User talk:Sven Manguard/2014 Q1

January

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Sven Manguard, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Two new GA candidates

Dear Sven,
What have you been up to? I just wanted to let you know I submitted the articles Shamanism in the Qing dynasty and Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers for good article status. They're both much shorter than Shunzhi Emperor, which your able review eventually propelled to FA status, so I was wondering if you had time to take a look at either of them at some point if nobody else does. :) I will be glad to reciprocate when you have a GA candidate of your own. Don't feel any pressure about this, and don't hesitate to let me know if you don't have time. In the mean time, keep up the good work!
Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I will take a look at them. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. Your very first source is to Evelyn Rawski. I actually had been thinking about creating an article on her, as she's the only scholar of China in American Women Historians, 1700s-1990s: A Biographical Dictionary that doesn't have an article. I created one for Patricia Buckley Ebrey a while back, in part using that book, and Dorothy Borg, Merle Goldman, and Mary Clabaugh Wright, the other three from that book, already have articles (the Wright article is in very good shape; the others less so). You wouldn't happen to have any sources on Rawski that I might be able to use? I can't find any other than that book myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're the one who wrote these articles. Good job! I'll try to see what I can find on Rawski. Madalibi (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no, I only wrote the article on Ebrey. Borg, Goldman, and Wright were someone else. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Madalibi - Talk:Shamanism in the Qing dynasty/GA1 is ready for you to look at. I don't have the mental energy right now to do two of these back to back, so I will work on the other one tomorrow or Monday. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I thought I might coax you into reviewing one of the two, but you generously took both on! Take as much time as you need for the second one. I will start improving the one on shamanism this afternoon (China time). All the best, Madalibi (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You bring only highly polished work to GAN, are easy to discuss changes with during reviews, and your articles are in an area that I have a general working knowledge in. It's been a pleasure working with you in the past, so you should feel free to come to me for GAN reviews any time. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I will remember that in the future! Thank you again for your generosity, with both your time and your kind words. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright Madalibi, I've done a first pass on both of them now. Message me when you're ready for me to take another look. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long, but I've finally reviewed and improved Shamanism in the Qing dynasty in accordance with your requests. It's ready for a second look. I'm now turning to the Deliberative Council, which should take much less time to edit. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I will look at it in roughly 12 hours. I realize that we're on opposite sides of the globe (half of the year, when daylight savings time cooperates, I am exactly 12 hours off from China), which does slow the process down, but the end product will be much better if I look at it when I'm actually, well, awake. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody will accuse you of being slow after you took on two GA reviews on a one-hour notice, Sven! Looking forward to your comments, Madalibi (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I need your help about an image. As I was reviewing the images for Deliberative Council, I realized that the portrait of Yongzheng reading was missing an infobox. I built one with a date, an author, and a detailed description in English and Chinese, but technically the source is still missing. The original uploader has been blocked since 2008 because, guess what, he consistently failed to indicate the source of his uploads. I know lack of sourcing is a problem, but I'm not sure how to solve it. As the wizard of WikiCommons, could you give me some advice on that, please? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Madalibi - It would appear that you can get the full image from the National Palace Museum's website by clicking on the image at http://www.dpm.org.cn/shtml/660/@/102787.html, however the instructions to do so are in Chinese, and I'm not nearly fluent enough to read them. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:28, 12 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Thank you! I followed the instructions for installation on both Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, but installation failed in both cases. In any case I think all I would get is a browsing tool that allows me to view the painting in high definition, but without being able to download it. This is because the Palace Museum charges money even for academic use of the paintings it curates. The small-size image on the page you linked to is the only thing I could download. I've added that url as a source for the image of Yongzheng reading on Commons, not knowing if this is sufficient. If this is not legit, I will simply change the picture in the article to another one of Yongzheng. Thanks again for your help! Madalibi (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And... Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers‎ is finally ready for a second reading, and for your comments on Talk:Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers/GA1! Madalibi (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it as soon as I can find the time, but I've had less of it (time) than I thought I would as of late. Definitely by the end of the week I'll have both done. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for passing "Deliberative Council", and take as much time as you want for the second one. Things are getting busy here too, so I'm taking a few days off WP. Will see you around! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Madalibi When you get back, there was one final change I suggested at the GAN page for that article. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I made it already! I added a piped link to memorial to the throne under "memorialize." Madalibi (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Madalibi: I did a second pass at Talk:Shamanism in the Qing dynasty/GA1, and there are a few minor issues to address before this can be promoted. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

