User talk:UpTheOctave!

Hi UpTheOctave! Apologies for contacting you out of the blue but I was wondering whether you be willing to take a look at my featured article nomination for Bella Ramsey's page? I noticed you’ve recently reviewed Ethan Hawke's FAC, and I’d really value any feedback or suggestions you had. Thanks! Crp74 (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Crp74, nice to meet you. If no-one gets to it before me, I could definitely commit to doing a source review. Thanks for reaching out, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 14:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @UpTheOctave!. That would be fantastic! Much appreciated. Kind regards, Crp74 (talk) 14:31, 25 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 Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.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)

Hi. I can see that you're still reviewing FAC and told me that you like reviewing. I was wondering whether you may be interested in reviewing the article Leon S. Kennedy at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leon S. Kennedy/archive2. If not, no worries. Thank you. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I should be able to get to this, since the source review has been done I'll give some general commentary on references and prose. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You closed this two days after it was relisted. Two of the keep votes after it was relisted cited criteria for inherent notability despite there not being any in the guideline. Is there a reason it was closed so soon after the re-list? CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CNMall41, thanks for reaching out; I'm happy to discuss my rationale. WP:RELIST notes that a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. Per this, I closed the AfD debate as I saw a consensus for keeping the article at that point. I do agree wih you and Orange sticker that the arguement based on the charting figures was weaker: while their single charted on the OCR's Official Physical Singles, Rock & Metal Singles, and Independent Singles charts, it did not chart on the Official Singles or Official Album charts, which would be a stronger basis for notability. However, I did not see a full refutation of the application of WP:BAND#2 at the time, which essenially is a criteri[on] for inherent notability that is part of WP:NMUSIC. Regardless of that, I stand by my closure on the basic grounds of WP:GNG: I found consensus that the arguement and sources first proposed by ResonantDistortion, which directly refuted the delete !voters' comments that no sources could be found, had not been successfully disproven. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If notability is not inherent for charting, then the votes need to be weighed as such. Otherwise it is just a vote count. This is one that would ask you re-open as it seems there was not a clear consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this was just a vote count. As I said above in the explanation of my rationale, even when disregarding the !votes you objected to (which, as I alluded to above, I did weigh less when closing), I still find consensus for the core claim of meeting WP:GNG, which directly contradicts both the nomination statement and delete !votes, was supported by several later keep !voters, and was entirely unchallenged for over a week at the time of closure. Please, feel free to take this to WP:DRV if you think I have misinterpreted this discussion. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not say it was just a vote count. I stated if you do not weigh the arguments it is a vote count. If you did weigh it appropriately, as you state you did, then I see experienced editors having a back and forth discussion prior to the relist. One of the keep votes was challenged by OP without response. An admin felt it was worthy of relisting. The subsequent delete votes are the ones that were not given significant weight as they are based on inherent notability. If that is the case, then it seems like something that should be allowed to continue, not closed early by a non-admin, as there wouldn't be a clear consensus. As a non-admin, please re-open the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I do get your point, although I note that there was also an !vote that after the relist that supported the uncontested WP:GNG claim, and that the keep vote you mention was only challenged with regards to the interpretation of WP:BAND, which we've agreed is a weaker arguement anyways. There was no objection at all to the main claim of WP:GNG, which is why I closed the discussion. I still stand by my origial closure as above, so I'd honestly appreciate using the DRV route to get a wider consensus to better callibrate my future closes, come what may. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The same to you. All the best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey UpTheOctave!! I just wanted to stop by and ask if you'd be interested in joining the new pages patrol team. Taking a quick look through your CSD log and AfD comments gives me the impression that you know what you're doing from a policy perspective; I've also seen your helpful reviews at FAC, which gives me confidence in your ability to be patient and provide constructive feedback, a valuable skill in this role as you're often talking to newer editors. Both NPP and AfC are always in need of more hands on deck, so any amount of help is welcome. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69, many thanks for your suggestion. I'm glad that you think I would be capable of working in this space, but at the moment I'd like to focus my remaining energies elsewhere, like back to article creation and quality reviewing, as my activity is likely to dwindle from here until the summer. Maybe another time :) Thanks again, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I'm actually in the middle of a semi-break from my own projectspace haunts so I can focus on an FAC push for one of my articles, so I entirely get where you're coming from. :) If you find yourself with more time on your hands, I hope you'll give it a shot! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)