User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 27

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we give credit to IPs? Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I imagine that DYKUpdateBot will paste something on the original IPs talk page due to the DYKmake template, but if you look at the article's history, you can see that said IP has already gone through several of the long addresses, so I'm not sure how we can track it or if they'll ever see it. Since IPs can't create their own nomination templates, it generally isn't an issue. The nominator here is Jehochman, who only has one prior DYK credit, so there isn't a QPQ due in any event. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I was wondering if I should just delete the IP credit. Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been really hard building balanced sets lately. We just dipped under 60 approved hooks. Could we switch over now? (BTW we need to make sure Queue 5 runs on December 16.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that we're swamped with U.S. hooks. Doesn't anyone write about anything else anymore? Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that I'm not the only arbiter of when we change. If you notice that we've dipped under 60 (or hit 120), there's no reason for you not to point it out right away at WT:DYK and get things moving. I'm not always going to be around, and in this case, I didn't see things until too late to get things moved properly. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I could do that.

What is going on with the queues, though? Queue 4 needs to run on December 16, not December 17. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah: looks like Cwmhiraeth took care of it a couple of hours after you posted here. And took care of Earl Dawson as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset, thanks for the work on helping out with the Wiki Ed DYK nominations. In the future, if you see a Wiki Ed DYK, make sure to add the Template:Note DYK nominator WikiEd template on them for tracking purposes and also to allow reviewers to be aware of their relationship to Wiki Ed. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, thanks for pointing this out. For the pages I deal with, which are incomplete nominations, until a nomination has been added to the WP:DYKN page there's no need to add the template. Indeed, nothing should be put on those pages in the normal way of things until the nomination process has been completed by that final step. Adding the template precludes an ultimate deletion of the page when—as too-often happens—the nominator abandons the nomination and doesn't edit Wikipedia past the creation of the DYK template. (Four such were deleted over the past couple of weeks; the class was over and the nominator had long since stopped editing.) Since Mandarax frequently reviews untranscluded DYK nominations, perhaps they should be the one adding this template when they make a review of an untranscluded Wiki Edu nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

★Trekker (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

		The SPFLT Achievement Patch
		Thanks for taking the time in Project Spaceflight! Neopeius (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello BlueMoonset, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello BlueMoonset, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Kingsif (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I think it would have been courteous to let me know that people have started discussing me at a place where I can have precisely zero ability to respond. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, my intention was simply to point people to your request, since it could affect DYK. I didn't expect there to be any discussion on the page itself, and I thought it would be rude to ping you from the page when you could not respond there. What I should have done was posted to your talk page to let you know, but I didn't think of it. My apologies. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I know what you were intending and indeed I have no problem at all with the DYK members opining at the Arb amendment request, indeed it should be encouraged. Unfortunately it just provides a parallel forum which I don't think is helpful. But not to worry, my skin is pretty thick these days, and it's good to see people contributing positively at the right place! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man BlueMoonset I'm so sorry for starting the discussion there. I didn't mean to do that. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, as I said above, I'm a big boy, I can take it! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we wrap this up already? Do I need to submit a request somewhere? Thanks for weighing in before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer, sorry for the delay. I've just posted to Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI's talk page, asking them to officially take over; if they don't do so soon or don't feel prepared to, I'll see if I can find another reviewer to do the honors instead. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to be discreet about this since the user in question seems to be new and enthusiastic, someone we do want to encourage, so I won't use his name, but you'll find it in the GA reviews he did for Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle and Fraser's Hill ... both passed within seven minutes of each other and with only a single sentence indicating why. The former was my nomination, and while at first I was grateful for someone taking a look at it after almost six months, I have like everyone else been affected by some of the other recent issues where we had to revoke GAs that had been promoted with even less haste due to the cursory reviews they received and put the articles back into the queue.

Regrettably I think we need to do the same here. I suppose you may have to bring this up at the GA talk page.

(If you need to respond to me, could you do it here and ping me? He might see your reply at my page, and again I don't want to be the one it falls to to tell him he needs to do much deeper dives even if the article looks good on first glance). Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. An AfD discussion for Harajuku Girls (song) has started. Please feel free to comment if you are interested. Thank you very much, HĐ (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, for the record I did evaluate the article in Template:Did you know nominations/Israel–Morocco normalization agreement as submitted against all the criteria, finding issues per rules 2d and 3b, in addition to hook concerns. That said the article has changed completely since then, so a new review is warranted assuming the nomination has not been abandoned. CMD (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