All done! Thanks again for all your helpful comments! Madalibi (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Madalibi: I'm going to go ahead and promote it. As with last time, I recommend that you take both of the articles to FAC (although you have to do them one at a time, per FAC rules). I left a comment at the GAN page, but to save time, what I said is that File:Shirokogoroff s m 1929.jpg is freely licensed, so it certainly can be used. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! I'll add the image in the next few days, and will consider presenting the articles for FAC, but only after Chinese New Year. It's now time for a wikibreak! Thanks again for all the help and encouragements! Madalibi (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of an RfC

The previous discussion regarding an extension of TFLs on the front page in which you commented, has moved on to an RfC on the Main Page. Your comments and suggestions are once again welcome on this issue. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix mugshot image

As you commented in a previous deletion nomination of this image, you may be interested to comment on its renomination. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Portal

Hi Sven, I recently created a portal, Portal:Channel Islands, and was wondering if you would mind having a look at it please? Thanks, Matty.007 17:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Matty.007. So here are my thoughts:

• The amount of content is clearly enough to justify having a portal, however it would be nice if you could get, at the very least, three more selected articles, two more selected bios, and six more selected images (to bring everything to 10). Alternatively, if you'd rather keep all of the selected articles on islands, you could change "Selected article" to "Selected island".
• It might be nice to change the portal color scheme to something that fits your topic. Red and white or red and gold seem to be the most obvious choices, considering that red, white, and gold are the colors that all of the islands' flags share (and are the colors that appear in Guernsey and Jersey's flags).
• In the Wikimedia section in the bottom, consider removing the links to Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and possibly Wikisource, as those aren't going to match up cleanly. You should also add in Wikidata.

Otherwise, I've got no suggestions. If you want to take this to featured portal status, you're going to need a lot more content in there than there is now (20 items in each of the three sections mentioned above, preferably all GA class or above articles, and local or Commons FP class images, as well as additional DYKs, and likely an anniversary section), but as a regular portal, this is perfectly fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will fix those later. Given that I don't think that there are any FP or GAs on Channel Islands articles (apart from one), would it still be possible for it to be a featured portal? Thanks for all the help, Matty.007 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know how to change the colour scheme or remove certain Wikimedia sites. Matty.007 19:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Matty.007 - Found it. It's Portal:____/box-header (i.e Portal:Literature/box-header, etc.). There should be instructions in the page itself in hidden comments. If not, see the hidden comments in the Literature one. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for all the help. 11:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Awards for Velodona

		The Stub Barnstar
		I thereby award you with The Stub Barnstar for expanding Velodona to a C-class article. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

		The Bio-star
		I thereby award you with the Bio-star for expanding Velodona to a C-class article. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wooo! Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

GANs (note to self)

1. Talk:Malta-class aircraft carrier/GA1
2. Talk:1942 Belize hurricane/GA1
3. Talk:Typhoon_Saomai_(2000)/GA1

The ambiguity of "tomorrow" gives me, essentially, the entire weekend to do these, as it's technically 3:00 AM on Saturday where I am. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1942 Belize hurricane/GA1

Hello Sven Manguard, I have addressed your issues with listing the 1942 Belize hurricane as a Good Article. Thanks for reviewing the article.--12george1 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well. You leave me no choice but to promote this. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki wiki edit

