User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

New GAN mechanism, "second reviewer"

Hey BlueMoonset,

I'm not sure if there's been an uptick in reviews that, for whatever reason, cannot/will not be finished, or if I've simply begun to notice it more, but one thing I think would help with those long-term second opinion tags, would be to create a separate mechanism for needing a second reviewer, rather than a second opinion. The second opinion function seems, largely, geared towards allowing newer reviewers to bring in a more experienced reviewer, or else someone more familiar with the subject matter, at least according to the GAN instructions; I don't really think this takes place in practice, from what I've seen at least. It seems a lot more like most second opinions are review takeovers, rather than confirming with a third party that the article meets standards. I can understand the thinking behind not returning unfinished reviews to the pool, but I only ever really looked into second opinion requests within my own subject areas. I was thinking that there could be use in introducing a new type of review status "second reviewer", in order to truly put them first in the queue. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I do think this would have to run some form of consensus gamut, even though it's not technically a policy issue, but I wanted to run the concept by you first. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Iazyges, there already is a method for such reviews, which is to put the nominations back into the pool of those needing reviewers without any loss of seniority, which is done by adjusting the GA nominee template: the page is incremented by one and the status field is blanked. That is, in fact, how the Will P. Brady nomination became the oldest unreviewed nomination: I put it back in the pool when the previous reviewer responded to my query on their talk page, and said they couldn't finish it. Some people prefer to use the second opinion route, since for nominations that are less old, they are likely to attract a reviewer sooner, but when the nomination would be one of the five or ten oldest outstanding unreviewed ones, starting over is the way to go. Unfortunately, a new review status just isn't feasible until we get a new bot, and who knows when (or if) that will ever happen, though it would probably be a useful proposal should that bot take over. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


thought the winchester highlands hook was british—my mistake theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 21:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

September drive bling

The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


Hello @BlueMoonset, Coming from here, I won't to confirm if the 7 days you refer to starts counting from the date the article was moved to mainspace or purely from the date it was created whether from draft or sandbox. I ask this because I usually create articles in my sandbox before publishing in mainspace. Thank you. Princess of Ara 14:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Princess of Ara, for new articles, it is seven days from the date the article was moved to mainspace, whether from draft or sandbox. This gives people time to build an article at their leisure and still be able to submit it to DYK. If the article is created in mainspace, as the Love Nwantiti article was, then it must be nominated within seven days from that creation date. Sometimes article that are created as tiny stubs and given a major expansion can qualify instead under the fivefold expansion rule (which is seven days from the start of the expansion). I hope this helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Well understood and received. Thank you. Princess of Ara 18:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

quick question

I've been running into a problem recently with building prep sets—often times, a nomination will have an image and only one hook, for which the hook is reliant on the image to be interesting. (i'm sure you're familiar with this, what with you being dyk's yoda.) Lots of these images are ones I wouldn't normally include in a prep set, but I feel compelled to promote them to lead or at least leave them in DYKNA for someone else to decide—because I don't want to unnecessarily screw the nominator by promoting their hook in a position where it won't get more than 700 views. I want to talk this through with you before I go to WT:DYK—how would you feel about a suggestion or guideline that says that any nomination with an image should have at least one hook that can be reasonably interesting independently of the image? If this has been discussed before, could you point me to a rough place and time to find it? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 08:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, if you feel an hook is reliant on an image but not one that you think should be an image lead, then there's nothing wrong with requesting a hook that stands on its own: the bulk of image hooks can't run in the image slot because there are too many, so weaker images generally shouldn't be run. I don't like the idea of instruction creep (add a requirement of at least one not-image-dependent hook); I'm also not fond of the idea that a hook that's lacking without an image gets a better shot at the lead slot than one that manages to work with or without its image, especially if the latter also has a better image! I don't recall this ever being discussed separately, though it might have come up during one of the periodic discussions of what is "interesting" as applied to hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Understood—I couldn't agree more, the image slot does generally end up being pretty competitive. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 03:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad, etc.

Thanks for your tweak to the DYK nomination of Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad (adding Woodbury Granite Company to the heading, etc.). Now, if we can only get them reviewed... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about this article; I forgot about it after the month was up. I usually try to watch ones I'm reviewing more closely, but since I was giving this editor a while to address the changes, it kind of slipped to the backburner. Thanks to your comment, the review has now been completed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello BlueMoonset, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,

RV (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year BlueMoonset!

