User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For your help with Matthew Brisbane, much appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. A very interesting article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping/wondering are you planning to resurrect the article, I just added chart history to it.

Yes, at some point I will get around to finishing it off, along with the other three unfinished ones from the third season. Not sure when it will happen, though. Thanks for looking to expand it. I do have to say, though, that I don't think that anything below 100 on a chart can be considered to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I imagine that when the article is revised prior to being nominated for Good Article status, the UK sentences will probably be dropped. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, looking forward to it also the Dance With Somebody episode is another episode I cannot wait for. Love reading the reception sections.

talk

) 19:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like them. It's a lot of work gathering the reviews, figuring out what the balance is, and then picking the quotes and the summations. (Music's a bit easier than the episode as a whole.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine, your work is really really good, fans of series are so lucky to have you. I will contribute more to Glee articles, I'm more focused on

talk

) 20:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So I can only nominate new articles for DYK?--Lucky102 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. New articles that are no more than five days old, and also newly expanded articles where the expansion started no more than five days before. As you haven't done so yet, you'll want to read the

DYK rules to find out how everything works. Good luck! BlueMoonset (talk

) 14:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was short, for example a stub, I could nominate it?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this good?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I find information in that is contradicting this page.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• No, stubs are not eligible. New articles must have at least 1500 prose characters and not look or read like a stub or be labelled as a stub.
• The Poland WWII casualties article should not have been nominated now. First, it's still under active construction: Woogie10w started it less than hours before you created the nomination template, and is still building it. An article needs to be stable before it should be nominated. Second, it's only polite to give the person building an article a chance to do his or her own nomination, keeping in mind the five-day deadline. Third, you've again claimed in filling out this nomination to be one of the creators of the article, as you did with your Pac-Man nomination, and that's simply not accurate. You did include Woogie10w this time, but should not have added yourself.
• Some articles on Wikipedia do contradict others: there may be differing sources, new research, whatever. The question is whether the sources used are reliable ones and whether the information in the article accurately reflects what's in those sources. In this case, however, since Woogie10w has been one of the primary authors on the World War II casualties article for six and a half years, it seems odd to me that there would be significant discrepancies. If they remain once the article has become stable, it would definitely be worth pointing out on the talk page of one or the other article.

The hook is not formatted as it needs to be, which is a problem you also had with Pac-Man. The rules explain the formatting required. If there's something that isn't clear, please ask first, but don't submit it as is. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!--Lucky102 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to fix it. Is it even the tiniest bit better?--Lucky102 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you did: I didn't see any difference to the formatting, except for your removal as a creator/expander. I've just edited it to show what formatting is required. However, the hook uses the hard numbers from 1947, when the point of the article seems to be to discuss the various ways of determining casualties: it might be better to go with a more general number that fits the various estimates. Note that the hook facts must be provided with an inline source no later than the end of the sentence the fact is in, which is not currently the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you advise? I noticed that you use Twinkle which I've recently started to use but when I revert an edit, the article is added to my watchlist. How can I prevent this? Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how; I've never tried to do it. If I don't want it on my list, I just click on the star up top right after I'm done to remove it from my watchlist right away. Maybe it's in the documentation? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I provided some alternate hooks for this DYK? nomination of mine--

Also, would it be possible for you to look at this DYK? nomination of mine as well--

talk

) 20:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested another ALT hook on the Ray Long, building on your ALT2. I'm afraid I'm busy with other things, so someone else will have to review your polling article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your Ray Long hook. Please see my response whenever you can. In regards to the polling article, don't worry, I'll find someone else to do it. Thank you very much for your help.

talk

) 20:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you think to include the fact that Quinn has parents in that article's opening lead section, and their names? Obviously certain facts are more salient than others, but the infoboxes are meant to be used as minimally as possible.Zythe (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that Quinn's article had passed GA with that information in the infobox, and that her parents and their conservative Christianity are an important key to her character (as is the fact that they kicked her out of the house for several months when she was pregnant, a major storyline).

Although I hadn't been aware of it until now, apparently the key word for infobox inclusion on fictional characters is "essential". Parents are clearly essential to Rachel, Kurt, and Finn, as is the step- relationship involving the latter two and their parents. If Marley ever gets an article, her mother will be; for Jake, Puck would be (though not vice versa as yet). Emma is a bit more iffy, though it's clearly her parents' that did her damage and once they were introduced in the third season, became important. Mike's parents are part of his only independent storyline, though less critical to who he is. Sam more for the family that went through bad times and took him to and away from Lima. Blaine's brother least of all, though you see how it affected his character.

