User talk:Giants2008/Archive 32

DYK for Frank Pidgeon
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi FAC
After the first nomination, which you helped review, did not receive enough attention, I have renominated the Alex Owumi article for featured article consideration. I thought you might be interested in looking at the article again, because a lot of improvements have been made since you last left a comment. TempleM (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

TFL Grade II* listed buildings in Mendip
Thanks for the notification re Grade II* listed buildings in Mendip appearing as TFL on 19 March. Looking at the blurb, I'm not quite sure of the grammar of "the Mendip Hills through on to the Somerset Levels." I would just say: "ranging from the Mendip Hills to the Somerset Levels." Otherwise looks OK to me.&mdash; Rod talk 17:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
 * 🇮🇳 Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🇮🇳 Numerounovedant, Carbrera, 🇳🇱 Farang Rak Tham and 🇷🇴 Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. Thanks for choosing List of Indian Premier League seasons and results for 6 April. I would have preferred 7 April if it is possible. Warmly, Lourdes  00:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Susi Kentikian FAR
Can I just check: is the article up-to-date and sourced now? If it is, I'm happy to go over and give it a copy-edit for prose. It would be nice to see one kept at FAR for once! Hope you are well. Sarastro (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Guillemots
Hi Giants. I see that List of songs recorded by Regine Velasquez is scheduled to appear on the main page on April 23rd. I've suggested that List of songs recorded by Guillemots be featured on May 21st, four weeks later. Is it going to be okay to have such similar lists posted so soon after each other? To be perfectly honest, I've been waiting six years for 21st May to fall on either a Monday or a Friday, and I really don't want to be pipped to the post in the final furlong and risk having the list run on a date that's unrelated to it. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks in advance. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 11:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
 * Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
 * 🇮🇳 Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
 * Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
 * Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

List of living cardinals for TFL
Thanks for choosing List of living cardinals to appear as TFL on the Main Page! On reviewing the associated blurb for the article, I would like to note the time-sensitive sentences at the end, which read: "As of 1 April 2018, there are 214 cardinals, 115 of whom are cardinal electors. The most recent consistory for the creation of cardinals was held on 28 June 2017, when Pope Francis created five cardinals, all cardinal electors." This could be subject to change between now and the date on which the article is slated to appear (28 May 2018), although it is admittedly unlikely. In addition, the last sentence (beginning "The most recent consistory…") would probably be better omitted from the blurb, as that would only be particularly useful in context with the rest of the article lead's third paragraph; the sentence about the number of cardinals can stand on its own and should be included, in any case.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 05:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now added more detail from the article at Today's featured list/May 28, 2018; please feel free to discuss it here if needed. Thanks.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 16:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about the 1 April date, you could just update it in the article and blurb, although I'm not too worried about it. The whole point of including "as of" in a sentence like this is to indicate that a fact is current at a certain time and may need updating, after all. I had seen an earlier version of your work on the blurb and was set to complain that it had been made too short, but your more recent edits took care of that and it looks fine now. Thanks for having a look. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It has just been announced that the Pope is naming new cardinals on 29th June (a Friday), which seems to be a more fitting date for its TFL. Would it then be possible to move the TFL for the above article to that date, instead of the current 28th May? Thanks.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 23:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be done. I'll take care of it later today. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 13:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, the list has been rescheduled for June 29 per your request. Cheers. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stanley Woodward (editor)
Hello! Your submission of Stanley Woodward (editor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Stanley Woodward (editor)
Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Fl nomination
Hello Giants2008, my nominated article has three supports now, with two other users not responding (their points have been fixed). What is the minimum required number of supports? Is there a time limit? Thanks in advance. Akocsg (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Basketball triple crown
No, the national supercups are not counted, since they occur after the season. So the triple is for in-season, which is the national league, national cup, European-wide league. But there can also be a quadruple crown, and a quintuple crown. If a team wins the European league they play in, their national league, their national cup, and their national supercup (if there is one), then that it is considered a quadruple crown, and is a separate thing. So you can win a quadruple crown, but you can't substitute a supercup for a national cup in the triple crown, also because most leagues don't have a supercup. The quintuple crown is also something a team could win - national league, regional league (some teams play in national and regional leagues), national cup, national supercup, and European league. In that case, the team wins a quintuple. But also you can't sub the regional league for a national cup, to make a triple crown. Hopefully I explained that well enough. If you have more questions just ask.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to to review 89th Academy Awards for FLC
Hi, as you have participated in previous FLC nomination for the Academy Awards ceremony, I would like to invite you for the review or comment on the current nomination of Featured list candidates/89th Academy Awards/archive1. It has already been two months and all of the content is reviewed but it has only few supports. So please take sometime out and review it so it could be moved to FLC status. Nauriya - Let's talk 14:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC).