Hi, Sven. This is just a note to let you know that in this edit, you appear to have accidentally linked to one of my screenshots of a Wikipedia article with the typography refresh beta disabled (instead of enabled). —David Levy 01:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Velodona

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review for Typhoon Saomai (2000)

Hello Sven,
I don't mean to rush you to reviewing, but I'd like to give a heads-up that you've left a GA review simmering for a few days at Typhoon Saomai (2000). You might've been busy for the past few days, and that's okay, but you did leave a note saying that you'd review the article on January 19. Just a heads-up. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 00:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your reminder talk-page section, but still, it's technically not the weekend anymore :P. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 00:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

TheAustinMan: It's ready for you to take a look at. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Writing a new article, looking for collaborators

Hey man. It's been a long time. So... for years I've been planning to write an article on the History of pharmacy in the United States, which doesn't yet exist, and this week I have begun building it in earnest in my userspace: History of pharmacy in the United States. It's an important topic, and the academic sources on pharmacy's development, and what it reveals about American history and the history of medicine, are extensive and rich. But I have barely incorporated two sources and I already might be getting too long-winded. I need a wingman. I'm poking around for possible collaborators, if you have time... —NickDupree (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Too many long-time friends and co-editors have disappeared from the project as of late. As to your question: I am, after my year-long experience with Liao Dynasty, not especially interested in writing large articles. It's just not my thing; it's too draining on me. I will be more than happy to help edit your article, which is what you seem to be looking for, but it's not something I can take the lead on, I don't think. My advice (as someone that has written a good number of excellent research reports, only to realize that they were way too long) is to put everything down that you want down, and only start to worry about trimming it down once you've done that. It's much easier to trim a finished draft than to get a few paragraphs in, trim some, and then write a few more paragraphs. You also may find, some time in the writing process, that there's a good break point, and instead of trimming it, it would be a better idea to split it. I have little knowledge of the history of pharmacy, but you may find that instead of History of pharmacy in the United States, it might work better as History of pharmacy in the United States before World War I and History of pharmacy in the United States after World War I, or some other such distinction. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Let me know if I can help with anything; I have access to JSTOR and a few other databases, but not all of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather stick around and collaborate than vanish. I do love the project, and I've been gathering sources for History of pharmacy in the United States for years! I even have some rarer texts on the topic from the New York Public Library photocopied... Don't worry, I'll take the lead on this one. I just appreciate having another pair of eyes on it as it develops, someone to make suggestions. I worry about how crazy long this could get; the sources on pharmacists and pharmaceuticals in the American Civil War alone are enough for a lengthy article (and maybe one day it can be done). But I find the idea of two sweeping history articles too unwieldy and intimidating, at least for now. On the bright side, this is a rare opportunity to create an article from scratch on an important topic for which the ecosystem of sources are rich, diverse, and growing. I don't know of another unwritten topic of this size.

I have deep, abiding worries about the current state of the project: the pool of volunteer editors has dwindled so badly that obvious vandalism as prominent as this [1] seems to go unnoticed. But Wikipedia still gives us an amazing opportunity. This pharmacy one, and the other articles I've written, Palace of Tranquil Longevity probably the most important so far, are a form of immortality. I'd still like to write an article on the Juanqinzhai... after seeing it in person at the Met I was awestruck by its cultural and historical importance, and so few know about it. —NickDupree (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Velodona

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Velodona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sven Manguard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your GA nomination of Velodona

The article Velodona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Velodona for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

Thank you for brightening up my portal-space recent changes patrol with your recent edit summaries! -- John of Reading (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

John of Reading: You're welcome. Always glad to help. On a related note, how do you do portal recent changes patrolling? I'd love to help. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I open this link whenever I log on, and then click "Show new changes starting from..." every ten minutes or so as a break from using AWB. Then popups to review the diffs, and Twinkle to revert and warn. It would be nice if ClueBot/Stiki/Huggle handled portal pages, but for now it's all manual. Of course, many of the names are familiar and need no checking. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if one of them occasionally gets bored and starts quoting Picasso... Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed on two license tags