Unfortunately, what I see is that this kind of line drawing is not going to be something most editors will understand. It's far less obvious than the "significant other" disagreements, which are tiresome to police as everyone wants to add even the shortest relationships (e.g., Puck and Rachel, Sam and Santana). People will see family listed for one character and add it to another. If you want this new family line to be drawn, you'll need to commit to it: I guarantee you it won't last otherwise. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Although we must be careful to distinguish between 'important' to the character (i.e. in-universe backstories, or once-met homophobic grandmothers) and important in real world terms (E.g. Kurt's award-winning scenes with his father; the deliberate and much-discussed use of Sue's sister to humanise the character.) Sam's parents I think, like Mike's, are really inconsequential. The problem you put forward is that these pages are policed by fans who passionately want excesses of detail. An alternative would really be to do away with the family field altogether from the infobox, and then to allow people to add custom fields to particular articles -- although more zealous fans might still copy the custom fields over as well.Zythe (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I believed I fixed the issues at this DYK. Can you check it out?

Thanks. --

Alright, I'll make sure I note the article lengths and what not in my reviews. Abyssal (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It will help a lot. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update; I've never before filled a queue, so I didn't know what I needed to do. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I think they have instructions somewhere, including what other checks need to be made along way (including being sure the picture in the lead hook is protected somehow), but as I'm not an admin, it didn't seem to be on my need to know list. Sometimes Casliber forgets to make that "next prep" update, so I've done this particular update before. ;-) It keeps people filling the prep areas from being confused as to which area needs to be filled next. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of the articles are now going through quicker, like 4 times quicker than they were. 5-7 days I think is perfect and it makes DYK such more worthwhile while the articles are still "fresh" and new, a month tends to kill it a bit and by which time I'd forgotten it had been created. I think if they can assessed and then approved quickly like this it makes DYK far better. If this was yours or the intention of others I thankyou for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not intentional, but a combination of fewer total nominations and that reviewers have been picking the more recent submissions and letting the older, unreviewed articles go unselected. So we're getting a higher proportion of the recent ones, and fewer of the older ones. Right now September 17 and 18 have 11 and 10 unapproved nominations (September 11 has 9!). We now have 172 total nominations (of which 32 are approved), so we're getting down out of the stratosphere in terms of total nominations. If reviews and submissions don't pick up, we'll need to reduce the size of the prep sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think the article on Melvin Tumin is now long enough. The issue that caused me to ask a third opinion seems to have been resolved. Can you review the nomination? Yaris678 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just posted a few things that still need to be done before it's ready for a reviewer. It probably won't be me, but when it's ready I'll tag it with the "please review" icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your dedication towards DYKs... Not much to say but we know how good you are at the place and I hope that you'll continue your good work. Keep it up mate! TheSpecialUser TSU 05:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your statement about Ohconfucius and thought you might be interested in this list of problematic edits by that user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jclemens#Ohconfucius_is_back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.100.246 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw them earlier. I've said my piece; it's now up to ArbCom to do whatever ArbCom does. Please be sure to remember to sign your talk-page postings. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've rephrased and put the new ATLs. You may want to check and let me know if you still find any issue(s). - Vivvt • (Talk) 05:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to have a correct DYK. Thanks. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your patience. I'm glad the final version didn't raise any other issues. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I made a new plot for the episode, it's longer although it addresses and gives the storylines more insight. Which do you think is better my version or the former.

The thing about an episode Plot section is that it needs to be a maximum of about 500 words: as concise as possible, which means less interpretation and insight. Your version is 800 words, which is simply too long. The version before it was about 500 words, an okay length, but it had places that could have been trimmed to insert other information. It's a tough balancing act. My plots always came in long, and cutting them down to size was a long, painful process, having to decide what wasn't truly needed to understand what happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If you do plan to make the article GA, I would like it if you would use my plot as a foundation as the current is missing some key factors, and then shorten it, making it more concise.

talk

) 18:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

To diverge briefly to a related topic, note that you have reverted Protocida twice already. If you do so again within 24 hours, you will have violated

WP:3RR, and risk being blocked, even if Protocida has not explained the edits, and said editor is also perilously close to 3RR. You might want to go to Protocida's talk page and request that a discussion occur on the Talk:Makeover (Glee)

page.

