User talk:Vaticidalprophet

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

		The Special Barnstar
		Once again, thank you so much for reviewing Etika and helping me bring it to good article status! PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Paul Needham (librarian) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paul Needham (librarian) for comments about the article, and Talk:Paul Needham (librarian)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Vaticidalprophet! The article you nominated, Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Vaticidalprophet! Great to have it official! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 10 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 10, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marie Sophie Hingst, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the German-Irish historian Marie Sophie Hingst was revealed to be faking descent from Holocaust survivors, the media of different countries disagreed on how to report on it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Sophie Hingst. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marie Sophie Hingst), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this GA, and others, and FA, and further FA plans! - She is also featured on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for the promotion to prep of Ernst-Ludwig Petrowsky, my fastest in recent history, nominated yesterday, in prep today. About the wording: I am not sure if "record" is better than "recording" (which seems more general), and if "with" is better than "of", because just in case he's the only one from the East, that made it wrong. No time to check, busy with another Recent death article but - for a nice change - unlike the last three including Petrowsky not on the very last possible day ;) For those three, I went to bed without knowing if they'd make it. Would you like reviewing at WP:ITNN? It's a simple sup or opp on simple requirements: substantial enough, and everything sourced? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't entirely sure about the record/recording -- will probably sleep on it. I've looked at ITN in the past; compared to other main-page processes it's always the one I've been least inclined to. I had some firsthand experience nominating an RD once, and it almost got archived too before I asked to see if it would ever be posted. Vaticidalprophet 12:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD improved insofar as they now add every entry at the beginning, not - as before - in the sequence of day of death which was unfair to those who got treatment late. All I asked was if you could just review from time to time? Usually you can tell at a glance if an article has chances or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to the main-page-processes I look at and see if there's anything needing reviews when I check :) Vaticidalprophet 22:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You may be interested in a userbox I created:

This user has been awarded a Standard Triple Crown.

— Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Placing multiple replies here, because I forgot to reply to things on any sort of sane schedule...)

Bilorv: thank you! It's good to be back. I don't think this will be the last for a while.

Gerda Arendt: fantastic to see you again, and yes, planning FA. Dark Archives feels like it would be a fitting Halloween TFA if it gets through GAN quickly enough, which is emphatically not a guarantee, these days. I'm indecisive, at the moment, between nominating Hingst now and hoping that FAC doesn't take too long, or waiting for someone to pick up Dark Archives and hoping the GAN doesn't take too long. I did see the portal feature, and the view count -- having joined in the "post-portal-controversy" era, it surprised me a little to see just how high the view counts on the country portals are, compared to a stereotype I had formed of relatively low views.

PantheonRadiance: thank you so much for the barnstar! I'll start copyediting Etika soonish (apologies for delay). Good to see the DYK will run soon. I hope to see you around a lot in the future -- you're making some fantastic contributions.

Sdkb: indeed it is :) Vaticidalprophet 00:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication. — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dark Archives, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dark Archives reveals that most books bound in human skin were made by respected doctors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dark Archives. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dark Archives), 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vaticidalprophet. When you said unilaterally superior, did you mean "universally"? Cheers, gnu57 02:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

specifically, anything next the empty credits. If you want to use PSHAW, make sure you take care of that first :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 15:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My browser froze, twice before I managed to get it done, because the intersection of PSHAW and hidden text turned out to be "just lock your computer, lol". I am trying not to say things before bed I'll want to take back in the morning, but I'm in a pretty bad mood about that. Vaticidalprophet 15:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I was never great about putting failsafes in... lemme see what I can do about that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes that should decrease the extent to which it decides that crashing a browser is the solution. More to come, possibly :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have another 1-2 volunteers, I have no objections to adding both of them. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad this is about the witch thing and not the suicide thing Vaticidalprophet 03:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the template {{Old good article table entry}}, which will automatically apply bolding and italics when a page passes the relevant time thresholds :) Example here:

Can implement if you want, let me know :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