CMD, my apologies for missing your full review. I tend to glance through and look for mention of newness and length, which are required as part of all reviews, and didn't see mentions of those criteria, but in something that long it's too easy to overlook, as I did. Thanks for letting me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a problem, I'm just noting here to correct a misunderstanding. I suspect when I wrote my review I was focusing on explaining the problems I found rather than listing other criteria, which I will keep in mind for future instances. I messaged the nominator in early January regarding the nomination, and have just dropped a message to the article creator, as neither has commented for awhile. CMD (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset and sorry to bother you -- Is it ok if I walk away from a review that was not well received and still use it as a QPQ credit? I was going to strike it and do another, but my nomination using it has already been passed. I don't think I and the article's creator are ever going to see eye to eye, and they seem good faith so I don't want to put them off. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, sorry for the delay for getting back to you. I don't know which review you're talking about, but generally, if you do a complete review that covers all of the DYK criteria, it does count even if all the issues raised in the review aren't eventually resolved and someone else has to take over and finish the review. Sorry this one didn't work out, and don't worry about your own nomination where you used the QPQ already having been passed. If you want, you can always do an extra review and not use it for a QPQ credit, but that isn't necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a relief. I'll see if I can find another submission that doesn't involve fighting with the author; somehow I always seem to find problems. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember when we move back to one set a day, but we currently have 79 approved nominations. SL93 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

SL93, I believe it's going below 60 (59 or lower), rather than reaching 60. I'd expect it to take a few days to get there, depending on reviewing and promoting activity. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There are around a hundred surplus unreviewed articles so I am doing a few extra reviews to get the number down. I wonder what has happened to Yoninah? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent choice of award! Seriously. :) Futurist110 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The first time I updated it, I used the numbers in the Report tab. However you changed them stating: "adjusting March 4 numbers to midnight from 1am; March 5 was fine (no activity between midnight and 1am". So, I figured that the report must update at the wrong time and tried to use the numbers from the nominations page. In your latest edit, you left an edit summary saying, "using numbers from Report page, which is more accurate than Nominations page; actually down from yesterday's report". Now I'm really confused. What is the correct way to update the page? (t · c) buidhe 07:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, I take the numbers from the Report tab, but I manually adjust them back an hour. That is to say, I look at all the changes made to the WP:GAN page between midnight and 01:00 by using the comparison function in article history, see whether these changes occurred on the old day or the new day, and adjust the total and unreviewed numbers accordingly. For example, if a review was begun at 00:35, it will be reflected in the Report's 01:00 numbers, so I add one to the unreviewed number to take it back out. If a new nomination was made at 00:01, it's also in the Report's numbers, so I subtract one from both the total and unreviewed numbers. If a review is passed or failed at 00:20, then I add one to the total number. It's fussy, I know, but that's the way I am. Because the Report runs at 01:00, it won't include any changes from the circa 01:02 Legobot edit, so it shouldn't be included in the comparison; typically, the 00:02 Legobot edit only shows transactions before midnight, but I always check it just to be sure nothing came through exactly at midnight.

I don't think it hurts anything if some nights just take from the Report and don't adjust back for the extra hour, but I like to do so. The beginning and end drive numbers should be exactly midnight, but it's not so important on the days in between. The Report does a count of all nominations listed on the Nominations page. The numbers at the top of the Nominations page are calculated using {{GAN counter}} template to return the number of pages in the relevant GA-related categories. The problem is that there is some oddness in how category pages are counted; GAN counter gives numbers that tend to be higher than the actual number of nominations in that category: it happens with the total nominations and total unreviewed nominations. I haven't been able to track down the why of it, but a physical count of the unreviewed pages listed came in five fewer than the total given on the category page the list was copied from.

My apologies for being so down in the weeds here, and also for confusing you with my edits. What it comes down to is that the Report numbers are more accurate than the ones displayed at the top of the Nominations page, so I prefer the Report numbers. It's also easier to work with them if you miss a day, as has happened in past drives. (Also, there was at least one drive where I took exclusively from the Nominations page, not knowing about the issues its numbers had.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the very detailed explanation. I agree that your method is most accurate using the bot reports that we have. However, wouldn't it be easier to ask WugBot to update an hour earlier so we can have consistency and won't need to adjust? (t · c) buidhe 14:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bluemoonset,