When I revise a Plot section for GA, I do so in a way that makes sense to me. It's too hard to try to restrict myself to someone else's point of view or organization; if I try, it takes me much longer, and I usually end up regretting having done so. For it to work, I need to be free to recombine storylines, remove details, add others, etc. So I can't promise anything. Sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I know about the revert rule, going to the editor's talk page and placing the plot on talk page for now.

talk

) 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Have placed a revised plot on

talk

) 19:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. How do I install the DYK tool? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Instructions are on the Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck page. Good luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; got it up and running. I created "Going, Going, Gone" (Grey's Anatomy) last night, and developed it today. Everything's done except the critical reviews. Is there a stability requirement, or can I still nominate this for DYK? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad it worked. As I recall, it was pretty easy to put it in place. You can certainly nominate a new article. If you think it'll be stable within a couple of days, it's probably safer to nominate it then, but definitely before five days have passed since creation. I don't think it will be approved as long as the expansion template remains on the Reception section, but that's just a delay: it certainly won't be turned down for that reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll probably be able to finish off reception today or tomorrow. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. Just to let you know the citations are in place regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Denkoroku. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. It's all set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing your eyes back to this one. This is a very long article, and...well...you know...Maile66 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have things well in hand. I've always wondered what you do about images of unknown provenance. If you assume this is indeed a picture of Sholl, by Australian rules it ought to be public domain, and then seemingly by extension in the US as well, since Sholl died in 1886, well before the pre-1955 Australian "taken" requirement. But other folks know copyright far better than I. Thanks for taking a look at this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you did over at this template - or maybe it was something I did afterwards - comments by Froggerlaura and me don't show up. Maile66 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear BlueMoonset, thanks for all your dedicated work at DYK and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Just out of curiosity, I'm curious about your thinking process that led you to use the image from the hook for Bachwoche Ansbach in preference to the image from Gandhi as a Political Strategist (a photo of Gandhi himself) in the set of hooks that you recently promoted to Prep 2. I was the nom for the Gandhi-related article, so I am biased. And I respect that you are detached whereas I am not. Plus I've not been in your role of balancing all the factors necessary to assemble a set of hooks. But for my future information about DYK processes, I'm genuinely curious about why you chose the Bachwoche Ansbach hook (which seems rather boring to me) in preference to the image of Gandhi. To me it would seem like an image of Gandhi would be an interesting image: After all, he was deemed one of the top 3 "people of the century" by Time Magazine, and he is regarded as the father of a nation where about 1/6 of all human beings on the planet dwell). Plus, even if he's occasionally suffered from overexposure, it would seem that his birthday would be an occasion where he could in all neutrality be put on the front page. Thus, FWIW, if I had been in your role, I suppose it's likely I would have made a different choice. But since I'm not in your role, my own reasoning is irrelevant. However, I am genuinely curious to understand the reasoning behind your choice, so that I can better understand the DYK process. Anything you could tell me to enlighten me would be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance -- Presearch (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If it had been my decision, I would have gone with the Gandhi. Unfortunately, the person who put together that set hadn't noticed that there was a hook in the special occasion holding area that needed to be placed in that particular set, so a full eight-hook prepare set was already completed for that time slot. I didn't feel I could demote the lead hook in those circumstances, or move it to that evening's set (the only one available), but I could put Gandhi in the second slot, and move one of the other hooks to another set, so that's what I did. I'll mention this issue on the main page to see if anyone thinks it would be appropriate to swap them. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, many thanks for the clarification, and also many thanks for picking up the ball to ask the query on the main page. And thanks also to you for ensuring that the "Gandhi as a Political Strategist" hook is in the optimal timeslot beginning at 9:00 UTC on Oct 2 -- that is, assuming that the Prep areas file into the Queues in an orderly fashion. All the best, and thanks again for your efforts -- Presearch (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would refer to your statement at Arbcom. It seems that there may be a misunderstanding as to the nature of the problem under discussion, which is centred on yyyy-mm-dd access dates. There is and has for a long time been

