User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 25

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt, thank you very much. Hard to believe it's been seven years since then! (And, this appears to be my 57,000th edit! Or will be until a Speedy deletion I've requested goes through...) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also the 6 year Anniversary of your Editor of the Week Award. Glad to see you are still committed to improving the Encyclopedia. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Given (manga)
Hi, I am having trouble getting my point across at this nomination. Anyone can write up the plot and characters of a book and say it meets the 1500 character count. But 68% of this article, including the plot, is unsourced. I simply don't think it meets WP:DYKSG, but the nominator is arguing with me tooth and nail. Could you have a look at this? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, it looks like the nominator has added to the article; when I just checked, I got 1508 prose characters excluding the entire Plot section and the language parentheses in the lead's opening. Plots, by their very nature, are not expected to sourced; this one is 1301 prose characters, so under half of the total. (The characters lists and such are just that, lists, so no affect on the count.) There's not a lot of meat there about the actual manga series itself: 670 of the 1508 characters is devoted to adaptations, and the Reception section doesn't have a single review, just some bestseller info. And it's not very clear: the second volume had sold 30,308 copies in its first two weeks according to its source; we don't know how many it has sold to date. (There's no information on volumes 1, 4, and 5.) So it's close, and a touch more on the actual manga should get it there. Anything about the creator? That would help. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Aletta Jacobs
Hi, what are we going to do about this nomination? It's really stretching it to ask us to hold it for six months, no? I would promote it now, but the hook is written for a September promotion. Yoninah (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, regrettably, four/five/six months (it's now a hair under four, but it was nearly five when nominated) is not six weeks, our standard maximum, and DYK doesn't hold hooks that long. They can always try to appeal to the talk page, of course... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK waiting since eternity
Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir this DYK is GTG as far as the recent reviewrs are concerned. Any idea why this is not moving to the next stage ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cwm already replied on the DYK page, so you may ignore this post now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Happypillsjr is back at it again with the nominations
Blue,

If you recall, other users and I failed and questioned Happypillsjr's motives for nomination of GAs. You warned the user on the talk page with the header of "Please stop making GA nominations". After scouting for a GAN to review, I noticed that Happy has nominated Times Square and Lower Manhattan for GA. After a quick check, I found some unsourced sections and also that Happy has done little to no work on the articles. Is the user back up to their old ways or do you think this user nominating them is justified? AmericanAir88(talk) 18:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @AmericanAir88 and @Blue, before we make things clear or making any decisions, I am fully aware that I failed few GA nominations recently but my goal is to do a little work on these articles I nominated but I am trying to figure out how do a little work and mostly justified to these articles. -- Happypillsjr   ✉    20:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We all have had our failures in the past (Me recently with the BMT Broadway Line). I get it. I was just concerned because it seemed that Blue did not want you nominating and it seems you did minimal work on the articles you just nominated. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Happypillsjr, it isn't about doing "a little work", although the right kind of work can help things along. What's needed is making a significant/major contribution to the article and improving it to the point that it meets the GA criteria prior to making the nomination. People have tried to explain this to you before, but you just don't seem to understand why your nominations have not been helpful, or when an article falls far short of meeting the criteria. Instead of coming to one of us and telling us what you'd like to accomplish and how you were thinking about doing it to see whether the new approach would work—and given how similar it is to what you've done in the past, you had to imagine it might not meet muster—you went ahead with the nominations despite the earlier concerns. Looking at your talk page, it seems like you do things with the best of intentions, but the results are that people need to clean up after you, which takes them away from making their own useful contributions. Instead of concentrating on Good Article status and the like, why not just work to improve the content of articles? That's the most useful thing in building an encyclopedia, and would be a worthwhile effort.