if you have the time and lust, could you comment on this edit request about Benito Mussolini? It is a purely language question, about the meaning of the word "step-sister", whether it applies in this case to Mussolini's wife. As I am not a native English speaker, it would be good to have the opinion of someone who is. Thanks anyway, Alex2006 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Alex2006, I've commented there. This isn't really a language question, it's a question about whether their parents were ever married. If yes—and common-law marriage requires that the couple involved had declared themselves or acted as if they were married, as opposed to simply cohabiting; that MWD definition quoted on the talk page is inadequate and doesn't match what's in my Merriam-Webster's Second International Dictionary which dates to 1934—then their children from prior marriages could be considered step-siblings (a child of Alessandro's would be a step-sibling of a pre-existing child of a later wife). Any common-law marriage would need to be reliably sourced, and I'm frankly dubious that this can be. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! I have withdrawn from the issue because it seems to me to be very tied to Anglo-Saxon culture. In Italy the two were considered conviventi ("cohabitants"), and as such there is no linguistic relationship in the Italian Language between the son of one and the daughter of the other. Whether this cohabitation was considered by the two as a marriage we cannot know. Alessandro was a socialist agitator, so he was certainly against bourgeois conventions such as marriage (civil or religious) but he certainly considered Anna Guidi his woman (they lived together and ran a tavern just outside Forli). Whether this is enough to consider Benito and Rachele "step-relatives" I do not know.Alex2006 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out with regard to the DYK closure, Adolf Uunona hasn't been deleted yet. It's still undergoing AFD. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The C of E, the DYK nomination had a red link for the article Adolf Hitler Uunona, which does not exist. Indeed, the AFD had (briefly) closed as "delete" on April 4, and the Adolf Hitler Uunona redirect deleted at that time because of that closure. I hadn't realized at the time that the DYK nomination itself was never updated after the article had been moved to Adolf Uunona on March 27, hours before it was nominated at AfD. At this point, let's leave it closed for now; I'll be happy to reopen it if the AfD closes as either Keep or No consensus. Please keep me apprised. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I nominated William Brooks Close for GA in early January. I was wondering if there is a list or category of editors who would be willing to accept GA review requests on their talk page. SL93 (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

SL93, if there is one, I don't know of it, and I'd guess that people would take themselves off it in short order since there are several hundred nominations awaiting review at all times and they'd be quickly overwhelmed by requests. The good news is that your nomination is now the 31st-oldest unreviewed GA nomination out of 325 unreviewed ones, and you're pretty close to the top of the Economics and business subtopic, so with any luck, a reviewer will pick your nomination within the next month or so. (The ten oldest unreviewed nominations are currently between 147 and 193 days days old, thanks to the recent backlog drive.) Sorry this isn't better news, but three and a half months is, unfortunately, not such a long wait for a nomination to be reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, there's been no movement on this open GAN since 27 March. I see from Ardenter's talk page that he had to drop work on a GAN in January for medical reasons; he's not replied to pings on 3 April and 13 April, so perhaps we need another reviewer? He has in fact done a little editing in the past few days but I'm loth to ping him a third time. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I can understand your reluctance. If the editing yesterday and today doesn't lead to action on the review, it will have been a month on April 27; absent a return to reviewing, I'll ping Ardenter then to see if they're willing to have someone to take over. Does that work for you? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's been passed, Chiswick Chap. Congratulations. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

user:Siirski accidentally started reviews of his 3 new nominations and contacted me for help in fixing his mistakes. Do I just delete the review pages? I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure that I can do that, but whatever it takes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sturmvogel 66: Since Siirski requested deletion, I nominated the three under G7. Once the reviews are deleted, Legobot should put them all back into the queue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, Extraordinary Writ, since by definition nominators are not allowed to open GA reviews of their own nominations, I typically nominate the review pages for deletion under G6 (though G7 is fine if the nominator realizes their error and reaches out). Admins can delete the review pages directly, and then adjust the GA nominee template on the talk page. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we have to wait until an admin has done the page deletion before going to the article talk page and removing the "onreview" status and the transclusion of the review page, since if we remove the status before then Legobot will just transclude the nominations again if the review page is still extant.

For these nominations, Siirski seems not to have been a significant contributor to any of the three articles, so the GANs have been removed altogether by another editor for failure to follow process—if you are not a significant contributor to an article, you are expected to consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination, which wasn't the case for any of the three. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it was you who explained to me a while back how the nominations counts work and why what's listed in the columns on the various dyk pages doesn't represent how many noms there actually are/eve were, but I was too busy at the time to try to follow your explanation and meant to go back to it when I had time, and now I can't find it again. Would you be willing to re-explain? Sorry for causing you to have to repeat yourself, I just can't figure this out. If it wasn't you who explained this, beg pardon. :D —valereee (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

valereee, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner; this was a very busy week. Can you be more specific about what you're looking for? Is it the "Count of DYK Hooks" table that appears on the queues and nominations pages? I remember explaining that at some point. Or was it something else? (I don't think it was here—I can't find it in the archives of this page—so it was probably on the main DYK talk page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, no apology necessary! This is literally just me trying to circle back to something I didn't have time for when you first explained it to me, and completely my own stupidity in not marking the convo as something I should come back to when I had time. Yes, I was looking at the "Count of DYK Hooks" table and interpreting, for instance, May 9's indication that there were # of hooks = 12 + # Verified = 7 to mean we had ~ somewhere between 12 and 19 hooks nominated on May 9, depending on whether any hooks had already been promoted (and were no long included on the table at all?) I would like to be able to look at our average daily nominations and how they fluctuate. I think the original explanation was somewhere in the DYK general discussion -- possibly we'd been discussing whether we should go back to 2-a-days; I seem to remember discussing having not enough people promoting to prep just as we were getting more noms due to WikiCup being in the first round. I think I was telling someone that we couldn't stop doing 2-a-days because we were averaging like 24 noms a day, and my count was off because I was interpreting the table incorrectly. —valereee (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

valereee, it's the "# of hooks" column that has what you want: the total number of hooks nominated from a particular date. The "# Verified" column tells you how many, out of the total for that day, have been approved (aka "Verified") and are able to be promoted. As soon as a nomination is promoted or rejected, it disappears from the list.