You have misunderstood me: I didn't intimate that you weren't supposed to be changing the specific mdy/dmy/whatever dates. I was simply saying that -- as the context was not at all clear, given the various issues raised by Gimmetoo and the back-and-forth during the original period the Request was active -- that you were editing access dates, and had made the direct statement that you wouldn't, something I thought was an appropriate undertaking of yours under the circumstances. I expect Arbcom will be able to interpret this correctly, but if you think your recent edit will confuse things, I can always make an addendum. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Thank you very much for revising the clarification so it is now dated. I appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I made a DYK here, I hope it's good enough. Please tell me what you think of it.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice regarding this article. I think my DYK nom still needs a final tick, if you wouldn't mind taking a look? Grant | Talk 05:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it to Maile66, who did the major part of the review. If I were to do it, I'd have to retrace a lot of ground. I'll keep my eye on it, though, and if nothing happens in a couple of days, I'll do what I can to make sure it gets checked for final approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Soviet Strike. I've fixed it, hopefully. bridies (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I proposed a new ALT hook, slightly modified from the original. I've asked another reviewer to come in and take a look, since I can't approve a hook version that I've (re)written if the facts have changed at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminders, I posted at the reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how to find a current revision number?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're looking for. Current revision number for what? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For any page, for example Wikipedia or The Simpsons etc, any article. By revision number for what, I mean it for an article.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. Unless it's the "oldid" number that shows up when you look at the article's history, and mouse over a particular version's date and time (or just bring up that version in a separate window: it's a parameter in the URL). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's it.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your help with the Terry Plank dyk. I note that it's using the orig hook and not the modified one (which I unhelpfully did not mark alt). Neither did I get a chance to add the photo as you suggested. I havent participated in dyk in a long time, but if you think it's worth trying to modify this now that it's in prep4, I could use you help in doing so. No worries either way. Thank you. dm (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. (I guess we don't have to worry about including a picture...) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Your extensive contribution to DYK and vastly improving efficiency in recent times has not gone unnoticed. It greatly improves the attractiveness of DYK and encourages editors to produce more content. Keep up the great job you do. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Keep writing those articles! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How you doing lately? PumpkinSky talk 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Busy, doing what I can around here. Wish I had time for writing, too... How about you? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Focus on getting Franz Kafka through FAC right now. Harry S. Truman at PR for FAC prep. One day I want to get a complicated new article on Helena, Montana's historic district done. PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough rule I think. However, what about double even triple hooks? If they were just one hook wouldn't that be fine too? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that double- or triple-article hooks are fine. I believe the idea was to space out the appearance of hooks on DYK. Some variation would be nice in the timing as the backlog is diminished—maybe 32 to 48 hours instead of 24 sometimes—though it's probably a good idea not to have them run during Gibraltar's overnight hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think part of the problem was the timing, rather than there being a massive number of articles. The number of articles is still relatively low compared to what it could be but they should definitely be spaced out. If they appear all on the same day then it seems there is actually more than there is. You have an email address I wanted to speak to you about something which I can't really state here. You can email me if you can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'm sorry if this is inconvenient, but I'm not using external email with Wikipedia. Best regards, BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't get here sooner...had a major essay deadline, but I finished 2 days early! DYK is gtg :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 10:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so: glad you finished early! I'm glad to have this one over and done with. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

...that you were mentioned on Jimbo's talk page? Just FYI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I see it's Wnt making a flawed argument, so I doubt it's worth me making a reply. Thanks also for pointing out some of those flaws. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset! About the Digitalis thapsi DYK. A quite different fact has been suggested, perhaps you could have a look. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is regarding the edit summary for this edit that you made at

It looks like the season 3 and 4 tables should be modified to use the new Viewers field rather than Aux4, which I'll try to get around to soon, and also check out the recent changes in general to the Episode list template to see what else might be needed. I'll use your changes to Glee (season 1) as a starting point. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've replied there. It seems to be taking longer than anticipated, so feel free to promote it. Best! Yazan (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually going to hold off for a bit now. Since a couple of your hooks have been lead ones lately, I'd like to let a little time elapse before promoting another one to a lead spot. (Probably won't be doing any set building this weekend unless I get some offline stuff accomplished first.) So there may still be time to get the other image. No guarantees, of course: I'm not the only one doing promotions, or even the most frequent person... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. It's a 3,700 year-old fresco, I think it can wait a few more days before it's honored by DYK ;) Thanks a lot for all the help anyway! Cheers. Yazan (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if you could take a look at a DYK I made at

I'm sorry, I can't, but I imagine someone will be along to review it soon. I do agree that the hook involving Eleanor Roosevelt is the best of the two (you're only allowed one hook), and it will probably intrigue a potential reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See the DYK nom for this. PumpkinSky talk 18:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know when I'm next going to do a prep set, but I'll keep it in mind for when I do.

