Jump to content

User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

About: Did you know nominations/Collier Bay (horse) & Danoli

Hey. Im kinda new to this place. I am actually a bit scared to do the paraphrase part as I am learning myself where to be cautious in paraphrasing in my other DYK nominations. Is it OK if maybe you or someone else do a paraphrase check on the article. I read the first 3 reference on the Danoli article and it seems to be OK and there was no copying done. Khyati Gupta (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3

We are in an edit-conflict, I have promoted some hooks but was "rejected" when saving. What do we do with these:

Hope for a quick answer. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and add them to Prep 3 if you'd like. I figured you were done with the set, since you went off and did something else after adding Bear Bryant. Sorry about getting in your way. I'll just give over the "in use" to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You might want to swap the order and put Brian last and Annike and Melissa sixth, since Brian's is the more quirky hook and thus more appropriate for the final slot. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I always add projects-tag when I see a red talk-page, and I was on that page because the article was on DYK :P
I'll do that. I was going to say that I lacked the quirky hook, but having a second look that'll do. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I should probably have recognized the article name, since I'd edited the nomination earlier today, but it just didn't register. Oh well. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've now added "my" four hooks, but now I realize that it might be too much of Americas, with three hooks from US and two South American and one Canadian. Maybe you'll even it out when building the next set? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Maybe moving one or two (US and/or South American) will work out. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

guidance barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for helping me find missing closing brackets! I was completely lost trying to figure out what was wrong. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI on promoted template for Delavan Terrace Historic District

Template:Did you know nominations/Delavan Terrace Historic District, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_area_4 - Don't know if you need to change the DYK Template, but it looks to me like Daniel Case corrected the wording to (Otis and North Houses, pictured). Maile66 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. We don't have to change the actual template, as it happens: edits to hooks are very common after promotion, and I've never heard of going back to update the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

GA

Sexy (Glee) is now a Good Article
Congrats! The article you nominated Sexy (Glee) was just promoted to Good Article status! Great job to all of your hard work!
TBrandley 15:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


A Barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your contributions to Glee on Wikipedia, as a massive fan of the series skipping episode to episode and seeing the GA icon on top, is one of the highlights for me on Wikipedia, much appreciated. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK issues

Hey BlueMoonset, that DYK nominations page takes forever to load, so I'm looking at some of the older ones to clean it up some. Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Mazatlán is problematic: after I left some comments and went back to it, I realized that this article is going to need a lot of work, more work than is probably doable, considering that in a month it hasn't been improved. Also, the first reviewer seems to have bypassed the problems I signaled completely (it's really not a good review). I'm wondering if you shouldn't consider scrapping it altogether. I will look at a couple more in days to come. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Orlady was right after you on Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Mazatlán; she also thought it was problematic. Neither of you, however, put the orange X next to it (and you both should have, given the issues), so I did.

You take DYK way too seriously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres

Please see note to you at Template:Did you know nominations/Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Best, Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there, and also approved the new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Jackalow

I have written a shorter hook. Savidan 15:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have re-worded in response to your most recent comment. Savidan 16:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you please clarify whether you have any objection to the ALT2 hook? I think you should be fine with it. I see nothing in your comments so far that implicates it. If not, could you please also move your most recent post above it so it is clear which hook you are objecting to? Savidan 00:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Clarified, but not moved. I think it should stay where it is chronologically. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kallima paralekta

I am therefore withdrawing Alts 1 and 2, unless someone else sees a pressing need. Is this article otherwise good to go? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ek Hota Vidushak

Hey. You recently rephrased the DYK alt for Ek Hota Vidushak at Prep 2. New hook does not convey the same context. Neither P.L.'s career was spanned for 39 years nor he wrote the screenplay and dialogues for the first time. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought it was clear when I posted it, but I see now that there are ambiguities. I meant to have it convey that it was his first Marathi screenplay and dialogue in 39 years, not first ever; as far as I could tell, from his P.L.'s bio, he had done Hindi-language films in the 1960s, screenplay and dialogue, so Marathi had to be more closely tied in to avoid any confusion between all films and only Marathi films. Sabbatical was not the right word, since it implies separate, not-too-long breaks, and 39 separate breaks did not make any sense. When I investigated, I realized what was meant was that there was a single 39-year gap between films.
I hope the new version is clearer. I've gone so far as to put in the 1953 date for his previous Marathi film, which I think helps the context. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Per P.L.'s official site, he never wrote screenplay and dialogues for any Hindi-language films. I've corrected his article now. That might have given you some wrong info. Those movies were based on his stories and somebody else had written the screenplay and dialogues. You are correct about sabbatical. Btw, how about this? "that 1992's Marathi film Ek Hota Vidushak featured P. L. Deshpande's first new screenplay and dialogues since 1953, after a gap of 39 years?" - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Good to have that Hindi film issue cleared up. I have a problem with "dialogues", since it's confusing to American and British readers of English: it looks like a mistake, since "dialogue" refers to all the speaking parts, i.e., lines of dialogue written for the actors to say. So "screenplay and dialogues" looks wrong, even if that's how it would be said in India. Could we perhaps say "screenplay with dialogue", or just "screenplay"? I'm happy to move "Marathi film" earlier in the hook (and just did so). A last-minute thought: how about using "hiatus" instead of "gap"? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK for "screenplay with dialogue" and "hiatus". - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Done! Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest in DYK correction. Btw, do we have to make changes in the DYK template as well? If yes, who would be the authorized person for that? - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, no changes are needed to the template. One the hook has been promoted, any subsequent hook edits while in the prepare area or queue are separate; they don't get placed on the template. (About a quarter of the hooks are edited in some fashion during or after promotion.) Only if the hook is pulled out of the set and put back into the nominations area will changes be made to the template as part of the re-review. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For lots of quality, hard, steady work, at DYK--handling noms, ensuring prep sets are squared away, etc. PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, PumpkinSky. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, both Pumpkin Sky and Gerda cite you as an able reviewer who does a lot of work for DYKs. In fact they made quite a point of defending you. Its good that you improve standards but also remember that editors need motivation to produce content and that quite a few editors are put off if they have repeated difficulties with comments surrounding their DYK nominations. Contributors neither owe wikipedia or the reviewer anything and the impression I've got from you on quite a few noms I've seen is that you can be quite picky. Maybe this is because you genuinely want to improve DYK standards which is a positive thing, but if you could also remember that wikipedia depends upon contributors and should also be encouraged in doing so this I think would be an improvement. Its finding a balance I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Able reviewer, regarding the Martin Petzold nom, I was kind of waiting for Ultracobalt, and now see the there are no edits in a week. I am in the final days of Franz Kafka for CORE, feel invited to the peer review and have patience with the other ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, that's fine. Get to it when you can. Please make a quick post on the Petzold nom template (if you haven't already) saying you will get to it, so another reviewer doesn't take precipitate action there thinking it's been abandoned. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The New Rachel