Hi Sven, I've started a GA review of Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation and I have a few doubts about my own ability to assess license tags for the two images that are used [yes, slow learner, here :)]. File:Médailles Commémorative du Comité National de Secours et d’Alimentation.jpg is presented as an "own work". Is the license appropriate? And File:Driemansschap committee for the relief of Belgium.JPG, the reproduction of a 1919 postcard, has a simple "PD-Old" tag. Is there a more appropriate tag for it? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, could you take a quick look at File:Fajsz Fajsz.jpg? There is no description box and the summary is in Hungarian: is this acceptable by GA standards? Madalibi (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Madalibi. Happy to help. In order:

• File:Médailles Commémorative du Comité National de Secours et d’Alimentation.jpg - There is a blurring of the documentation for the work of the creator of the medal and the work of the photographer. I have little doubt, considering the edit history of the uploader, that the uploader did take the photo of this medal. Therefore he has, assuming that the medal is in the public domain, every right to release the photograph under a free license (copyright law considers photographs of three-dimensional objects, even those as thin as medals or coins, to be a creative composition deserving of copyright separate from that of the object being photographed). The issue is that we don't have authorship information on the medal itself. We are told in the description that the medal was awarded in 1919. However we don't know what government did the minting, and therefore are missing some information about the copyright of the medal. In terms of this article, this is largely irrelevant, as the medal is {{PD-1923}} in the United States, which is the only nation whose copyright matters for English Wikipedia. If it is not in the public domain in the origin country, however, it will have to be moved from Commons to EnWiki. It's probably {{PD-old-70}} in the source country, because that's most of Europe's copyright term and I don't think that the engraver retains copyright of the design (if he did, the date of the engraver's death would be when the count for PD-old-70 starts, and if not, the date of first minting is when the count starts), but without that additional information, we can't be 100% sure.
• File:Driemansschap committee for the relief of Belgium.JPG - In all likelihood, this was created long enough ago that it would be PD-1923 in the US and PD-old-70 in the source country. That being said, both the author and the date fields are given as "nvt". I believe that "nvt" stands for "niet van toepassing", which translates into "not applicable". The date and author are never not applicable, because without that information, it's impossible for us to determine the term of copyright. I would not use this file until this information is tracked down.
• File:Fajsz Fajsz.jpg - This is missing authorship information for the creator of the statue. While I'd love to have it, we don't actually need it to know that we're fine hosting the file, as Hungary has freedom of panorama for sculptures, and we can tell from File:Fajsz_emlékmű_Fajsz.jpg that this is permanently located in a publicly accessible outdoor location. As to your stated question, the only place where having a description on the file descripton page in English is a requirement is for enWiki Featured Pictures. It doesn't, as far as I know, matter for enWiki GAs or FAs. That being said, I quickly added one anyways.

TLDR: The first image is good for inclusion in the article now, but may run into issues at FAC. The second image should be removed, as it's missing soo much information to determine copyright status. The third image is good for inclusion in the article now, but may run into issues at FAC. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sven: Sorry I didn't get back to you right away. Thank you for your help, all this information is extremely useful! I will notify the nominators of both articles as soon as possible. Madalibi (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

One more question if you have time: File:Aba samuel.jpg claims hu.wikipedia (i.e., hu.wikipedia.org) as its source. Is this acceptable without any kind of link? Should the source rather be the illuminated manuscript the picture was taken from? Madalibi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Madalibi: You are correct, the source should be the manuscript. Generally, when something is on Commons and the source is one of the Wikipedia projects, it is a sign that someone transferred it to Commons using CommonsHelper. At least in its older iterations, CommonsHelper didn't transfer over the original source in the correct place, instead putting the project of origional upload in the source field. Lots of people didn't catch it when they did transfers, so it's a rather huge issue right now. If you can replace that with the correct information, please do so. If not, let me know and I will see if I can track down a global sysop to tell me what was in the (presumably now deleted) hu.wiki version of the file. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to thank you for your detailed and helpful explanations... So thank you again! You're improving my skills as an editor, and I'm very grateful for that! Big cheers! Madalibi (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Civilization IV example gameplay units.jpg