You got to admit, it's not a topic we get very often.PumpkinSky talk 00:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned at how many top slots Sasata's been getting lately. I promoted one to Prep 4 (now Queue 2), you promoted another to the next prep (Prep 1, and you've just promoted yet another to Prep 3, with only one non-Sasata in between. Given the prevalence of Sasata (fungus) and Cwmhiraeth (plant and animal) hooks, as the two continue to compete in WikiCup, I think all of us promoters need to be careful not to overfeature one or the other, especially not in the coveted lead spot. (Or, for that matter, to give too much prominence to any contributor.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but we have what we have to work with. They've both got a lot of hooks on the nom page. They write good stuff and neither we nor the readers want low quality in any hook, but especially the lead. I picked the latest Sasata hook because it has lots of articles in it. It's been my experience people like to see that. It's a delicate balancing act, if we go too far the other way, we end up punishing people for being productive. I will keep this in mind.PumpkinSky talk 00:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see this Template:Did you know nominations/Honiara, Honiara Solomon Islands College of Higher Education, International School in Honiara, University of the South Pacific Solomon Islands and your comments requesting some one else to review the above articles. I have replied on 10 October 2012 to the comments of the earlier reviewer User :Maile66 and fixed references in the four articles. Is there still some problem so that I can attend to the same?--Nvvchar. 04:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles are just waiting for a willing reviewer. It generally takes longer to find a reviewer for a multi-article hook than for a single article hook, because of the work involved. Usually, someone who is submitting their own multi-article hook is more likely to review one. There aren't a lot of reviewers at the moment; I'm hoping that more will come out of the woodwork shortly. Sorry I don't have better news for you! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is ok as DYK now, but I am not the reviewing editor there (I helped the creator, whom I know in person, so I have a bit of a COI here, and hence I don't feel qualified to pass it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'd missed that you'd already said as much on the nomination template. I've added the "review again" arrow, and included it in my periodic list of older nominations needing a review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. I forgot to get that QPQ done, but now it is. Thx. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. We really need reviews right now! :-) Once igordebraga confirms that his review is complete, this should be ready for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I want to add more critical commentary to the section

I'm sorry, but I haven't pulled those together yet, and probably won't do so until I finally get around to writing the article. Likely reviewers would include Jen Chaney at the Washington Post and whoever the Entertainment Weekly reviewer was that week. Michael Slezak at TVLine might have, but he's been doing letter grades only for most of the last several episodes, and this may include that one. If you need other names, look through the Music and performances section of the last three episodes of the season, and see who's quoted. Good luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

talk

) 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am passing the article to prep 1 since your comments seem to be resolved. Feel free to revert if you feel any issues are pending. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am reverting you as soon as I'm done typing this. An article should never be approved and promoted by the same person, and you have effectively done that. Especially as you say you haven't even read the whole thing, and the whole thing has never been approved by anyone. It looks to be an article we want to feature, but not until it has a proper approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But, LauraHale had approved the article, saying only fact tags was the sticky issue. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Laura had not given final approval: she uses multiple icons, very confusingly, and then gives her final grade, which was the ?. That does not count as an approval, and there had never been one. Unless the final icon in the template is an approval icon, the article should not be promoted. I'll be reverting in a moment; I hope we don't edit conflict. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya, confused by the signs. Reverted and pinged her. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; you got there before me. Sorry to be so abrupt, but it's important that all the steps be followed: that the person approving and the person promoting always be two different people, so the nomination and article can be checked by each. Also, if there is any intervening "problem" icon after a tick, the article is not approved, and needs to formally get that approval tick again before it is promoted. An article can always wait a few more hours or days to acquire that tick.

You know, I just realized: I pinged Laura two days ago on this (and on the Stephenson!). She's been quite active; I have no idea why she didn't at least respond there. She may have gotten distracted; with any luck, this will focus here on the two articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Will take care. I thought you had gone offline and forgotten to remove it, hardly any activity in the last hour :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking some of this is Wikipedia: it's gone out on me twice lately, on top of everything else. If the template's up, query. No response within half an hour is effective abandonment, or no action on the queue in the past couple of hours. (Incidentally, your reply above had just shown up when I lost access again. Yeesh.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Good to go. Sorry for the delay, but I had one final check to make with my desktop plagiarism checker, which was giving me troubles yesterday. Put in a tick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When I don't see that tick, I don't like to assume that the review is done, because sometimes it isn't. Thanks especially for holding it to finish the plagiarism checks, which are so important. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We have one more DYK nomination still in the special section: Door to Hell, which is on an Asian topic and would therefore most naturally go into Prep 4. With the update at 8:00 UTC, all the queues are empty; I think the other admins, like me, have been delaying putting the three Halloween-dated sets into queues in case they needed to be rejiggered to accommodate this or any other late-comers. Abyssal has now checkmarked the Door to Hell nomination after making the last required changes him/herself, so it needs scrutiny before being promoted, ideally a recheck by a third person. But in the meantime Allen3 has filled up Prep 2, the last of the Halloween set. My thinking is that Door to Hell could go into Prep 4 with the displaced hook going into Prep 2, as may have been the intention of the earlier set assemblers. But since all the preps are currently full, what's then displaced from Prep 2 would have to go into the next prep vacated by moving Prep 4 into a queue. So if you see this in time, please let me know if you think we should go ahead with that promotion of Door to Hell and double swap, and I'll do the queue bit of it (including if Prep 4 has in the meantime been moved into Queue 6). If not, I'll see what the situation is in a few hours, because I will have to go offline in about 4 hours. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(watching) if it's just one extra hook, couldn't it also go as the seventh, combining a few short ones in a set? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Now in a post-Halloween prep as lead hook; I have moved Prep 4 into Queue 6 but suggest it should be substituted in; however, I must go offline now. I've mentioned everything except the need for a final check on it at

