User talk:Kees08/Archive 2

RfC format
This is the first RfC I have ever created, please let me know if I made any errors.

The bot copies all text between the template and the first timestamp to one or more RfC listing pages according to the category or categories specified in the  template. See Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming for the page containing your entry.

The listing pages are meant as a sort of "index" of RfCs and the entries are best limited to a concise question or proposal. Thus the elements of an RfC are the following:


 * the template
 * the concise question or proposal, terminated by a timestamp (five tildes) or signature (four tildes)
 * links to previous discussions, background, etc, optionally terminated by a signature
 * any desired subsection headings

It's not too late to fix this one, and the bot will update the listing page within 24 hours. It's not necessary to edit the listing page yourself. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So it terminates at the first signature? Should I move the proposal to the top of the section then, sign it, and then leave the rest as-is?  Kees08  (Talk)   16:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, drop the "Proposal" heading and take care that the proposal follows the template. I think that would be fine. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Next Nine
Having completed the Mercury Seven article, I have overhauled the Next Nine one. It is currently at DYK and GA. If you want to save it for a special date in July, put a comment to that effect at Template:Did you know nominations/NASA Astronaut Group 2. I am adopting Frank Borman, although I think he is overrated; he is the oldest living astronaut, and it would be nice to have something to run if he falls off the perch. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have finished overhaul of Borman, and have put it up for review at GA. Let me know if you think there is something missing that needs to be added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will turn the awards and honors and the tributes section to prose throughout the week if you do not mind. Might want to run your endash script as well.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried hard to find it, but I am not finding it so far. There was an interview with the three astronauts, and Borman expresses regret over being so hard on Anders for trying to enjoy the mission essentially, and that he should have allowed for the TV broadcasts and things like that. I will see if I can find it, but it is somewhere in case you find time to look for it.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and Apollo Flight Journal copyright their captions, and user Andrej-airliner committed copyright violations on probably hundreds of files (such as File:The_crew_of_Apollo_8_addresses_the_crew_of_the_USS_Yorktown_after_a_successful_splashdown_and_recovery.jpg). I am having issues finding the source page of the image to verify it is a copyright violation; you'll need to do that for A-class and FA at some point anyways. So just be careful of photos uploaded by that user from that site. So far 100% of the captions I have checked are copyvios.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have run the ndashes script. I always do this last. No objection whatsoever to reformatting the awards and honours section.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

July jamboree
July noms are now open at WP:TFAR, so time to nominate the Apollo 11 articles. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  05:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

USS Hornet
At long last, I've finished the article and it's at GAN now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's great, thank you so much! Do you mind if I do the review?  Kees08  (Talk)   15:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all, though you should be aware that I only found occasional mention of the ship or her airgroup so I often had to refer to the task group to which she was assigned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good, I will pick it up after I finish a different review if it is still available.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

For high quality reviewing
Thanks for this. Good encouragement to do more reviews!  Kees08  (Talk)   04:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, that had nothing to do with why I thought that you deserved it, but if it has that effect I don’t suppose that anyone will complain.

Alt text
Hi Kees08

"if you do not sign the line that you ping someone they do not get the ping". Thanks for that; I had understood that it was sufficient to simply sign the post, so I am now better informed.

Possibly you could shed some light on another area of my ignorance. I appreciate your drawing my attention to the alt text RfC. I was unaware of it, as you correctly surmised. However, it leaves me feeling a little confused. The RFC has not resulted in any change in the MOS, which still requires that "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute", in direct contradiction of the RFC. What is the 'formal' staus of a RFC on a guideline, against what the guideline actually says?

Hopefully you see my dilemma. If a RFC 'trumps' the MOS, then each and every requirement of the MOS could have a RFC out there somewhere which over-rules it, with no way for a casual reader of the MOS (me) to be aware of it. (Or even, it seems to me, two mutually contradictory RFCs.) Is there any 'official' guidance as to how one should handle this type of situation?