Nomination for deletion of Template:DYK changes

Template:DYK changes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 13:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. Please could you kindly help with a format error? The above article appeared on DYK today, but DYKUpdateBot has tried and failed to add the DYK tag to the above talkpage. Please could you kindly fix it? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Storye book, it looks like the bot did what it was supposed to do. When a DYK runs, the bot will do one of two things on the article's talk page: if there's an {{Article history}} template there, it will add a DYK entry to that template (which is what happened here); if there is no article history template, it will add a separate {{DYK talk}} template on the page. If you'll take a look at Talk:Kumeko Urabe, you'll see a mention of the DYK in the article history box at the top of the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I haven't see that before; that's why I missed it. Normally I remove the DYK nomination template because it takes up space when the DYK talk tag already has a link to it. The problem with the article history tag is that it doesn't appear to have that link, so I have had to leave the DYK nom template in place. Still, I guess someone will archive it one day. I can't archive it myself atm, as the DYK nom template is still quite new. Storye book (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, it isn't exactly intuitive, but the wikilink in the phrase "fact from this article" links to the nomination template. It is there, if a bit obscure. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you - I agree, the link is not user-friendly. I think I'll just archive the DYK nom template and the other completed template, then, to be on the safe side. That will make the talk page a more welcoming place for others to make their new comments. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Good evening, I'm drawing your attention to a discussion that may interest you - you commented on the GA Music categorisation aspect. Ignore if no longer a concern. Best... Acousmana 00:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Cyclotron GA nomination

Thanks for the cleanup on the Cyclotron talk page. Do you know why the GA review was deleted? Did the reviewer just decide they weren't into it after all? There were some reasonable suggestions in there, but before I could get back to address them (stupid day job) the whole thing was gone. PianoDan (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

PianoDan, I have no idea why the GA review was deleted. I just noticed from the history of the WP:GAN page that the review had been taken up and deleted in under two hours, and realized that cleanup would be needed. The reviewer is new enough to Wikipedia editing that it's probably best that they didn't end up doing the review—they nominated an article for GA that had all of three references (the nomination was quickly reverted). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! The last GA I submitted was ten years ago, so the whole process is a bit fuzzy. PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for your comment here. There actually was a request made at WT:GAN -- it's now archived here -- and also separately at WT:GA. Obviously the fact that the article is about a highly technical subject is one of the stumbling points. (It sat around after being nominated for something like 6 months before Daniel Case took it on.) I don't know how to mark a review for a second opinion, but perhaps that would help? Or, uh, you know, if you're not too busy yourself ... ;). --JBL (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

JBL, I'm sorry that this has been such a problem. I've set the nomination so it requests a second opinion, and I hope that it gets attention. Perhaps you might be able to get a response from the math WikiProject if you post a request there for someone who is familiar with the GAN review process to complete the review? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks -- I see that XOR'easter (my favorite can't-quite-quit-editing physicist) has left a comment following your reset of the nomination, so perhaps they will be able to finish the review! --JBL (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible rfc for functions of GalliumBot