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for your work on DYK.

I respectfully reverted your addition of the links to Schoenberg, Coleman, and SoulTrane to the Ralph Patt article, the better to attract readers to Patt (or his tuning).

I did add the composers and add links to the lede of Patt's article, so that the reader hungry for information about any of the three will be soon satisfied.

Of course, please feel free to revert.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dream Team (pornographic film)

I have made updated in the article, like citing. I've made ALT2b. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's now approved along with ALT1a. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

George O'Malley

Hi, BlueMoonset. I noticed you fixed C97's GA template on the above article. I told C97 that I was going to cleanup the article, so I don't know why he/she nominated it. In my opinion, it's not ready to be a GA in its current state. Is there anything I can do; do you think it is premature? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, he/she withdrew the nomination. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I did see the cleanup template on the article, and wondered at it being nominated, but the GA nominee template was badly formed, and needed to be fixed. Although it's well after the fact now, I think your possibilities would have been to engage on someone's talk page, or the article talk page, which could have been accompanied by an initial reversion of the talk page's GAN edit (in which case the engagement would say something like "I just reverted this because the sorts of changes I'll be doing will cause it to quickfail, which I'm sure you didn't want to have happen". Major cleanups not only can run afoul of the stability requirement, but tend to annoy the reviewer, who has to deal with a moving target. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Stanisław August Poniatowski/GA1

I have simply missed the fact that the review started; I was not notified of it until you did so. I'll get right on it today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's always struck me as a bit odd that the GA subpages weren't added to your watchlist by the software when the review begins. I've sometimes missed when my reviews get started. I know there's an involved way to fake out your own watchlist before the review page is created, but I never remember to attempt it. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
In the end, we should just encourage reviewers to go and notify the nominators when they open the review. I always do it when I review the article, and I assume from then onwards that the nominator will add it to their watchlist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the original reviewer has not edited since August 19, perhaps you could help finish the review and take it over? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. I'm busy with other things. You might want to post at WT:GAN to see if you can find someone to take over. I see on the GAN page that this was Halibutt's first review—which is probably why you weren't notified—so having more experienced eyes is probably a good idea anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK Nomination of Philippine resistance against Japan

I have an another alternative to the hook in its nomination entry: Such was the effectiveness of Philippine resistance against Japan that by the end of World War II, the Japanese controlled only 12 of the 48 provinces. Arius1998 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding at Template:Did you know nominations/Philippine Resistance against Japan. While this is a better hook, there is a significant issue with it, which I have noted there. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Any idea what's happening with this? I replied 10 days ago and have heard nothing since. The nom has been sitting in limbo for a month now and is the third oldest on there. Valenciano (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked Nikkimaria whether the changes satisfy her concerns? As far as I can see, that's what has been holding this up since your reply. Asking her to review the close paraphrasing issues needs to be done, since she doesn't seem to have seen your changes (as you hadn't seen her comments). She's good about giving things another look when prompted. Hope this time does it! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your efforts in building DYK queue sets day in and day out (also at night, rain or shine, in sickness and in health, etc.), including management of the supplies of Olympic and Paralympic hooks -- and for maintaining relatively good humor throughout. Orlady (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I got the "new message" banner for this just after deciding on a quirky hook for prep 1, and LOLed at the timing when I saw the barnstar turning, turning, turning.... Thank you so much! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hanajira