​That'd be great -- thank you! Vaticidalprophet 04:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is agenesis a subset of dysgenesis? I added information about bilateral ovarian agenesis to XX gonadal dysgenesis since it would meet the condition stated in the first sentence ("no functional ovaries are present"), but it seems like "dysgenesis" would imply a nonfunctional rather than absent organ. Alternately it could be merged with the new article Unilateral ovarian agenesis, even though the consequences of bilateral vs unilateral agenesis are very different. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what the 'gonadal dysgenesis' articles deal with is a syndrome that results in "streak gonads" -- undifferentiated gonads that aren't ovaries or testicles and don't produce sex hormones or gametes. There are other ways for "gonads in general" to be "dysgenetic", like testicular dysgenesis syndrome, which we cover separately to anorchia interesting hatnote. I haven't heard much prior about ovarian agenesis without streak gonads before, but looking through the study cited in the XXGD article, it seems most of the cases they're aware of had "absent ovaries for some other reason" rather than "failure to develop, with no other gonads". Congenital absence of even streak gonads is exceptionally rare -- I'm looking through the case studies that one cites to see if there's any more detail about those. The gonadal dysgenesis article is plausibly a "least bad place", but it might make more sense to have some central Agonadia that bilateral ovarian agenesis and anorchia redirect to. Will update. Vaticidalprophet 18:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendums, sort of stream of consciousness reading-while-typing:

• The first two cites in this study both lean heavily towards a generalized gonadal-agenesis article being the best way to cover this, because they both heavily emphasize how this was mostly reported with 46,XY karyotypes and variable phenotypes rather than 46,XX karyotypes and female phenotypes. Obviously both those sources are old, though this is a common problem for these kinds of conditions (the rare ones you tend to get the choice between "old source" and "no source"), but the corollary is that they make such a big deal about being the first known XX cases of a pretty well-known XY condition.
• The third seems to talk about someone with gonadal dysgenesis and not agenesis? Very undetailed.
• This source (sixth cited) is definitely talking about a generalized agonadism syndrome. (Kennerknecht syndrome/Kennerknecht-Vogel syndrome seems redlinked.) The eighth is too, even just from the abstract (and confirmed looking at it in full).

Hope this helps, Buidhe -- so the overview seems to be, yes, you'd want to classify this separately, and probably alongside the bilateral-gonadal-agenesis we already have an article on. It does seem the sources don't all perfectly distinguish agonadism and gonadal dysgenesis, such that it took me a bit of digging to figure this out, but if nothing else we have a fairly clear impression (that I suspected might be the case going in) that the line between "bilateral ovarian agenesis" and "bilateral testicular agenesis" is fairly thin in terms of phenotypes/development. Vaticidalprophet 18:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda further: the Kennerknecht syndrome described in #6 is also Kennerknecht-Sorgo-Oberhoffer syndrome or PAGOD syndrome, all redlinked on enwiki...but PAGOD-Syndrom [de] does exist. PAGOD seems the least-uncommon name (though as someone who has ever linked velocardiofacial syndrome in articles, I can assure that optimal naming for genetic syndromes is a mess). May look into dewiki's sources and work on it. Vaticidalprophet 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the difference between ovarian and testicular agenesis the karyotype? If it's XX then the docs expect ovaries to develop, XY then testes. Otherwise you're right: how do they tell the difference? Yet the sources do talk about "bilateral ovarian agenesis/absence". I don't have any objection to covering both in the same article, though "gonadal agenesis" seems to be more common than agonadia. (And if we do that would it make sense to merge XX gonadal dysgenesis and XY gonadal dysgenesis on the grounds that the phenotype is the same?) (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal coverage for rare disorders is tricky. Any described syndrome (that is actually a described syndrome, not the Impossible syndrome affair) can have an article, but NOPAGE applies. Total gonadal agenesis seems to fall below the NOPAGE line.

I'm thinking about the comparison of Ring chromosome, where we technically have a pile of redlinks that all 'could be' blue, but everything too rare to have a Unique guide is unlikely to be worth making one for. In particular, most comparably: ring chromosome X is on that list, but we cover it in Turner syndrome (I should go make that redirect once I've sent this) because making articles for different genotypes causing slightly-variant Turner phenotypes splits the information somewhat more than ideal. This follows we should merge 45,X/46,XY mosaicism back into Turner's, which I intend to do as soon as I finish the Turner's rewrite I abandoned halfway through, which should be done sometime this century.