WT:DYK. Yngvadottir (talk

) 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in a post-hurricane-Sandy power outage, briefly grabbing some free wifi, and about to have to relocate to a non-wifi area. I'll leave this in your capable hands. Thanks for taking this while I'm offline. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't realize you were in that area; unfortunately I had to go to my other job and almost everybody else seems to be avoiding WT:DYK! So I guess folks get the Door to Hell greeting them on All Saints' Day :-) Oh well, we tried. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus. Your rejection is based on your personal preferences, which is uncivil. Regards.--

Forgive me, but what consensus are you talking about? My rejection was because the rules require 5x, and you supplied 3x. To call it uncivil is a failure of AGF. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The only failure is to accept plot as an encyclopedic content. Would you accept an article if most of the text would be plot? Regards.--

Tomcat (7

) 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how much "most" is, and whether the rest of the article was properly sourced. If it was just plot, or plot plus a few details like author and publisher, no: supplementary rule D7 would apply. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I had added Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice to the November 11 holding section in relation to a suggestion in that review that the article should be held over to that day, given the date relevance. It's still listed under the Gibraltar holding area but I think it would be a good idea to dual-list this one in the November 11 section as well, so I've re-added it there. Hopefully it will get its second review some time soon, it's been waiting for a while. Prioryman (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, please don't add it there again. I deliberately removed it earlier for the reasons given in my edit summary, which I think are germane. The dated areas are for articles that have passed, and with only one of two reviews completed, this one hasn't yet. In addition, templates should only be listed once on the nominations page. I will therefore be removing the November 11 duplicate for a second time. Once the nomination passes, the template should then be moved to November 11. That's how it works with all other nominations: when dates are suggested at the time of nomination, the move to the special holding date doesn't occur until after approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Prioryman (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Best of luck in it getting the second review in the next few days. (PS: Don't forget to add the approval icon to your second reviews!) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to this DYK? nomination--

I think at this late date it would need to be treated as a new submission with the 5x expansion requirement: that is, you'd need to expand it from the current 1937 characters to at least 9685 characters, and that's a big task indeed. If this isn't feasible, and I doubt it would be, you can always ask on the

WT:DYK page, but I wouldn't advise doing so until after he does turn 110, and it's clear that new material is available. Sometimes we do make exceptions and resurrect rejected articles, but I have to say I'm not optimistic in this case, given how much time has passed. Still, you can't get permission if you don't ask. BlueMoonset (talk

) 09:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

According to DYKcheck, the article had 1935 prose characters before the current expansion started. (Don't know why I got 1937 when I checked last week.) That means a 5x expansion would require 9675 prose characters; as of this moment, the article has 5762. You've added 3827 characters so far, and would need to add another 3913 characters. You'll also need to properly format just about all your new refs, since bare refs are not allowed for DYK-nominated articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

How much more characters do I need to add right now? And Yes, I'll properly format all of the new references after I get the required number of characters.

talk

) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're currently at 8225, so 1450 to go. Note that the "Milestones" section, as bulleted entries, does not count as prose. What you add should be encyclopedic language: wording such as "almost three whole years ago" isn't. At some point, the article will need a copy edit with a few toward making the article more concise and encyclopedic, and whoever reviews this for DYK may require it be done before it can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I added some more stuff to this article. What is the character count right now? Thank you.

talk

) 05:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

9740. You've made 5x. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Just curious--could you please calculate it again right now and could you please tell me what program/item you use to make these calculations? I made this article even longer just to be safe and to add more useful info to it. Also, finally, how do I submit this article for DYK? re-nomination right now?

talk

) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're at 10238. As noted above, I use DYKcheck. Instructions on how to use it are on the

WT:DYK page in that section you opened to make your query a few hours ago. Good luck! BlueMoonset (talk

) 05:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you ask on the

WT:DYK page, like I recommended you do above. It's out of my hands. BlueMoonset (talk