Any assistence on resolving this near existential dilemma for me would be appreciated. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I always screwed up pinging; I think I have it figured out now. I work in aerospace, and the word should has a specific definition. Should means something is completely optional; that ideally you would do it, but there is no obligation to do it. In practice, it usually means they do not expect you to do it but want you to be aware of it because it could be a requirement in the future. Shall on the other hand means it is a firm requirement and that you have to do it (see 3.1.1.a). I specifically say aerospace because I am unsure if other industries/the general public have the same definition for it, but it is how I read it. My interpretation then says that we should include alt text but we are not required to. As you may have seen on the RfC, I would like for it to be compulsory, but unfortunately I am in the minority. There are many other ways in which we need to increase accessibility (lists are often done poorly, videos often do not have TimedText), but I do not think any of it is required. That is assuming that my understanding of should and shall match the intent of the MOS.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Right. Thanks for that. Yes, as you say, depends on what is meant by "should". In Wiktionary the first definition is "Be obliged to; have an obligation to; indicates that the subject of the sentence has some obligation to execute the sentence predicate or that the speaker has some strong advice but has no authority to enforce it." which was how I read and read it in the MOS. Ah ha. But the second definition is "ought to; speaker's opinion, or advice that an action is correct, beneficial, or desirable", or what we could call the 'aerospace definition'. I have always considered that a looser, more casual version, which one might speak, but not write in a formal context - I understand that that is just me.
 * However, my Oxford Shorter Dictionary has a very short definition; in total: "SHOULD, pa. t. SHALL v." My Chambers 20th C. says the same (bar adding an "of"). In short, in a formal context, and the 'aerospace definition' notwithstanding, "should" seems to mean what I thought it did.
 * I feel no particular obligation to inform the closer of the RfC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS I have just done a word search of the MOS. Zero instances of "shall"; 126 of "should". The first two being in "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." Q.E.D. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm. Yeah, not sure how the RfC trumps the MOS, besides I suppose it saying that FA is excluding portions of the MOS from the requirements. I am with you and think it should be required, so not sure what else to say here.  Kees08  (Talk)   00:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Next up ...
Well, Scott went well. I think Apollo 9 is about ready for FAC and will go ahead in a few days if it's OK. I was thinking of polishing up Apollo 16 next. It's in very good shape although the discussion about the subsatellite is at least misleading. The satellite went astray because the mission was brought home in a hurry and they were not allowed to take it to the planned orbit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I hope to have time to run through the Apollo 9 article with A Man on the Moon, we will see if I get time though.  Kees08  (Talk)   00:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No hurry. I won't rush to nominate it then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of these suggestions? (and others that I inserted into the article)  Kees08  (Talk)   03:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Replacing File:Spider_in_Earth_Orbit_-_GPN-2000-001106.jpg with File:View_of_the_Apollo_9_Lunar_Module_Spider.jpg? I think the lack of contrast in the first image makes it hard to see in the thumbnail
 * I like what we have because you can see clearly that it's orbiting a planet. The fact that it's visually upside down I thought was educational too.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This file is a good one, though not sure what we would replace... Maybe we could do two side-by-side next to the photo in the previous bullet point? File:Apollo_9_Command_and_Service_Module_from_the_Lunar_Module_(AS09-24-3657).tiff (plenty others like this and this exist too)
 * I'd rather have one that shows the body of the CM, not just head on. Beyond that, I'll leave it up to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For the launch photo, a couple of options: one, two (I like the one we already have the best)
 * Agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For Schweickert's EVA, I think I like this one better.
 * So do I.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For crew training, it could be good to replace the photo we have with one such as this (no strong feelings)
 * I'm OK with the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The backup crew photo I added could be replaced with any from Mission Control, such as this one (no strong feelings)
 * I like the Mission Control.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging in case you missed it. No real strong feelings on them, wanted to present the options.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll go through them and get back to you shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Félicette
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Félicette 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Neil Armstrong article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 21, 2019. Please check 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/July 21, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Two things
Can you double check that I qualify for the Quarter Million Award and the Million Award for Talk:Mae Jemison/GA1 and Talk:Yuri Gagarin/GA1, respectively. If so I would appreciate if you dropped Banner Awards for each on my talk page.

On an unrelated question, can you point me to the RfC about the manned/crewed controversy? I know we had one but can't find it quickly. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_215 Although I did not formally close it... We might need to unarchive it and get it formally closed.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Félicette
The article Félicette you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Félicette for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Félicette to Good Article
Thanks! There is so much misinformation about the subject it was probably one of the hardest I have written about so far. Tracking down sources by contacting folks off-wiki, having coworkers translating French sources for me...finally got to a decent product in the end though!  Kees08  (Talk)   06:41, 29 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)

DYK nomination of Félicette
Hello! Your submission of Félicette 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) 19:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sanity check
Am I correct in thinking that the sound files at the Apollo Flight Journal are PD? I want to upload this one to include in Maspalomas Station. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The audio is, but the written transcript is not, so if you plan to add TimedText (which you should!) you have to listen and translate it yourself (at least that is what I do, but I am overly paranoid). This is how I did it for a different ALSJ audio file.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Will do. I won't even look at the transcript until I have the TimedText. Paranoia is a good attribute for an editor! --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Million Awards
Better late than never...

Awarded to and, who are leading authors (01234) of all five articles and saw them through their featured article reviews. These five featured articles are each listed as a level-5 or better vital article and they have had a total of main page appearances, attesting to their importance to the Wikipedia community. Congratulations, and thank-you for this service to the Wikipedia readership! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The number of main page appearances will be going up soon too. Looks like about 8 million annual views, hoping to get a couple more articles to FA by the end of the year to get the number over 10 million.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Roger B. Chaffee
valereee (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first of many for us! --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Collins (astronaut)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Sputnik 1
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Luna 2
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Zond 5
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Valentina Tereshkova
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Félicette
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

50th Anniversary
On the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, I just wanted to give you a shoutout for your tireless effort to improve spaceflight history articles. It's been a pleasure working with you, (although I'm really more watching your work than anything), and others these past few years, and I look forward the further improvement of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's articles in the years to come. I hope that you're celebrating today; I was bummed not to be able to go to Johnson Space Center or the National Mall for their celebrations, but made my best effort by watching some episodes of From the Earth to the Moon and When We Left Earth, and topped it off with Apollo 13. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good choices. I saw that the CNN Apollo 11 film is on Hulu; there is also a good Gagarin film on one of the streaming apps that shed light on aspects surrounding his flight. Hope to see you keep chipping away at the Space Shuttle article and articles in that era. It would be great if highly-trafficked spaceflight articles have the time put into them that they deserve.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2240 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the articles required a lot of hard work (by myself and others), both in writing and reviewing. Félicette was probably the biggest challenge and was a little heartbreaking to read about.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope all who helped read this and take flowers for thanks, and the linked page for their albums. If you know someone among them whom I didn't give Precious yet, please propose right here. If it should be a surprise, feel free to send me an email. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Christopher C. Kraft Jr.
Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Bassett
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elliot See
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mercury Seven‎
Well, the Mercury Seven made it through FAC somehow. So you need only one more of the astronauts to make featured to create a Featured Topic. Doubt if the Next Nine could get through FAC though. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good! I still need to run through the rest of that at some point. Been a bit busy in real life lately. Congratulations on that, it was a lot of work (same with the other astronaut group articles you have worked on, a lot of quality work!). I hope to get Gus Grissom to FA, I bought several biographies on him, just need to make the time to do it. Should have plenty now that the 50th anniversary has passed.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 01:34:18, 5 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fkhorasani
Submission has not been accepted

