let me know. (Whatever you do, no need to specially notify Dom497.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Errr... Could you, please, Sir, find someone to take over the review from me? I would learn from her experience. As I stand now I'm totally lost. Thanks in advance. Mdob (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not know about the 5 times rule, or would have waited before making a nomination. However, I have been working on it since. If still valid. my suggestion would be "Did you know that Tuzex shopping vouchers were a parallel currency in Czechoslovakia, and included one of denomination 71.5 crowns." Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a touch-screen error, thanks for fixing!--Pharos (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the nominations by the editor who had not substantially contributed to the articles. I was about to do so myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Wondering if you are still aware that Talk:Brymo/GA2 is open. AIRcorn (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn, yes, thanks for the reminder. I will (finally!) get back to it in the coming week. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I never intended to become a 'reviewer' - I was just giving some feedback, so by all means get somebody else to take another look. GiantSnowman 07:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Braimah. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I have responded, although I can find no other place where this might be being discussed. What's up? Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the frustrations of me for the inappropriate of my GA and FA nominations.

I just learn that you have just reverted my nomination of iPhone 7; BMT Canarsie Line was rapidly failed due to significant issues, and my nominations of Queensboro Plaza (New York City Subway), Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and M (New York City Subway service) were all deleted due to major deficiencies in each article.

How and what can I do to my GA and FA nominations successful and approved? Any instructions? Happypillsjr ✉ —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 13 August 2018‎ (UTC)

22 August

Happy birthday
C.D.

Thank you for helping The Little Nigar to join his creator on the main page on the composer's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. I apologize for missing the small tag in my DYK nomination. I'm sure that caused a big mess in the queue page. I'll keep an eye for it in the future. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, MX. It's just something to be aware of in future if you're adding sourcing info immediately after a hook. Unfortunately, an unclosed small tag can affect the entire DYK nominations page below it, making everything small, since it isn't restricted to the individual template being transcluded. Fortunately, this also makes them reasonably easy to locate. (We've had occasions when more than one unclosed tag caused the type to become minuscule.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I have two closely related articles (phonetics and sociophonetics) up at DYKN that might be worth combining into a multi hook, but I'm not sure. If you have the time would you be willing to give your two cents on the matter (here or on one of the nom pages? I really like the sociophonetics hook, but feel the phonetics one is rather dry, and worry combining them into one hook may be difficult or not worthwhile. Best, Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I don't see that there is necessarily a benefit to combining the hooks, unless there's something compelling that mentions both fields, or some startling contrast or discrepancy. To my eye, though, there is a problem with the original phonetics hook: while it states that the study of phonetics began with Pāṇini 2300 years ago, the article itself credits the start to the 6th century BCE (over 2500 years ago), though it says Pāṇini's grammar is from circa 350 BCE, and he was an early investigator. However, there's a century and a half (or more) between that starting century and Pāṇini, so the hook's claims are not backed up by the article: hook facts must be both in the article and supported by the cited sources, and in this case the first claim doesn't hold up. A revision of that hook would be far preferable, in my view, to the ALT1 which is about sociophonetics rather than phonetics itself. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you've probably noted that QatarStarsLeague started several GA review back in mid August, including one that I submitted, Reptiles in culture, made a quick set of inconclusive comments on each of them, and then vanished. He made one flying edit to a film article on 17 September and hasn't been back since. I guess we need to have all reset to seek new reviewers. His GA1 comments on the different articles seem to have been sensible so it's a pity just to delete them; on the other hand, the articles don't really deserve to have their GANs simply failed.

As you know I'm finding GAN increasingly erratic: nominators try to learn on the job; arrive with unmanageably strong opinions; take on more than they can process; or get far too involved in editing and go on pushing for more and more detail for weeks at a time. It's reaching the limits of workability, if indeed it hasn't already crossed them.

Anyway, I'd be glad if you could look through his history and do some kind of reset on the GANs involved. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, thanks for letting me know about this. It isn't the first time that QatarStarsLeague has taken an unofficial wikibreak with GA reviews still hanging, some of which have been quite long.