Hi there, BlueMoonset! So, I was hoping to get some community consensus to automate some DYK tasks so I can go to WP:BRFA, but it looks like the discussion fizzled out. I want to bring it to RfC to get consensus one way or the other; but should I just leave it alone? I think these would really be beneficial, but I want to ask you since you usually pump the brakes on these kinds of things. Thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 06:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. The only proposal that received comments was "Recording post-promotion hook changes", and while there was some interest, there was also an opt-out request as part of it. The other two garnered no response at all. Personally, the idea that making a comment on a nomination would automatically render me a recipient of change posts or pings would make me less likely to participate, without an easy opt-out: the pings would get quite annoying. You might want to redo your post in the near future to see whether you get more buy-in on that proposal, along with any interest in the other two; you could ask about a potential RfC then, and if respondents think it's a good idea, how they think it should be structured. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll make my opt-out more explicit, then. Fingers crossed, thanks! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 02:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Thank you for watching over quality and protocol at DYK! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. It's hard to believe it's been a decade! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, we seem to be well stuck with this one, and I didn't even nominate the article... I'm quite unclear why you should have pinged Buidhe as he's an FAC person. Anyway, I don't think he's correct about those two hooks as Tolkien (and Lewis) have reached a mass audience, even people who never read them have heard of them, and the hooks don't presuppose the reader has even heard of Elendil until this moment. His remarks imply to my ear that he thinks that Elendil is non-notable, in which case the right forum is AfD, not DYK, but the article is impeccably cited to multiple RS... Anyway, suggestions for how to proceed would be welcomed (even new wording, actually). Many thanks for your help, as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I've been looking at this already today (and maybe last night as well, but I was busy). The reason I pinged buidhe is that they were the original reviewer and hadn't checked the two new hooks; the first thing you do when there are new hooks is try to get the original reviewer back. I think the association of Tolkien with time travel is unexpected and interesting, more so than Tolkien vs. Lewis—they've been associated in hooks before. (It isn't really time travel in its "traveling from one time to another" common meaning, if I'm reading the article correctly, but the less common meaning could have currency.) I've been playing with a new hook with some of the facts in ALT3, and will try to post something in the next 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, useful and cogent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Wanted to thank you for your longtime stewarding of WP:GAN. I appreciate your time taken to guide newer editors kindly through snags in the process and keep stagnant nominations moving, especially in the absence of it being anyone's explicit responsibility. czar 17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Czar. Happy to do what I can. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Binary search tree still needs reset

Thank you for your efforts to reset the GA review damage to Computer program. For Binary search tree, some work to reset the GA review damage was done, but not all of it. For example, this page still exists: Talk:Binary search tree/GA2. Also, the talk page says, "An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article." Timhowardriley (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Timhowardriley, the problem here is that bits of a review have effectively been done, albeit by you, and responded to by the nominator. I don't think this review page should be deleted at this point, so it will continue to exist. I see two possibilities:
  1. Have you continue the review, though it may be to say that there's too much work left to be done—certainly more than a week's worth—for you to do anything but fail it. If that's the case, you might want to give good advice about what's needed since this article was also failed in January. (You might want to take a look at it to see whether any of the issues identified then still persist.)
  2. Have me reset the nomination by putting the page number to 3, so that eventually a new review can be opened on the /GA3 page; the /GA2 page will immediately go inactive.
Please let me know your preference. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I admire you for your attention on this.
Regarding "bits of a review have effectively been done, albeit by you, and responded to by the nominator.": My intention was to offer advice on how to make the article understandable for my self-interest. Yes, there was a subliminal message to the reviewer that I'm capable to understand the subject, but I don't understand the article. Nonetheless, this exchange was copied to their regular talk page. However, if my exchange needs to remain as an official archive, then I understand it needs to stay.
Regarding "there's too much work left to be done—certainly more than a week's worth—for you to do anything but fail it": Okay. I guess I need to assume some responsibility. @WikiLinuz:.
Regarding "Have me reset the nomination by putting the page number to 3": No thank you. Instead, please configure it to have me be the reviewer. I'll provide an opinion on each of the 6 criteria. But up front, it will fall short of the first criteria because its audience is specific to those who already know the subject. My advice will be to build the subject from scratch. Timhowardriley (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Timhowardriley: Oh, well... seems like the reviewer has been indefinitely blocked by an admin. I'm not sure about how that plays out for the GA review. I don't know about "GA reset". How do you think I should proceed? I'll need to wait for another reviewer anyway. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 22:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Timhowardriley, when a new reviewer takes over, we don't reconfigure the top of the review page, the new reviewer just starts a new level-3 header, titled something like "New reviewer" or "Taking over review from blocked reviewer" or something similar, and starts their review from there. (That's the same thing that happens when a reviewer resigns in midstream and a new reviewer comes in.) I have fixed the review page (it had other issues), and it is ready for you to start at any time. Thanks for being willing to take on the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've got the ball. Timhowardriley (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed and failed the GAN of Binary search tree. Unfortunitely, one editor is offended and angry. This editor reverted my failed notice on the talk page. See: . Please help. Timhowardriley (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Timhowardriley, I'm puzzled by your suggestion of including actual code in an article, which isn't something encyclopedias do, nor should they. And the idea that an article would be considered Good because of it... no. It is also questionable to require every component of a BST to be "converted into visuals". Your initial suggestion prior to the review made sense to me, but not these: they are not part of the GA criteria. I have to apologize: for some reason I thought you were an experienced reviewer, or I wouldn't have pressed you to take over. I don't doubt that the article needs work—including some clearer explanations and grammatical fixes—but not much of what you were requesting.
The inexperience also carried over into your attempt to fail the review on the talk page: you added a FailedGA template, but you didn't delete the GA nominee template. I'm not sure what help I can be: all in all, I can understand why you were reverted, even if it wasn't the truly proper procedural thing to do—while you could insist on the failure being recorded, I don't recommend doing so. It didn't help matters that the sock who had originally opened the GA2 review and been blocked came back under a new username (now also blocked) and opened a new review in addition to commenting on the GA2. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You help out well. Thank you. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The Template Barnstar