 * I would strongly advise you to give up on the idea of making nominations from now on. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Which GA nominations?
Hi BlueMoonset. Re: the Happypillsjr issue, where are the GA nominations you are taking issue with? I see one at Times Square. Thx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, in addition to Times Square it was the one for Lower Manhattan. Times Square hadn't been edited by them at all; Lower Manhattan had a few minor edits, but in no way were they significant, and they hadn't consulted the major editors of the articles prior to nominating as per WP:GANI. All of this was explained to them last August, when they made similar inappropriate nominations. (The first thing I noticed at Lower Manhattan was that the lead was far from adequate given the size of the article, a clear failure to meet MOS:LEAD, one of the "well-written" GA criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK Queue
Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for reverting my edit to Prep 1 when it was causing problems! It seems to be working when I test it in my userspace: User:Wugapodes/sandbox2 and User:Wugapodes/sandbox3. Could you tell me more about what the problem was? Wug·a·po·des​ 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, all that appeared on the /Queue page for Prep 1 was the Prep 1 header (with "[edit]" link) and the "Archive · Start a new article · Nominate an article" links on the line below that. What should have also appeared were the eight bullets with "... that ..." after the Prep header and before the Archive line, since the prep had no hooks promoted to it. No idea why that happened, and the Prep 1 page looked fine when I went there directly, but it wasn't working on the Queue page for whatever reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know/Approved
Hi BlueMoonset, there's an already approved nomination (for "Randolph County High School") in that batch. Is there any chance you or one of your colleagues can pull that out and get it on the frontpage this weekend? The author, my student, is doing her final exam for the class Monday morning, and this would be a nice thing for her and for the class, if it has run by then. Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr Aaij, please ask at WT:DYK, the DYK talk page. I'm not doing promotions to prep these days; asking there will be your best chance. Good luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks BlueMoonset. I should have checked this page a few days ago, but Dr Aaij always takes off on the weekend. Dr Aaij (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 GOCE drive bling
The drive had the highest editor participation since May 2015, and brought the copy editing backlog to a record low of 585 articles! Thanks for taking part! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I request help, please
Hello, there - How are you? I see on your talk page that you have helped promote about 30 articles to "Good Article status", which is quite impressive. If you have the time, can you please go over the article of South African Premier Alan Winde and give me a few pointers (advice, grammar check, etc.)? I nominated the article to become a so-called "Good Article" since I have invested a lot of time in significantly expanding the article. You can see here that this was the last edit before I began work on the article. The article contained about 2,000 bytes, now it currently stands on just above 37,000 bytes. Also, I would like to nominate the 2019 South African general election article to obtain this prestigious title. Can you maybe also check the article? I would appreciate your advice and time. Kind regards. Lefcentreright (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Randolph County High School
I just discovered Template talk:Did you know/Approved, where 321 hooks are parked--I was wondering what had happened to my student's hook, which was approved almost a month ago. Class is over now, unfortunately. So what is the hold-up on that page? What needs to happen to all those nominations? Is it just a matter of a backlog and a lack of volunteers? But on the other end, there's a limited number of spots for DYKs on the front page: if more were processed here, wouldn't there just be another backlog somewhere else? I'm looking at Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved and that doesn't look all that simple. Would anyone be helped by more editors butting in in that part? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr Aaij, the problem isn't really a lack of people to promote approved nominations to prep, although we can always use more people in that area, it is primarily that our normal run rate on the main page is eight approved nominations per day, or 56 per week, and a bit more than that number is nominated and eventually approved per week. So we get an increasing backlog until we reach a point where we have so many approved nominations—as we did earlier this month, in this case around 180—that we double our run rate: two sets of eight per day, or 112 per week. This rate goes on for a few weeks until the number of approved, unpromoted nominations gets down below 50, at which point we revert to a single set per day. (There are good reasons why we don't try to modify the size of the sets or promote at intervals other than 24 or 12 hours per day.)
 * I would say that the most useful thing someone could do is some volunteer reviewing. Right now we have about 180 nominations that are either not reviewed at all yet, or are in the review stages; getting more of these approved reduces the overall backlog.