) 07:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you could help resolve the block on Template:Did you know nominations/Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield and Template:Did you know nominations/Giovan Giacomo Paleari Fratino? Since you started the re-reviews of these articles, and perhaps have more influence with User:Nikkimaria, you may have more success than I can in getting them moving again. As you know, it is difficult for me to deal with situations like these. Thanks for the help, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've given Nikkimaria a ping on the Fratino article. With the Grootegeluk and Waterberg articles, I'm torn. I don't think this of this as a cat and mouse game, so I have to ask: did you run WP:Duplication detector on the two articles she pointed out to see where the close paraphrasing might be? The tool gives back identical phrases between two pages, which is a very good place to look for where common phrases may have slipped through. It also shows the text surrounding the duplicated words so you can see other similarities in the extended phrases.

What she's asking, effectively, is that you do similar checks against the other articles, and make fixes if overly similar phrases come up. Since you know you have problems spotting this sort of thing, mechanical help like the duplication detector should be very useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, yes. The Elisras dup detector with the source she mentioned does not show anything, but probably because the tool is having trouble with PDF format. The Grootegeluk one shows some minor overlap, but very minor. With these rather technical articles there is bound to be some repetition of jargon phrases. For example, the Ellisras article says "the Karoo rocks unconformably overlay mafic rocks of the Limpopo Belt", while the source says "the Karoo rocks unconformably overly Limpopo Belt mafic rocks." I suppose it could be shuffled into "mafic rocks of the Limpopo Belt are uncomformably overlaid by the Karoo rocks", but there are not a lot of variants that preserve the meaning, and shuffling sequence anyway does not conceal copying. The question is whether any creative expression is being copied, and in my view the answer is "definitely not". The article has taken some facts from the source, but there is no copyvio concern.

I don't know if you have seen a cat playing with a mouse. They catch the mouse, hold it for a few minutes in their mouth, then let it go. The mouse is frozen for a few seconds, then scuttles for cover. The cat gives it a head start, then pounces again. A cat will repeat this several times before finally eating the mouse. On the Grootegeluk article, after the first query I used the diff tool to carefully compare to all the sources, and did what I could to remain accurate to the sources while avoiding any copying of creative expression. Nikkimaria now says there is still some closeness to one of the sources, but is not specific about what it is, and says "these were examples only." From past experience, this could drag out through many iterations. If there are copyright issues, they should be fixed, and quickly. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright issues should be fixed quickly, but it is your primary responsibility to do them: it's a basic tenet of Wikipedia that you, the author, are responsible for producing articles that don't include any copyvio or close paraphrase. You may feel put upon, but the point is that people who run into such issues need to learn to identify the problems, and I believe that's Nikkimaria's intention since she does this with everyone. I do the same: if I see several infringing phrases come back in Duplication detector or notice similar wording when looking directly at a source, I highlight the most egregious but expect the writer to take care of them all. As you know you are prone to this problem, you should consider trying to find someone who can help you check your articles. Frankly, it shouldn't be her job, or any of our jobs, to do that for you. To describe it as "cat and mouse" seems to me a failure of AGF. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. I see that you haven't provided your email id, perhaps can you leave me a line at [email protected] - I wanted to talk something in personal. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't do email for Wikipedia. If it shouldn't be said here, then I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to ask if you were interested in running for adminship? I believe that you are a good candidate and have great chance. I wanted to nominate you if you aim for anyone to nominate you. Awaiting your response. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking I'd do a good job. I'm actually not that interested in becoming an admin: the DYK work has cut down on the amount of writing I'm producing, and adminship would reduce things even further. In terms of candidacy, I'm not nearly as sure as you based on the few I've seen: I operate in two very limited spheres (DYK and Glee), I don't participate in RfA or similar admin-like activities, and I haven't had to parse the kinds of decisions that typically need to be made and are queried about during RfA nominations. I've also only been around a little over a year and a half, and while I do have over 15K edits, my experience isn't broad.

I greatly appreciate you thinking of me: this is at least as good as any barnstar. Thank you, and I hope you aren't disappointed by my decision. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as experience goes, you are way better and I've even seen many candidates with just over 12 months of experience pass out easily in last 2 years. Anyways, I respect your decision and its great to hear that you want to focus on content work; that is why we are here, right? If you ever wish to run in future, I'll be happy to add a nom. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else asked; I'd been thinking exactly the same thing :-) I had wondered whether you were one of Worm That Turned's protégés. Feel free to drop me a line about RfA and/or the job - I have a peculiar perspective :-) But otherwise, darn it, I'd have liked to have you helping out at DYK in that way too :-) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding - especially since I'm this close to not participating there any more. DYK needs admins with more patience than I have, and you seem to have more! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Worm That Turned until you mentioned him here. No, not a protégé. I do appreciate your confidence in me. :-) As for the patience, I may seem to have more, but I'm not sure how much more I have left. I started building a set earlier today, and after promoting the lead hook, I had to send the next three "approved" hooks back for fixes instead of promoting them. It does get frustrating. As for the ill-considered DYK change about to come crashing down around our heads, the less said the better. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He had mentioned at Talk:RfA having two or three people he was waiting to nominate until he thought they were ready :-) ... Yes, probably the less said, the better. But it's looking as if I'll have to take my name off the "willing to help" list, and there have been a couple of times recently when the project could have used another person able to edit the queues. Thanks for all you do there. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Quietly adding ...

