User talk:ST11/Archive 6

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

NGC 6872 and IC 4970

Hey StringTheory. I recently rewrote NGC 6872 and created IC 4970; I'm still not entirely comfortable with writing some of the technical aspects, but really felt they were interesting subjects that deserved proper articles. Would you mind giving them a once-over and determine if I managed to screw anything up (especially the numbers)? It would be appreciated. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: I've done a few edits to add some context that I felt was missing with the split, but other than that, all the content seems fine to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, looks good! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology - task

I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately my free time is going to be very limited for a while, and I'm already spread a little thin on WP at the moment, so I'm afraid I won't be able to help much. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's fine. By the way, I'm not sure if you have been notificated, but I pinged you on the wikiproject cosmology talk page saying that I've added the banner on several article talk pages now. Tetra quark (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you thought 9Spitch was odd...

Take a look at DR 21, if you don't mind, and give me your impression. I know it's going to have to be rewritten from scratch, as it's obviously just taken directly from Google Translate. To me, it is of questionable notability. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely notable, see the SIMBAD entry. Unfortunately, at the moment I'm incredibly busy in real life and am not sure I will have the time to edit at all for the next few days, so I won't be able to fix it at the moment. Sorry! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, wasn't asking you to fix it yourself, just your opinion of the article and its notability. I don't know when I'll be able to tackle it, but it's on my to-do list. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

elements and constellations
Thank you for quality articles in astronomy and chemistry, from elements such as Periodic table to constellations such as faint Caelum and Perseus, often done in collaboration, for gnomish work in the field as an article guardian with caution, and for listing "to do" before achievements on your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 764th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Today Caelum, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, now grab that mop and find a mess! Chillum 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting KOI-3138.01

I feel that your reason that KOI-3138.01 Should be deleted is not an acceptable reason. KOI-3010.01 isn't confirmed yet, should we delete that because it is unconfirmed? Or how about KOI-1686.01 which is PROVEN to be a false positive. I don't want to be rude, but this is an information encyclopedia right? Doesn't that mean were supposed to collect as much information which means we should provide information about earth like planets that is listed by phl (the people that do the ESI calculations) no?. And being a Mars sized planet is actually a type called 'sub-terrian' and it is significant because the ESI of the object is over 0.50 in fact it is more Earth-like than Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbuddy9 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've just sent that disproven planet the same way. I would support the information in this article in a table somewhere else (list of potentially habitable exoplanets, but a separate article does no good for anybody, since it has not attracted significant coverage. If it is more Earth-like than Mars-like, why does it say it is Martian-sized in the article? StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting asteroid articles

If you're going to redirect an asteroid article to a list, then, per WP:NASTRO which you cited, should should direct it to its entry in that list, and not make the reader hunt for it. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nitpicking over every minor detail isn't going to do anyone any good. Either way, the list is long enough that a ctrl-F is easier than scrolling, no matter if I direct it to the section or not. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lambda Scorpii

Why you undid my addition in lambda scorpii? In Mesopotamian star catalogues, the "d" before a star name means "dingir", that is "god". My addition was correct!BCtl (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The literal translation of the name is unimportant. Putting "god" in superscript before the name is just going to confuse readers for too little benefit. I appreciate that your contribution was in good faith, however, and I encourage you to keep editing Wikipedia. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Caelum

for TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Caelum? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have any objections. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked it a little at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2015; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? Could you check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page? - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Caelum was just bumped to the 23rd. (US Grant just got promoted to FA, and we wanted it for the anniversary of Appomattox.) Any problem with that date? - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for V1191 Cygni

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

MCAT

Just wanted to let you know that one of your images on commons was put in the 2015 MCAT general chemistry review.hi (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

b Persei

b Persei "is" the name of this variable star. It has been called that since at least 1923 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1923ApJ....57....1S). It is the designation used by the AAVSO (http://www.aavso.org/vsx/index.php?view=detail.top&oid=26212) - do you presume to know more about variable stars than the AAVSO? You do understand that "b" is not the same as "β" don't you? Your statement that we can't have more than one article on the same subject is nonsensical - b Persei and β Persei are two different objects (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/astronomers-observe-rare-stellar-eclipse-0602201503/?et_mid=757679&rid=246407276).VirtualDave (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware b is not Beta. Just because AAVSO uses "b Persei" does not mean it is a variable star designation; read the article and it will be clear what a variable star designation is. Note that AAVSO also uses the HD designation, where the article currently is, under the other names section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of existing knowledge drawn from other sources. Wikipedia does not decide what something is called. Wikipedia reflects our current knowledge and terminology. If astronomers (or the AAVSO) refer to a variable star as "b Persei" then that is what Wikipedia should use - it's NOT the other way around, okay? If you type HD 26961 into the International Variable Star Index you bring up a page which says the name is b Per (short for Persei), NOT HD 26961 (most stars have more than one catalogue designation). If you type HD 26961 into the General Catalog of Variable Stars (http://www.sai.msu.su/gcvs/cgi-bin/search.htm) - which is the variable star catalog used by astronomers, you get nothing. Why? Because HD 26961 is not a variable star designation, but b Per is. By the way, if you type HD 26961 into SIMBAD, it brings up a page which has b Per as the name of the object because it is the most widely used name of the object! As with the AAVSO database, you have to look at one of the 34 identifiers to find the HD number... Even if we accept that a Wikipedia article determines how stars are named, where in that article does it say that HD numbers are used for variable stars? The Henry Draper Catalogue is a catalogue of stars (not just variable stars) giving spectroscopic classifications, which is why it isn't used for variable stars (they have their own names)!VirtualDave (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly mistaken, as b Persei is a Bayer designation, not a variable star designation; the two are quite distinct. Every variable star designation has the same format, of either a single capital letter from R to Z, two capital letters with the second being later than the first, or V###, and is a specific catalogue. The primary names on SIMBAD and AAVSO mean absolutely nothing, as they are more often than not not the most common name for the object. However, doing a Google Scholar search of scholarly references in journal articles, the designation "b Persei" does appear to be used more, so the title b Persei is now the location of the better version of the article. But HD numbers are indeed used for many variable stars, such as HD 93205. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I must say I prefer the variable or bayer designations as they are more accessible than "HD" + 5 or 6 digits....but we generally go on widest designation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Facts