PR for Fawad Khan
Hi, I've recently requested a PR for the article Fawad Khan (see here). It'd be an honour for me if you consider reviewing it. Thanks. Amirk94391 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your response on PR page, I've fixed those issues you mentioned. Please check out my replies on PR page of Fawad Khan.Amirk94391 (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this correct?
Hi, Giants2008. I came across this newly-created list due to the Teahouse, and noticed that it is marked as a featured list, despite being created yesterday. I did not notice it on the list of featured lists, or in the log. I was wondering if this is correctly denoted, or an error. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide with this matter. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunrisers Hyderabad
Hi. I nominated - List of Sunrisers Hyderabad cricketers as featured list candidate (you can see discussion here). It's been more than 2 months since nomination and would be great if you can review (whenever you are free) and provide your comments/suggestions on that. Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I appreciate the comment but would be helpful if you could point out at-least some mistakes unless you are very busy. Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Collaborating on a list
I saw you're a rather prolific list-maker, and I was wondering if you had the time and interest in helping me create a list of Honeywell products and services. In the interest of transparency, I have a paid COI, but it was recommended to me by another user that a list article would be a better space for this content than the Honeywell article itself. I created a draft from the content I initially proposed for the article here. Do you have and advice or suggestions on how I could further improve it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Amy Adams list
Giants, some concern over Amy Adams being both TFA and TFL on 20 August. Wasn't sure if you'd made a promise to someone relating to the list.... (It's her birthday so I'm not completely surprised it's been selected by both main page sections)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a request at TFLS. It's hard for me to go against a specific request, although I didn't know a TFA featuring her was also being planned. I feel bad subjecting somebody else's list to a TFL on such short notice, but if you want this changed on our end please say so quickly, because I only have six hours left to edit the August 20 TFL (not having the bit and all). Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting you change it, but just wanted to let you know. TFA can pick someone different.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It looks like they brought it up at WP:ERRORS anyway. I'll go comment there right now. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Peer review request
You've been excellent help reviewing a couple of articles of mine before, and I'm looking for someone without much (or any) cricket knowledge to take a look at Peer review/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1, which I'm hoping to take on to Featured status. Any help you could provide would be amazing. Thanks, Harrias  talk 09:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sally Sessions
Hello. I wanted to thank you for making Sally Sessions. She was on my list of to-do articles but I never got around to make an article for her. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:


 * Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
 * Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
 * Other contestants who qualified for the final round were 🇲🇭 Nova Crystallis, Iazyges,  SounderBruce,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack and 🇺🇸 Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for 1939 NCAA Basketball Championship Game
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Denoting HOF and current players in award lists
I've recently been questioning the merit of denoting hall of fame and current players in NFL award lists, such as Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award. I wonder if this is giving too much attention details that are largely unimportant to the award itself. Not to mention the shaded cells are unsightly and potentially distracting. I'm contemplating removing them from all the AP NFL award pages. What say you? Lizard (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification reply
Hello Giants2008. Thank you very much for chosing the List of Turkish football champions. I really appreciate it and support it of course. I just have one request, I noticed that the other ones use pictures, while the Turkish champions list doesn't (at least it seems that way). Would you preferably include the picture used in the history section of the list? That would be great. Thanks again. Kind regards, Akocsg (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the photo from the history section cannot be used because it is a non-free image and we can't have non-free images in any of the Main Page sections.  Giants2008  ( Talk ) 16:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, thanks for the info. I'll see if I can find a free one until then. There's still some time left after all. If I can't then can you use the one in the lead section? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Giants2008. I've uploaded a file that should be fine. it is. Does it have to be in the article, or can you include it in the preview as it is now? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Woggabaliri
There is some discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_football#Woggabaliri about your recent contribution to the Association football page. Think it's fair you have you say :-) Cls14 (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Check out this beast
List of National Football League career quarterback wins leaders. Not even sure where to begin trying to rework this. Lizard (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Just in case y'all ain't seen this ---> Featured article candidates/Packers sweep/archive1 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