 * I'm happy to answer any further questions. About your student's hook, I've just created and placed a list of the approvals that were made four weeks or more ago, which includes Randolph County—it's hard for promoters to find the ones that have been waiting the longest post-approval, since our pages are set up in chronological order by creation/expansion date. My hope is that these approved noms will be promoted to prep in the next few days: hook balance can be an issue, and is the reason why the oldest aren't always promoted first. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to update you, I promoted the article today and it is currently at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Ashley Malarkey
Hi, I came by to promote this for DYK but I wonder if the article really deserves a GA. It just looks short and sketchy, and has no image. I have personally found the GA process very stressful and do not understand its criteria, so I have no desire to call for re-evaluating this piece. But I wonder if, from your GA experience, this article does qualify? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, sorry for this reply taking so long. The thing about the GAN process is that it really is a single reviewer's decision. Sometimes it isn't the best decision, and in this case, had I been the reviewer, I would have asked for more to be done. Unlike you, I'm not troubled by there being a Personal life section, except that it could be better written; indeed, it should have been tied in better, since Balz and Malarkey created and co-owned the original shop and co-co-owned the one in Philadelphia: this was a relationship of many years, both as business and personal partners, that went from boyfriend/girlfriend to an engagement before they ultimately separated. Balz is referred to as "companion" in the second paragraph of the body of the article; and if I'm reading the sources correctly, it was his decision to stay home from touring that made the scheduling possible for Malarkey to do Ink Master, something she hadn't been able to do when asked to be in earlier seasons. (Though I'm not sure how it meshes with his decision to leave the band at the beginning of 2017.) At any rate, the simple statement that she returned to New York in 2018 should certainly have been elaborated on—what she does there, for example—and makes for an inadequate paragraph. I would also have had them reorganize the body of the article. As for the images, sometimes there aren't free (or even non-free) usable images out there; she may be one of those who just hasn't attracted enough attention from amateur photographers who are willing to release their images under CC. The GA criteria don't require images. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you, I wasn't expecting such an in-depth reply. But what I was wondering was whether the article should be re-evaluated at GA. Or just leave it and promote it at DYK. Per your comment, it certainly doesn't seem like it is factually accurate, or per WP:GA, covers all facets of the subject. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, I didn't find any accuracy problems, I don't think, but I think summary style may have gone too far in the summary section and left out some details it would have been appropriate to include. By the same token, this is Malarkey's article, so there needs to be care on just how much of Balz is included—her career as a tattoo artist and reality TV personality is what needs the most attention. As for being re-evaluated at GA, that would require a WP:GAR (good article reassessment), and those typically take forever if they're community reassessments; individual reassessments requires someone to effectively do a GA review with the goal of getting the article to repair any deficiencies so it remains a GA. (But if it doesn't get there, then it's delisted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm backing off and promoting the hook. Thanks for your time. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Atsushi Fujiwara
Hi, I haven't reverted you, but your edit summary on Template:Did you know nominations/Atsushi Fujiwara was not correct. The original review was for Atsushi Fujiwara; Kaijin Akashi was added later and was the subject of the secondary review. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PMC, Cwmhiraeth wrote, in her review, I am relying on Patrickneil's review of Kaijin Akashi. So what she says is that she reviewed Atsushi Fujiwara, and was relying on Patrickneil's review of other article, but Patrickneil had reviewed Atsushi Fujiwara at a point where Kaijin Akashi had yet to be added to the nomination. It could be that she wrote it down wrong, but I have to go with what she wrote. Given that, it appears that we have two reviews for the originally nominated article, and no reviews for the subsequently added one. Please don't do any reversions until we have achieved clarity on this. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After the original review, I pinged and asked for a review of Kaijin Akashi as well. He provided that review in this diff. That is the review that Cwmhiraeth was talking about. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PMC, Cwmhiraeth, my most profound apologies, and to Yoninah, who correctly promoted it. I completely missed that—what I saw was Yoninah's addition of the DYK nom pages field and DYKmake templates for Kaijin Akashi on August 22, and didn't notice that it was after-the-fact bookkeeping. I'll clean up my mess right away, restoring the hook to prep and reclosing the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