I think there's a reasonably clear case that the three major X0/XX/XY gonadal dysgeneses rise above NOPAGE individually and rarer phenomena like full agenesis or other karyotypes are better covered centrally, though 'centrally' will depend on the article, e.g. partial and mosaic forms of Turner's should be covered in the parent article. (Ironically, the thing that disrupted my rewrite was someone adding huge amounts of information about a variant Turner's karyotype.) Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of gonads isn't a genetic or chromosonal condition, so it's not going to have a unique entry. Are you saying that the agenesis should be merged into dysgenesis articles by karyotype? I can agree with that for XX, but gonadal agenesis in XY individuals is 1/20,000, so significantly more common than XX dysgenesis and agenesis combined, and the phenotype is not similar to XY gonadal dysgenesis. I'm also not sure about your proposal to merge X0/XY into Turner syndrome. There are plenty of sources, it was one of the first intersex conditions to be discovered, and the phenotype and management are very different from Turner syndrome. (t · c) buidhe 02:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of In the Land of Invented Languages 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! Sionk (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dark Archives you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vaticidalprophet.

This is my first time doing a GA nomination and I am thinking of nominating the article Turkish Airlines Flight 452. I haven't contributed a lot to the article but I did fix some words within while reading the article. How can I begin the process? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 15:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Layah50, thanks for your interest in GAN. I see that article was written by Styyx, who has recently retired but is still responding to their current GANs. I'd recommend asking them about the article first and if they'd be interested in someone else nominating it -- usually nominators are the person who wrote most of the article. They might, for instance, have wanted to add more information before nominating it, so it'd be good to find out first if there's anything missing from the article or anything they planned to do with it, or if they don't think it should be a GA for whatever reason. Vaticidalprophet 15:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I'll ask Styyx and see what he thinks. Thanks! 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 16:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Vaticidalprophet and Buidhe. I just wanted to let you know that I'll be on vacation for the next 7-8 days and won't be active on Wikipedia, except for responding to open GA reviews. This means I won't be able to help with the Backlog drive for now. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good holiday, Golden -- thanks so much for all you've done, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Vaticidalprophet 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to say thanks for your hard work at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, I've been away for a week or so and without your help the OTD section would not have been rotated each day. I should be able to look at OTD a bit more now but it would be a great help if you could pop in now and then. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article In the Land of Invented Languages you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article In the Land of Invented Languages 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:In the Land of Invented Languages and Talk:In the Land of Invented Languages/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dark Archives you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dark Archives for comments about the article, and Talk:Dark Archives/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet, I wanted to let you know that I have decided to promote Edward V. Boursaud to GA status after some modifications were made. I do believe I've done everything right but would definitely appreciate another set of eyes on it in case there is something I missed! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks excellent, M4V3R1CK32 -- thank you for your work! I'm especially heartened to see the attention you paid to image licensing; it's an obtuse topic and one many reviewers engage little with (including myself, simply on the basis that many calls are hard to make). I do think you were a little stricter than ideal on interpreting 'focused' regarding his family history -- as Ergo Sum noted, these are frequent practice in biographies when sufficient information exists on it -- but reviews are a tricky balance to get a feel for, and many newer reviewers waver somewhat between strictness and leniency before determining the right place to go. Certainly you have significant potential in this area, and I look forward to seeing how you evolve as a reviewer. Vaticidalprophet 01:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that! The balance is definitely tricky. I wonder if the points I raised about the upbringing would be better suited for an FA review; maybe I'm just getting too in the weeds.

I have a smidge of experience with image rights stuff in my off-Wiki life, so I feel a bit more comfortable with that, but certainly do not claim to be an expert. Thanks for looking it over! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, i had two quick questions regarding this blurb for this article.

• should "human-alien communication" be "human–alien communication", to conform with mos:enbetween?
• i admittedly had trouble parsing the second sentence in this blurb. the sentence is longer than usual, and contains a four-element list, with the third element containing the word "and". i could not think of a good way to significantly reword this without sounding overly repetitive, but had wondered if it would clarify things by explicitly numbering the elements of the list.