Hi, you left a message on my Talk page requesting that I complete my review of the Hanajira dyk; however, in the meantime you've gone & promoted the nomination without waiting for me to do that. The rules indicate that nominations need to pass the review process prior to their being moved on to the prep stages, which in this case has not happened. There is an earnest dialog in progress on the Discussion page that still needs to be settled, & there are issues raised by Orlady's comments that also need to be addressed involving the sourcing of at least two passages. Note that Orlady reviewed only the hooks - the article itself was never ticked as the rules clearly demand. I ask that you exercise greater patience & restore the nomination to its pre-prep state so that the review process can proceed & reach its proper conclusion.—Biosketch (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You had said "a couple of days" on August 28, I pointed out that ALT1 would need an independent review since you had proposed it, and Orlady reviewed it and the article as a whole on September 3. This is not at all unusual; nominations can have more than one reviewer, and you hadn't completed it when you'd indicated. She passed the nomination: the ticks she gave indicate that the article had been approved and the specific hook mentioned was approved for use when the article was promoted. I was going by her approval when I promoted the article, so my actions were indeed within the rules. (A few people use ticks incorrectly to show that a particular facet of a review is approved, but proper usage applies to the article as a whole; she did that odd doubled tick/? to point up the fact that one of the hooks was not approved.)
At this point, since the hook has been promoted to the queue, it is out of my hands—only an admin can remove it from a queue, and I am not an admin. I'm sorry I can't help you in this. I recommend that you contact Orlady on her talk page: not only did she approve the hook and the article, but she is an admin and can remove the hook from the queue if necessary. You are also welcome to take this to WT:DYK. The hook is currently set to be promoted to the main page in 13.5 hours, so if there is something serious that would make it ineligible for promotion at this time, please raise the issue as soon as possible. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
My mistake: I didn't fully document my review. In large part, I had to AGF it due to inaccessible-to-me sources, but I felt that the article passed muster w/r/t footnotes, and I didn't see any plagiarism of the sources I could see. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That's okay. I couldn't imagine you putting a tick if you hadn't been satisfied that the article met DYK standards, but it's good to have it confirmed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mayer Zald

My alt1 is still fine and accepted, I think. Kiefer seems to have created a lot of chaos around the DYK discussion, pushing for his more problematic hooks, which may be confusing some people, not sure how to deal with it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the ALT1 as you originally wrote it was accepted by Maile66, but Kiefer had just edited it minutes before rather than introducing a new ALT, which caused all sorts of confusion in the overlap. I'll try to tease it apart and check with Orlady to see where we are; she didn't seem to like "resource mobilization theory", which casts doubt on the original acceptance, and had other problems. Is there any chance you can address her concerns? Kiefer did say you and he had "limited time", but perhaps he wasn't speaking for you there, either. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's what happened. *grumble* editing other's hooks is evil *grumble*. Well, I think it is being sorted out now... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sep 9 Stockdale capture

Hi. See Template_talk:Did_you_know#September_9_47th_Anniv_of_Stockdale_capture. I listed this at DYK, Drmies started it today, I helped. It's approved already. It's in special requests now, for Sep 9, 47th Anniversary of Stockdale's capture. Can you help see it appears on 9 Sep, day or evening, USA time? It has a professional lead free photo too ;-) Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye out for it; one way or another, it should get in. If it happens that you're assembling one of the sets it ought to be in, feel free to drop me a line and leave one hook open for me to insert it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for remembering and making a lead hook. It's the least we can do for those who suffered so horribly. I don't know how they managed to survive. PumpkinSky talk 14:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For being patient with me. I am truly sorry for screwing that up, but it is so nice to have someone point out you're clueless in a friendly manner. I promise I'll be on the horse properly in no time. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We're all new once. I had my moments when I started out. The thing to watch out going forward is when there are multiple DYKmake templates for a single article, which happens when more than one editor was working on it, or DYKmake and DYKnom templates because it was nominated by someone who wasn't the creator/expander. The one other complication is when the article is renamed along the way, or it's a multiple-article hook, or (oddly) if there's certain punctuation like apostrophes in the article name, which requires an extra "subpage" field in the DYKmake template (but not in DYKnom). You'll get the hang of it in no time.
While it doesn't cover the DYKmake details, there's a nice section of WP:DYKSG on "Rules of thumb for preparing updates" that you may not have seen; I've found it very useful. (If you have seen it, then you know what I'm talking about.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Blaine Anderson#Relationships and Kurt Hummel#Relationships

Both Criss and Colfer commenting on how they want Klaine-relationship to progress season 4, I'm suggesting these links for Relationship sections. Maybe you can work some wonder with them. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Moubray House

Many thanks. I have replied at:

--Mais oui! (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Promoting hooks you yourself approve

I am a little confused by your message. As I am confident that an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself has checked your facts before posting to my talk page, that would seem to leave the following possibilities:

  1. You wish to encourage starvation by forcing prep builders to ignore qualified hooks in the "Older nominations" section of Template talk:Did you know and limiting them to choices to options in the "Current nominations".
  2. You are unaware of N8 on Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage which explicitly instructs set builders to "try to leave the good picture hooks behind for another update if you possibly can."
  3. You do not feel that either Template:Did you know nominations/Annie Lowrie Alexander or Template:Did you know nominations/John Van Antwerp MacMurray, the only two biography nominations in the "Older nominations" section to which you could possibly be referring with the claim "that there are plenty of approved hooks available at present", does not qualify as good.
  4. You wish to discourage me from performing any reviews not necessitated by DYK's review requirement (It is not possible for a person to promote a nomination they reviewed if they never perform the review).
  5. You wish to discourage me from assembling prep sets.
  6. You are unaware of/disagree with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules' status as a Wikipedia policy.

Could you clarify which of these possibilities motivated your message? --Allen3 talk 23:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the above, as I suspect you knew. Impressive list, though.
  1. Every hook you put a tick on becomes available for someone else, as is likewise true going the other way.
  2. There are many opinions about what makes a "good" picture hook; ones I pass over time and again while waiting for a good opportunity get taken for non-lead hooks by others.
  3. Annie Lowrie looks like a good possibility; indeed, I haven't chosen her in part because we could use a good photo of a woman. Given that we've had a run of white males who have graced our lead hooks of late, I didn't consider John in that light.
  4. Ryan Westmoreland from August 27 is a biography, if a sports one. Further, I count four bios, two of which are sports ones, from September 5. Since there is, I believe, no requirement that "current" hooks be ignored, my "plenty of approved hooks" naturally counted them, and the others that show up on the list on the queues page.
  5. I don't wish to discourage you in the slightest.
  6. I am aware of "Ignore all rules", but don't believe they should be ignored unless it's actually necessary. Sometimes it definitely is. I've had sets of hooks that were unbalanced in all sorts of ways, but that's because there were maybe a dozen approved hooks to fill an eight-hook set, and there was no way, even taking hooks submitted and approved within the past couple of hours, to properly balance them, try as I may. Still, it's usually possible to avoid most of the things the rules ask us to avoid, because these things have been included because they're generally good ideas: not clumping bios, or US hooks, or sports hooks, or having more than 50% of any type of these in a set; having different people do nomination, review/approval, promotion, and move from prep to queue, because problems are more likely to be caught by a fresh set of eyes, etc.
So that's where I'm coming from. If I've demotivated you, I'm sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Britney 2.0

