User talk:LunaEatsTuna

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

charlotte ^👸♥ 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if you got pinged with my reply or not, Luna ... it looks like your phone should still be supporting telegram at least (crossing fingers that it does!). Look me up there at @NathanObral :3 Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Luna, when can you start adding comments for the GARs you've started? Otherwise I will seek another editor's input if there's no response/comments within the next days. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: Sure. I'll get to it tonight (utc). ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 00:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

LunaEatsTuna: There's been no activity on Talk:Childhood nudity/GA1 since I completed my responses to your first set of comments on March 5th. There is no hurry, but I do have two other articles ready to be nominated, and don't want to be doing more than one GAN at the same time.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The article June 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:June and Talk:June/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, if for some reason you've got too much on your plate, feel free to close this one out and I can pick it up. No worries otherwise! Dawnseeker2000 00:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Covered it now, but I do appreciate the offer! I did three other earthquakes GANs from the illustrious Dora the Axe-plorer and got slightly burned out with earthquake articles aha. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 09:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions), with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
• MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The article June you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:June for comments about the article, and Talk:June/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know you might want to archive some sections on your talk page. WP:TALKSIZE recommends archiving once the page once it had around 75 KB of wikitext, and yours has over 3 times that and is pretty slow to load. Best, Sarsenet (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Only people with mobile devices after the iPhone 7S and 2012 Android devices are allowed on this talk page. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 15:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sarsenet: Fine—is this better now? ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 23:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep, much better. Sarsenet (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I almost signed your "guestbook" but then realized it would be redundant heheh :3 Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

On 1 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article June, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that no other month in a calendar year starts with the same day of the week as June? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/June. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, June), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
• Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

There will come a day of reckoning for you, you stupid oilskin clanker. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 00:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I will slaughter your entire family. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 05:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:

1. BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
2. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
3. Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
4. History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
5. Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
6. TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
7. AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
8. Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points

Our high scorers in the final round were:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
• vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
• History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
• Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total

A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:

• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 27 good articles in round 3, and 45 good article reviews in round 1
• Tails Wx (submissions), with 10 in the news articles in round 3

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're inverting the consensus. That RfC made non-inclusion of the symbols the default case, with there needing to be a consensus to include them on a case by case basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I do not see this mentioned in the RfC itself, unless this fact/nature of RfCs is stated externally somewhere which you could kindly link me. From my understanding at what is written there, status quo probably applies (for both including or excluding a particular symbol, dependent upon which editor makes the original addition) like it would for any article. In any case, the flag is cited to RS so it should be safe to remain per said RfC at the least, but I acknowledge the CoA may not be by that same logic as it is only cited to a primary source at the moment. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 23:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The RfC makes it very clear that the conclusion is Option B, no flag or coat of arms. The flag could be included in the article next to prose that is cited, but in the infobox is against what the RfC concluded. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Yes, the RfC indeed makes it clear that they sought Option B, as you say. However, (a) never specifies that they are referring to prose when they talk about requiring RS or editor discretion to add certain symbols, so, respectfully of course, this seems like an interpretation on your end. I presume you are citing “Principally, consensus is for option B” and the proposed custom infobox below, which indeed has no flag nor emblem: however, option B notably is also limited to those parameters which they show in the example, but (b) actually says “There is no consensus about the inclusion and use of certain other parameters” and “Participants are generally at an impasse about the propriety of including these parameters when they hold no outside recognition or verifiability,” implying that other parameters are fully allowed to be added per WP:NOCON. For instance, if you cite the shown infobox having no images as being why it should not have images (which is valid obviously), then, should this same logic be applied regarding the parameters (which it would have to be for consistency), this would mean that adding other parameters is explicitly disallowed, but in my opinion this would certainly contradict what is actually said in (b), not to mention it would violate NOCON. So, I think it is most likely, based on context and what is stated, that (a) refers to the infobox and not to prose (which is never even mentioned), when they say “against generally” and “may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis … symbols which are recognized or reported by reliable sources may be appropriate to add, as important information.“ Of course I could be totally wrong here, and I am indeed fully open to this, but I am going by what I actually see stated and WP's own policies and guidelines. Perhaps the person who wrote that summary was overtly ambiguous or poorly explained what the consensus actually was. :3 ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 00:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Well then there's no point to the RfC then and it is meaningless, and we can do as we please with the infobox? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The RfC concluded that micronations are to receive infoboxes, the word 'unrecognised' must be included somewhere in the infobox—at present we have “micronation (unrecognised entity)”—the flag, emblem and other symbols must only be added upon editor discretion and if cited to RS (“reliably verifiable … recognized or reported by reliable sources“), other parameters per NOCON may be freely added if they are cited to RS (“consensus is that it is appropriate to state verifiable claims, which are identified as such, even within infoboxes”) and that “consensus is against any reference to micronations as "fictitious" in the same sense as "literary fiction"”. Prior to this RfC, micronations used the same infobox as sovereign states (this was thus disallowed per the RfC); the aforementioned unrecognised statement and micronation declaration has been added; and, information in the infobox parameters cited to primary sources are no longer permitted and must usually be instead cited to secondary sources (which are required to be RS). If the RfC was truly “meaningless” as you quip, micronations would still have infoboxes identical to countries, which, evidently, they do not. Also, I am not the one who wrote that rather comical summary nor did I even participate in the RfC, I am just following what it proscribes, as all editors should, so please do not bring (even subtle) attitude into discussions—we are coworkers and I assume we both love Wikipedia! ^w^ ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 01:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, we both love it. But, frankly your interpretation of that RfC is completely wrong. It's unequivocal that Option B was selected, that doesn't include the flag and coat of arms. I don't understand how that is uncertain to anyone. I think we're at an impasse. So, I'm going to seek other inputs. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, you can go ahead. But, as I mentioned in my (rather thorough and cited) explanation, if Option B was accepted as is then this decision would go against NOCON and fully contradict everything written in (b) though, no? ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 01:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