WT:DYK today seems to be entirely or almost entirely about newly submitted articles, which will presumably be improved during the review process. I think DYK as a project does a damned fine job getting articles in shape if they aren't already. But something's slipping again. Maybe a new approach can be found; if it were one of my former classrooms, I'd do something goofy. Yngvadottir (talk

) 21:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by the "supercommittee" proposal related to QPQ, and can't find any obvious analogue in the current discussions, but by its nomenclature it sounds messy and unworkable. I agree on the state of hooks, which I too-frequently edit when making up prep sets, and on the state of approved articles (as noted above). Part of what's slipping may be the promotion process: I've done more cleanup than I should need to on already completed prep areas. I haven't had to remove as many hooks, though, which is a hopeful sign. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere in the 2011 discussions - I think it was one of Tony1's suggestions, but it may even have been put forward by Sharktopus, who was working very hard to broker solutions - the idea was mooted of replacing QPQ with a committee of experts who would be responsible for vetting all the submissions. Or maybe they would perform a second check after the regular review. Either way, I was strongly agin it at the time and it went nowhere, but I have just failed to find it in an archive search and I'm not sure whether I responded to it; one of the reasons I miss Sharktopus is he kept going while many of us got cowed and stopped even looking. But that extended debate has left us in a cleft stick: we have got to keep standards high while being welcoming and making things as easy as possible for newbies, second-language contributors, and those who get flummoxed by long lists of rules. ( never did rewrite the rules to be easier to understand. Seems either pointless or combative now.) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Found it. The idea was proposed by Sharktopus, and kicked around a bit as 2-tier reviewing; I was actually trying to find a way to like it :-) Then during the discussion of this proposal by someone else it morphed into choosing "directors" who would select the articles to run on DYK. Which I found repellant, so I suppose it was clarificatory to consider it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That was well before my time, believe it or not. (By definition, any year but 2012 is before my time. :-) ) Thanks for the pointers. Without even looking at the proposals, they sound impractical in the extreme: who would ever sign up to the review committee, and be responsible for 15-25 articles per day, every day, forever and ever. That way lies madness. Anyway, I just dropped in before shutting down the computer for the night, so I'll take a look at this stuff next time I'm on. I am sorry to hear that you've given up on condensing the DYK rules into a single place; I was looking forward to seeing what it looked like. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear BMS, Doug asked me to look into this. I would like to get this DYK up to speed, and would appreciate your suggestions. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked Big Turtle to get us citations for the two paragraphs. We need text for the DYK that will work for you. You don't like paraphrasing and you don't like a quote. Your assistance in resolving your concerns would be appreciated. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind paraphrasing per se, but Poeticbent's was a direct copy with two words substituted: that's not simply paraphrasing, that's such overly close paraphrasing that it's a

WP:COPYVIO

, in my opinion. I would be fine with an exact segment of the original quotation—I thought "A new hook based on ALT4 could use the exact quote and I wouldn't bat an eye." was quite clear on that point—as long as it is presented in the hook with quotation marks, making clear that it is, in fact, a quote.

In my view, what is problematic in the article is the beginning of the "As editor" section: "Competition amongst newspapers was fierce at the time. There were nearly 75 other historical newspapers in the District of Columbia." These are two unconnected statements, made to seem as if they are connected, despite the fact that there is no support for the assertion that competition was fierce except for

WP:SYNTH with the false statement that there were "nearly 75 other historical newspapers", a number not supported by the cited source since it cannot reliably be determined from the source given, and in any case includes papers that were long dead before Chase was born. If no other information is available, you'll need to cut those sentences and the "Nevertheless" beginning the next one. There might be sources that would have information about contemporaneous newspapers, and the article would be improved by having such, but the article can pass DYK without it if the text mentioned is removed, and Big Turtle comes up with those citations. BlueMoonset (talk

) 17:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll try to fix this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)