GAR of Bengal famine of 1943
Hello. This is spam, forgive me. I'm gonna go through various GAR pages and look for people who appear active. All I'm asking for is a review, not asking for any specific outcome (i.e., not begging for a KEEP). The GAR is Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1. If you review and Delist, that's OK, so long as it gets a meaningful review...

The article is big, detailed and has a terrible history in various Content Review forums. In fact, it has been residing in Content Review Hell for a couple years now... In return for a review (not a specific outcome) I'll do any kinda gnomish or research work you wish. Forex, I love converting inconsistent referencing into, regardless of article size. I also help with all the errors that show up as described User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. And so on. Thank you for reading this; forgive the intrusion. Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Lingzhi2, as you will have seen by now, I am not prepared to participate in the review of this article. I have, however, restored its GA status on the article talk page, and updated the Article history there, and posted a comment to the review page describing what needs to happen next. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The offer still stands: need any gnomish work or research or whatever done, esp. w. respect to standardizing inconsistent refs to  or fixing refs, just ping me. I am at your service. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, but I'm one to take care of my own gnomish work, so I'm unlikely to ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Good luck in all things. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Qarhan Playa
Hi, I made the mistake of trying to promote this editor's nomination and got myself an earful. Would you mind commenting here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, when there's a two-article nomination, we typically go with the hook that offers both articles whenever possible, so I can see why the nominator would prefer it. As far as I can tell from checking various articles, latitude 37 degrees north is just about the northern border of Algiers (see Chetaïbi) on the Mediterranean, and is about even with Hampton, Virginia, and with Kalamata in southern Greece. The thing about the essay WP:BLUE is that I'm not sure it plays with what are not commonly known facts, especially given DYK's requirement for the citing of hook facts. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. When I said "here", I meant on the nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, since Cwmhiraeth has reticked it, I think the best thing is to let it ride and see whether the folks at ERRORS agree with them or with you. I would have been just as happy to add sourcing, though it is easy enough to find confirmation of the latitudes. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I won't be the one to promote it. I dislike editors who act like nominators, reviewers, and promoters all in one. Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

History of anarchism
I dont have any experience with GAN procedures and this time I am very busy with real life events, so I don't know how we can proceed with the review. Thanks for caring though. Cinadon36 19:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

North Korean Embassy in Madrid raid

 * There's still a few problems with the article; I added a cn template in Background and noted a sentence fragment in Reactions. Also in Reactions, some of the material from  Andrei Lankov could be merged into a 2-3 paragraph block but I couldn't quite find an elegant way to merge them. Otherwise, I think it's closer to the GA criterion for "well-written" prose. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Baffle gab1978, for taking this one on. I'm relieved that the article is much closer to the GA criterion in question; I'll drop a note to the original GA nominator to let them know that the copyedit is completed and there are a couple of tags to deal with. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Apology
Hi, just wanted to apologise for any of your time I’ve wasted via The Life of Pablo’s GA review. I’m going to be studying the criteria closer next time (and will hopefully have more experience). Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Muhlenberg Memorial
Hi, in case you didn't see this on the Approved page, this nomination was marked for closure a few days ago. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, thanks for the ping. I've closed it as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes
Thank you for the comments about making changes to class. I am trying to figure this all out for the WikiProject North Carolina. There doesn't seem to be a leader, so I am trying to put together the standards for the project. I want to get these two articles reviewed. The Holden article is about the first governir to be impeached and removed from office. Any advice you have on process would be helpful. I am feeling alone in the North Carolina Project. I helped in reviewing a couple GA nominations. Talk to G Moore 12:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Snakefly/GA1
This GAN ( and me) seems to have gotten irretrievably stuck; our reviewer hasn't edited for a month (let alone the GAN). I fear we need to put it back into the queue, if you could do the honours for us. Many thanks, and Happy Christmas. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth, I have just archived the previous review and put the nomination back into the pool of nominations awaiting review with no loss of seniority. Best of luck in finding a new reviewer without too much time passing. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thank you very much for the good wishes, Kingsif. In a coincidence of timing, I just left a little present on your talk page. I just hope I haven't overdone the giving spirit of the season... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Buster7. A happy and peaceful holiday season and New Year to you and yours. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Seasons greetings from Australia!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello : Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC) (Adapted from Template:Season's Greetings1)
 * Thank you, RebeccaGreen. Much appreciated. And thank you also for your excellent work on Wikipedia, which has improved so many articles just in the DYK space alone. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays text.png