Hi, I know I already asked this question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but apparently it was archived without any response so I'm left feeling empty, but I figure since you're one of the more prominent and able members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media I figure you might be able to help with this file. Besides the obvious watermark problem, I haven't managed to reduce the resolution in any way, despite the generic message on the file description saying so as it was auto-generated from the template itself, not sure how I could change that. So I'm not too familiar with image editing software, but would simply reducing the size of the image through dragging the mouse through something like Paint work? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend using paint. There's a free program called Paint.NET which I use, and I've also heard good things about GIMP, although I've never used it. Alternatively, if you tag an image for size reduction with the template {{Non-free reduce}}, a bot will reduce it to the largest acceptable size for non-free images within 24 hours (unless the bot is broken, in which case, let me know and I'll do it for you). As for removing the watermark, that's quite difficult, if not impossible, to do without removing important elements of the image. I would recommend that you post a message to the talk page at WikiProject Video Games asking if anyone has the game and can take a screenshot that contains similar elements for you. Alternatively, there might be a watermark free version online somewhere. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have this game. Could I be of any help? Matty.007 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Matty.007 If you can take a screenshot that captures those same elements (a few units, a city, some different terrain tiles, and the standard interface (the stuff in the blue areas in the top and bottom), it would be great if you uploaded that. You can do so right over the existing image (just change the source field in the File page when you do). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded one here, it may need some fixing non-fair use layout. Thanks, Matty.007 17:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it OK? Thanks, Matty.007 17:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep! Thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the mistak

Hello, Thanks for notifying me about my mistake of removing the bad source but not the content related with it at P. J. Patterson. As I was checking the sources "that are they correct or not", I didn't notice it. Thanks again & REGARDS,

Farhan Khurram (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Input request

There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point I am no longer interested in following the matter. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

You said at Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism "Someone will have to leave me a reminder that it's happening". Well, it's happening right about now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

February

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Woo! Newsletter mention! Sven Manguard Wha? 21:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Soldier Tales

Sure. Any reason? =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden: I'll use one in the selected illustrations section of Portal:Literature, which I'm rebuilding. Sorry, I thought I told you about that project in the Blackbeard post, but it appears I did not. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That reminds me. I should do that blackbeard image. If you're not aware, by the way, the last two images from 2013 were also Soldier Tales images.

I'm really tempted to make an article on Soldier Tales itself - it's one of the only major Kipling releases not to have one - but it's a bastard to websearch for, given how often the uncapitalised phrase appears. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no rush on it from my end; I'd certainly be appreciative, but I don't mean to impose. I have 35 images for that section already selected, and will likely use 25-30 of them before all is said and done. It's nice to have more, and a diversity of genres and styles, of course, but unlike a lot of the other portals I'm looking at working on, this one isn't lacking in potential content. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the last two images from 2013 were also from Soldier Tales, if it helps, but that might be more male nudity than you prefer. My queue includes some Dickens and some Sir Walter Scott, more Gilbert of course, and - as the Wikicup Capstone - I'm thinking all 70 of the Dante's Inferno illustrations by Doré. We'll see how that goes, I'll need to start soon. Let's see. The new Princess Ida FPCs might work, though I'd hold out for The Yeomen of the Guard, if I were you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Holy hell, that's ambitious. Just be sure that the people at FP would be willing to accept such a large set before you start. I would hate for you to do all that and then have people reject it as unwieldy, or, as it's unlikely you'll be able to have all 70 in the article, as not having enough EV as a set. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Doré's Dante images are particularly widely used. Almost every one of them is used on multiple pages already. They're also widely discussed enought hat it'll be relatively easy to make an article oon the Doré engravings alone. Or there's the possibility of doing what Italian Wikipedia does - every canto of the Inferno has its own article there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor‎.
Message added 13:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fajsz