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
My apologies for my original tantrum of your reviewing. DYK needs as many people helping out as possible and it does need to be checked for quality and you generally seem to do a fine job of overlooking what is really needed. Keep up the good work that you do. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Now that Nvvchar has returned it would be counterproductive for me to continue avoiding DYK noms, sure you're delighted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nvvchar? Not familiar with the term or editor or whatever it is. At any rate, good to have you back. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Nvvchar, a former Indian hydrological management official was one of DYK's finest contributors (505 DYK) until he had to depart about a year ago before I think you became active with DYK. He has recently returned, so you'll probably be seeing his name a lot, Nvv, Rosiestep and myself generally work as a team. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing your joint efforts, then: you and Rosiestep do fine work together, so adding another excellent contributor to the mix can only be a good thing. Nvvchar did leave before I became involved with DYK—I submitted my first nomination just under a year ago, did my first QPQ review nine months ago, and only started building prep sets in spring. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
He left beginning of August 2011 I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Hey. I really appreciate the reminders you've been giving me, and I have to admit that rule changes as well as my extended leave of absence have done a number on me. Having said that, I sincerely believe that I know how to balance a prep area with regards to subjects. If you lived through the Laura Hale era (though she is lovely) you get a taste of how to handle a barrage of one-subject entries. Having almost nothing to work with at the moment, it is a lot more difficult to weed out appropriate images, but it is my sincere belief that we need that backlog cleared more than we need to be particularly worried about 2 white men in a row (three was very silly of me though, thanks for calling me on that). I have never seen the backlog that bad before. We're supposed to be showcasing the latest works of new editors. Wow are we failing.

Similarly, you may notice that I have a habit of filling the prep areas as much as possible. It is my belief that this makes for a more streamlined and productive DYK. It gives the community far more time to check the veracity of the prep composition as well the the appropriateness of the articles involved (as you have done very well and again, I thank you). Not to mention freeing up T:TDYK so people can focus more on non-approved articles.

Anyway, in a reciprocal spirit, the current queue 5, though giving the front-page guys enough to time jiggle with it, isn't really balanced with regards to hook-length. That's very important because if our box gets too big, the entire front page gets screwed. If we make it too small, there's some white-space but it's within our own box and that's a heck of a lot better than white-white space because the boxes and shuffled about.

TL;DR - I am really, really grateful for your help getting me back on track with DYK. A lot can happen in 9 months and having someone to politely guide me means a lot. I've been doing it for a long time though, so I know some things. Not all things though. Generally, I suck. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nine months ago, I had just done my first DYK review, and I've been assembling the so I'm still new at this in some ways. One is that I don't have a sense of who's experienced and who isn't, so I appreciate the heads up. As I've been seeing a lot of badly unbalanced sets lately—six bios more than once, and even seven bios—I've gotten a bit more activist than I should be in that regard. I'm very reluctant to do anything with lead hooks, because selecting the image is something one rarely gets to do, though I like to see a variety. PFLai's moving of the unaccompanied fungus hook so it appears two sets later than it had is something I hadn't considered doing previously, though it's an idea going forward.
Filling up the prep areas is a good thing for the reasons you mention. It's good to be on top of things, to have plenty of time to review prep area, and to not get down to the backlog point on queues. We have a very large hook backlog, in part because we've been unbalanced thanks to the huge number of Olympics and then Paralympics hooks—very much driven by Laura Hale—and if we don't start whittling it down this month, we should perhaps consider increasing to nine hooks thrice daily or seven or eight hooks four times daily. (The problem with four times daily is the number of sets that need filling and promoting.) If we had all the slots filled, we'd be under 230 total, with maybe 20 approved hooks. That almost the worst I've seen since I started.
I'd worried a little about the prep area that is now queue 5, but (optimistically) thought with most lines just barely overflowing, I'd be okay. I can't do anything about it now, not being an admin, but maybe there can be a swap with one of the shorter hooks in queue 3 (the quirky hooks, for example), since that one is almost entirely short hooks. Orlady's usually the one who catches those; it's been a while since I've had one adjusted for that reason. Sorry about that.
I think I'll see if I can get a set filled so we have at least one prep area ready to go. With nearly 60 reviewed, there should be plenty of selection. Thanks again for the note. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I am genuinely happy that there are lots of us playing around with this now. Thank you too! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/William Robinson Brown

Someone requested this for 15 Sep, US time. Can you see it's not lost in the shuffle? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike: I had just looked at it, and the prep sets, and realized that it had to wait for another two prep area promotions before it should be put in. Was also thinking about adding "today" at the end of the hook. (It'll technically be just past midnight on the 16th in Japan and parts of Australia, but I think it'll fly.) Thanks for the reminder! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Also, DYK that Alcatraz Gang got over 17K hits?PumpkinSky talk 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That's great! (I hadn't known. I rarely get around to checking out how well hooks actually do, even my own, oddly enough.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Help!