  Its four sections explore (1) the history of SETI as a field; (2) archaeological comparisons for human-alien communication, such as the difficulties of translating ancient languages; (3) the inferential gap between humans and aliens, and the consequences this would have for communication and trade; and (4) the potential nature of alien intelligences.

  what do you think about presenting the sentence in this format? admittedly, such explicit numbering isn't generally done in tfa blurbs, though i suspect that this is because sentences in tfa blurbs tend to not be unusually long. the construction has been used before at tfa, as seen here.

by the way, i don't know if the pdf file is in the public domain, but if it is, it might be useful to upload it to commons. dying (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that second phrasing -- it's unorthodox, but works very well here :) I...try not to get too bogged down in MOS dashes, so do what thou wilt. The PDF is already on Commons. Vaticidalprophet 09:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, you are right! silly me, i had forgotten that searches on commons no longer provide pdf results by default. thanks for correcting me. anyway, i've updated the blurb. thanks for addressing these points! dying (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article In the Land of Invented Languages, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the author of In the Land of Invented Languages lived in the same town as a fluent Klingon speaker? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In the Land of Invented Languages. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, In the Land of Invented Languages), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 00:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

August songs

my story today

Thank you for an interesting one! And also for your work on OTD, - today's - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much to you as well, Gerda! :) I've really been enjoying OTD, and plan to get back into it soon. I hoped you'd like that one. Vaticidalprophet 22:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it for FAC years ago, and was happy to see it again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singing your praises further for the TFA today, your first I understand, Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication, introduced: "This is kind of a 'curiosity FAC', looking to see how it goes. It's gone through GAN and pre-FAC PR during my last period of heavy activity, which was...some time ago ... - Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication is a 2014 essay collection on an unusual little topic -- the sociological and anthropological consequences of human-alien interactions. It's interesting reading, and freely available as a NASA publication. It's also a fascinating microcosm of its own subject (the perils of communication across long inferential distances); much of its claim to notability comes from news reports misinterpreting it as an 'ancient aliens'-type claim of prehistoric monuments being made by aliens. In an era where large language models have reignited the question of how to interact with non-human intelligences, it feels particularly resonant."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, my focus is on Renata Scotto, after days of updating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Wicked Prince, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Wicked Prince by Hans Christian Andersen, published in 1840, depicts powered and steerable flight twelve years before the first successful airship flight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Wicked Prince. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Wicked Prince), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Blockchain Chicken Farm you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Occult America you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a subpage to make it easier for my colleagues and I to keep track of our projects that require reviews and comments. Feel free to add there anything that you would like reviewed or commented on, and it will appear on my user page. — Golden ^talk 14:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vaticidalprophet. One article that was being review, Sandringham railway line, was recently quick-failed by a user. Is this a valid quick-fail? They never allowed me time to fix the mistakes (which I was willing to do) and never allowed discussion before quick-failing it. Just wanted to double check with you. Thanks HoHo3143 (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding the borderlands of "valid quickfail that could've been full-reviewed" and "should've been full-reviewed" is tricky -- virtually any quickfail could have been full-reviewed, especially given how low some people's readings of GACR are, but there's a difference between "theoretically possible" and "practically possible". I didn't necessarily anticipate a quickfail for that article, but I'm not sure it's outside the realms of reason, especially given the undercited sections (I have the sense you do a lot of "write from the sources, then misplace or mix up the sources when citing them", given how many reviews have mentioned things being uncited or failing spotchecking when those things are easily verifiable with subject matter knowledge).