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time and reviewing our submitted page. As you requested, We have included new references for the page. As you may understand, activities of such an organization working on US-Iran Sports diplomacy is not covered by mainstream media. Nonetheless, we have provided more 20 references from several independent sources including TV channels, freelance journalists, and independent websites, blogs, and magazines. These references include hours of videos containing interviews, and activities of the organization, and articles covering IASA. I'm not sure what or how many other references would you need.

We appreciate your effort and dedication to Wikipedia. Please let us know if you need more information that we can provide to facilitate the acceptance of our submission.

Fkhorasani (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw another reviewer addressed this; let me know if you need further assistance.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2019-08-17
It's Gene Kranz's birthday on August 17 and his photo is going to be featured. Do you feel like writing his blurb? Only need like 200-500 characters. Just a basic highlight of his life and career. The article doesn't have to be perfect but everything in the blurb should be verifiable in the article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can tomorrow, I will let you know if I will not have time.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, glad to see something got written. :)  Kees08  (Talk)   17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I just thought you might enjoy it. We can get to him when we are done with astronauts. Please ping me when your adopt an astronaut project gets to the shuttle era. I am going to improve Guion Bluford to GA next and I also want first crack at Frederick D. Gregory, Ronald McNair, Sally Ride, and Judith Resnik. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can do, but it will probably be five to ten years before this era is complete.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice stack of million awards!
Perhaps one day we can work together on another.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Very much a team effort, but I did invest a lot of time into them. is currently doing the heavy lifting on Apollo 13, but that is the next million award target. Let me know if you have any ideas for articles that qualify, otherwise I would be amenable to working on spaceflight-related articles that involve Hawaii. Let me know either way.   Kees08  (Talk)   17:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

We choose to go to the Moon
An editor is removing the sources on the article and claiming that the article is unsourced. Your help is requested. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Frank Borman
Can you finish your A-class review at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Borman? The article needs three supports to get promoted. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  11:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I will try to get to it this weekend.  Kees08  (Talk)   14:58, 28 August 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)

FYI: S-IVB Instrument Unit
There is no particular reason to mention the Instrument Unit in reference to the Apollo 13 S-IVB impact (I agree with your edit, but not the reasoning for it). As you learn about the Saturn rockets, you will find that the IU was permanently attached to the S-IVB during vehicle assembly and never separated in flight; therefore all of the Apollo S-IVBs which impacted the Moon contained the IU. All reliable sources (and reality) imply this is true (like WP:The sky is blue) regardless of whether they explicitly say so or not. Any source which said the IU flew separately from the S-IVB would not be reliable. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I guess I did not write the edit summary very well then, I agree with your assessment. Thanks for the explanation though, that makes sense. Glad we are in agreement :).  Kees08  (Talk)   17:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael Collins (astronaut) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Michael Collins (astronaut) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 31, 2019. Please check 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/October 31, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Roman numerals
Hello. A question: I am aware that the Gemini and Apollo program missions were originally written with Roman numerals in many sources and in mission patches, yet Wikipedia uses Arabic numerals. In short, NASA's writings were inconsistent. Was there some discussion at Wikipedia that reached a consensus about that? I looked around and found nothing. This has implications for the proposed Artemis program. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any discussions on Wiki. If it helps, on page ix of SP-4402, they write For consistency and to avoid confusion, the numerical designations of spacecraft within the text conform to the arabic numeral system. Not sure if that is universal across NASA, but seems like a reasonable style to follow.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Spaceflight articles
Hey, just a note of thanks and encouragement for all the top-notch work you're doing on the various spaceflight articles.

One nice side effect of seeing your work: I do a lot of editing on some of these, too (not as much as you!) and so many are on my watchlist as I keep an eye out for vandalism. When I see a list of edits and your edits are among them, I think to myself, ''okay, Kees08 has it under control. no need to check this one''. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. I put a lot of time and effort into editing, so it is nice to hear. I think the same when I see your edits, which are often even followed up by talk page posts which make the edits even clearer. Hope all is well; Wehwalt and I are putting Apollo 13 up for Peer Review here soon if you want to stop by.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Alexei Leonov
Leonov has passed away. I would appreciate your help in improving the article when you have a chance. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will work on this as time allows this weekend. has some good references on him and might be able to help as well.   Kees08  (Talk)   18:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