The table is built by Shubinator's DYKHousekeepingBot, and runs every 30 minutes—if there has been a change, it generates a new table; if not, it doesn't. The bot checks both the Nominations page and the Approved page, and combines what it finds on those pages into a single table. (It does not include nominations in the Special Occasions section of the Approved page or the April Fools' Day page; those are not counted in the totals.)

So, for example, right now April 21 has 3 under "# of hooks" and 3 under "# Verified", meaning all 3 nominations for April 21 have been passed. May 4 has 16 under "# of hooks" and 12 under "# Verified", meaning that of the 17 nominations for that day, 12 have been ticked and 5 have not. At the bottom, the Total line has 221 under "# of hooks", meaning there are a total of 221 active nominations (excluding special occasion), of which 101 (under "# Verified") have been given a tick and are eligible for promotion.

Or, another example a little closer to home, back on May 10 you asked MeegsC, who had just promoted your Meredith Clark nomination, to unpromoted it, which they did. However, they forgot to retransclude it on the Approved page, so it fell from sight. I noticed today that the nomination was not transcluded, and added it back under April 25. The next time the bot ran, it increased the numbers by 1 in both columns under April 25 (see here), since it's both a nomination and one that is approved.

We're still getting in nominations pretty quickly: there are two days this month with 17 nominations on them, which is more than two sets a day. We went from 43 approved to 109 approved in very short order; we're at 101 now, but unless we get some more prep building going, we'll hit 120 before you know it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! So is there ever a point at which we know how for certain that X nominations were received on a date? (Because I'm thinking if someone reviews quickly and someone else promotes quickly, it could just not ever be there.) Do you think a third column (total noms for the date, which only increments and then stops) would be of value to anyone other than my own curiosity?

Thank you so much for retranscluding Meredith Clark! I hadn't noticed that nom hadn't reappeared! Oooh, bummer, we'll probably be at 2-a-days again by the time it gets scheduled lol! —valereee (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, can you help? I'd like this on a "special date"--June 12, which is Trinity Sunday, but I don't know how to do it, or where to do it. It's now at Template talk:Did you know/Approved. User:Gerda Arendt was asking for 25 May--but that's almost over in her time zone. Thank you so much... Drmies (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. 25 May was the first approach, for the by now struck original hook, because it is (today) the subject's first anniversary of death. The approved hook deals with Trinity Sunday, a moving feast, which is this year on 30 May, next Sunday. I'd like to see this pictured, because rarely do you see a person pictured when his wish comes true, but this looks it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, Gerda Arendt, we're about to go from one set a day to two sets a day, so there will be a lot of shifts going on between sets to get the special occasions lined up. If we get everything done today, this will end up in either Prep 2 or Prep 3 for 30 May, and I suspect that Prep 2 will be better, since it will run between 2am and 2pm local time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Two sets - that is a relief, thank you. I normally prefer the later set because fewer Europeans sleep, but in this case, church time is rather in the morning ;) - Drmies, could you just move it within the approved nominations to a 30 May section, - create if not there? Thank you for highly constructive and patient reviewing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing; I hope I do it right. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You did that right, but what now, - all queues and preps packed including the two for 30 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, someone will have to make room for it, preferably in the first set for 30 May. It's far from the first time this has happened. Either it waits for another prep to be promoted to queue, or one of the promoted hooks in the set needs to be unpromoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Could "someone" be you or someone watching, or should I explain again on the DYK talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I nominated Tolkien's legendarium this evening. It was immediately taken up for review, but the comment was brief, hostile, and in my view quite ill-informed. I've replied with a straight bat and have received a pile of personal attacks, all confused, in reply. Further, the same editor has immediately taken Women in The Lord of the Rings to GAR, again with a mix what seem to me incoherent assertions and personal attacks. I've again replied plainly, citing policy. The editor has had an account since 2008 but has made fewer than 100 edits in that time. I hope you won't mind if I ask what you think would be the best thing to do (including nothing)? I don't mind at all just failing the Legendarium and trying again after some time-out period, but I wonder if someone doesn't need to have a quiet word about the whole thing somehow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, it seems clear that the reviewer doesn't not have a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies and the GA process in particular. In addition, he is the author of Understanding Middle-Earth: Essays on Tolkien's Middle-Earth, a 520-page volume that was published in 2003. If you look at the Legendarium's talk page, you can see a significant disagreement in 2008 between him and the other editors at the time, so I imagine he has strong opinions on the matter.

