User talk:IJReid/Archive 7

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)

Interview invitation to follow up your experience with our recommendation tool
Hi IJReid,

Hope you are doing well! In the past several weeks, we did some analysis and evaluation on our tool. An exciting finding is that invitations from WikiProject organizers increased the edits of new (experienced) editors about 40% within the target project compared to new editors who didn’t receive anything!

I want to have an interview with you about your experience of using our tool. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout whichever works best for you. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards. Please let me know if you could help. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi IJReid, hope you are doing well! Just wonder if you'd have any interest in chatting with me about your experience using our tool? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yeah sorry I'm not really interested at this time, and I'd rather not because of personal age issues etc. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 2 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)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cetiosauriscus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cetiosauriscus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cetiosauriscus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 July 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)

Dinosauricon Jaime Headden skeletals
Yep, seems there were a lot: Sadly, it doesn't seem like the images themselves show up, but at least it gives an overview of what is potentially out there... FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There might also be more on the archived version of his old website: FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I know of a few people who have all, or almost all of his dinosauricon skeletals saved, I'll try and locate them. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/Sclerosauridae
Template:Taxonomy/Sclerosauridae has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page --Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Full citation for Iguanodon edit?
Hi, IJReid! I have been trying to help work on articles listed at WP:DINO's cleanup listing. I noticed that in this edit,  was invoked, but never defined. Do you happen to have a link to the source material? I would be happy to update the citation. Thanks! Vivatheviva (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that the reference was already in the article. Added the citation now. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Vivatheviva (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 1826 in paleontology, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 scope_creep Talk  23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Paranthodon
Ealdgyth wants to run this one at TFA on May 11. I'm having a hard time getting it done. Feel free to write the blurb, or if you prefer, let me know what you'd like to see in the blurb. (I see FunkMonk among the FAC supporters, he may be interested in helping.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some caption edits in the article after I saw this section. I can look a proposed blurb over, but I guess it won't be too hard to make one by just condensing the lead? FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Ealdgyth should be posting these pretty soon. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never really had a TFA before ... Paranthodon is my first solo FA article. So I'd probably not be the authority on what to include, but I can always read over it. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a blurb for both of you to look at soon. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Paranthodon was a stegosaurian dinosaur that lived in present-day South Africa between 139 and 131 million years ago, during the Early Cretaceous. Discovered in 1845, it was one of the first stegosaurians found. The only remains of the genus, a partial skull, isolated teeth, and fragments of vertebrae, were found in the Kirkwood Formation. British paleontologist Richard Owen initially identified the fragments as those of the pareiasaur Anthodon. After remaining untouched for years in the British Museum of Natural History, the partial skull was identified by South African paleontologist Robert Broom as belonging to a different genus; he named the specimen Palaeoscincus africanus. Several years later, Hungarian paleontologist Franz Nopcsa, unaware of Broom's new name, similarly concluded that it represented a new taxon, and named it Paranthodon owenii. The genus name combines the Ancient Greek para (near) with the genus name Anthodon, to represent the initial referral of the remains.

Thoughts? Edits? - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "... a partial skull, isolated teeth, and fragments of vertebrae, were ..." since the vertebrae are known from fragments. I think the rest is good. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Paranthodon scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Paranthodon has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 11 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/May 11, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. 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.

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) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus
Hi. Do you think you could expand the description section for T-rex? A new article was published describing the largest specimen. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure how I would go about expanding it. The Scotty article doesn't add any information thats really usable as far as posctranial anatomy, which is what I think we are missing, but I'm sure the Sue osteology does if thats what we need. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for Paranthodon, the dinosaur genus, "arguably one of the most obscure dinosaurs, with the only bone known being part of a skull originally identified as a pareiasaur." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. 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, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. 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 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. 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) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Submissions for The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third anniversary. You are receiving this message because you participated in previous years of the challenge but have not yet submitted any article improvements for this year. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved, ensuring that all submissions are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors in November.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or go the challenge page at WP:CAN10K for more information. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Reidgreg (talk) and WP:CAN10K, 21:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