New book not having book reports generated
I started the book, Book:State highways in Georgia (U.S. state) on September 20, but no book reports have been generated, yet. Is there anything I did wrong? I didn't use the book generator; I did it manually. How often are book reports generated?
 * I looked into it and was not able to figure it out. I recommend asking on cyberpower678's talk page.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a message on his talk page, but I got no answer before my thread was archived. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Belated congratulations
I have been offline for most of the month so I offer belated congratulations on your successful RFA. I am sorry was offline for your entire RFA due to my somewhat involuntary (real life matters) hiatus. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Congrats in Advance
Since a 'Crat hasn't yet had a chance to close your RfA I thought I'd wish you congrats on your successful RfA. I'm sure you'll do a great job on it :) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Everything is going well so far, just taking it slow.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Congratulations for adminship !!  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks captain! Truth be told I was in it for the free shirt.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations
Kees08, congratulations on your successful RfA! I am delighted to see the magnitude of the community's expressed trust in you. Please let me know if I can be of any help as you start your tenure as an administrator Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so far so good on everything!  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Add me to the list of folks that wishes you a hearty congratulations (at least it was a quiet RfA) — Ched (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ched! Agreed, that was nice.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Felicitations and welcome to the team. There is a learning curve but it's not steep. If you need help with anything or have any questions just drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Felicitations reminds me of Félicette! Thanks, I have been taking it slow, so no big questions so far.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Kees! As has been said above, if you need help with anything, just drop me a line. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 06:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks TSD.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Airbornemihir (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I am proud of you and will always be there to assist. Keep up the good work. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, hope to see your next FAC attempt go through. Last I checked it was doing well in peer review. If you need any additional help or citations about Aldrin in the article, hit me up.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, even though I have opposed. I do think you will be an fine administrator, and I am happy to see you commenting more at WT:DYK and going rather slowly at WP:ITN/C (such as copyediting Patrick Day prior to posting). The Main Page, especially these two relevant projects in particular, can be considerably walled garden sometimes if you haven't noticed, so I hope everything goes well and smoothly. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so far it has been pretty uneventful, which is good. RDs are relatively straight forward, it will be awhile before I touch other types of nominations.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations: thanks for making yourself available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, appreciate the welcome!  Kees08  (Talk)   03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for your share of Michael Collins (astronaut), "the third man on the crew of the Apollo 11 mission. He orbited the moon in his spacecraft, Columbia. As he passed around the far side of the Moon, he became the loneliest man alive, with the nearest two people thousands of miles away, and out of radio contact with both them and mission control back on Earth. Later he built the National Air and Space Museum, one of the world's great museums." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 31 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)

ISBN
anticompositetools/hyphenator.

It's most definitely an MVP, but it works. I'll probably put some work into making it look slightly nicer soon. If you break it, let me know. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried it on a few small pages and a larger page, and did not see any issues during its operation thus far. I do get a notice that says Some parts of the edit form did not reach the server; double-check that your edits are intact and try again, but the edits always seem complete.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fixed, the new issue you found is fixed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