I don't think the reassessment on Women in The Lord of the Rings is going to go anywhere, because he isn't arguing the GA criteria except by claiming a lack of neutrality without giving any specific examples, and as a community reassessment, he's unlikely to get any backing unless there are issues with the actual criteria, or examples of non-neutral prose or structure.

I'm not sure what to advise about the review. At this point, either let it close and renominate at a later date, or go to WT:GAN and note the problem and see what the people there have to say. The potential problem with the former is that he'll take it up again for review, and you'll be right back where you are now. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My feelings entirely. I hadn't thought of WT:GAN; certainly, more and wiser heads would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, well. I'm trying to continue "playing each ball with a straight bat" (as they say in cricket), but even that is being met with a hail of abuse. Shall I press on, or will someone press the ANI button soon? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, it is not within his power to delist Women in The Lord of the Rings: the opened individual reassessment is out of process, and should he attempt to close it as "delist" it would be reverted. As has been pointed out, individual reassessments are not allowed once a community reassessment has been done. So there's no worries on that front. As for the review of Tolkien's legendarium, I'd treat it as a temporary delay and let it play out. At some point, he's going to finish and close it, and you can nominate it again—if he continues on his current path, he's going to run into trouble at ANI, since he's clearly not reviewing properly nor interested in learning how. The odds are you would have had to wait longer than this to get a review anyway; I'm just sorry you have to put up with this annoyance in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A lot of yoga breathing has helped ... I'll press on for a bit and see if he doesn't turn constructive. You may, like me, find a Tolkien scholar's view of him interesting:

Understanding Middle-earth: Essays on Tolkien's Middle-earth by Michael Martinez (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: ViviSphere, 2003) is a somewhat rewritten and edited collection of Web-published essays by a popular online writer on Tolkien. These explore many general and specific Tolkienian topics, from explorations of Tolkien’s lesser-known sources to whimsical speculations and outright guesswork. Unlike Perry, Martinez uses posthumously published material extensively. His most characteristic posture is a forceful intervention in debates over the sub-creation, especially in testing the limits of reliable sub-creational knowledge. He is particularly interested in the questions of to what extent and in what circumstances the posthumous works may be used to supplement the canon of sub-creational facts established in the works Tolkien published. Though his interpretations are sometimes questionable, Martinez's facts are generally reliable. He writes informally and argumentatively but (in small doses) readably in adequate prose, without pretensions to formal scholarship.

— David Bratman (Bratman, David (2006). "The Year's Work in Tolkien Studies 2003". Tolkien Studies. 3 (1): 241–265. doi:10.1353/tks.2006.0008. ISSN 1547-3163.)

It may have been written 15 years ago but it still seems relevant. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 00:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Glee (TV series) songs has been nominated for conversion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BlueMoonset,

Thanks for spending the time going through all the malformed Did You Know nominations and tagging them. It's one of those thankless tasks that helps keep the place tidy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Liz, you're welcome. I wouldn't have known about them if Shubinator hadn't run a list for me in addition to his usual list of untranscluded nominations: some of these malformed ones have been sitting around since 2011, the year that the nomination templates were first introduced! I expect he'll be running the report for me on a regular basis going forward, so we can catch the problems before they've sit around for years.

Do you have any advice on what to do with the Did You Know "nominations" that are actually early versions of articles that later turn up as actual articles by others? They're in amongst the User talk:Shubinator#Malformed noms. Does it make sense (and is it possible) to merge these into the articles? For example, Template:Did you know nominations/China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) was created on 27 November 2017, and is structured like an article, while the actual article, China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation, was created on 11 July 2018, over seven months later. If not, I can put in to have the China "Template" page deleted. Please let me know. Many thanks. Incidentally, so far 45 have been deleted, 1 has been draftified, and 8 need further sorting, including the China one. Not bad for 24 hours... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

First, remind me. The QPQ is due from the nominator, right? -- not the creator/expander of the article (assuming those are different people). So anyway, do we have any stats (even if old) on frequent flyers at DYK, maybe a table of top nominators someone put together? And while we're alone here, what do you think of my proposal (not what do you think its chances are, but what do you think of its merits)? EEng 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng, the nominator is responsible for the QPQ, and the requirement is based on their number of credits the nominator has (credits include both nomination and creation credits—basically, if you got a post from the bot on your talk page when the hook hit the main page, that's a credit). So after your fifth credit, you owe QPQs thereafter. If your proposal ends up being adopted, I'd hope it was credit-based, so both levels use the same counts.

However, the requirement is that a QPQ review is provided for the nomination, so it could be some other creator or just a passerby who supplies the required QPQ instead of the nominator. The nominator is on the hook for it if no one else does (and usually no one else does).

There are tables of top DYK nominators/creators at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, which has separate tables for self-nominations (creators) and nominations of articles by other creators. As far as I can tell, it's updated nowadays by individual editors changing their personal entries; it was initially put together back in 2007. So it's going to be missing many people who have 25 or more in either category, and everyone who has fewer, even if 25 or more credits combined. However, several dozen still-active DYK participants appear on the page, so your proposal will affect a lot of people.