The Template Barnstar
For all your work making DYK work. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, evrik. Apologies for the belated response! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Henry Winkler GA review is complete!

Hi BlueMoonset, Aza24 completed the GA process for the Henry Winkler article. I wanted to thank you again for your help in pushing the process forward as it made a world of difference! Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA, Classicfilms. I'm glad I could help get things moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! You really did!-Classicfilms (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Guidance Barnstar
I would know that I have caused you trouble more often than I should have by not completing my reviews in a timely manner of late. And every time I left a review open for an unusually long period of time, you were there to politely nudge me back to it, and I am thankful for that. You have been doing that — amongst other important work in the background — for a long while, and it is honestly an underrated aspect of all the good that you do on this project. You have also been an editor I trust and rely on for a wide variety of topics, and I know that that is true for a lot of others. Thank you for doing the grunt work that is needed, on top of all the recognizable efforts that you already make. You are an amazing and valuable contributor to this project. — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi BlueMoonset,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

buidhe, thanks for the vote of confidence. However, I have limited time on Wikipedia, and I prefer to spend it as I do now. Best of luck in finding other people to do new page reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Greece Turkey relations

Why did you remove the GA review for Greece–Turkey relations? What was problematic about the review? Elias (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Elias, please see the discussion at WT:GAN#New reviewer issue. The reviewer did that review plus one other in 15 minutes, and clearly had no idea what they were doing: all three of their reviews from that day have been reverted. It takes experience on Wikipedia plus a good understanding of the GA criteria to be able to conduct a Good Article review and it also takes significant time to carefully read the entire article and check the sourcing. As you will see, a quick check of all three articles revealed grammatical and clarity issues in all of them. I hope that your article will be picked up for review soon, and by someone who knows what they are doing, and I'm sorry that your hopes were raised by this problematic review. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, bummer. But thank you, as well, for keeping the quality up. So as a wise man once said, I'll be back. Elias (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Nomination to Ted Stevens

I remember the article being GA, although my thoughts may deceive me. I still wish to seek the GA Nomination for Senator Stevens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycranthebigman (talkcontribs) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

You had suggested to avoid caps in the article titles. Can you guide which of following versions will be better.

  • National Women's Day (Pakistan) – Present title
    • National women's day (Pakistan) – is this okay enough?
  • 1983 Women's March, Lahore – Present title
    • 1983 Women's march, Lahore – is this okay enough?
    • 1983 women's march, Lahore – or this one is better?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Bookku, I believe Amakuru had more of an idea what to do in this area than I did, so I will defer to what Amakuru suggests. And to be clear, it isn't precisely avoiding caps in article titles, it's not using caps when common usage would typically be lowercase. I believe the first word in any article is typically capitalized, but after that only proper nouns and official names for something. But it's not something I run into very often, so it's best that you take the advice of someone who is more familiar with this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @ BlueMoonset, I would be pleased to have inputs / guidance from Amakuru, this reminds me about National Women's Day, that too seem to be March 2021 article, I suppose it would be wise to have thoughts from the article creator Pharos on this topic hence requesting them too join in this discussion if possible.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku: the guidance on capitalisation is at MOS:CAPS, and the general guidance is that we should capitalise something if "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". That means that in many cases, for example Civil rights movement, Syrian civil war etc, we put in sentence case, because evidence shows that the usage between title case and sentence case is at best 50/50. However, looking at National Women's Day, the evidence from this ngram (which analyses book sources) suggests that a big majority of sources do capitalise it. Thus I think the current title is correct. I don't know if there's a difference between the South African one and the Pakistan one, but that's the overall picture. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again greetings, @ BlueMoonset & @Amakuru: as per your guidance I checked sources for my self once again and decided to retain writing style of title National Women's Day where as about changed '1983 Women's March, Lahore' to 1983 women's march, Lahore after a little more grammar discussion @ WP:RD/L. Accordingly made changes in the DyK. Besides I have added more shorter hook options that too may address some of your concerns. And still if any further corrections to the DyK are needed then feel free to make yourself or guide me, I will improve accordingly.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding: Mike Trout