dyk
Hey, Kees! I'd be happy to help you learn how to do a DYK check, if you like. I'll probably have time Tuesday, if you'd want to do one and have me follow along behind you, or you could shadow me while I do one. It's not hard at all, it's just that there's a lot to check and the level of scrutiny is high. :D I'd love to have another admin who was checking even one set a week. Heck, I'd love to have another admin who was checking one set a month! --valereee (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. My schedule is highly variable, but I will try to make myself available on Tuesday. Usually am free sometime around this time. Supervision would be good on checking a set, I know there is a lot to do, but also know that you all are pretty swamped.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't get to it until Wednesday, and by then it was a scramble as we're currently barely keeping up, desperately need more admins! So glad you're interested in helping.
 * I'm looking at your time card vs mine, and it looks like we are complete opposites of one another lol! I edit primarily 12:00 - 20:00 UTC, and you edit primarily 2:00 - 8:00. The only time we coincide is weekends 18:00 - 20:00. Would you have time this weekend? What I was thinking is we could do two sets during the same time period -- you can promote two, then I check one, you check the other during the same time period so I'm around for any questions.
 * Or, alternatively, just go ahead and promote a set and start checking it according to the directions at Did you know/Admin instructions, which have just been updated. You've been through DYK multiple times, so you know the basics of what's required for the hooks and articles. I usually do the check after I've moved the prep to the queue, as it's less likely to get hooks swapped after you've moved it. If you find issues you can fix, fix them. If they're ones you can't fix but the nom or creator might be able to, post a query at talk. Ditto if you need to make more than a minor change to a hook; I usually ping nom creator reviewer and promoter for that.
 * I don't think you've set preps, so don't worry about that part for now, but I'd recommend that when you have a chance you set a few so you can recognize what kinds of swaps need to be made, as at some point you're going to need to swap something out of a queue and you'll need to know what to swap in and from where. Feel free to ping me when you respond, when I get busy I don't always keep up with my watchlist. --valereee (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is today a good day for training/mentorship/making sure I don't break anything?  Kees08  (Talk)   20:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , totally! What would you like to start with? You could move the next prep to queue, then check it? Or you could set a prep? --valereee (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which needs help more often right now? I am fine with whichever. I am just finishing up an involved edit to an article but will be ready in a few minutes!  Kees08  (Talk)   21:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , definitely moving preps to queues needs more help, as it's only admins who can do that. You can move prep 1 to queue 1 using the instructions at Did you know/Admin instructions. You should definitely plan to set some preps in future to learn that aspect, but it's not something that's needed regularly from admins. ----valereee (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding: for learning purposes, the reason you know prep 1 is ready to move is that 1. not only is it complete but 2. the NEXT prep is also complete. If the top prep is the only one complete, the prep setters are not yet ready for you to move a prep to queue. ----valereee (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For purposes of moving, just use section 2.2 of the instructions. You can do everything else after you've moved the prep to queue. I always do the check after the move because if you do it before, hooks can still get swapped. ----valereee (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the instructions says to protect the image when you move it to the queue, another part of the instructions says it will be protected later when it is the next queue in line for main page appearance. Which part is right, and am I reading that wrong?  Kees08  (Talk)   22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, you don't need to worry about the image, especially when you're first starting this. The image is automatically protected 99% of the time, and other people are aware of the image protection issues and are making sure it's protected. The image gets protected when it is in the next-to-main-page queue, sometimes in the 2nd-next, by a bot. Occasionally the bot fails, but multiple people are watching it. --valereee (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if step 4 of the queue Preview the queue template and make sure everything is correct, and that the image is protected. Save the template. should be modified then. Happy to ignore it for now :).  Kees08  (Talk)   22:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so now I just do 1.1 and 1.2?  Kees08  (Talk)   22:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a basic re-check of DYK. There are shortcuts -- GA articles mostly require checking hook sourced at sentence level, for instance -- but basically you're doing a backup check to ensure against the possibility inexperienced creators/nominators/reviewers/promoters didn't do a thorough enough check, plus looking for possibly problems that have developed since promotion, like new tags, edit wars, etc. ----valereee (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And, yes, that instruction has been discussed. The problem is that ideally we want to check queues early, but the images don't get protected until later. Your input welcome on how to deal with this. --valereee (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see the information in the source to support the hook in A Hymn of St Columba, what are the next steps there? I also do not find the hook all that interesting on its own, but that is pretty subjective and I was going to let it stand. I assume that the hookiness is for gross failures of interesting, like '... that water is wet?'  Kees08  (Talk)   23:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You question at hook at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. I generally name the section with a link to the queue, provide a link to the nom, list the hook, ping the creator/nom/reviewer/promoter. Like you I generally let interest of the hook stand, as at this point at minimum three other editors have passed it. I only question interest when I have some other concern, like blatant promotion of a commercial product. ----valereee (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, if I find issues with other hooks do you put them all in one section on the set?  Kees08  (Talk)   23:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do, creating subsections once there's more than one query within a queue. But that's my own preference, others do it differently. --valereee (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe I am done reviewing and just have to wait for responses to my queries now.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Responses received, will finish up the work required for this later today.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, everything is ready. Do I give the DYK credits or does the bot handle it? Let me know if I missed anything.  Kees08  (Talk)   04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This is ground zero for my foray into the DYK process, in case you are interested. I have been ramping up in difficulty my admin duties, started with adding RD's to the ITN template, then worked in ERRORS, and now moving preps to queues at DYK, along with a couple of miscellaneous blocks/deletions. Splitting my admin time with getting Apollo 13 to FA prior to the 50th anniversary, working on miscellaneous Soviet spaceflight articles such as Luna 1, and doing miscellaneous 'easy' tasks if I am tired such as verifying day articles and working on Collier Trophy. Not sure why I explained all that, but now you know what I am currently editing if you were interested.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I first came across you as a WikiCup contestant and have been watching your progress since. I guess you are doing fine, and Valereee is very conscientious and a good mentor. I have done a lot of promoting hooks to prep, trying to make balanced sets with a variety of subjects and nationalities, usually three or four bios interspersed among a range of other topics, and trying not to overconcentrate on one theme (radio stations at the moment). It is useful having another admin interested in DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Kees, the bot handles the credits. When the queue you checked gets into slot #1, you can check Krinkle bot (link in the instructions) to make sure it protected the image. It's good when it hits the main page if you check ERRORS that day when it goes across your watchlist. I commonly watch WP:TRM too for the queues I check. ----valereee (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Good Topics
Hi Kees08, as per discord, I'd like some info on GTs. I have a series of GAs and FAs but I'd like to create a GT at some point, but I'm not really sure how big the scope is. Here's what I've got so far:


 * I currently have a series of articles such as 2019 Leende Open, 2019 Treviso Open, 2019 Austria Open etc. all based on the six events of the 2019 Euro Tour season. Would I need an article on the 2019 Euro Tour season, or simply work on the Euro Tour article as a whole?
 * Do you think there would be scope for a FT on the Triple Crown topic? That is the articles on UK Championship, Masters and World Snooker Championship? I have good articles for all of these events in a certain season (such as the 2018/19 season); but I'm not sure if it's in scope.

Thanks for your help. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is enough coverage on the season itself, then that would be the best option. You could however do the main Euro Tour article and pipe it, so Euro Tour 2019. I would only do that if Euro Tour 2019 cannot be a standalone article. Obviously cannot guarantee that no one would oppose piping, but it has been done for other topics. For the triple crown, that seems like a good, straightforward topic, and it would be great to strive for GT/FT on that.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. I have no idea what the scope would be for a Draft:2019 Euro Tour Season, which I might work on. If it's possible to simply use the main article, (which has more scope for being a GA) then I would simply work on that. Do you think it might be similar for the Triple Crown items? Such as using the Triple Crown (snooker) article along with 2018 UK Championship, 2019 Masters (snooker) and 2019 World Snooker Championship? Or, would I need to create some sort of 2018/19 Triple Crown (snooker), which I feel would have backlash, or the Snooker season 2018/2019 article? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the Euro 2019 article would be similar to the [Country] at the Olympics articles that I wrote, where the primary information is a small summary of each race with a link to them, and then any additional information that is relevant (in the Olympics cases it is National Olympic Committee and Olympian training information, for example). For the Triple Crown, you can probably make Triple Crown a GA, then on each topic pipe it to the year (so 2019 Triple Crown would contain the three events from that year). It is not defined extremely well, but based off my experience I think that might go over the best.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