BlueMoonset, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

–  North America1000 23:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Foreign language song titles
Hello BlueMoonset! I noticed you removed the italics from the Hindi song titles in the article Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage, which I copy edited as a Request during the latest GOCE Blitz. It’s not a big issue, but I had put the titles in italics in addition to the usual quotes because they were in a foreign language. This was on the strength of the Quotation marks - Additional markup subsection of the Manual of Style/Titles page. It seemed to be the case described there of a title requiring italicization for a reason other than being a title, the example cited being the German-language song "Ich Bin Ein Auslander". No problem if you disagree, just wanted to say it was a deliberate choice on my part aimed at MOS conformity, rather than a misunderstanding of the song title formatting convention. Although I think I missed the detail that the italics needed to be inside the quote marks rather than including them :) FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FiveFaintFootprints, thank you very much for writing. (This is my second attempt at a reply; the first vanished into the Wikipedia ether.) I hadn't been aware of that particular corner of the Manual of Style; my experience of many other foreign song articles, not just Hindi movie ones but for internationally famous songs such as "La Vie en rose", had led me to expect that song titles in all languages were roman with quotes around them, which matches how I've always dealt with them outside Wikipedia. (I've been here for over eight years, and haven't run into this issue before.) Which means that, now that I'm aware of it, I certainly won't resist if you wish to restore the italics inside the quotes, but I won't be going out of my way to change existing roman to italics, since to my eye italicized song titles still look wrong whatever the language. (If you do restore the italics, it's important to go all the way and include the article title in the italicizing as well, which I don't recall being the case: add the italic title template to the article, as is done in "Ich Bin Ein Auslander", though even that article has a different foreign song title given in roman text.) I randomly clicked on eight to ten of the song titles in the Arijit Singh box at the bottom of the "Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage" article, and all of their articles used roman text for the song titles. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The Teamwork Barnstar

 * Thank you, Reidgreg. I'm happy to help. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

templates and transclusion
Hey, BlueMoonset, I didn't want to clutter up the RfC, but I'm trying to understand what happens when we've got too many nominations. It's the number of templates to transclude that causes this problem? Excuse my ignorance...so, a reviewer puts the checkmark template on the nom, and that's what tells the bot to move it, and when we get to more than 500 (instances of the same template being currently in use?) the process just stops? Are there templates being used that aren't necessary to the process that we could cull? Again apologies for my ignorance, if there's somewhere you can point me where I can figure this out for myself, that would be great. --valereee (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * valereee, it is the number of templates to transclude, but there are levels of templates. Each nomination page is itself a template. Within that, you have a number of different templates as part of the boilerplate (i.e., DYK conditions, DYK header [a recent addition], and DYK nompage links); the most common template added by reviewers is DYK checklist. The icons are usually not templates, because they are usually placed with a "subst:", which causes the template to be "run" and permanently converts it to its underlying icon when published. For example, without conversion, the green tick is the template Symbol confirmed.svg, which requires a transclusion; with conversion, it's Symbol confirmed.svg (you'll want to look at this bit in the editor to see the coding difference). The same thing appears in both cases, but the former requires a transclusion, and the latter does not. (You've probably noticed that in the instructions above the DYK nomination edit window, all of the icon templates begin with "subst:", because the icons are supposed to be converted immediately.) In the case of the bot that does the moves, it looks for the converted icons, so the Symbol confirmed.svg and Symbol voting keep.svg are what trigger the move to the Approved page if they're the last icon on the nomination; the bot also knows how to look inside the DYK checklist template to determine whether the move is needed.
 * Other templates that are part of the DYK boilerplate are converted as well, but I'm not sure how they are counted, and the same is true for other templates like Ping or Fixed or Not done or the rest. It could be that for some templates, it doesn't matter how many times they're used, the template only counts once toward the 500 total. (That would make sense, given that we seem to max out these days on the Approved page at around 210 to 215 nominations. We just, overnight, slipped below the magic number.)
 * As you can tell, I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings of transclusions here to know what internal templates might be useful to remove or not. I do know that the first time this happened, someone had created new templates that gummed up the works, and we ultimately got rid of them. We did split the Nominations page into Nominations and Approved because the original page got too long, but that was well over 300 approved and unapproved nominations on the same page. Part of what is causing this, I believe, is the increasing use of the DYK checklist template instead of written-out reviews. I doubt we could cull it at this stage, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

1911-12 UNC Tar Heels Bball Season GAR
Hello! Thanks for reviewing the article's GAN! I know you're not the primary reviewer, but I've fixed the issues you outlined and responded to your comments. Let me know what you think there! Disc Wheel ( T  +  C ) 17:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)  Disc Wheel  ( T  +  C ) 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

U.S. presidential impeachment
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article U.S. presidential impeachment has been completed.

