User talk:Skyshifter

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)

Your good article nomination of the article Passo Bem Solto has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Skyshifter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 05:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 05:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Calling for a close. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Never Say Never (Basement Jaxx song) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Leafy46 -- Leafy46 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Never Say Never (Basement Jaxx song) has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Leafy46 -- Leafy46 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Never Say Never (Basement Jaxx song) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 Leafy46 -- Leafy46 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Is Strange: Reunion was a BADNAC. Just from reading through it, it's obvious this was not an open and shut case. At the very least, it would need a rationale for why a pile-on supervote largely comprised of pure WP:VOTEs took precedence over policy-based objections. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: rationale added. Skyshiftertalk 11:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

There is an additional notable Wisp. A disambiguator is needed.

I am aware that Wisp does not have his own article on English Wikipedia, but the existence of fr:Wisp, pl:Wisp (muzyk), ru:Wisp, it:Wisp (musicista), and arz:ويسپ is not insignificant. A Wikidata item for him exists, and he has articles on the French, Polish, Russian, Italian, and Egyptian Arabic Wikipedias.

Referring to the other Wisp as the only Wisp is wrong because she is not the only Wisp, and it is confusing to refer to her as such when this "Wisp (musician)" is a completely different person elsewhere.

Please reconsider. — rae^5e <talk> 17:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Theki: On Wikipedia, we use disambiguators when they are needed. With only one Wisp musician being notable, there is no reason to add the "shoegaze" disambiguator. The electronic Wisp musician also doesn't seem notable for English Wikipedia's standards, hence why it was redirected to the label article over ten years ago. If an article for the electronic Wisp is created, then an argument could be made here. Skyshiftertalk 17:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said, a disambiguator is needed. The language sidebar for the article on the other Wisp already trips up because it thinks the article is about Reid Dunn when it isn't. I assume the notability guidelines of other Wikipedias aren't the same as ours, but the fact is still that we are referring to a completely different Wisp then these other wikis are. That is confusing.

Maybe I am a little biased because I find it somewhat problematic for someone to come and subsume the primary alias of a musician who has been professionally producing music for decades before the other person was even born. I will continue to insist that the disambiguator should be added. It doesn't make sense for it to be absent. — rae^5e <talk> 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

How does it trip up? Wisp shoegaze links to Wisp (Q125546993) and Wisp electronic links to Wisp (Q4020519), the correct Wikidata items for each.

English Wikipedia is the English Wikipedia. Other languages having an article about non-notable musicians doesn't mean we should change the title of notable musician articles. Wisp (electronic musician) is merely a redirect to a label article where no prose information exists about Wisp, merely a mention in a list of members. This does not justify changing the title of Wisp (musician) at all.

It doesn't matter for how much time the other Wisp has been producing music for. What matters are the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. It happens that a Wisp, born later than the electronic Wisp, received enough coverage to have an article on the English Wikipedia (including being called "the Next Leader of the Shoegaze Revival" and "Gen Z's ambassador for the opaque and brutal"), while the electronic one has not, despite producing music for much longer. And that's fine! We go by notability, not career length. That's why we only have one Wisp (musician) while the other one is merely a redirect. Maybe it could be turned into an article, but my search didn't yield too many results.

Of course, you are always open to open a move discussion on the talk page. I believe that would be the best course of action if you still believe the article should be moved. Skyshiftertalk 18:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect of the electronic musician to The Shimmering Hour, an album of his. The album appears to be notable with at least three reliable reviews. I couldn't find any sources justifying an article about the musician though, and this album appears to be his only notable work. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong though). Skyshiftertalk 18:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | February 2026 Backlog Drive
February 2026 Backlog Drive: On 1 February, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. 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 conducted a good article review in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miku (song), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Miku (song) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Miku (song) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hero (Skillet song) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 RTSthestardust -- RTSthestardust (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Miku (song) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ltbdl (challenge) 15:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Silent Hill Townfall.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi, I noticed that you've added sources for scores in the reception section of God of War Sons of Sparta and your edit summary just says #proveit. What are you meaning by this?

Also, please make sure that both the date and access-date parameters are in the same format (mdy). There is a note at the very top of the page about this. You have the date parameter correct, but you're putting the access-date parameter in the yyyy-mm-dd format.