Hello I’m just letting y’all know that Mike Trout is from Millville NJ. I went to school with him, so I know. 😂 but can we pls change that so we can put Millville on the map. Thank you so much for your time. 2603:7080:AA40:B6CB:1103:5A28:E778:25F9 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


Thanks, Bruxton. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see that this Middle-earth article isn't one of my GANs! It's been languishing in the queue since March. Unfortunately I did a small bit of editing on it a while back, so I'm not sure if I can review it... what d'you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I think it's best if you leave this to someone else to review, given the number of your edits. Fortunately, a GAN backlog drive is starting on June 1, so it seems likely that the article will be taken up during the course of the drive. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that worked out as you guessed. Now Christopher Lee has got stuck - I think the reviewer has lost heart after getting nowhere with an article at FAC. You'll see it's been under review for over a month, and has made scarcely any progress. We could start over or just ask for another reviewer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, the reviewer posted some items as recently as June 27, ten days ago. In my opinion, it's too soon to be looking for another reviewer. If you want to withdraw the nomination and renominate, you can, but you'll lose the nomination's seniority, and it will count as a failure in the article history. If you wait, and the reviewer doesn't really progress in the next couple of weeks, then I'll post a query to see what might help things along. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, let's wait two more weeks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi there BM. I'm just wondering if you could provide some input at Template:Did you know nominations/Marlene van Staden? I'm never quite sure where to take nominations with a query over notability, so thought I'd just ask somebody else for an opinion. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I'm not the best person to ask about notability, since I've always had my own troubles judging it. However, I thought I'd take a look at a similarly sized U.S. city, Naperville, Illinois (latest population, 149K): the current and previous mayors both have their own Wikipedia pages, with the current mayor assuming office about the same time that Marlene van Staden did. About the rand, the South African rand article puts a space between "R" and following digits (MOS:CURRENCY doesn't mention the rand individually), and I think I'd write out most of the uses (and drop the trivial fact that it was a one-rand coin in the coin toss). Sorry I'm not of more help. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Referred to you

Hi, BM - Cwmhiraeth referred me to you re: my request to close a GAR that's been open 4-1/2 mos. FunkMonk just re-reviewed it and I made the updates per his suggestion. Thanks in advance, Atsme 💬 📧 00:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, while I appreciate Cwmhiraeth's faith in me, I don't have the time to do the necessary research into this clearly very contentious matter to determine what should be done at this point. You could post a request for closure at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment, which might attract someone. However, I was put off by your description of FunkMonk's contribution as a simple "re-review" with no reference to the rest of the GAR and the controversy surrounding it, as if it weren't relevant—anyone attempting a close would have to address it—and suggest you clearly mention the matter in any further requests you make regarding the GAR. This will not be a simple closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that it would be appropriate for me to mention a 4-1/2 mo old stale challenge that failed to gain consensus. The problem is that we don't have enough editors who are qualified to properly close failed challenges; many of our project teams are already overworked. Any experienced GA reviewer can simply read the article in its current state, and make a determination without having to dredge-up stale history or rehash a failed challenge that was not supported by the majority. GAR needs to modify some of its criteria to encourage reaching consensus at the article TP first, and if consensus agrees with the challenge, then file a GAR rather than misusing GAR to settle disputes, especially POV disputes. We should also enforce the time limit for reaching consensus relative to a GAR, which is typically 30 days according to WP:CONSENSUS, not 4-1/2 months. Since you brought up the controversy, it stemmed from a POV warrior pushing an unscientific flat-earth claim and/or resulting from use-mention distinction issues relative to what RS published. He was tag-bombing the article despite not having any support to do so, lied about it, and kept insisting that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestral bull and terrier, a "heterogeneous group of dogs that may include purebreds of different breeds, or crosses of those breeds" which the article clearly states in a NPOV. A recognized purebred with documented breeding cannot be a crossbred - common sense. Cwmhiraeth removed one of the contentious tags he added to Bull and terrier because it was clearly unwarranted, as were 98% of his tags - the warranted tags were quickly addressed. The crux of the dispute is simply that the challenger wanted it factually stated in Wikivoice that the Stafford IS the renamed bull and terrier, which I refused to do for obvious reasons, beginning with The Kennel Club's denial that it is the renamed bull and terrier (see their email to me which refers to VRT Ticket#2022030910008018); the majority of editors also supported my position. A few years prior, that same editor attempted to merge Bull and terrier into Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which also failed. He refused to drop the stick, took me to ANI where he again failed. The closing admin saw through his attempt to use ANI in an effort to get his way. That editor has not edited dog articles since losing support for inclusion of (1) his merge proposal, (2) flat-earth theory, (3) GAR and (4) ANI case. The article has been stable ever since, aside from the occasional vandal and good faith misinformation. This GA should not be held captive by such misuse of our processes. I am saddened by your response but it is what is. Happy editing. Atsme 💬 📧 12:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
A barnstar for often archiving the DYK discussions. Each time it is a pleasure to see your name on the watchlist. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