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, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titanosauria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilium ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Titanosauria check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Titanosauria?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Segnosaurus skeletal
Hi, I recall seeing a Segnosaurus skeletal on your Deviantart page (I think?) at some point, and since the current taxobox skeletal is inadequate for both being too small and showing a wrong posture as well as missing some elements, I wonder if your skeletal could be used there instead? Since I'll also be taking it to FAC, and thanks for the reference edits, by the way! Headden's skeletal also seems to be based on the old drawings from the original descriptions, which show heavily restored elements that resemble the actual fossils very little; only these papers have good pictures of some of the elements: FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah no problems, I was considering expanding Segnosaurus a while ago but it fell out of priority when I started moving to sauropod stuff. I'm actually mostly done a revision of that skeletal, and I'll post it to the review page. I had to use Perle 1979 for some of the material, and things like the caudals were unfigured anywhere, so those are just a tentative grey block because I can't determine much about them and therizinosaur caudals aren't the greatest. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Did you manage to find pdfs of the original description containing the figures? I'd like to see them too, they're not in the English translation I got... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I managed to get the original paper of course I don't know russian so besides the figures theres not much useful for me. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on Image Review
Would not have caught this WTJP sockpuppet otherwise! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
 * 🇺🇸 Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
 * Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
 * Pirate Flag.svg CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
 * The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included 🇺🇸 L293D, 🇻🇪 Kingsif, 🇦🇶 Enwebb, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski and 🇳🇵 CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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 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), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 🇺🇸 L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
 * Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Blason Gondor.svg Hog Farm with 801, 🇻🇪 Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 🇲🇽 MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! 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.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Question
I have a question, do you mind if I ask?--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes sure. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay so I may make a Richardoestasia restoration, do you know of any skeletal diagrams I could use?--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none exist, because the taxon is only isolated teeth. If you do decide to dedicate time to a restoration of it, Saurornitholestes may be the most complete taxon that it could resemble, assuming it is a dromaeosaur. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, so maybe a modified version of this https://www.deviantart.com/gunnarbivens/art/Saurornitholestes-langstoni-Skeletal-836281629--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be about as good as you can get. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thanks--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Echinodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Butler ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Echinodon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Echinodon?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Purbeck Group
Hi, as I live in the UK, I went to Durlston Bay in January 2019 and took some photos, which are much better than any photos of the Purbeck Group that we currently have, as the Lulworth and Durlston formations are lithologically similar, I can't tell you what formation is in each photo, just that they are purbeck. As you are improving Echinodon, which is from the group, would you be interested in me uploading them to commons? Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Photos would certainly be welcome. From what I can tell there are a few published statements that would probably be able to help distinguish what is from where in the formation. I may end up improving the Lulworth Formation page as a consequence of the expansive work I did for Echinodon's coexisting fauna, although I may have to look more into the invertebrates, fishes and flora. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I did a comprehensive update to the paleobiota tables of the lulworth formation based on fossilworks back in August 2018, and I think for vertebrates it is mostly complete. I would recommend Ian West's website, a retired professor at the University of Southampton (and hosted on their website) which covers the early cretaceous geology of coast of southern England quite well. Hope that is useful Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah West is cited in basically all papers that discuss the Purbeck Stratigraphy, if I do ever improve the page beyond fauna I will certainly have to go through his work. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Questions about Dakotaraptor
Is it because of the furcula belongs to a turtle so there is someone who guess that the holotype is a chimera? I wonder if the rest were definitely dromaeosaurid… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As only the furcula has been identified as from a different taxon, Dakotaraptor is not a chimaera at this time. It may not all be one taxon but there is no published evidence for this so we must treat it as one. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What to do with Ostafrikasaurus?
See this, should we put the category nomina dubia of Ostafrikasaurus? or is it gibberish because Buffetaut 2012 has listed diagnosis of Ostafrikasaurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Or do the paper only say Sigilmassasaurus falls within Spinosaurus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ostafrikasaurus can be considered either a spinosaurid or a ceratosaur based on what is published, I'm sure it will change in time. Sigilmassasaurus is certainly going to be defended it will just take time for a rebuttal to be published, we will hear more about the issue soon. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope Ostafrikasaurus will be retained as valid because the diagnosis is stated Huinculsaurus (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we leave Megapnosaurus as a distinct genus page
Because i saw a lot of recent papers still mentioning Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis as within Megapnosaurus rather than Coelophysis, it could also say that there are still many authors using the name so the synonymy within Coelophysis is not 100% supported — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This will undoubtedly change with further publications, likely including the soon-to-be-published redescription of Dilophosaurus. It is a separate species either way and generic separation is subjective. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So is it more reasonably for Megapnosaurus to be a seperate page than Coelophysis? Huinculsaurus (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For now no changes should be made, as whether it is separate or not is going to be discussed more soon in papers. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Check this out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5735062/

and additionally, on the phylogenetic trees of recently described taxon including Powellvenator featuring Megapnosaurus as distinct seems to show that there are still many authors using the name Huinculsaurus (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dryolestidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alveolus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dryolestidae check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dryolestidae?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Dromaeosauride talk page
I have something on the talk page, would you mind taking a look by any chance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dromaeosauridae#Matthew_and_brown?--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Something about the Hesperornithoides paper featuring Dakotaraptor placed outside of Eudromaeosauria
I just wonder if that phylogenetic tree is only for us to see (it means there is no mention of Dakota being placed outside Eudromaeosauria) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It only depends on how relevant the phylogeny is and how well-supported it is. At this point there isn't enough known to prompt a change across the board for something that is only slightly supported. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So is the phylogenetic tree mentioning Dakota as a unenlagiine untrustable because later papers on dromaeosaurs including Dineobellator have mentioned Dakota as a eudromaeosaur Huinculsaurus (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also can the Dakota page taxobox changed to a higher classification because Unenlagiinae is a subfamily not full family Huinculsaurus (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The phylogenetic analysis is trustable, but there is no point to taking the time to add it everywhere when a simple sentence stating how a taxons placement changed will suffice. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly not helping make me feel any younger :P IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can't help. How about wiser? - Thank you for your part in today's Lythronax, "one of the few dinosaurs ever mentioned in a presidential proclamation, for rather unfortunate reasons"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiser does have a good ring to it, and that line is quite memorable indeed. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Echinodon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Echinodon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JurassicClassic767 -- JurassicClassic767 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Echinodon
The article Echinodon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Echinodon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JurassicClassic767 -- JurassicClassic767 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A page you started (Carnufex) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Carnufex, IJReid!

Wikipedia editor Shibbolethink just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Keep up the good work!"

To reply, leave a comment on Shibbolethink's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


 * Ok. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mail call!

 * Ok. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!


 * Ok. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:40, 13 June 2020 (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.


 * Ok. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
 * 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
 * Flag of the United States Library of Congress 2.svg Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
 * Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

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 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), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).


 * Ok. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)