It took me 3-4 minutes of browsing the article to figure out who the heck the The brothers were. Is that appropriate for a hook? I don't want to send it back without asking, but it thoroughly confused me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it help, do you think, to link "The" (The in the hook)? I've just done that in Prep 4. (I used the same link as the one on the hatnote explaining "The" is a surname on The Teng Chun's bio page.) It's not until the third paragraph second sentence that the surname article give the Indonesian "The" romanization, but it is there.
I picked the hook because it the wording was quirky and it was short, but we don't want to leave everyone completely in the dark. It looks like there were three brothers involved: The Teng Chun as producer and director, and brothers The Teng Liong and The Teng Hwi. If the surname wikilink isn't sufficiently helpful, we could unilaterally add ", which was produced by The Teng Chun" (or "produced and directed", though it's already almost doubled in size). What do you think? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, that's perfect. Totally agree the hook is quirky, just didn't want people to be as confused as I was. Thanks for helping! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

BWV 51

I understand your point about punchiness in the hook about Carolyn Sampson. Only, it isn't a hook about her, the "important" article (in terms of length and relevance) is BWV 51. What can we do? I have no time to create still another soprano. One is already in my sandbox, for other reasons ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, by definition, the important article is the one being nominated, and the reviewer is going to approach it in that light. I can see that you want to get Jauchzet out there because while you just expanded it from 1666 to 4650 characters, it needs to be 8330 characters for 5x, requiring a further expansion even greater than what you just did. Unfortunately, without a 5x it's not the new article here, that's Carolyn's, and the true "hook" is the aria (yet another article), the first new Bach vocal work discovered for 70 years.
There's no getting around it: adding Jauchzet diminishes the effectiveness of Carolyn, the article being nominated. So I'm afraid there's a fairly good chance at this point, given the commentary in the nomination, that the selected hook will not include Jauchzet when it's promoted. (That would certainly be my reaction, if I were faced with promoting it, not knowing the above...) And I have to tell you that I love Jauchzet... and I've been a fan of Carolyn's for years. So I'm especially torn in this regard. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If I had a bit more time I would let go and create another soprano, - but after working on six new articles today I am dead tired. I expanded the cantata not to reach a number of characters to comply with some rules, but to make it the best I could at this moment. I knew from the start that 5* would make no sense. - I would like it to be seen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's one of the frustrating things about DYK: that there is this artificial number to be reached: that a well done 3000 character expansion, more than double the minimum for a new article, is nevertheless insufficient for expanding a minimal article. At this point, I don't know what to say except to wish you luck, and to leave it to others going forward. I'm also sorry I didn't understand "5*" as "5x" until just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Naroda_Patiya_massacre

Can you review the article? Vibhi seems to be inactive due to exams in real life and I've fixed all issues raised on talk and DYK nom. I also added a new section for Government's response as well as further neutralized. User:Yunshui also helped along and c/ed and neutralized the article. He also stated few issues about the article on his talk which I've addressed. So I was hoping if you could finish the review. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't. I've put up a message calling for a new reviewer and noting that since Vibhijain only ever mentioned POV issues, it needs to be a complete review from the ground up. At the moment, DYK is hurting for reviewers: we have 226 submitted nominations, of which only 15 are approved, leaving 211 either completely unreviewed or in process like this one is. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Meow (cat)

What do you mean here, that I note my own review of my article in the DYK nomination? Sorry for my lack of knowledge. Arius1998 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I should have explained! When you first submit a nomination, one of the things it asks you to do is to list a review that you've done—it gives you a place to put it on the form. This is for your quid pro quo (QPQ) review, the review you've done of someone else's DYK submission so that someone will now review yours. (Your first five nominations are "free"; after that, you must provide a QPQ review. You've already had your five freebies.)
If you don't add it then, you'll need to add it later. That's what I meant about "Meow". This means going to your nomination template and just adding some text saying something like "QPQ review: [link here]", where [link here] is a link to the review you did, so the person can take a quick look to make sure you did the review in question. You can only use a review once.
You did a bunch of reviews the other day in response to my note on your talk page that you needed to do them. Thank you very much for being so responsive. It was clear that you are new to the process: some of the reviews were okay, but some had issues. As a general rule, you need to check more things than just article length and the hook fact sourcing. There's also hook length, article expansion (if over five days old), neutral article and hook, and close paraphrasing/copyright violations. It was a bit of a red flag when I noticed that you were posting reviews about every six minutes: thorough reviews simply take more time. Among other things, you should read through the entire article to make sure it's adequately written: since DYK articles are featured on Wikipedia's main page, it's important that articles with major grammatical problems are not passed until they've been fixed up a bit.
You can use the following two as QPQ reviews:
The following reviews were problematic, and because of that I don't believe you should claim them:
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Melvin Tumin: You said this was now long enough to qualify, but still had issues. The problem is, it isn't long enough: it only has 1233 prose characters, which are what DYK counts. DYKcheck makes checking for character counts easy. There was also an important note about the hook.
  • Template:Did you know nominations/No Quiero Saber: I'm not quite sure why you gave this the template with the slash icon, since you thought it was long enough, and the hook was good but you wanted a slight change: that summary might deserve a ? icon template. However, you checked for the wrong thing. For articles over five days old, you need to make sure the article is not only over 1500 characters, but has expanded by at least five times over those past five days. I thought the hook was problematic in that there was an overgeneralization in the hook, as all 20 songs on the album were called her best works. I hope the author comes up with a better hook.
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Colin Griffin: This article had serious copyright violations, enough so that when I stripped out the identical (or nearly so) text, only 677 prose characters remained. It's important to at least do spot checks for copying or inadequate paraphrasing, and there's a neat tool for it that's described at Wikipedia:Duplication detector.
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Se'i: This had already been reviewed and rejected—by me, as it happens—so you don't get QPQ credit for simply reiterating that it has problems that have already been identified by someone else.
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Sixth Asian Science Camp: Although nowhere near the problem that Colin Griffin was, this article does have some overly close paraphrasing, and would not have been passed if such checks had been done.
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Mass Effect 2: Arrival: This had already been reviewed and approved by Cwmhiraeth five hours previously. It was therefore not eligible for QPQ credit unless a major problem had been found.
I noticed that you have just reviewed and approved Template:Did you know nominations/Roekihati. I don't have time to check it now, but you might want to see whether you covered everything I've mentioned above. If you have, then you can claim it as a QPQ in addition to the two listed above.
Here are the ones of your current nominations that I'd apply the two (three?) successful QPQs to, since it will move them along the quickest:
After that, just pick one of the others, since all have been marked as needing a QPQ in order to proceed. As you review more, you can apply the reviews either to new nominations or to your many existing nominations without QPQs. Don't let those sit too long, though; generally, a week without a response can be seen as grounds for rejecting a nomination. It's important to monitor your own nominations and nominations you've reviewed to make sure you respond to any concerns about your own articles or questions about your reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your wonderful work with the everlasting DYK backlog; trying to keep up with all the unreviewed articles, unfinished sets, and bringing them to everybody's attention at the talk page. Sometimes I feel like you're running a kindergarten, with everyone bickering while you clean up the mess. Cheers! Yazan (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Mushannaf