Agree with your comments at ANI although I'm not going to join in there, the pile on is extensive enough as somewhat limited interaction with DC during the GAN of James Hood Wright confirms many of the issues in contention. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

HMS Maenad (1915)/GA1

Is the best thing to do is to quick fail it and then have the editor initiate a new review? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, no. I notice that a reviewer has shown up to do a full review on the Talk:HMS Maenad (1915)/GA1 page; please let them continue. If they feel a quick fail is needed due to major issues with the article, they are welcome to do so, though in that case an immediate renomination and review would not be in order, since a great deal of work would need to be done first before any renomination should be contemplated. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a prosperous new Year. Best regards RV (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BlueMoonset!

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

Abishe (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BlueMoonset

Happy New Year, BlueMoonset!

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

Moops T 21:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I think D1 should be there; if the SGs are meant to be the "unwritten rules", why have them repeat what's already on WP:DYK? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 06:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, in part it's because there are doubtless pages that point to it (the anchors aren't just for immediate reference): someone following a link there is only going to be confused if they click on the wikilink and it only says "[deleted]". It certainly doesn't hurt to have an explanation that is now basically a repeat of what's on the main DYK page—I think the avoidance of confusion is worth a minor bit of duplication. If the contents contradicted current practice, then I'd agree that either removal or revision was the way to go. I modified the D1 text slightly for clarity and harmony with the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


It seems like we should be moving to two sets a day soon with 122 approved hooks and almost everything filled, if not already. I'm not sure if the discussion on the DYK talk page has stopped it, but that is getting nowhere with the last !vote being on December 24. I'm not sure what the best option is, but having an overload of nominations is not a good idea because it could break something. The WikiCup starts soon as well which will likely bring in even more nominations. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

