User talk:Fox/March 2016

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

HI! Thanks for your advice; I edited the page again before I read your message. Of course, replace the 'issues' template if you feel the citations. are insufficient! PS. Apologies if this is an inappropriate mode of response--I haven't had time to explore the editing side of things here properly yet, I've just worked with Sarah Kenderdine before and found some issues with the page. I'll explore the links in your note. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Yeon Greaves (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@J. Yeon Greaves: Thanks for your understanding. It's a tricky one to manage an article fairly for someone else (especially when that article is actually about them) but I hope you can see why I undid your edits. Feel free to add neutral content which is soured to reliable sources in the future, though: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for help on that. — foxj 02:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The block that you made (changed, rather...) on thus user seems very light to me. Based on the user's actions, it may be a good idea to extend it to indefinite. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. 2607:FB90:A4A1:CBC3:0:50:B398:5E01 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point, and I agree. — foxj 02:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Foxj, the next prep is in fact 5: for a long time now, the next prep and next unfilled queue have in fact been the same number, and the only reason preps 5 and 6 are empty while the others have hooks in them is that we're holding off loading them up while waiting for the final April Fool's Day hooks to be approved—queues 4, 5, and 6 will be the three running on April 1, and we'll be setting the queues to load the main page three times that day, and going right back two per day starting at midnight on April 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, BlueMoonset! Sorry for meddling :) — foxj 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am working on the Hannah Fraser article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Fraser, and I notice you removed my link to her Youtube channel. I wonder why you did this? Since this is her channel and she is a performer on video, shouldn't that link be included?

Also, I notice that she is often referred to as Hannah Mermaid (indeed, that is how she is referenced in the wikipedia article on "Mermaiding". I wondered whether her more well-known name - that of Hannah Mermaid, should be the title of the page? Or whether there is some way to reflect that name?

Thank you for your time. I notice you've done some great tidy-ups on this article. I appreciate that! Mattwingett (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mattwingett: We generally don't link to "official" YouTube channels because it's kind of spammy; I imagine the channel is linked to from her official website. See the policy on this for more information. Moving the page would be a good idea if that's what she's known by in the sources (we normally go by that where applicable). Hope that makes sense. — foxj 19:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello - how would I go about moving the article, and would it make sense to call it "Hannah Mermaid", or "Hannah Fraser aka Hannah Mermaid" - or something else? And do I need to get agreement from other editors?

Thank you, MattWingett Mattwingett (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)