I've responded to your comments at the nomination page. Thanks for the review. Yazan (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had time to do a full review, but the alarm clock goes off far too soon: I've added it my latest list for the DYK talk page. Glad the Zeus/Roman thing was easy to straighten out. Thank you so much for the barnstar! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome :) And no worries on the review, someone will get to it eventually. I'm not in any hurry. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Sorry for my DYK failure, I still don't feel confident enough to evaluate other people's efforts. I'll be on't in the future though. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions: I'd be happy to help you on your first reviews. It seems a shame to have your articles be unable to be seen on the main page because of this, when reviewing isn't so very difficult. Some of the shorter articles are easier than others, and maybe there's a subject you know something about that makes related articles more familiar. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK Edward Steves House

I have pulled this completely out of the line-up. A bit frustrated with my own efforts not being what they should have been. As for the article itself, I've done a bit of rearranging and answered you on the talk page. However, documentation on that one is conflicting and sketchy. But thanks for taking time to mention something on the article's talk page. Maile66 (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And, on second thought, I just decided to let this run its course as a DYK. Maile66 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Question about your final comment on the nom template. Lead hook, while always a possibility, is never a sure thing. But the fact that you mentioned you once considered it and then changed your mind, makes me wonder what the deciding factor was. Please advise so I can make my articles more tight in the future. Thanks for your time. Maile66 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. I considered it, but by virtue of having ended up reviewing it, I'm barred from selecting it myself when assembling new prep areas. (Approving the nomination, or supplying the approved hook, are both considered conflicts of interest: it's also good to have another person getting a look at the nomination as part of the promoting process in case something was overlooked earlier.) The comment was left in case some other person assembling sets comes to it: the article is fine, and it's a good image, so I highlighted that, much like reviewers will point out their favorite among a group of approved hooks. We're overdue for a building image to head a DYK set... but I can't pick it myself. I think whoever does promote it will understand what I meant. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahhhh....thanks for the explanation. And thanks for all the time you spent helping me make it better. Maile66 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's a nice little article; happy to have been of help. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131

Regarding your recent edit, yes, the bach cantatas site does cover the use of the psalm. My mistake removing it. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh good. I thought that might have happened, but it could easily have been you realizing it wasn't a germane reference. One place where I think you run into trouble now is the source you're using the in Psalm 130 translation bit. You've just pointed at wikisource, but it uses the "Out of" beginning rather than "From", so it just doesn't work with your reference. You'll need to find another external source that starts "From the depths" for this footnote to work at all. It isn't necessary for the approved DYK hook, but it would be nice to have. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I have amended the footnote to refer to the existence of variants in the first line of the psalm. The wording is probably not quite right yet. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK problems

I am happy for your hard work at DYK.

However, your notices have left me with a conundrum. One editor supported my DYK, but then you came along saying there were issues and that it should be fixed (this isn't specifically me, you've done this with others, but the issue that follows pertains to me). I appreciate this - it allows me to improve the article. But unfortunately, I simply won't be able to ever improve the article like this or get it through DYK. I see what the problem is - in this case, close paraphrasing concerns - but I am unable to fix that. Otherwise, I wouldn't have closely paraphrased to begin with!

Can you lend me some assistance in guiding me on how to fix the problems that you've identified?