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

I had a bit of time and was able to find a number of citations in response to various "Citation Needed" tags, but some still remain to be located.

Best of luck with the DYK moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Twofingered Typist, thank you very much. It isn't actually my DYK, but it needed the copyedit and no one seemed to be moving on it, so I added it to the Requests list—I do this occasionally, and in fact added a new one earlier today. It was especially kind of you to look for sourcing; I've just pinged the two nominators to let them know that they have only four "citation needed" templates remaining to deal with, and it behooves them to look for it if they want the nomination to run soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Willard Ryan
Regarding this edit, it should go on January 20, not February 20. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 15:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gonzo_fan2007, I apologize for the error. I've moved it to the correct date. Thanks for letting me know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 16:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Dwts season 18 til 25
Please don’t delete a revert the dwts 18 through 25 we’re currently working on the “elimated in the finale” please don’t do redo what people have done. ShirleyTReal (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It was night 1 of the finals and it was a final elimation ShirleyTReal (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ShirleyTReal, I think this is an unnecessary detail that doesn't belong in the articles—it was an elimination, like all the others—which is why I have reverted these edits. If you believe it is important information that needs to be highlighted, do not add it back now that it has been reverted, but please feel free to post your reasoning as to why it should be added at Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series)‎. (I think it's best to have a centralized discussion there, rather than discussions at each of the seasons.) See WP:BRD for the process of gaining consensus for changes when someone disagrees with the need for a particular change or set of changes. Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I think your wrong it was a final elimination so if you don’t agree with that don’t go to go dwts page ok ShirleyTReal (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ShirleyTReal, that is not how Wikipedia works. It may be that consensus will agree with me, or will agree with you. However, you do not get to dictate how the article works; the whole point behind WP:BRD is that a Bold edit (yours, in this case) is made, it is Reverted, and then a Discussion takes place. If you refuse to take place in the discussion and simply edit war to try to force your version, there will be consequences. I hope you will be willing to discuss this. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No ShirleyTReal (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is a agreement that we both agree on ShirleyTReal (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. You need to discuss this on Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) and gain consensus. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