I'm divided when it comes to your proposal. I can see that it would help deal with a perennial problem, which is the reliance on volunteers to do extra (non-QPQ) reviews to balance the five freebies every new participant gets, but I'm far from sure it's the least disruptive way to do so. Good QPQ reviews take time, and doing two reviews takes twice the time. I'd expect a reduction in nominations if this goes into effect due, in part, to simple time constraints. Those several dozen still-active nominators would be affected even if the break point was 25; recalling how long it took me to become a good reviewer, I'd put the break no lower than 20 (and possibly 25 or 30)—that gives at least 15 article reviews to begin to feel comfortable and then learn the various ins and outs: I started doing QPQs picking short articles on subjects I had some acquaintance with, and after I felt confident with those, worked my way into longer articles with unfamiliar topics. Ten credits (five reviews) is too few. Whatever is done, it should be kept as simple as possible, so it's easy to apply. I do think an occasional backlog drive or blitz would be an effective way to reduce the backlog when volunteer reviewers aren't active enough without needing a double QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think we've got disconnect here over counting credits. It was always my understanding that it's only nominations that count -- being the editor that nominates. The text at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria makes it clear that, in general, it's nomination-for-nomination: to make a nom you must review a nom. (Nothing about being the creator/expander.) But then the Exception starts talking about something called "credits":

If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ.

And note that the link is to a table that only records expansions and creations -- not nominations. Can you make sense of all this? EEng 01:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng, it's who nominates that determines who's ultimately responsible for the QPQ; it's their credits that determine whether a QPQ is required. The DYK credits link you give is to the entire Lists page rather to one specific table section, and that page has two tables on it, as I noted above.

A DYK credit is what is posted by the bot on your talk page from an article appearing on the main page—it's generated from a DYKmake or DYKnom entry in the Prep/Queue page when DYKUpdateBot moves the nominated hook to the main page. There can be multiple credits out of a single one-article nomination: if editors A and B made major contributions to that article, they can both get credits for it, which counts toward each of their QPQ exemption credit numbers. If that nomination had been made by nominator C, then all three get credits.

The QPQ originally only applied to self-nominations by creators/expanders. (If you nominated someone else's article, no QPQ was required.) It was also a nomination for nomination requirement, meaning that a multi-article hook's QPQ could be met by reviewing a single-article nomination. Both of these loopholes were closed at different times: the nomination of another creator/expander's article now required the nominator to meet QPQ requirements rather than escape them, and each article nominated required a review (article for article in multi-article noms rather than nomination for nomination). When we closed the non-self-nominated loophole, we used "credit" in the language, which had the effect of also closing another loophole: creators who had someone else nominating their article still received a credit, so if they eventually started nominating their own articles directly, the QPQ exception would be counted against their previous front-page appearances/credits even though they weren't the nominator. (I have a vague recollection of pointing out this side-effect of the "credit" wording at the time, and it was used anyway—but it's been a while, so I could be mistaken about that or about it being me who made the point.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the DYK Hall of Mirrors strikes again. As I need not tell you, I've been around the DYK block plenty of times, and am pretty intimate with all its ins and outs (or almost all of them, apparently), and I never ever had an inkling that anything but nominations counted against the "free 5". I completely believe you, but I don't think it's at all obvious from Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria, item 5, which talks about nominations, nominations, nominations, nominations, then somewhere in there quietly mentions "credits", without highlighting the difference. You have to follow the link to figure our what a credit is (even after you realize it's different from a nomination) and (as I discovered) even then that page is so big I missed there are two tables on it reflecting the two kinds of credit. Anyhoooz....