Thanks. --Activism1234 05:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234, I'm sorry for the mixed messages you were getting on the Sixth Asian Science Camp nomination. In this case, your initial review was by an editor who was very new to reviewing due to having to fulfill DYK's quid pro quo (QPQ) requirement, and unfortunately did an inadequate job. The review consisted of a size check and a hook source check. Proper reviews include those plus a whole lot more, including article sourcing and neutrality, hook neutrality and interest, and a close paraphrasing check of the source material. Unfortunately, the latter checks were not made until I looked at the article, which turned up the issues I noted. This does happen frequently in DYK: one editor may give a clean bill of health, missing something that another editor notices and points out. I've missed things in my own reviews that later get caught.
Proper paraphrasing is an important skill when writing articles for Wikipedia, and indeed in all article writing. It's like they tell you in school: put it in your own words. Identical phrases to what's in a source should no longer remain, and you need to do more than simply move words or clauses around. Some material can be omitted, and some described in other ways. Victuallers, in the section below this one, has offered his assistance; I imagine he'll be in touch if he hasn't been already, or he may edit the article directly. Good luck, and please feel free to ask again if the paraphrasing continues to be an issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Activism1234 22:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Siege Tunnels

Hi BMoonset - you left me a template concerning this nomination. Bit tricky to fix as I made an error in trying to review it. Hopefully the author will pick it up. But I will see if I can help the newbie above. Thanks for the review Victuallers (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're supposed to notify the nominator. I'll drop a note on the author's page to make sure he stops by, since he'll need to do the fixes. Thanks for offering to help Activism1234; I'll include that in my response above. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Jubho Lagoon in prep 3

Hello. The hook does not sound right, that Jubho Lagoon in Pakistan is home to around six thousand of the vulnerable Dalmatian pelicans? Modify slightly in the lines of that Jubho Lagoon in Pakistan is home to around six thousand vulnerable Dalmatian pelicans Samar Talk 19:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK Reviews

I have done a couple of reviews, and yes, I have been picking easy ones! I'll try to do one every time I post a new article.  Tigerboy1966  20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Picking easy ones is fine: it's exactly what I did when I started out. Thanks for your help! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Response

I responded to your latest comments on my talk page. Please check them out. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Matthew_Brisbane -- I reviewed this article right now. Let's hope that I did a good job on it. Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I also think that these DYK? nominations by me are good to go right now:
If either you or someone else could please look at these DYK? nominations as soon as possible, then it would be great. Thank you very much. I'm very sorry for the delay. Futurist110 (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Futurist110, you need to review one article for each article you nominate. So you can only use Matthew Brisbane for one of the above. Then you'll need to review another two: one for each of the others. Do you know which one you want Matthew Brisbane to be used for?
PS: The Brisbane review was a good first effort. There may be some complications that I'm looking in to, but your review still counts. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I just reviewed these two additional DYK? nominations as well right now, since you said that I needed to review two more. I don't care which of my DYK? reviews you use for which of my DYK? nominations. That said, since I did three DYK? nomination reviews, it is now possible for either you or someone else to review all three of these of my DYK? nominations, right? And for the record, these are my first times reviewing DYK? articles, so my reviewing of them might not be perfect. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It's all set: I've put the individual nominations reviewed into your three articles. It's now up to whoever happens to stop by and review, which could happen any time or not for days. I knew these were your first reviews: you had one easy one (Pac-Man, which didn't qualify at all), and two more difficult ones. Matthew Brisbane wasn't quite straight-forward because of the large blockquotes, which as you can see from the responses (I asked Nikkimaria to look at it, because I thought there might be some copyright issues involved, or at least general ones about how much text to quote). You checked a lot of important things: one thing to look out for is bare references, which are not allowed. With Nasuhi al-Bukhari, the automated checker doesn't work with Google books, so a paraphrase check needs to be done actually reading the book and comparing it to the text. In this case, there were a number of sentences that seemed too close to me, but even more important is that the article was almost entirely reliant on a single source. The quality of that source wasn't ideal: I didn't like the way it would give ranges starting with a month and ending with just a year, when the month and year should have been available to any researcher/writer who is being published.
When I was starting out as a reviewer, it took me a while to learn what to look for, and how to assess sources. It'll get easier as you go along. For the moment, I'm happy to look over your reviews if you'd like me to continue checking them for a while. These three have now been "used up" on your three articles, so your next DYK article will need you to do another review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments needed

Your comments are solicited for this: Here. It's out of my depth, but I think this needs to be handled. If you have nothing to offer, please suggest someone who would. I don't want my talk page transformed into the never-ending stuff over at DYK talk.Maile66 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of out of my depth as well, but I've taken a crack on putting down my thoughts on how it might be structured, though they're probably too complicated. (I've never been involved in putting together a RfC before, and participated in very few of them.) Still, I thought it was important to tease apart the process points. This whole thing has been very unfun to witness, and it probably won't get better for a while. Yngvadottir's an admin, so at least we have someone who's been around DYK for a while involved; I'm still comparatively new, all things considered. Unfortunately, since she's put it on your page, there's definitely a possibility that it'll be an involved conversation, at least until the RfC wording is decided on and posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a most unfortunate situation. Maile66 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nasuhi al-Bukhari

Hello BlueMoonset. Thanks for your thorough review of Nasuhi al-Bukhari. I've responded to your comments at the article's nomination page. Yazan (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Glee episode articles