We could use your help identifying which article you think is most important
I'm soliciting your input on behalf of The Signpost for the upcoming "community view" piece. If you could, please contribute to that draft which article written on en-wp since November 1st, 2015 you think is most significant. I know that you're very content-focused and likely have insight to which articles out of the million written since November 2015 are really important. We'd need your input (110 words or less) within seven days, if not sooner. Thank you for your time. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Chris troutman, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm not as widely versed as you think, and can't recall any article that I'd consider "most significant" in the last million. So I think I'll pass; I'm sure others will have thoughts on candidates for this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of bios vs. non-bios
Hi, I don't think we have twice as many non-bios as before. I would really like to return that bio to round out Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, I counted 80+ non-bios and 40+ bios on the Approved page before I did any moving; we're really surprisingly low (it certainly surprised me). Last time I pinged you and Cwmhiraeth, the ratio was more 3 to 2, now it's almost 2 to 1 (and that's counting multi-article hooks with at least one bio as a bio hook). I think it's a mistake to go back to 4 bios and 4 non-bios in any sets until the ratio improves; that's why I moved the fourth bio out of preps 4 and 6 (twice in the case of 6). There are so many approved non-bio hooks around. I'll move Haruwa-Chawa from P6 to P1, and see about finding another non-bio to replace it in P1, so we have three preps ready for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. So you're counting Haruwa-Charuwa system as a bio? That's interesting. Yoninah (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Yoninah, it's not a bio. There were three bios in P6, and I'm moving a non-bio (Haruwa) to it so it still has three bios now that it's full: Rousseau, al-Baridi, and John-Jules. P1 currently has three bios—Sealy (lead hook), Liu, and Lewis—so I'll be looking for a non-bio to fill the spot Haruwa had to keep it at three bios. Make sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I lost track of where you were moving them to/from. I thought of putting a non-bio hook that mentions people into that last slot in Prep 1, but I have to stop for the night. Yoninah (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Coco Gauff nomination
Thanks for the info, when I have time I will read up on this and do it the proper way. michfan2123 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Michfan2123 16:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 GOCE drive bling
Thanks for helping to bring the copy-editing backlog to a record low! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A Star is Born
Could you let me know how close or how far this film article is from meeting peer review. The other editor seemed ready to close as complete and then you added some comments. If its close to completion then let me know what is needed to complete it, otherwise the other editor appears to not have a follow-up for your comments. CodexJustin (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * CodexJustin, I'm hoping to get back to the review this weekend. I'll let you know then. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I'm getting notice that I may be out of town for some weeks on short notice, and I have today and tomorrow for any edits that need to be done, unless the article has major setbacks which we are not seeing. Just make note of what's needed and I'll try to get them into the article. CodexJustin (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * CodexJustin, I've just posted my comments to the review, and there's a fair amount to be done in terms of finding and adding more information. The Writing and Filming sections struck me as particularly weak. Unfortunately, new editors don't notice these sorts of things. Indeed, I think it would be best to pull in a very experienced GA film reviewer, since they're likely to know what sorts of things are typically expected of a film article at this level. I did make a few edits to the article to try to smooth out a few places. Best of luck; I'm sorry this wasn't ready sooner, especially if you do have to go out of town this week. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Old DYK review list
What do you think about making this list a permanent subpage linked from the ? Instead of updating it whenever the old list is archived, it could be updated at regular intervals, say weekly, with your regular reminder noticed posted at WP:DKY?
 * Whoever you are, I'm happy with the way things work now. I do a new page every eight days or so, and the archiving reminds me it's time to update. Also, having the list actively on the talk page means everyone sees it and it's always there in front of them, rather than hidden away on a page where few people would check. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, Since this is your baby, I thought I would ask you here rather than proposing right on the project talk page. Sorry for forgetting to sign above. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

re: GA nominations
You're welcome. I was rushing to get the Monster Truck Madness link into the GAN page, so I simply did it. Everyone would be surprised at how the article is different from 1 decade ago. <sub style="border:1px solid;padding:1px"> A ya S yameimaru  文々. 新聞  04:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The GA nomination guidance
Hey, BlueMoonset. Regarding this, do you think it's best for the introductions of Good article nominations and Good article nominations/Instructions to state the "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." aspect? I ask because I think it will help editors to not overlook it. With Featured article candidates, such advice is right there in the introduction.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should ask this question at WT:GAN, and see what the consensus says. I certainly wouldn't mind it, but I'm just one person. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Impact
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You're very kind, Gerda Arendt. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm constantly impressed by the breadth and quality of your work! — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

GA reviews
Hey, BlueMoonset, after the questions on Katherine Johnson, I have been a bit worried about if some of my similar reviews - where I haven't made note of everything that is ok on the basis of practicality - were not of standard. If you, or an editor like, or , wanted to take a look at one or two of my reviews, I think it would restore my self-confidence in completing bold reviews. And after a dip in reviewing because of real world issues, I'm back at GAN :) Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kingsif, welcome back! I've got some stuff going in IRL that will keep me from being able to do an in-depth check of your reviews, so with luck one of the others will answer in the affirmative. I've noticed that the oldest two articles under Media and drama need new reviewers: Talk:Princess Fiona/GA1 (just today put in for a 2nd opinion, but the review was abandoned months ago) and Talk:James Stewart/GA1 (original reviewer had to depart in late October, and although Aircorn offered to take over, they're away from Wikipedia indefinitely, so someone new would be welcome, though you should probably ping the nominator to be sure they still want to continue, as it's been seven weeks since they last posted). Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