13
Do you have Kranz's book? It would probably be straightforward to write a paragraph on the evolution of Mission Control from that. I can write the paragraph on Apollo background if you can do that. It will probably wind up as three paragraphs because there will be bound to be something else someone wants, but that's workable.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do and could find time for that later this week.  Kees08  (Talk)   14:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Buzz Aldrin article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 20, 2020. Please check 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/January 20, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Duke
The article said that Duke was part of class 59-B at Webb AFB, but I cannot locate a source for it. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Graduated in 58
 * Another talking about his flying
 * Didn't see anything in Chaikin


 * Not sure what else to check..any ideas?  Kees08  (Talk)   05:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe have ideas. He does not have a biography right? I don't think anyone wrote a book on Apollo 16 either. Would be happy to be proven wrong!   Kees08  (Talk)   16:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Duke has a biography, Moonwalker (1990). That's why I chose him. The article has now been overhauled and sent to GA for review. The original is now the lead. I have omitted three items from the popular culture section: portrayal in the 1998 HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon, and the 2005 documentary Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D; and the 2007 book and documentary In the Shadow of the Moon, notably the quote in response to Moon landing hoax theories, he says "We've been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" I have no sources for these. I note (with source) in the article that the Lancaster News ran his picture on the front page along with the announcement of his acceptance to the Naval Academy (like Borman - apparently this is big news in a small town) but unfortunately the article itself is not available online. When it his selection for Apollo 16 was announced, the Lancaster News reported that he was going to the Moon "with tw other astronauts".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to send Charles Duke on to FAC? Normally I would shelve it now it has qualified for DYK, but if you're aiming to turn the Nineteen into a Featured Topic, I could. The Nineteen is a large group, most of them don't have autobiographies, and most are not very interesting. (Although they are out-numbered and out-bored by the TFNGs.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea, especially since List of people who have walked on the Moon is another Featured Topic that we could work on. Would need one more after him, plus the featured list, to have enough to make that one a featured topic. Though if you have any time in the short term to help with Lovell's article I need all the help I can get on it.  Kees08  (Talk)   13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Valentina Tereshkova
Thank you for your work promoting this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sometimes I am not sure if I have put enough work into an article to 'claim it', added this to my user page now.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kees08!


Happy New Year! Kees08, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

Invitation to the 2020 WikiCup
appy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. 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. The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk). --Hanberke (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

LM egress
I remember reading somewhere about Anders and Bean attempting to get the LM design changed so the LMP would logically be the first one out the door, but cannot remember where it was. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Roger B. Chaffee at TFA
Nominated. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Million Award for Apollo 13
Thank you today for your share of Buzz Aldrin, about "the second man to walk on the Moon, and the second-most famous astronaut"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviews and nominations
Here's what I have. Let me know if you spot any errors or omissions -- my error rate is at least 1%, based on what I've found so far, so there could easily be a couple of mistakes here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, it seems like this is accurate and WP:WBFAN is not. Based on your (seemingly accurate) tabulation I am in a bit of a review deficit and should do more before I nominate anything else. Thanks for the data! I wonder if someday a page with this information tabulated would be useful. I know I would focus my reviews on those with high review tallies, personally.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold back on nominating -- just keep your rate at where you'd like it to be from now on. I don't think anyone should have to clear an old deficit on this!  I certainly didn't take that attitude when I started trying to do a minimum number of reviews per nomination.  I do eventually plan to have this tabulated somewhere accessible; I was actually thinking it would be a tool, so you could run queries with date ranges, and I'm sure there are lots of other queries people would find interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have anything ready to be nominated (Elliot See is really close, just need to parse one more source), so no loss on my part. I wonder why the WBFAN page is not tabulating correctly. I think that is a good idea on tabulating, not sure if any particular database structure is preferred or just a table on a dedicated page. I should do six source reviews and 17 content reviews to catch myself up, so maybe I can build a backlog of articles to nominate to FAC in that time.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SAMOS Satellites
Hi Kees!

I noticed something odd at Samos (satellite)

Many of the sections have headings like:

Mission chart from Zianet [15] and Astronautix [16]

I don't think I've ever seen those before in articles, but I don't browse old satellite articles a lot either. Is that normal? Something I should remove? I would think a simple reference would do there, and I can't think of a reason for a header like that. Any input would be appreciated. SQL Query me! 04:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never seen that in other satellite articles. Perhaps has seen it before or knows who added it/why it was added? Astronautix is copyrighted so it is a bit weird to say we are taking data from them. As a sidenote, Wade/Astronautix are synonymous.   Kees08  (Talk)   16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no idea exactly why the original editor would do that specifically, but I can hazard a guess that they didn't want to clutter individual table cells with citation links and thought that would be a cleaner way to do it. I don't see a particular problem with it, but it isn't ideal. Usually there would be a column for citation links if you wanted to avoid citations for each data point. As for Astronautix being copyrighted, that is true as a whole website, but simple data points like these are not copyrightable. Otherwise, Wikipedia could never have launch data, rocket statistics, etc. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking. Could you revoke TPA as well? Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. No problem.  Kees08  (Talk)   23:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Roger B. Chaffee scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Roger B. Chaffee has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 15 February 2020. 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/February 15, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article introduced "Roger Chaffee was a promising young astronaut who died in the Apollo 1 fire. He was one of two Purdue graduates to die in Apollo 1. I spent time studying and learning aerospace in Chaffee Hall and wanted to honor his legacy by improving his article."! - Later on the Main page today: Elke Heidenreich who wrote Alte Liebe, my little contrib to what should be a good idea not only on Valentine's Day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good work on your articles. I hear they updated Chaffee Hall as part of a major lab renovation effort; I hope they made the chairs more comfortable and less squeaky :).  Kees08  (Talk)   16:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 9
Just letting you know it's scheduled as TFA for March 13.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Discovery World
Hey, just wanted to point out a small correction on your Jim Lovell Wiki. Discovery World is a different museum, not located on Lovell (the street). You want to link to the Milwaukee Public Museum and their planetarium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.148.71 (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category
Hi. Maybe you, and others can add entries to the new Category:Books by astronauts. May have missed some obvious ones. Thanks! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose the majority of Apollo astronauts wrote books. We just don't have articles on all of them., probably because, aside from the Apollo 11 ones and a few others, they're probably best covered within the astronaut's biography. But I'll look as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 24 February 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)