FSR RfC
Your oppose at the FSR RfC is interesting. I thought about starting a discussion section there but realized I didn't fully understand your oppose, so I wanted to talk to you directly first.

Initially I thought you were opposing because you feel the work required of reviewers will increase, and the reviewer pool is already stretched thin. I attempted to frame the RfC so it would not increase the workload on reviewers -- it's intended to simply split the existing process in two, with a requirement to complete one part before starting the next. In my mind, this would slightly reduce the workload, rather than increase it. But on rereading your oppose I wonder if "fracturing" is the key word. Are you saying that dividing an understaffed process into two processes will leave both even more understaffed, even if the total work to be done doesn't change? If so, why would it make a difference to implement this internally at FAC? If we put in the subheads, and temporarily collapsed any reviews that were not source reviews until the source review passed, why would that be preferable in terms of reviewer resources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. My oppose at the RFC is really a combination of factors, which I perhaps didn't explain well enough there but which you touched on in your post. I'm no Iridescent in terms of making profound points on talk pages, but let me try to explain myself. Throughout Wikipedia, we are really struggling for reviewers at all of these content processes. FAC seems to be stalling out (4 promotions through two-thirds of October), FLC isn't doing much better (5 this month so far), and the less said about the backlog at GAN, the better. When I started, there were more candidates at FAC and FLC, but we had enough reviewers so that the flow of articles in and out of the processes was reasonably good (at least compared to today). That clearly isn't the case today, and those of us who want to keep standards up are being stretched way too thin for things to be sustainable.


 * With this in mind, fracturing of the process is a key concern of mine, as you had thought. We can say that the intention is to avoid fracturing FAC, but I think that will end up happening. It's another page for all of us reviewers to keep an eye on, so it will increase my workload in that respect; I wonder how many of us will really monitor everything for articles we are interested in. As someone who cares deeply about FAC, I don't know if I can commit to work at yet another process. We simply can't keep adding processes with the current reviewer constraints. It shouldn't make a difference where the source reviewing takes place, but I feel like it will, if that makes sense. I'd feel better about the potential of a new process if source reviews were being done quickly, but that isn't occurring all the time, so I don't even know if this would work if kept in-house at FAC. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The idea of doing this strictly within FAC, with something like a subheading plus instructions to wait for the source review to pass, is an interesting idea that didn't come up during the discussions before the RfC.  I wish it had, because if it were to work it would be a simpler answer.  Under that approach it wouldn't be possible for an article not at FAC to get just a source review, but I don't think that's a big downside.


 * A bigger issue for me is that I would like to see a separate process because I would like there to be a community built around source reviewing, in the same way that we currently have communities around FAC, FLC, GAN, MoS, and other areas of focus. I think implementing this idea within FAC might leave us where we are -- with FAC nominators failing to do source reviews, and a community that puts more effort into prose than source reviewing.  A specialist source-reviewing process, with coordinators (perhaps Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria) with a strong background in that area, would, I hope, build a real cultural centre for good sourcing.


 * The internal-to-FAC approach could well work, though, and if there's only support for that I would hate to see the overall RfC fail. What would you think about starting a separate subhead at the RfC for supporting that option?  Several other commenters (e.g. Wugapodes, Outriggr, and Ceoil) would probably move to that position if it existed, and it would be best to represent their views correctly at the RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I'm still not sure about how a subheading at FAC would work in practice, but I would consider supporting that option myself. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 15:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:



All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
 * wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
 * wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and.

DYK nomination of Louis Brooks (rodeo cowboy)
Hello! Your submission of Louis Brooks (rodeo cowboy) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PotentPotables ( talk ) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)