GA reviews without discussion
Hi BlueMoonset, a reviewer new to Wikipedia this year is rushing GA reviews such as Talk:Sabine Lake/GA1 and Talk:W New York Union Square/GA1 and for what it's worth Talk:Bikram Choudhury/GA1 through to pass or fail with no negotiation of any kind with the nominator and without giving even a single suggestion for improvement before completing the review. Maybe a word? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, there's been an extensive discussion about this at WT:GAN, and the two passed reviews have been reverted. There was also an long post to the reviewer's page, though a day or so before the reviews were reverted. If you'd like, I'd be happy to restore the Bikram Choudhury nomination, so it's put back into the pool of noms awaiting reviews with no loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Shows how little I know. Glad to hear it and yes, that would be very kind of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, done. Hope you have better luck with your next reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One can but hope, and polish the candidate articles to the ninth degree. But I'm glad we have a mechanism for dealing with flaky reviewers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jessye Norman
Hey BlueMoonset. Is it okay if you take a look at this nomination, particularly when it comes to hook concerns about hook interest? The nominator and the reviewer are not in agreement over the suitability of the original proposed hook, and the reviewer has asked for input from other uninvolved editors. Thanks and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Narutolovehinata5, I agree that the hook is not sufficiently interesting. I think the one I just proposed is an improvement, or a step in a better direction, but perhaps other ideas and combinations will surface that are even better in the next few days, so an improved hook can be agreed upon in time for the hook to be promoted and run during March. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Legobot
I reverted the bot because I was having difficulty convincing it the 2 articles in question were not under review, and am aware that the bot has bugs. I don't see why you would need to revert me given that according to the info on the page the bot will overwrite human changes, and if, due to a bug, it didn't pick up the changes and revert me my edits would stand and the info presented would be correct. However, all good now as the bot has marked the pages as needing review. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * kingboyk, the bot's bugs are not in that area, and it was behaving exactly as it ought given those article talk pages, which is partially why I did the reversion—the other part was that the page typically should not be directly edited, and problems have occurred in the past with edits between the bot's. All is well that ends well, and I hope the post I was making to your page while you were posting on mine is helpful when you're faced with similar issues in the future. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "All is well that ends well". Indeed; and, yes, I'm now aware of how to resolve this issue if it arises again. Thanks for your assistance. --kingboyk (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! Nine-year Wikibirthday and counting. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

April Fools set
Hi, I just want to register my dissatisfaction with the April Fools set. Most of the hooks are dull and not clever. In the past guided this project with a firm and creative hand, but he was unavailable this year. Now we have the possibility of a hook being pulled at ERRORS. I wonder if there will be calls to stop this special set already. Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, you've done amazing work on the set even with the sparse material; thank you for keeping it going. Like you, I haven't been impressed with the sets in the past couple of years; they don't have the same kind of spark they used to, and we're getting fewer nominations by the year. Some of the better submitters, like Crisco 1492, aren't around any more, and while Gatoclass was successfully dragooned into working on it in recent years, he clearly hasn't been impressed, and I'm glad for his sake that he was sensible enough to stay away this year given his health issues. I do hope we won't have any hooks pulled at ERRORS, but it has happened: is it the Pepsi one? (I think EEng's second suggestion is more effective.) Or have I missed another potential problem? Getting back to the AFD quality, once the day is past and the dust has settled, you could suggest that its time at DYK has, perhaps, passed. Or is AFD a general main page thing that we should attempt to support as best we can? In that case, perhaps we should have judging or voting on potential hooks to see whether the judges think a hook is sufficient AFDish to make the grade. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. Let's wait and see how many clicks these get (probably a lot, since people are stuck at home). But I'll try to mention something at WT:DYK after this is over. Yoninah (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda Arendt. Hard to believe it's been that long! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for caring about Jessye Norman's article, borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 GOCE drive bling
Thanks for helping to reduce the copy-editing backlog by 75% in one month! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Early Swallows

 * Thanks, Baffle gab1978! Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries; good luck with your DYK nom. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  02:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Re:Not your GOCE request
Hallo BlueMoonset

sorry, you are right, but I just noticed that User:Johnbod did the copyedit of the article and wrote a message here writing that the article was ready for the review, so I canceled the request since I wanted to spare an (unnecessary?) work by the guild. I really did not know that only the author can cancel a request, but I should have inform you sorry again. BTW, I saw that nevertheless the article was copyedited again! Thanks a lot for you help and your message. BTW, I did not know about the existence of the Guild, but now I am a regular client. ;-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh-oh...I did not notice them, thanks for telling me! I will do today, it is vacation here in Switzerland (and I am locked at home anyway ;-)). Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)