I saw that you switched your !vote, and I'm now curious how you came to believe that the WMF is not planning to enable Citoid for the wikitext editor. (They are.) Is there some sort of rumor going around that it's for VisualEditor only? That's never been true. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong there, thank you. However, the main substance to my oppose was and is from the other argument, which still stands. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the ideal label can be figured out later, but I'm concerned that your comment might accidentally start a rumor about the WMF refusing to add Citoid to the wikitext editor. Would you like to correct it, or would you rather that I did? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be sensibly off for the weekend by now, so I've taken care of it for you.  :-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Mu Arae

I submitted a correction which you then removed. The age of stars of this type is measured in Billions of years....not millions. The sun is ~ 4.3 billion years old. Mu Arae is considerably older....at ~ 6 billion years. I suggest the age be stated in billions rather than millions so as to avoid this confusion in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.53.109 (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit stated that Mu Arae was 6000 billion years old, while the original text stated it was 6000 million years old, so the original was correct. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Yum, cookies! Chocolate chip at that! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lyra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeta Lyrae. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

admin stuff....

Not sure how you're going with this but keeping an eye on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is quite useful. Deleting is one thing that is quite easy to do on a smartphone (unlike editing...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that now, in the aftermath of the recent RfA, is one of the few chances we have to actually get something done with respect to RfA reform. With the Serpens FAC not receiving any more commentary lately and SIMBAD being weird, I haven't been able to really work on constellations right now either (although it may be a stretch, I still hope to get Lyra to GA this month, but SIMBAD needs to start listing the refs with the object in the title at the top when I hit sort by location in ref). I fully intend to stick to the promise I made during my RfA and not work in deletions at the moment, but unfortunately the mentoring page has received no interest even after pings. (I'm also working offline on a giant week-long edit to list of stars in Cassiopeia at the moment, which is why my activity has seemed down lately). StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I often use google with star names to find other refs, or cntrl-F on SIMBAD. Agree it can be like a needle in a haystack. I know how to find what I want on variable stars easy enough now but the binaries I find a nightmare. You could have a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves also, or WP:RFPP. Also some speedies are pretty noncontroversial...but I just cleaned a bunch of them out a while ago....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Lyra page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Uus FAC

It's on! I hope you're still able to drop a comment.--R8R (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry man, looks like you caught me a day too late...I'm super busy right now and likely won't have time to review it for quite some time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that... Is there a chance you'll have found a minute by around October 1?--R8R (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I might have a little time this weekend (but I might not as well); we'll see. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for today's Serpens, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

List of historic comet close approaches

Gosh, why did you delete my page?? What do you mean by copyright infringement? That's nonsense. Every single astronomy related list has content from nasa (like, List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_spacecraft. Where do you think the data comes from? Huritisho (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

I think you mean I should write my own lead and organize the list in a different way? In that case, that makes sense. I intended to do that, actually. The thing is that the articles and lists were made to be edited. It is not going to be 100% finished at the time it is created. cheersHuritisho (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was a direct copy-paste of a table and the preceding text on another website. We cannot host such content on Wikipedia, even if you intend to change it later; it must be changed prior to publication. As a tip, whenever I am making large tables (which I have done several times), I tend to work offline, both so that I don't accidentally close the window and lose all of my work and so that I avoid making large numbers of small edits. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm I understand. And thanks for the tip. Yes, I've been working offline whenever possible. In Juno (spacecraft), I have made a huge list of small edits because it was necessary. The edit summary wouldn't be able to contain all my changes if I did it all once. Huritisho (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium (again)

I didn't disturb you because I thought you weren't active any longer, but since you're here, could you please go review the thing?--R8R (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to leave in like 2 minutes. I just had a little time to edit before breakfast today, as I woke up early for whatever reason, but I'm not active; sorry! Maybe later this month. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh; okay then. If you happen to have a chance, it'd be great; if not, the real life is more important anyway, so I'll be fine with it.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

31 Monocerotis

Hello. Couldn't you look at your article? Now it states that 31 Monocerotis is a star in the constellation Hydra:) The coordinates are given for F Hya. The last one is a rather interesting star, the polar star of Pluto. With best regards, Stas (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

List of most massive stars listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of most massive stars. Since you had some involvement with the List of most massive stars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)