SL93, I agree that soon is probably a good idea, since almost everything is filled and seems to be staying that way, and the number of approved noms is hovering around 120. We could have a bit more filled, since we've been at 12 of 14 queues and preps filled, and it's currently only 11 of 14 queues and preps filled at 121. Even so, it's not like it was a couple of weeks ago, when only five of the fourteen queues and preps were filled. Maybe in a day or two
I realize that people aren't happy with the idea, but you're right: we're just about overloaded right now, and that won't improve unless we do go to two daily for a few weeks. If it turns out that we run out of filled queues and preps, then we can always step down to one daily before dropping lower than 60. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Just spitballing, but what would you and SL93 think about redesigning the prep sets to remove the cap on how many nominations can be promoted at any one time? It would enable us to do things like prep set backlog drives (more promoters!) and promotion-at-scale more easily, might be worth considering. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 06:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron I'm not sure, but we need to go back to 2 sets a day if nothing is done soon. At this point, it doesn't matter how many people are against it because we don't have an alternative. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that someone needs to word something on the DYK talk page to get us back to 2 sets a day. At this point, I feel that not moving back to 2 sets a day without consensus for anything else is more selfish than anything. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
SL93, theleekycauldron, I think SL93 is right, although as I type this we're down to 105 approved hooks since prep builders have been active and we have six full queues and seven full preps, so we'll have to wait until we get back above 120. My guess is that will happen in a day or two, and we can make the switchover at that time. I'm happy to make the necessary post when the time comes.
I'm not sure exactly what the thought is here in terms of changing things: have a separate Prep buffer that serves as a pre-Prep space, so that people promote hooks there that can then be used to fill the seven preps which are then moved to queue? I think that's what theleekycauldron does: put together one enormous prep set and then parcel the hooks out in groups of eight. Or is the thought to have a dozen or more actual preps that can be filled? In the former case, people who promote to the separate buffer would be expected to do all the checking and such, letting those who promote from there just build well-balanced sets on the assumption that the preps in the big buffer have already been checked (though they should feel free to send a nom back if they see problems); in the latter, prep building would continue as now, only with lots more preps that could be filled. I think that the size of the Queues page with seven queues and seven preps is very large already; it was somewhat controversial to go from six of each to seven. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm thinking more the former – a prep set 0 that does not rotate and does not have a maximum size. It'll only store one promoter-verified hook (and possibly image) per nomination. You're right that this is what I do frequently, but there are some advantages to having a formal structure in place for it. Right now, I have to bring the prep back down to normal length after I'm done, which means I can never promote more hooks than we have room for. With a buffer prep, we can separate out the steps of verification and scheduling, which is really nice because it means I don't have to look for a specific type of nomination to promote – i can just promote any nomination I can verify, and they'll be held until they can be scheduled normally.
As for having to go to two-a-days; I'm a little upset about the state of the preps right now, and I don't want to go to two-a-day until the community agrees that it needs to help us fix it. Yes, we currently have Bruxton filling all the preps right now, and they're doing great work – but before it was Bruxton on this kick, it was me last year, and I'm already feeling tired. I'm not as active as I used to be – ADHD hyperfixation editor-hours are a non-renewable source. And my kick was unusual for how long it lasted – all four of the prep builders with more promoted nominations than me have had much longer tenures than my year and a third. And now we don't have a lot of them; in the future, we're going to have to put preps together without many of our heavy hitters who were active in earlier years, like Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Hawkeye7, you, and Allen3. That's a very different situation than it was just two years ago. The preps have been barely sputtering along so many times this year: when I got a job at a summer camp for a month, when SL93 got in a car accident, when we've just felt the burnout (remember when SL93 quit "indefinitely", and then it turned out we actually couldn't function without him so he had to come back?). It's not sustainable for the preps to rely so heavily on so few people.
Is it selfish? Maybe. But if I don't stand up for the workload of prep builders, I don't think anyone else is. Bruxton isn't gonna be active forever, and then we're back to where we were last month. I would like to see some common-sense ways to incentivize more prep builders, if we are to keep our normal schedule, and/or to reduce the number of nominations we have to process. But the community doesn't want to think long-term; as long as someone's doing it right now, it must be fine, right? I'm not convinced that I should be lifting my objection to two-a-days, because I can't see this being sustainable long-term without more burnout and more stress. This is supposed to be a volunteer project – we should be making it more accessible to actually volunteer. Otherwise, I don't want DYK moving faster than our promoter team is set up to handle. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron We could just do an ultimatum for everyone - either come to a consensus on something that works or shut the project down. I will continue helping as long as DYK is around (barring something like another car hitting me), but there are currently no discussions that are getting anywhere. I don't say the part about retiring DYK lightly because I enjoy participating at DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) theleekycauldron, I don't know if it's selfish, but I do know it's untenable to stay at one a day indefinitely. We already had the Approved page failing to transclude the final dozen noms a few days ago, and it's going to happen again in a few days. At some point, even if all seven queues and preps are filled, it will happen. The actual affect will be that approved nominations with the most recent dates won't be visible, and only older nominations will be seen to be promoted, but we can't keep building approved noms to 140, 150, 175, 200...
It may be that we have to go to the point where things start breaking badly to get the community's attention. However, I'm not sure you or anyone else can block two a day if someone says it's time to change, absent a new consensus: while it was clear that we shouldn't go to two a day with only five filled sets, since we'd be up against the wall in under three days, it's harder to argue when we have twelve or thirteen and preps can't be built because there aren't any free. I know about burnout—it happened to me back in the day—but maybe people need to learn the hard way that DYK is on borrowed time, not unlike Southwest Airlines, and needs to figure out a new modus vivendi. It's too bad that we haven't been able to build a cadre of prep-set builders over time: we lost a lot of people during the period that the DYK talk page turned toxic for a couple of years, and never recovered from it. First it was Cwmhiraeth doing a set first thing in the morning, with Yoninah doing the occasional extra set and extra checks with one or two others around the edges, then Cwmhiraeth became an admin and started promoting one a day with Yoninah taking over the one set a night role and other people pitching in during the two-a-day stretches.
Having a Prep waystation area (pre-prep storage area)—I wouldn't give it a number to avoid any possibility of confusion—sounds like an interesting idea, and could actually split the tasks: builders could start doing the easier part—arranging sets—and hopefully explore the checking each promotion part and doing that step as well. I'm not sure how satisfying that would be for the promoters if they couldn't also build sets: we've had some people who won't build sets if they can't build a complete set, including the lead/image hook; this could carry over into promoting without set building. But there might be people who like the checking but not the arranging. Would you want to modify the prep builder tool to have multiple modes: instead of just promoting a nom directly to a prep set, it would promote a ticked nom directly to one of the seven preps, promote a ticked nom to the waystation, and/or promote from waystation to one of the seven preps? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd be happy to modify PSHAW to implement one or more buffer preps :) As for backlog tenability, I would prefer to see some long-term solutions before throwing more another stopgap at the problem with more wasted promoter-hours. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 07:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
These discussions really should be happening on WT:DYK so everybody can be aware of them and participate. I didn't even know this thread existed until a few minutes ago. BTW, there's something broken in the wikimarkup on this page which is keeping reply tool from working. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Special occasion hook