Köszönöm a segítséget. Thank for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anytime. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Winter

I've pinged you over at mw:Talk:Winter#First_impressions_by_Sven_Manguard--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Stub contest 2013

I expect that you already know, but in case you are not watching it, there is some discussion about something you said at [[2]]. Snowman (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio Thank you. I was unaware. I will go read that now. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Though we're no longer hearts of oak

I've done a cropped version. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/If sailor-like you'd play your cards, / Unbend your sails and lower your yards, / Unstep your masts you'll never want 'em more.

Er, did you mean to vote, or was borderless a condition, or? Just I really, really don't want to split the vote by providing an alt when things are failing left and right from not reaching the quorum. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden - I don't think I'm going to vote on that one. While I'm sure that it's perfectly normal, the texture of those lithographs just bothers me. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 19:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Dishonored FAC

I don't know if I properly pinged you but I have addressed your comments at the Dishonored FAC DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 13:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DWB - I might vote on it eventually, but it's been a very long time since I've been at FAC, and I'm not comfortable getting involved in formal supports now. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 19:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok no problem, if it gets desperate for votes though I will be coming back to bother you :P DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FPC

Hi Sven- I responded to your comment on the FP nomination page and basically agree with your assessment. I do have another nom ready to go, one where I just finished reworking/converting the article to list-format to highlight the notes. It's a larger set, but with 100% completeness (not accomplished by most of the reference books in the field).-Godot13 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Godot13 - I would put it on hold, rather than withdraw it, now that you have someone that's announced their intention to write the article. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a message on the FPC page just to clarify. I had initially ready Crisco's comment to suggest that I write an article... - Godot13 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

List of people with autism spectrum disorders edit notice

Hi Sven, I just put in an edit request for the edit notice on this article here. I didn't spot your note on the article talk page until after I put in the request, sorry about that. If you would be able to change the references to bipolar disorder in the edit notice as per the request that would be great. Thanks. acb314 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I goofed when I copied the template over. I've fixed it. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 05:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

March

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

First of all, I want to thank you for your support. I know we do not always directly agree, but I believe we have the same ideas for the future of this project. I've respected you for many years, since prior to Fastily leaving. Your opinion is always taken whole-heartedly. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. A couple of things to keep in mind though:

• I am on several user's recall lists. I tend to forget that admins have me on their recall list, or even that they have a recall list, so I occasionally find myself reading a recall page and going "Oh".
• I believe that recall is a poor response to the problem of ensuring that admins are accountable to the community, but still able to act in difficult situations with an appropriate level of autonomy. I don't have a better solution, however, so I'm willing to go along with it. This likely explains the first point.
• I have a very high tolerance for IAR admin actions, and have on occasion requested them myself. In most cases, if you have a solid justification for why a particular admin action improves the project, and I can tell that you've given it thought, I'm not going to hammer you for it even if I don't particularly agree with the decision. This philosophy has worked very well in Wikidata, but isn't common on this, more bureaucratic, project. The only places where I don't have any real tolerance for IAR are when an action goes against a clear and recent consensus.
• I would never agree to be on someone's recall list if I felt that there was ever going to be a reasonable chance that I would have to recall them. As long as your level of judgement and your temperament (specifically your ability to handle criticism and contested actions) remain the same, I'm going to quickly forget that I agreed to this because it won't ever have to matter. This likely explains the first point above.