I'm working on getting someone to take over the Reptiles in culture review, but if I can't, then I will do the reset. As far as I can see, yours is the only review still open; there were two others, but one was taken over by a new reviewer and ultimately passed, while the other was reset by the nominator, who considered the review abandoned (which it had been); it's still waiting to find a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, interesting. If he's done it before then perhaps he'll be back eventually. But I guess your approach will be best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thanks, K.e.coffman. Much appreciated. May your 2019 be prosperous and joyful as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello BlueMoonset, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Many thanks, 7&6=thirteen. Warm greetings to you for the holiday and New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber, thanks! There's a surprising quantity of berries (if not so cheap) here, given that it's officially winter. Season's greetings to you as well, and a Happy New Year next week! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I will let you in on a secret...it's not our pavlova. We do have a pomegranate tree but noone ever eats the fruit :( - we make ours with blueberries/raspberries/blackberries/strawberries....just the usual....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Walk Like an Egyptian, many thanks for the good wishes; I hope you having a great holiday season, and that 2019 is a good year for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, many thanks. P. L. Travers would have been bemused by your "Merry" link, but it was fun to see. I hope you're enjoying the season, and have a Happy New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello, BlueMoonset. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for 1994 Gambian coup d'état at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 23:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I've done my best to make the article more neutral. I wanted to check the material sourced from the final (dead-linked) reference, but this appears to be a word-salad .pdf file on a vanity domain; here. I've left the reference intact; feel free to remove it if you wish. I don't normally do source-checking but sometimes I need to access them to check the article's text accurately reflects the source. This is the only source I checked during my c/e. Good luck with the article and your planned DYK nom. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 23:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, thank you so much. This isn't actually my article, but the DYK nomination was stalled and the nominator seemed new and a bit confused and wasn't going to request a needed copy edit on their own. I'll post to the nomination this evening, noting your concern about the final reference, and call for a review now that your copy edit has been completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem; I realise DYK isn't GAN but I think that ref needs reviewing and I doubt it's reliable. Other refs could be in the same position too; there was other biased text in some of the sections. I took the request mainly because the article is fairly short and I found it more interesting than most of what's left in the December section; call me selfish! :D Thanks for your help at the requests and drive pages too; most appreciated. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I just wanted to make things right concerning the GA nominations I put out there. I honestly believed that what I was doing was right and I did it in good faith. I did try to only nominate articles that I felt met the criteria for GA and I stand by my decisions, even if you disagree. Thank you for your advice. Have a nice day. Mgasparin (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. I want to pick your brain about Iazyges and his delay in reviewing Good Articles. I left quite a firm message at his talk page User Talk:Iazyges/Archives/2019/January#GAN reviews. It is the second one regarding this issue (User talk:Iazyges/Archives/2018/May#Talk:Audi S and RS models/GA1) and as I know you go through the backlog every now and again I was wondering if you had noticed a similar trend. There is also Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 23#Open reviews for over two months, which covers the same articles that I brought up at his talk page (although we are now up to six months). Looking at their contributions they seem to edit in bursts, the last being three weeks ago, so I am not sure when they would respond to my message. Their last response was that they would get onto it ASAP. I think it is all in good faith, but they obviously have a habit of booking reviews (they choose many on the same day) and then not getting the time to follow through with them. I don't really want to take it to GAN while they are not editing, but I also don't want to leave these reviews stranded. Anyway let me know your thoughts and I will take it from there. AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Aircorn, I've been very troubled by Iazyges's GAN reviewing habits for some time—this is at least the third time that they've taken a large group of GAN reviews and then left the nominations stranded for many months. I have more than once urged them not to take large groups, but have been ignored each time in that regard. I've left more than one message about this current group, the last on January 3 when they were actively editing after a seven-week hiatus; the response came back second later: Many thanks for the reminder, I'll get on them ASAP. That was over three weeks ago.

I think this needs to go to GAN no later than the end of this month even if they haven't returned (though I, too, have been reluctant to push the issue); they've had months to address this problem. Since they cannot manage their time well around Wikipedia, I would be in favor of a restriction at GAN: no more than one review being opened and unreviewed at a time; if they've completed a full review and put the nomination on hold, then they can open another. I don't know whether we also want to restrict opening a new review while another is waiting for further work on their part after having been put on hold.

I would be in favor of trying to find people to take over the reviews Iazyges currently has open and stranded: there are 11 in all: #s 2 and 3 on the oldest holds list (six months), and 3 and 6-13 on the oldest reviews list (six and five months). There was a twelfth a few months ago, but someone just took it and finished it. I will say that if any of the reviews had been opened but had nothing written to them, I would long ago have put the review pages up for deletion.