Child protection and privacy
Relative to WP:MINORS (and in particular WP:NONAME and WP:BLPNAME), please consider whether and why it is necessary to include the names and dates of birth of children in articles. Especially when they are not the subject of the article. And that detail does not advance the reader's understanding of the subject. If you have added such detail to multiple articles then, after reviewing the relevant policies, please consider whether that detail should remain. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am used to finding them in astronaut biographies and removing excessive detail (exact birthdates is the usual offender), and usually leaving the year. I thought it was relevant in this case because of the article that talks about her training after childbirth; most of the articles written about her mention them. It seems like if I want to keep that storyline and comply with WP:MINORS, removing the names is best. Would having the month/year of birth still be appropriate? It is relevant to her training and competition schedule. For the record, I did not add anything that was removed in this edit, and it really has nothing to do with me besides the fact I edited the article at a later date, although as I am going through these articles I will remove similar information as I come across it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it is an important issue, and I hope you empathize that my usual editing is in more well-known figures with grown children; hope that helps explain my misunderstanding of the policy .  Kees08  (Talk)   21:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hiya. Thanks for the reply.
 * RE: "Removing excessive detail". Great.
 * RE: "Relevant to training schedule". Personally I think the current wording covers it. I do not see how the inclusion of the minor's name or DOB would add anything additional.
 * RE: "Did not add Catherine Murphy content". Cool. Glad to hear it.
 * RE: "Grown children". Adult children are not minors. So WP:NONAME doesn't apply. However, on a case by case basis, I would question whether WP:BLPNAME might apply. (Unless the adult children of a subject are themselves notable for some reason, or their name is relevant to the context or to the subject [like George Foreman naming all his children George Foreman ], then my own personal choice would be not to name them.)
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I review RD's before posting; what do you think of the second husband's name mentioned here Jeanette_Fitzsimons? I think it should be removed based on the policies we discussed, just want to make sure I am in the right ballpark.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiya. I don't have particularly strong feelings about the naming of adult spouses myself. But, yes, I don't see what the name of that subject's second husband adds to that section. "She later re-married and, in 1991 together with her then husband, bought land in the Kauaeranga Valley and established Pakaraka Farm". Something like this would convey the same meaning. And would consistent with WP:BLPNAME and the sources. (At least one of which, I note, doesn't support the text it claims to support. In that it doesn't include names. And doesn't refer to a prior marriage. Just "married with two adult sons". So not sure why it is added where it is.) Anyway, I'm comfortable with the solution on the other two articles. Happy editing. Guliolopez (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Charles Duke
Would you be interested in co-nomming Charles Duke at FAC? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't really edit the article, so not a great co-nom candidate I think.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Luna
Hello, I would like to know why the title of each article in the series of Soviet lunar probes "LUNA" is in italics, is it correct? — 2001:18C0:61C:700:5D3F:32AB:638A:4727 (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The most recent conversation I could find in WP:SPACEFLIGHT is this one. Generally spacecraft names are in italics and launch vehicles are not. I usually remember to do it on articles I work on but not always. So based on current consensus I think that italicized is proper, but that consensus can change.  Kees08  (Talk)   04:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing edit history while removing copyright violation
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=945989883#Strikethrough_in_edit_history

--Farm lenses (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, looks like your question is being addressed over there but let me know if you still have questions after!  Kees08  (Talk)   15:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Renate Brümmer
You mentioned having a book on the scientist astronauts, would it have anything on Renate Brümmer we could use? Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not see a mention in the index nor in the chronology; if you have other ideas of where to look in the book let me know, I have it next to me.  Kees08  (Talk)   22:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Worden
Most of the lunar astronauts lived or are living long lives, but sad to lose any one of them. You may have done so already, but if not please consider nominating Worden for a blurb (not a 'recent death' notice, more important than that) at the candidate page. I'm not very good with coding and tried one nomination awhile back that someone had to fix. Thanks for the edit at Worden's page, which was the first I heard of his death. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those astronaut candidate screeners really knew their stuff. I can only think of two off the top of my head that died at a relatively young age. In regards to a blurb, unfortunately Worden would not qualify for one, but he will qualify for RD once the article is fully cited. I will be working on it off and on, but it needs a lot of work. I usually leave others for nominating, someone will get to it by the end of the day I am sure.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Manned vs. Crewed cont'd
Hey, thanks for letting me know. I saw that several of the space flight pages said crewed on the mission in contrast to manned. Between the two of us, I think we can agree the former term sounds more "crude." Puns aside, I realized what I did was disruptive but I had no disruptive or otherwise malicious intent in doing so; still would have been best to consult other page experts first.

Again I appreciate you reaching out about this. I'll be sure to look into the consensus to see whether this is worth changing across the board or not.