Hi, BlueMoonset. I know that you have created numerous articles for Glee episodes. That said, I've been watching the series on Netflix, while reading the episode articles as I go along, and I have a few questions. 1) Why are the characters' last names not given in the episode articles? 2) Why do some articles, such as "Mash-Up", follow the 'Plot', 'Production', 'Reception' layout, whereas others, such as "Asian F", follow the 'Plot', 'Production', 'Ratings', 'Critical response', 'Music and performances', 'Chart history' layout? I thought it was standard for episode articles for a series to follow the same format. Personally, I find the latter layout more structured, organized, and comprehensive. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TRLIJC19, I didn't start working on Glee articles until late in the second season, and I gather that the organization of the articles gradually changed over time to the present format. The first season, especially, editors working on articles were learning as they went along. Given Glee's rather unique musical background, it made sense to me that the reviews on the musical performances were a different animal from the reviews of an episode as a whole, or about non-musical aspects of it. Basically, Reception has subdivided over time into Ratings, Critical response, Music and performances, and Chart history, though that last section is sometimes folded into the Production section's musical info if there isn't much chart activity. This occurred a few times in the third season, since songs aren't charting as frequently now as in the first and second seasons. Since I was responsible for almost all of the third season articles, and I like to follow patterns, that season was pretty set in its ways.
As for the last names of characters, first names are used for fictional characters vs. last names of real people as a way of distinguishing them. (I don't recall whether this is part of the TV article guidelines; I do know that plots should always be in present tense, and reception sections should be in past tense.) I'm not entirely sure what the logic is, but the full name of character or person should never be used more than once, and when that first sentence seems to work better with just a character first name, I go with that (but do try to be consistent). My thought is that you should use a full name for an adult the first time because their last names are frequently used during the show, but for a student, it's less important since they're almost always just called by their first name, and readers are just one click away from the character's article. (Not sure this is entirely logical, but it's how I was "brought up" here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I see—I didn't know you weren't responsible for the early seasons' articles. That makes sense how they evolved, and as I said, I believe the newer version is a better layout. I also wasn't aware of the fictional character naming conventions – I don't believe that's mentioned in the MOS. Anyways, I'd like to develop a Glee episode article to good status eventually. I'm only on season one, and all the aired episodes are already GA, right? I guess once I catch up, then I'll develop a season four article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
At this point, season one and two episodes are entirely GA, and 18 of 22 in season three are GA as well (I did 17 of those 18). So only five aired episodes are not GA at this point, with the number going to six on Thursday. (The Glee task force has 80 GAs at this point, 62 of which are episode articles.) Let me know when you're ready to give an episode article a try. We do have a "projects" page at WP:GLEE, but it isn't as up to date as it used to be. Still, it's a good way to let folks know you're working on (or are intending to work on) an article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll let you know when I get caught up with watching the episodes, and am ready to take one to GA. I'm hoping that I'll be able to watch the rest of the episodes by the end of the month. The only problem I have with my new obsession with Glee, is that it airs in the same time-slot as Grey's Anatomy. Why did Fox need to do that? Lol, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Glee disappears for a month after ep 4 thanks to the playoffs and World Series and the like, so we see new episodes for the next three Thursdays and then nothing until November 8. Probably a good thing, as they're still filming ep 5... So there'll be many weeks where you won't have to put one of the shows on time delay... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That's good. So is it true that the show's no longer as good as it was in season one? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Even the first season laid some eggs. I didn't find it until season two was under way, so I have an odd view of the series, having discovered that the status quo I started with was very different from where the show came from. There have definitely been some rough patches, but I still like it. Still, I think the number of people that have left the Glee task force (and Wikipedia) is something of an indication. Part of it is that they have become more ambitious as to the type of stories they tell: on the other hand, they've let themselves be taken in directions by concentrating on characters who didn't start out as major characters, which has its own benefits and issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I watched the pilot when it originally aired after American Idol in 2009. I enjoyed it, but never pursued the series. Then, I watched the post-superbowl episode in 2010 (right?), and that was good too. I guess I just never got hooked until watching the first few episodes on Netflix, recently. When I get attached to a show, I usually follow through until the end, regardless of the quality. I don't know why; I guess I just wouldn't be able to stand not knowing what the characters are up to. Take Grey's Anatomy; it's taken a big dip from the show it used to be (it once averaged about 20 million viewers, now it averages about 10), but I haven't missed an episode since it premiered. I was only a junior in high school when the first episode aired, so the idea of dropping a show that I watched through both high school, college, and now med school, seems crazy. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the post-Superbowl episode was early 2011, the eleventh episode of the second season. For me, it's mostly about the characters, too, so I want to know what happens. Sometimes, though, a show (or a series of books) deteriorates enough so I just don't care enough any more: my patience for stupidity is limited. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Glee (season 1) not classified as a good topic? All of the episodes are rated good, and the season is featured. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See [[1]]. TBrandley 01:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Basically, we lost our album article person, who might have finished volumes 2 and 3, and of course bringing the list of songs for the season up to featured list status would be a lot of work (all the references would have to be checked and fixed, and the unnecessary ones pared away). So we've got a bunch of intense music editing left to go, and no one eager/capable to do it. The second season is in even worse shape. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe instead of doing an episode article for Glee, it would be helpful if I brought the list of songs up to featured quality? I have 2 FLs under my belt, so I can probably pull it off. Let me know if this would be helpful to the project. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to, it would be very helpful. You're the first person to express an interest in working on making one of the song lists featured quality. Thank you! The first season seems to be in better shape than later seasons, despite having a fair number of dead links for the "who sang what in the episode" information: although most of those dead links are Fox ones, they've reorganized their site: for example, the "Showmance" info can be found here. Fortunately, the general iTunes and Amazon refs are fine to cover the "single or not" info without needing individual refs from one of them on each song (as seems to have become the case in later seasons: those will need to be cleaned up before said seasons can head toward FL status). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll put it on my October to-do list. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I noticed that the majority of Glee episodes were given rubber stamp GA reviews by Rcej. Not saying there is in fact anything wrong with the articles, but with there being so many, I would have expected a few issues to have arisen from the review. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Rcej's of the fix-it-as-you-go school: if he sees minor grammatical, link, or other problems, he just fixes them rather than write them up. It's a different approach, but I think it works, and it has the advantage of taking less time. Also, back in the day, we had more people working on the task force, so before an article was submitted a couple of people would have given it a close going over in all the usual areas: I did copyedits of a number of articles when I was starting up, and what I cleaned up would normally have been found in a GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueMoonset/Archive_5&oldid=1254616064"