On a separate matter, I just noticed your note to Carabinieri, who has the oldest hold at about seven and a half months, and who hasn't edited in over two months. That's another one that could/should probably be taken over. They have another two that have been open for over three months, but the big concern is the one opened in June. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed your message to them. Given that I will take this to WT:GAN sooner rather than later. I think at the least we need some sort of "official" decision, ideally a restriction on how many can be opened by them at once. I have a few GA reviews running at the moment, but will look at taking over some of them (I have issues with one of the nominators in that group so am less willing to do theirs) eventually.

Also is it just me or are things getting significantly worse with the backlog. I think that was the most reminders I had sent out regarding seemingly abandoned reviews (I didn't even bother for Iazyges apart from the talk page message). I have got very little response too, which is a worry as usually editors come back reasonably soon. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wizardman has deleted or closed all of their reviews so they are back in the queue, solving one of the problems. It does mean we don't get any resolution on Iazyges reviewing habits though, but I guess we can wait for next time. I will leave a note at their talk page, unless @Wizardman: wants to (it will probably carry more weight coming form an admin and someone new) about what has happened to their reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Aircorn. I went through and removed the review-page transclusions of all those pages that Wizardman deleted outright, and hatted the two pages that remained but were being superseded and the GANs made available for new reviewers. A note from Wizardman for Iazyges would be nice, but if not then a note from you that points out just how serious this is, and suggesting that completing one review (which includes all prose issues) before opening another one is the way to go in future, given how many times they have never completed large groups of reviews.

As for the backlog seeming significantly worse, it isn't, really, given recent history. The worst was 2017, when we peaked in the 680s for unreviewed nominations, and the oldest were, if I recall correctly, just about a year. That said, fewer people are taking the oldest nominations for reviews, so we're getting a lot of bunching up in the nine to ten months area, though some old ones have been taken in the past week or so; with seven from the Iazyges pile being added at nearly ten-and-a-half months old, it's going to be worse before it gets better. Also, we were under 500 for much of 2018, so being in the low-to-mid-500s now is a loss of ground. The question is whether this year's crew of WikiCup participants will help keep the number of GANs level or even trending down a bit; so far, we're about even on the year. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear BlueMoonset, thank you for the information. I merely thought I was being helpful. Thank you for your time and help. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

... why this DYK is not getting transcluded to the approved page by the bot despite being approved ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, apparently the nomination page was moved somewhere along the way, which isn't supposed to happen even if the article itself moves. (Instead, we modify the nomination page, which had been done except for the DYKmake subtemplates; I've now taken care of those.) If the nomination template moves, it still appears on the main Nominations page under its old name because a redirect is left, but the bot can't read via redirects (it just reads what's on the redirect page) so it doesn't know that the nomination has been approved.

I've just fixed everything—I hope—so the bot should move the nomination transclusion line to the Approved page when it runs next, at 17:00 UTC. I'll check later, and if it hasn't moved, try to figure out what else might need to be done so it does move. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. This info about how to deal with page moves should be documented somewhere, (if its not already done). --DBigXrayᗙ 15:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, the closest we have is WP:DYKN#How to move a nomination subpage to a new name. While it tells you not to move the subpage, It doesn't say what does need to be done to it; we've basically relied on promoters and other knowledgeable folks to modify the DYK nompage links final parameter (assuming a normal single-article nomination) and the DYKmake/DYKnom first parameter (and make sure all the DYKmakes have subpage parameters), which is a bit haphazard. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel we're being put in a difficult position here. The reviewer did not notice that it wasn't expanded 5x, and then a few days later it received a GA. I feel the nominator is gaming the system. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment there, but by "gaming the system" I meant that he's asking us to approve it as a GA, when it failed as a DYK. I'll look like an ogre if I reject it. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yoninah, with GAN in the shape it is, where some nominations take as much as 11 months to get a review, I don't blame anyone who creates or expands an article for nominating them at both GAN and DYK as soon as they're ready. It's a crapshoot as to what will get reviewed when, and if the significantly expanded article hadn't quite made DYK 5x, they could either expand it further or let the nomination fail and then renominate should it pass as a GA. This isn't the first time a DYK has been in process when the GA listing finally came through; it just means that the second chance that GA gives an article came a bit early. We've had nominations that didn't make it as new but did as 5x, even though they were nominated as new, so it's not as if we've ever insisted that they pass the criteria under which the nomination was filled out, just that they do pass it. I think I'm going to challenge The C of E's QPQ, however, for not correctly doing something as basic as a 5x expansion check.