So here's the funny thing. I went to count how many noms on the awaiting-approval page, and on the approved page, claimed QPQ-exemption. Some were ambiguous, but on the awaiting page, AT MOST there are maybe 4 exempt (of 200 total), and on the approved page, there appears to be just 1 (out of 120 total). Now, it's impossible to draw any kind of quantitative conclusion from this (in other words, to say that 4/200 = 2% means something, or 1/120 = 0.8% means something, is nonsense) but it is qualitatively clear that very, very few noms are exempt, that the awaiting-approval backlog took years to accumulate, and that it will take a relatively weak double-QPQ requirement (like I'm proposing) to keep it under control in the future. By "weak" I mean relatively few nominators need to be subject to it, in other words the "break" you talk about almost certainly can be 20 or higher, and very well could be higher. That's in stead state, once the backlog's been eaten down and all we need to do is keep it down. I think then, we should start with 20, which might be more doubles than needed in steady state, but which will start to eat up the backlog. The backlog should slowly come down, and once it's pretty small we can talk about raising the "break" higher for the future. What do you think? EEng 04:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I gotta watch more talks -- I stumbled upon this conversation by accident and would've loved to comment on it. Anyhow, EEng's qualitative impression is also mine, although he does better than me in that he actually keeps stats. DYK is surprisingly concerningly acceptably insular, and sub-5s make up a pretty small proportion of our actual nominations all told. Where they do exist, they are in my non-stat-keeping impression disproportionately student noms, which...have their own considerations. (We, I believe, have repeatedly tried to reduce the number of student noms. They do not reduce.) I commented on WT:DYK that I find in my prep-building I promote the same names a lot; I have to intentionally try not to promote the same guy thrice in a single set all the time. Now, I'm one prep builder, and my thoughts plausibly diverge on more than one axis to the average prep builder; it's entirely possible what I'm picking up is, say, the people who are actually any good at writing hooks, or the people whose articles are in better shape than average at nomination. Hell, that's probably what I'm picking up on. However, my impression when I scan DYKNA itself is that the bias towards the same names over and over again isn't (solely) bottlenecked in my hook sets but rather in the available options themselves. I proposed the 20-hook minimum because I strongly suspect that's where the bulk of the backlog lies, and indeed that the real bulk of it probably lies in the long tail. Vaticidalprophet 07:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I like EEng's idea, but in my case it would not result in much of an increase in reviews because I already aim to review two nominations whenever I nominate one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll bet you were the kid who volunteered to stay after class and clean the erasers, too. EEng 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, re the backlog, by "the real bulk of it probably lies in the long tail". The backlog can only come from one place: the 5 freebies. I suspect the following: if you look at the set of all editors with one or more DYKs, the modal number of DYKs they do is 1; that is, most editors, if they do any DYK at all, do just one and then never return. Maybe a few do two, or three. Then there's a smaller number who get bit by the bug and keep going, some at a fast pace and some at a slow pace, but sooner or later running through their free 5 and then getting in the >5 zone where QPQ is required. A few become addicts superstars -- the long tail you mention. These tail people stick in our minds because we see their names over and over and over, because they keep nominating new things, but in fact they're probably a very small %age of all the editors who have every participated in DYK. They are not the cause of the backlog; the cause of the backlog is everyone who ever operated in the "free 5 zone" -- which is everyone -- and it probably took years to accumulate. But I'm trying to make the tail, our most experienced DYKers who are best at reviewing, the solution. EEng 13:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng, the backlog can come from a number of places; the freebies are one, but there are others. You're assuming one QPQ reviewer per nomination is the rule, and that isn't always the case; this is not a closed system. One example: I'm reviewing a nomination, come up with a list of issues after checking fully against all the DYK criteria, strike the proposed hook because it has serious problems, and propose a new hook that doesn't. I've done my QPQ, but I can't continue as reviewer because it's my hook under consideration. After the nominator makes the necessary article fixes and says they're fine with my proposed hook, a new reviewer comes in and checks over the article and hook, and after a few more issues are addressed, they approve it. That's a second QPQ review. Another example: a nomination is reviewed, passed, promoted to prep, and then pulled because of issues. When the issues are addressed, it's typically a new reviewer who does it (and gets their own QPQ). There are lots of other variant scenarios, and all of them that generate more than one QPQ in a single nomination contribute to the backlog. A QPQ credit is always granted for a full initial review (covering all the criteria) whether the resulting icon is a tick or a "more work needed" icon—technically, that reviewer doesn't even need to return to see the review to its close after "more work needed" issues are addressed, but the vast majority do.

Vaticidalprophet, by the "long tail", did you mean those who have dozens or hundreds of nominations under their belts already? Some of their nominations do require more than one reviewer/QPQ by the time they're approved, which does increase our deficit, and some struggle to keep up with their single QPQ requirement. (Unlike Cwmhiraeth, who has been doing extra reviews for years.)

One thing that occurred to me: we'll be seeing more sub-5 nominations this month than usual since GAN is running one of their backlog drives, probably two to four a day on average. So far, most of the GA noms are by people past the freebie stage, but I see one that's by a new nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well BMS is right as usual. I guess I was talking to a first approximation. EEng 17:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I found the tick template, thanks for the advise in DYK! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I am pretending to talk to you about official business, when I am really asking about you. How are you? You are doing well, my friend? I don't even know if you are male or female. You do realize my friend that due to your longevity of service and years of experience working the GAN helpdesk and related pages, you must know more about WP:GA than anyone. I worked with you, manning the GA Help Desk for one year, and improved what I could. You are still doing the work and I want to say that the Wikipedia community thanks you. How are you? You are doing well? How has the help desk work been? Prhartcom (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Prhartcom, thank you for inquiring. I am doing well. I've never actually manned the GAN help desk, just participated in discussions at WT:GAN and tried to fix things that go awry in the nomination/review process. I'm not quite as active as I used to be, but still keeping my hand in. There are people who have been around for well over a decade, longer than I have been, which is good to know. I hope that you, too, are well, and it's good to see you. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I notice that you altered the formatting of the hook for Kibi Daijin Nittō Emaki, now in Queue 7. I think that was a mistake, because looking at the hook, the text looks insignificant and I think most people will click on the "Museum of Fine Arts, Boston" instead. I am tempted to reverse your formatting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thank you for letting me know. It may be a browser issue: when I looked at the hook in Safari, the bold italic link was a couple of points bigger than everything else, so I tried to correct it. If the bold italic article name appears to be too small in your browser, then by all means undo what I did: you're probably using a more common browser than I am (I'm Mac-based). My apologies for not thinking of that possibility, and please do whatever makes it look the right size. (But I would suggest placing the formatting apostrophes outside of the template where they belong rather than inside, unless doing so causes issues.) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have done that. It looks better to me, I use Firefox. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