If I still seem like a good option to you, go ahead and put me on the list. If not, no hard feelings. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you're serious about your recall list being a functional process, make sure that you occasionally check to make sure that the users on that list are still active, and add more when some start to leave the project. Looking at TParis' list, I know that a third of them haven't been active for months without even having to check. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 21:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful information, and I will follow it. You've obviously been doing this longer than I have, and are much more experienced. I still would like you to be a recall editor, and I will diligently make sure that the list is only of active editors. This process, whether good or bad, fails if there are no editors who can recall. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/B-25 Mitchell Production

Well, Crisco managed something, without the hideous green and red staining that I can buy. Would you reconsider, please? Also, sometime we need to have a long talk about historical images, but I don't think this is the time. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hell Yeah

Hi Sven,

I noticed your revert. To explain these edits:

• The ratings field has been removed from the VG infobox
• Concerning "platform", that is still an unresolved issue. To me, platform means "PlayStation 3", "Xbox 360" etc, but for some reason, some editors feel the need to put the console-specific distribution channel there also (PSN, Xbox Live).
• That same goes for the lead, there the platforms and channels are changed. Also, PSN and Xbox Live are also used for PS4, PS Vita and Xbox One, not just for PS4 and Xbox One.
• "The PC" sounds really weird: one, "PC" could mean any kind of personal computer (Windows, Mac, Linux) and two, the use of the word "the" is oddly phrased.
• The note about the abbreviation is unnecessary; we can safely assume readers would know that subsequent use of Hell Yeah would mean Hell Yeah! Wrath of the Dead Rabbit. That it is in bold makes it look like it is an official abbrevation, which it is not.

I'll leave it up to you decide whether or not do anythin with my views. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 21:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In order:

• I think that removing the ratings field is a mistake, but I'm not involved in decision making for the WikiProject, where I assume the discussion that led to the depreciation happened.
• I consider Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network to be the more accurate terms because they are the more specific ones. It's the difference between saying "I ate a fruit" and "I ate a Mango". Both are correct, but one offers more information than the other.
• I will see what I can do.
• Your argument is valid on that point, I will re-do that change.
• I'll unbold it, but considering how often the sources used the short version instead of the full one, I want to leave it in that way.

Thanks! Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 03:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Soetermans I put back in several of the changes. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 03:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sven, thanks for the notification.

• If I remember correctly, the reason why the ratings field was removed was threefold: first, that there are all different kinds of ratings systems for video games (see Video game content rating system). Second, that the way a game is rated is "outside" of the game itself, while the infobox is intended for the game itself. Third, if it is notable, for instance Manhunt or Australia banning certain games, then it could always be mentioned in prose.
• I've seen several discussions and topics about the platform field, but it never got to a decent and generally accepted consensus. If Hell Yeah would be a mango, the console in question is your house where you eat the mango and PSN or Xbox Live the grocery where you got the mango in the first place. To try and explain without fruit metaphors: the "platform" is the console, while the "media" field shows in what way the game is available (arcade, floppy, optical disc, digital distribution). In this case, "digital distribution" should make it clear that Hell Yeah is a downloadable title for the platforms mentioned in the "platform" field, and available through PSN and Xbox Live. Also because PSN and Xbox Live offer their content to more than just one console. Just two for Xbox Live, but I also forgot the PSP, that makes it four platforms that all give access to PSN.
• There have been past discussions on having a "common name" of a game in the lead, or to mention the shortening of its name throughout the article. For instance, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is just called Skyrim throughout the article, without mentioning it before. --Soetermans. T / C 10:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Blood Knights

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blood Knights

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Blood Knights you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I absentmindedly assumed a bot would update your talk page (although maybe it's on your watchlist); I've done my review of the article. It's on hold. Tezero (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tezero, I just saw it. Finding sources for development sections is one of my weak points. I looked and didn't see anything usable, so I'm glad you pulled those articles for me. I'm going to go rooting about for a bit and find what one should look like, and I'll let you know once I've written it. As for the screenshot, I rather dislike that Wikipedia uses non-free images, and have stopped adding them into articles. If someone else wants to do it, that is their prerogative, but it's been over a year since I uploaded a new non-free file, and it is not something that I feel comfortable doing. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Development sections don't have to be anything massive, but it's an unspoken rule that they pretty much have to exist. It's not usually hard to find something to put there; in Digimon Racing a few years ago, I just relied on previews and a couple of comments made about the engine and rendering in the reviews, because it's such an obscure game. Screenshots are also pretty much a necessity (I don't happen to object, but I can see why one might); Devil May Cry 3's lack of one was a strike made against it in its FAR. Maybe I'll add one myself. Tezero (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:

The only thing I did was to add Gameranking score: [3] which he removed. I recovered original version for not provoking conflict. Everything I did was in good faith. I wasn't provoking any conflict and I didn't broke etiquette. Sir Lothar (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir Lothar: I have seen at least two comments from you towards him that were needlessly abrasive. Please keep in mind that both of you are working towards the same aim - improving the project - and differ only in how you are going about it. There isn't a question in my mind that both of you were acting in good faith this entire time; the issue is with how the discussion escalated. At this point, both of you have made your arguments, so why not just sit back and let the rest of the WikiProject participants discuss the merits of the two points and reach a decision. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's true, maybe it was a bit abrasive. But when I saw [4] it wasn't nice either - don't you think ? I rarely edit en.wiki, but when I put some information and he tells me "I'm bloating table" it's rather demotivating .... Sir Lothar (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charlie Murder

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charlie Murder you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Charlie Murder

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blood Knights

The article Blood Knights you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Blood Knights for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you decided what to do with Plot? I can probably pan through a Let's Play to look for plot details if you don't want to. I don't really care a whole lot about detail, at least not for GA level when critics have mentioned that the plot's nothing especially detailed (though I would want it for higher credentials anyway); the section just needs to mention what happens at the end. The article's gotta be past the official fail deadline for on-hold reviews, which I'm not picky about, but I do want to know that something's being done about it. Tezero (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I had planned on trying to watch some of the videos this weekend. I'm going to give it a shot right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tezero: There's now a vastly expanded plot section. I have to say, that wasn't the most enjoyable three hours of editing, but at least it's done. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's Plays like that aren't normally cited directly, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with it since most plot sections get no citations at all. Anyway, nice job! The article passes, but I'm on my phartsmone now and making the appropriate edits is incredibly tedious on it. I'm not sure if there's a rule against this, but if not, you can just change everything to "GA" and add it to the appropriate lists yourself. Otherwise I'll just do it tomorrow. (I left my laptop charger in a hotel room, my laptop's power is ~4%, and my university bookstore - which carries chargers - doesn't open until tomorrow.) Tezero (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've processed it. Thank you for the review. Good luck with your laptop. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Flow signatures

Hey Sven, really glad to see you contributing on the Hovercard talk page, just wanted to let you know that its not necessary to sign posts on flow board since your name is automatically added to each post. Thanks again! Jared Zimmerman (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jared Zimmerman. I know that it's not necessary, but I've gotten used to seeing a my signature at the end of my posts, so it feels kind of strange not to see it there. Do you feel that it is a problematic practice? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its a problem, but I also don't think its necessary, I think that habits are hard to break though… :) Jared Zimmerman (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Jared Zimmerman: Have you ever walked out of the house without your wallet, and suddenly realized that there was this empty space in your pocket? The absence of something that's normally there makes you feel the empty space, even though logically empty space shouldn't feel like anything. It's kind of like that.

On that subject, one of the biggest changes that Flow has made (from my perspective, at least) is that it has taken ownership of comments from being an active activity (I have to sign my comments) to being a passive activity (my name is already there). I feel that sometimes people write out a comment, get to the end, and then pause before adding their signature and ask themselves "do I really want to attach my name to what I just said?". I wonder if conversations will change at all once that little pause goes away. Perhaps the pause will just shift down and happen before users click submit, but there's something powerful about singing your name to a comment that I feel is lost with Flow. Don't get me wrong, the positives that Flow brings far outweigh the negatives, but I still have the phantom wallet feeling when I use Flow. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charlie Murder

The article Charlie Murder you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Charlie Murder for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blood Knights

The article Blood Knights you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blood Knights for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)