More broadly, these articles are tricky to review, because they require a decent knowledge of Melbourne public transit to assess the sourcing of in the first place given how common SPSes and other odd-looking sources are in the subject area, and to know what undercited content is verifiable. That's part of the reason they've all sat so long, and part of why the reviews for them are all over the place. Ultimately I agree that quickfail was in discretion -- it's a good idea to have all the citations in the right place before you nominate, for one. I don't think it's far from a place where it can be renominated and pass, though, once it's copyedited and those issues are fixed. Vaticidalprophet 10:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet thank you for this. I'll add this to my to do list for later this week before renominating it. I'll make sure to review the sourcing, beef up the history section, give it a quick copyedit, and review the feedback. Thanks for providing some good guidance. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet also I'm guessing that its lost its place in the articles that are over 90 days old table? HoHo3143 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will, but the list is getting short enough now that many more articles off it are being reviewed, so don't get disheartened! I also hope to run another drive before the end of the year, so even if it gets missed here there should be plenty of opportunities for it to be reviewed in the future. Vaticidalprophet 11:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet hopefully we do have another drive- they are great especially as I pump a lot of articles out and they don't get reviewed for a while (and admittedly I don't review enough other articles). Thank you for running the drive and all the effort you've put in. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Occult America you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Occult America for comments about the article, and Talk:Occult America/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet: on two dates, Aug 31 and Sept 1, you deleted the people listed in born/died on that date in 2022 instead of returning thhem to the eligible birth/death list. For example, Robert Bacher, was listed as born on August 31, 2022, but was removed in this edit. Is there a reason why 2022 entries are deleted instead of put back into eligible? I know in previous years there were articles reused in OTD; has consensus for this changed? Z1720 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus hasn't changed. Any flatly-removed entries can be restored to eligible, I'm just still getting in the hang of it and it's logistically trickier to copy entries than override them so I don't remember it all the time. (Also, I barely use the eligibility section except when the Wikidata queries don't work -- which the events one has been sketchy lately, but I don't think I've ever used it for the b/ds -- so it doesn't stand out to me the way e.g. the images do, so I don't remember it.) Vaticidalprophet 23:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikidata queries sounds interesting, and a great way to find more names to feature on OTD. How do you do the queries? I'll go back into the OTD archives and ensure the eligible names are restored for future years. I like using this list for when I swap names when one is ineligible due to cn tags or no citation for the birth/death day. I am also going through the FA and GA lists and adding names to the eligible lists to build up the roster of names for OTD that better reflects geographic and notability diversity. If you find any interesting names to add to OTD from the Wikidata queries, please add them to the lists so that they might be added in future years. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article In the Land of Invented Languages you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:In the Land of Invented Languages for comments about the article, and Talk:In the Land of Invented Languages/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vaticidalprophet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Pbritti and I'm participating in the August GAN backlog drive. I'm currently reviewing Harold Kushner (review) and have a general sense that this might end up being a quick fail. I plan on rounding out my initial review, but having completed a review of the sourcing, I've found a number of not-quite-revdel copyright matters and more than a handful of coverage deficiencies. Would you mind providing me with your perspective on whether this is in valid QF territory or if I should leave it open with the hope of broad-spectrum revisions occurring in the next ten days? Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wondering if you meant to say "Hog Farm's comments" rather than "SandyGeorgia's comments" at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/archive1? All I said was "Yikes", which is about all I can say there ... for reasons best left to history but known to many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Needham (librarian) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step III of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Blockchain Chicken Farm 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:Blockchain Chicken Farm and Talk:Blockchain Chicken Farm/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to it very soon, Kusma! :) I noticed the part about the spotcheck, btw -- I'll prioritize quoting that source before getting to the rest of the prose tweaks, but yeah, it's in there. I still have this on my radar, just alongside everything else atm. Vaticidalprophet 09:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess running the backlog drive is quite a bit of work (thanks for doing that! From my not very informed perspective, it looks like it is going well). I will be away for a few days from middle of next week and don't know how responsive I can be, so I'm currently trying to push my open reviews towards the finish line if possible. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Blockchain Chicken Farm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blockchain Chicken Farm for comments about the article, and Talk:Blockchain Chicken Farm/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was that really a quick fail? After the last GAN, I have re written the entire article extensively and expanded the article over 3 fold. Rather than making it a quick fail, you could've just kept it on hold since I spent last 1.5 months on that article. Page history will say that. All those abbreviations are bluelinked to the respective articles too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it was a QF (TPWs: if someone looks at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana and strongly disagrees with my take, I'm happy to reopen it, but I think the prose and breadth (both 3a and 3b) land pretty clearly QF). There are articles that have been quickfailed after over nine months in the queue; sometimes, unfortunately, significant work on an article still hasn't gotten it to GAN. I really recommend looking at other higher education GAs as I suggested. I have experience with writing GAs on technical subjects, and I've had it hammered into me a few times there myself that acronyms generally need defining in text as well. Vaticidalprophet 14:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I fixed a lot of the issues you brought up in your Troika GA review. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work in organizing the incredibly successful GAN backlog drive. It's a huge achievement, knocking down a backlog by nearly 70%, and it wouldn't have happened without your hard work and diligent attention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm proud of what we've done, and it couldn't have been done without everyone's effort. Vaticidalprophet 01:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Death Barnstar
		Thanks for your creation of the page List of books bound in human skin, which is an absolutely fascinating read. It's clear that you put a lot of work into it, which is appreciated! Di (they-them) (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Di! It's an interesting subject :) I have some more to work on in the topic area (John Stockton Hough being a redlink is a hilarious exhibit of recency bias), then I...have to get to the main article, I guess. That'll be a hell of a job. Vaticidalprophet 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about your edit summary here. I've never seen "died by suicide" described as ableist before and am interested what the thinking is. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly -- I've had the unfortunate opportunity to end up on this subject onwiki a few times recently.