August songs

Thank you for being the excellent control of DYK (and sorry for failing again)! My 12th today, DYK? I decorated, also for a birthday. Songs invite to more music, places, food and flowers. Now is not the time, but I'll see what I can do for the psalm. (Two more recent deaths, one to expand tomorow, one to create the day after, one psalm given up already ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to BlueMoonset for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 13:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat there's not a moment to lose, so your opinion is earnestly and urgently solicited on the modification proposed at User_talk:David_Eppstein#Side_discussion_re_DYK_2-QPQ_RfC. EEng 15:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	You get this barnstar for making sure that GA nominees are properly reviewed. I won't be reviewing any more articles for GA status, and will just stick to normal editing. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This successful good article nomination report tool shows I have successfully promoted 171 GANs to Good Article. Just put in my User name. I have a pretty good idea what a Good Article looks like, so I have submitted Marsala Ship again as a GAN. Please let it get to the next GA reviewer in line to do reviews and I am sure with few issues I can quickly get this article promoted to Good Article status. FYI, during the last GAN drive I got 21 GANs promoted to Good Article status. During the 2020 two GAN drives that consisted of 62 days total I got 62 of my GANs promoted to Good Article status. Thanks for not reverting my GANs and allowing them to be seen by a GA reviewer. I am aiming for a grand total of 200 Good Articles by Christmas.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell, I am well aware of your record at GAN, which has been a mixture of articles that are ready and articles that are manifestly not ready. Your recent nomination of Thomas Elfe House is one of the latter, which you should know if you read my review. I reverted Marsala Ship because the prose was objectively substandard in many places and plainly far from ready for GAN. I thought it was kinder than quickfailing the nomination. For both of these nominated articles, as is true of the bulk of your current GANs, you revisited articles you created many years ago. The updates were not to GA level.

Lest you think I am unaware of your work, I have seen it for years, both at DYK and here at GAN. I am not the only one to notice issues; when you nominated ten articles in one day in July 2020 and I pointed out on the GAN talk page that this put you at over 10% of the outstanding GANs (over 400 at the time), one of the other regulars ended up reviewing one of these ten (Talk:Red Cross stove/GA1) and quickfailing it.

I find it interesting (and disappointing) that you renominated Marsala Ship immediately rather than first make an attempt to improve the problematic prose. It is your responsibility to get articles to GA standard prior to nominating them, and the reviewers who volunteer to review them should be given nothing less. For now, I will be reverting your second attempt to nominate Marsala Ship, as the prose clearly does not meet the "clear and concise" requirement, particularly clarity: there were problematic and oddly constructed sentences in many places, not just a few. If you can't see it yourself, then please ask for a GOCE copyedit prior to a third nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset! I saw on Vaticidalprophet's page they responded to you and said they couldn't come back to the Bobbi Kristina Brown GA review. Do you know if this will be placed back in the queue, or is someone able to take the GA review over? If it's placed back in the queue, it will still retain its nomination date of May 12, yes? Any guidance appreciated. Hopefully you're enjoying your weekend. Kind regards. --Kbabej (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Kbabej, thanks for letting me know: I hadn't been back and the reply didn't include a ping. It seemed best to put the nomination back into pool of unreviewed nominations while retaining its seniority. (People willing to take over an ongoing review are few and far between, unfortunately.) It will be the fourth-oldest unreviewed nomination, so I would expect it to be picked up again within a couple of weeks, though it could take longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate it! —Kbabej (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We are now at 64 approved nominations. I think that means we go back to 24 hour rotations for now, but I'm not sure. SL93 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It was at 55 when I looked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

SL93, sorry for the delayed response: as it says on the Queues page, we have to drop below 60. So when you posted, not yet, but as of Cwmhiraeth's post, we were there, and we went back to one set per day. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, noticed that you've been reverting out-of-process nominations. The person who nominated Kobe Bryant is not a significant contributor, but I did not want to step on any toes by reverting the nom myself. Mind taking a look? — GhostRiver 20:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, GhostRiver. I've reverted the nomination. They're welcome to consult on the Bryant talk page, and then renominate if the consensus is that it's ready to be a GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)