Also, please make sure to include the author for all sources if available. You've done it on some but left it off on others. Also you do not need to italicize the game's title in a source's title. That's an unnecessary alteration to the source's title. JDC808 ♫ 00:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@JDC808: it means I am using a gadget called ProveIt. The gadget adds it automatically to the edit summary when I use it.

There is no need to have all dates consistent in the source. The template at the top already fixes it automatically. It is simply unnecessary.

My main focus is on adding the source to the article. ProveIt will usually get all the information on the reference for me, such as author, date, and website (that's why I use the gadget, it is very handy). However, not always it can retrieve all the information. When I am editing an article for GA-status of higher I will make sure to have all parameters completed, but in that article I just wanted to make sure the reference was there. That being said, if I make any new edits to that article I will make sure to add all parameters.

Italicizing the game (or any other works) in a reference is common formatting. I have this habit because I have promoted a few articles to FA, and something that reviewers tend to ask for is to italicize the names of games, albums, etc. as you would on the prose and article title. So this is actually FA formatting that I am used to do. You can see it across other quality articles as well. Skyshiftertalk 00:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, the formatting for the dates would need to be consistent for both when taking this to GA and later FA, and that is the plan (and again, the note at the top of the article says all dates to be formatted as mdy). Not a major thing, but in my time of doing GA and FA articles, I have never been told to alter a source's title to italicize the title of a work within it.

And okay on the gadget. JDC808 ♫ 00:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@JDC808: yeah not all reviewers press on this, but it is something that I've seen a bit. My video game FA OneShot does this. That's why I am used to this. On the dates, it really is not necessary to have them consistent in the article code when the mdy (or dmy) templates fixes them automatically when reading the article. My FAs contain inconsistent dates (including the yyyy-mm-dd ones — which actually is added by ProveIt automatically) and really, there is no need to fix something that will not affect the output at all. That's more of a preference thing, which is fine if you have, but not necessary. Skyshiftertalk 01:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess it just depends on who is reviewing as I've always been told the dates should be consistent. And I guess the template doesn't automatically apply to the Wikipedia app cause it shows both formats for me. But thanks for providing the sources as expanding reception is my next task (and that's the one section I hate doing 😅). JDC808 ♫ 01:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@JDC808: I didn't know the dates appeared on the Wikipedia app. Honestly that'd make me want to make them consistent if that's the case (hope there's an automatic tool somewhere...) But yes, it really depends on who is reviewing, which is unfortunate, because some reviewers press on specific things and others do not, but in the end it gets promoted anyway. I wish reviewers were more consistent, but I guess that's the nature of Wikipedia. Either way, I'm sorry if I caused any disruption, I hope you can promote the article to GA really soon :) Skyshiftertalk 01:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No disruptions. It's actually helpful as I don't have to go and find all those sources myself as you already got them there. I just have to read through them to write the reception section lol but overall, I'm just trying to preemptively take care of things that I have dealt with in prior GA/FA reviews to hopefully make this one's review process go smoother when it comes time to nominate this. JDC808 ♫ 01:40, 27 February 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)

The information I took out of the lead is still in the article. An article lead should give an overview of the subject and article. Having the lead immediately jump into details about the search for it overwhelms the description of the actual song. Trivialist (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Trivialist: yes, the lead is an overview of the article. And most of the article is about the search. There is a dedicated section to it with three entire paragraphs. It is not overwhelming, rather, consistent with the information present in the article. You also removed that the song was released as a single. Skyshiftertalk 19:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, removing that it was released as a single was unintentional. As for the rest of it, the average Wikipedia reader isn't going to know what "the lostwave community" is, and the single sentence about the song itself is tacked on to the end of the paragraph like an afterthought. Yes, the online search for it is interesting, but an article about a song (or its lead) should be about the song. Trivialist (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Trivialist: Clearly, the search itself should at very least have a mention in the lead. Three paragraphs of the article (which is actually the majority of the article) are dedicated to it. The article is literally more about the search than the song. This is not an article about any song, it is about a song that only became notable because of its search and discovery. This is why the article does not have sections like "Reception", like all songs do, but rather "Search and discovery". Skyshiftertalk 19:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, I would suggest splitting the lead so that the detail about the search is in the second paragraph, instead of having one paragraph that jams everything together. Trivialist (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

On 6 April 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miku (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the guitarist who created the song "Miku" often felt like he was talking to the fictional Hatsune Miku? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miku (song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Miku (song)), 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 nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Clarity (Zedd song) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Clarity (Zedd song) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)