Hi, I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/9 January 1917 German Crown Council meeting to Prep 6, now Queue 6. That was my first ever promotion to prep. Should I have tagged it as a special occasion hook for 9 January and if so how? TSventon (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

TSventon I just add hidden text with something like special occasion hook for January 5 (or whatever date). SL93 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
SL93, thank you, hopefully I will remember next time. Is that written down anywhere? How do admins find the hidden text? Do they have to open all the preps and queues, select edit and then search for "special occasion"? TSventon (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
They would have to. I don't know if it's written somewhere. I just copied what other people were doing. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
TSventon, SL93, the reason it's important to add a comment at the end of a special occasion hook is so that other set preparers and people move hooks between sets know that this particular hook should not be moved. Without that, we've had hooks swapped to the wrong date. When we're switching from one set to two sets daily or back, special occasion hooks invariably need to move, and having the comment right there is the best way for people to find it. The only way to see for sure is to open the queue or prep in the editor, but it doesn't take all that long to click on each edit link on the Queues page. Since it isn't foolproof, I also tend to look back at the Special Occasion section to see what has recently been promoted, which is why I knew to look for the 9 January 1917 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I was aware that special occasion hooks needed to be identified when we switch from one set to two sets daily or back, but I didn't know that it was usual to add a hidden comment. Should that be written down somewhere to let new prep builders know what they should do? TSventon (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Apology for GA nomination

I just want to apologize for nominating the article without agreement from other editors who have significantly contributed to the article. I have now posted a talk page message, so you can go and either support or oppose the nomination. Thanks! MasterMatt12💬Contributions 00:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


You see, this is an article I've wanted to improve for years, because of its relationship to Phineas Gage, and this nom has introduced new sources that will really help. But it will take a period of concentration, and it's really true about my mom. I'll be with her about two weeks starting tomorrow, and there will be some quiet time then. I promise. EEng 07:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, EEng. Spend some good time with your mother, and work on the article while you're there. If I don't see anything happening after a week or so, I'll query, especially if you're active elsewhere. However, it's not entirely up to me; this is now the oldest entry on the Nominations page, and just today a query was posted to the nom that you'll need to answer, saying that the article was good enough for a DYK to run now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
EEng, it's been over a week and you still haven't edited the article, so I'm pinging you, and letting you know that patience is running out. Your most recent edits to the article were three months ago Sunday, the same day it moved from draft space to article space. You've been very active editing in the past nine days; it's your choice if you want to work on George Santos and other things rather than Lone, but DYK shouldn't have to continue to wait while you put your energy elsewhere. Expect to see the tick restored in the next days; after that, you'll have maybe a week before the article is promoted to the main page, which still gives you time to improve the article before it's seen there. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)