Wiscipidier (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Wiscipidier
 * I agree that it does not sound as nice, the Slate article and others have mentioned the same. However as the newer Atlantic article says, words matter. I used to prefer manned too, but after I sat down and thought about it I changed my mind. If you still would want to formulate an RfC though, feel free. Happy editing!  Kees08  (Talk)   15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Unacceptable revert
When you know something to be true, the proper thing to do is not to revert the change on Richard K. Guy but to mark it citation needed. The death was unquestionable, from multiple sources that Wikipedia would not have considered authoritative (according to its weird rules). Please do better in the future. I admit I probably should have put the citation needed tag in myself, but I was in a hurry. RoyLeban (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey . I was following our WP:BLP policies, which say Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. As such the material should have been removed until an appropriate source existed to reinclude it. They have since turned up and are included.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline says "Contentious material". Richard Guy's death was not contentious or questionable, and it was, obviously, the truth. This policy is in place because there are many bad actors on Wikipedia and those people seem to particularly like defacing pages of people who have recently died. This was not such a case. Misapplying a policy weakens it when it does matter. RoyLeban (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See Verifiability, specifically Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. As his death was not published, it was not verifiable. Also see WP:NOTNEWS, specifically Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. I am glad the issue was sorted out when reliable sources published the information, and I appreciate your efforts and concern on the matter. I hope my explanation was clear, if not I can ping someone who is a better communicator than I am.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Contentious" in that policy is consistently interpreted to mean the same thing as "challenged or likely to be challenged". Due to the profound effects a claim of death can have on someone's life, there is consensus among the editing community that all claims of death must be reliably sourced. Therefore, any unsourced claim of death is contentious and must be removed or supported with a citation to a reliable source. If you feel that this does not actually represent the community's consensus around the issue, you're welcome to open an RfC. --AntiComposite (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * News of Richard Guy's death was well sourced, from multiple places, but not "published" in a source available to all. Years ago, some idiot on Wikipedia kept removing information sourced from a published book that I own, that he didn't own and was now out of print. Not my problem -- published books are valid sources. Another time, somebody removed information about something that happened on live TV, seen by tens of millions of people, because it hadn't yet been written about in a "published source". I hate this stupidity on Wikipedia. The world of publishing and news is changing and this rigidity hurts Wikipedia. RoyLeban (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel frustrated with the processes, I do occasionally as well. Particularly the book case, I usually try to scan the pages and email them to the other editor if possible, but sometimes communication can be difficult. Did it get resolved in the end? Though your own edit summary said (Richard Guy died today at 8:35 MST (source: mutual friend, obits probably won't appear until tomorrow)), which indicated there were not reliable sources available at that time. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS but there are sister projects that are.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Stay safe
As I make comments about having a lot of time on my hands due to social distancing/self-quarantining during the COVID-19 pandemic, I just wanted to say that I hope that you and your friends and family are safe in these difficult times. Take care, friend. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Question
Hello K. Thanks for the r/d on Oshwah's talk page. I am wondering of this one is eligible for zapping as well. If not no worries. My sweet tooth is playing up today so I may take a bite of the Dobos torte above :-P Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk
 * Ha! I actually looked at that one and thought it was borderline, but if someone else thinks the same thing I might as well zap it. Done.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 13
I just saw tomorrow's TFA. What a fantastic article. I know more people worked on it, but kudos (and thanks) to you and Wehwalt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 13 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Apollo 13 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 11, 2020. Please check 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/April 11, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

Thank you today for your part of Apollo 9, about "one of the more forgotten of the Apollo missions, but still an important stepping stone on the way to the Moon"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for your part in Apollo 13, "about... the only Apollo mission people remember that isn't Apollo 11. The film cemented people's interest in this one, and they come here to find out what "really happened"."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius  19:08, 27 April 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)

Alfred Worden
I think it's basically done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Charles Duke
Could you have a look at this FAC nomination? You said you were going to. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  04:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You said "more to come", so the article cannot be promoted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Space Shuttle FAC?
Hey! Thanks for all of your help with the Space Shuttle GA nomination. As I've said in the past, my goal is to get it to Featured Article status. Would you mind giving me a thumbs-up/down on if I should nominate it as a Featured Article Candidate? I'm sure you're busy and I know that you have already provided a lot of helpful feedback, but I'm hoping to get a sanity check from an experienced FA author before I nominate it. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Decided to nominate it! Looking forward to your feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

FTC delegate
Are you still interested in being a delegate? GamerPro64 02:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

File:3D Printed Hybrid Rocket Fuel Grain.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hi Kees08,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:3D Printed Hybrid Rocket Fuel Grain.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 31, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-05-31. If you felt like expanding the caption so that readers can understand better what they are seeing in the image, that would be great. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

WBFAN
Hi - I finally noticed the thread from a while ago about your WBFAN listing. I've fixed a few of the entries so when the bot next runs it will make the updates. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 11 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Apollo 11 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 20, 2020. Please check 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/July 20, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Checking in
Hi Kees08! I've noticed that you've been away for awhile. As someone who has had to take Wikibreaks because real life got busy, just wanted to reach out and say that I hope that you are doing okay! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Apollo 11, about "the first manned landing on the Moon"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Jim Lovell : Featured Article ?
Hi,

I've seen on the page Adopt an astronaut that you would work to make Jim Lovell a Featured Article but you haven't edited it since February 2020. What about now?

Best regards,

Calvinsky (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin
I have not seen you in a while. I hope you and yours are well. I have started a peer review for Yuri Gagarin. I hope to get him through FAC before the 60th anniversary of his flight, 12 April. Please comment at Peer review/Yuri Gagarin/archive1. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 22:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Free Hong Kong flag.svg Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
 * 🇮🇩HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. 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. 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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)