{new text starts here) The point being, it does qualify because it has become a GA in the interim while the review was still open—you don't have a valid justification for failing it. We let people do belated expansions to get their articles up to 1500 characters when a new nomination was made with a too-short article. In this case, while the nomination was a 5x expansion, it subsequently also became eligible under the GA rule. If The C of E had pointed out that it ran short, and the GA had come through a few days later, that would still have been sufficient for it to be approved under the length and newness criteria. I don't see how, after the DYK reviewer messed up, we should say that it can't qualify because of our error. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I can hear that argument. Thanks for clarifying, Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How many edits do I need to GAN an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Mulch Civic (Pro) (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Steve Mulch Civic (Pro), according to the Good Article nomination instructions, Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. It's isn't a number of edits, it's a significant contribution. However, you can nominate anyway if you first consult, by posting a note to the article's talk page asking whether the article is ready to be nominated, and waiting seven days for responses. If, at the end of the seven days, the consensus is that it's ready, then you're free to nominate. (Note: please sign your talk page edits by typing four tildes (~~~~) whenever you post to a talk page, such as this one, or a GA review. That way, people know who you are. The bot which supplied a belated signature above doesn't run on all such pages.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at this hook and say if I am correct or not in calling it a BLP violation. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, I'm not very knowledgable about BLP violations myself; I remember I approved a hook once that was pulled because it was a BLP violation about a politician, of all things, because it chose a negative aspect about her rather than a neutral one. If this MP's conviction is upheld on appeal, once she has no higher body to appeal to, then that's it: she's a convicted felon who has served her sentence, and I don't think BLP is relevant. (I wonder what happens if she's acquitted on appeal: she's already spent four weeks behind bars, and been released a couple of months early.) I did post some thoughts there, including that the ALT1 hook was backwards. This nomination should definitely wait until after the appeal, in my opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to comment there. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! GiantSnowman 12:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I recently expanded an Article When the Moon Was Full five fold and like to add my work to DYK. I need some guide. How could I create a Hook on DYK?Forest90 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Forest90, congratulations. There are instructions here. If this doesn't help enough, you can ask for assistance at WT:DYK. Thanks for your interest in DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanksForest90 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that made a mistake and could not to publish my Hook. How can I correct my Hook?Forest90 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Forest90, I've fixed the nomination template, including adjusting the hook (which can't be longer than 200 prose characters and preferably shorter), and added it to the nominations page under February 27, the day you started the expansion. It's all set. You can see it on the nominations page, or at Template:Did you know nominations/When the Moon Was Full. It may take a while to be reviewed, so be patient, and keep your eye on the review page. Best of luck going forward! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

you are the best...thanks a lot...I'll wait...Forest90 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this considered an adequate GA review? Personally, I have been totally stressed out by the nitpicking, especially on grammar, that goes on when I submit an article for GA that I've haven't nominated too many articles for this honor. But this review seems particularly skimpy. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, GA reviews are very individual things, and some people have a very careful standard while others aren't so strict (and sometimes only give lip service to the criteria as written, unfortunately). The "well-written" criteria do include correct grammar, so it sometimes takes a while to get there. I'm not surprised you were concerned with this one; I was nervous myself when I first read it, and even more so when I realized it was done a day or two before round 1 of the WikiCup ended, and this review was the only thing the reviewer claimed for points. (I would have thought it borderline for WikiCup; Cwmhiraeth might have thoughts on that.) While I would have been happier with more detail in the review itself, they did do some minor copyediting which avoided the need to request those changes from the nominee, and skimming through the article it seems to be generally well-written and the prose clear, and covers the topic with a reasonable amount of depth. As far as I can tell, this is the nominator's first GA review; perhaps, if they take on a less compliant article they'll actually make requests of the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I thought it would be a good article to promote for International Women's Day, but I think the lead is way too long and wordy. The page creator basically told me to take a hike. Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, the lead does meet the MOS:LEAD standards of two to three paragraphs for an article between 15000 and 30000 prose characters. (If it didn't, it shouldn't have passed, since that's one of the GA criteria.) I don't see modifying a GA-compliant lead section for DYK, though I can understand why you'd prefer some streamlining. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, thank you for the speedy review and clarification. Cheers! Arblanchette (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue Moonset, thanks for the notification. I haven't responded to the Feb 27 comment on the nomination because I thought it was addressed to the reviewer, not me. I am waiting to hear from the person who added the unsourced content to the article to see if they will work with me before I take SpinningSparks advice and delete their material. I'm really torn about deleting someone else's stuff. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you for the reply. When is your deadline? Let me know and I will respond by then. Thank you. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)