In other words, (a) and (b) are contextualising, elaborating, expanding upon the infobox example that they have shown. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 01:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I think nearly 50 at once is a bit beyond the capacity of a single reviewer. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Hey! Thanks for the (valid) concern. I have intentionally chosen articles on the shorter side or topics I am familiar with; I have also cleared my schedule for the month. I do believe that this should take me about 50-100 hours, which is very doable in a two-week period for an unemployed shutin mentally deranged individual such as myself. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 23:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna ...fair enough. Good luck! Don't overwork yourself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wishing you all the best. <3 ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 23:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

183 reviews is huge. Didn't realise you were taking on so many, thankyou for all your effort and yeah, don't burn out or overcommit yourself. If you need to take a breath, feel free to ping me in and I can leave some comments. Whonting (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
• Olliefant (submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Luna, you have claimed several GANs that haven't received reviews yet. Please start these as soon as possible, so that nominators can address concerns and these can be closed. In the future, I suggest that an initial review is completed before opening another one so that several editors do not have to wait for comments and the nominations can be reviewed by others. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course, of course. I have closed two today and will get on the remaining ones as fast as I can… ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 06:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Since you got it to GA, I thought you'd be the best to ask; Is there any chance that Bloomsday and the Bloom Festival (this article is in poor shape, but the official website of bord bia bloom says june bank holiday) could be included, or is it only the most "important" celebrations? Finnfrog99 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99: Sorry for the wait!!!! I think I was going for holidays that were international/global because there are hundreds of local country ones for any given month and I was not sure how to determine which of those to list. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright then! Finnfrog99 (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for a lovely GA review for Herr Gott, dich loben wir, BWV 16, my New Year's greeting 2026. Can you perhaps cast your diligent eyes on Gott fähret auf mit Jauchzen, BWV 43 which will hopefully be on the main page in two days, for Ascension Day, - formally in the FAC or informally by copy-edit and talk page? Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

update: Gott fähret auf mit Jauchzen, BWV 43 is now a FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, are you still planning on reviewing Jaydes at some point? NP (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reminding me! ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 23:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I saw that you've never edited UTC−00:25:21 and I thought you might want to know about it, since you made many articles about 'Time in (Country)' before Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99: Thanks, I had not heard about it before! It is interesting. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 00:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
• Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
• Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Four years! ...

Precious

Four years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, LunaEatsTuna. You have new messages at Talk:Jaydes/GA2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NP (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi LunaEatsTuna,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

My proposal is to start a GA union. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 14:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The fourth round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 29 August at 23:59 (UTC). Everyone who competed in round 4 will advance to round 5 unless they have withdrawn or been removed. Round 4 was competitive, though slightly less so than round 3. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; six scored over 500; and nine scored over 300. Each of the top five competitors had hundreds of points accumulated from multiple GAs. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,318 points, mostly from 13 good articles and 3 featured articles about creeks and Chinese and Japanese subjects
• Vanderwaalforces (submissions) with 1,208 points from 2 featured articles, 2 featured lists, and 12 good articles about African leaders, along with over two dozen reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1,084 points from 16 good articles and a small good topic about warfare and Greek elections, along with over two dozen reviews
• Vestrian24Bio (submissions) with 955 points, mostly from 2 FLs, 2 featured topics, and 16 GAs about cricket, and almost two dozen reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 837 points from 4 FLs and 8 GAs about figure skating, along with two dozen reviews

The full scores for round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 10 featured articles, 11 featured lists, 8 featured-topic articles, 103 good articles, 6 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 11 In the News articles, and they have conducted 170 peer reviews, FA and GA reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to let you know that the discussion on Anthropic proof formalization is open, and feel free to join in! In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 06:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)