There's a type of language which is heavily championed by people who are not themselves disabled or neurodivergent, but are some steps removed from those who are. Most commonly it's associated with relatives, particularly relatives who are strongly activist for their cause (that is, the cause of caregivers). Person-first language is a major example, and like 'died by suicide' is used by many external publications and style guides, though they're sort of on opposite trajectories (the former is declining while the latter is increasing). The premise of person-first language in the intentional, going-out-of-your-way context specifically -- I'm making that distinction because many conditions have it as the obvious and natural phrasing (you wouldn't say 'cerebral palsics') -- is that a disability or neurodivergence is an excisable concept, that someone is not 'autistic' or 'schizophrenic/schizotypal' but 'having autism' or 'having schizophrenia/schizotypal personality disorder' as a clearly differentiatable idea from the 'real person' beneath. Examples chosen because in neither case is this generally agreed with by either the people so affected or the highest-quality research literature, but one has significant self-advocate pushback against person-first language and the other doesn't; this is one of my areas of offwiki scholarship, so No Further Comment. This is a tempting thing to believe for caregivers and other associates, but its relationship with some underlying Truth is...complex.

"Died by suicide" is similarly associate-language rather than direct-language, and bears the unfortunate corollary that there's no possible way it couldn't be, as we can't ask dead people their opinion. The problem with it becomes apparent when you consider its close associate "died from suicide" (and even more blatant variants, such as "died from depression", "died from schizophrenia", etc). This language inherently conceptualizes suicide as a complication or a consequence, something that "just happens" in the process of a defined disease state, divorced from the intentional act. This is problematic for suicidology and, most seriously, suicide prevention. Suicide is closer to the opposite of that -- it is in most cases preventable and impulsive, frequently with clear environmental and contextual triggers. A language that absolves the environmental triggers of suicide and reduces it to a "cause of death" or "part of a process" is an understandable one for grieving and coming to terms with a death, and I don't begrudge people anything they do grieving. (Today, while working on Duolingo, I remembered a conversation on Discord with Nosebagbear about the language I'm working on and just stared at the wall for a bit.) But it's an exceptionally bad language for considering why suicides happen, or for preventing them, or for discussing them in a broad psychological and sociological context.

The intersection of these language choices, which are often made by the same people, show up the problem. The concept that is presented is of some clearly external 'force', unrelated to either the individual or their surroundings, that causes a clear 'disease process' culminating in a death like any terminal illness. This is not a useful way to discuss these concepts, nor is it an accurate one. It is also one that absolves environmental contributions, which is understandable in the context it originates but not helpful to...pretty much anything else.

A lot of these choices come out of a prevalent misunderstanding of stigma. There's a fairly common idea that disability- and neurodivergence-related stigma are based in an etiological misunderstanding, i.e. if one presents things as "caused by a specific disease" rather than just being "crazy" or "weird" for no reason, this will decrease stigma. Evidence is sparse, but suggests this doesn't actually help, and may make things worse (most studies relating to it are fairly small-sample primary studies that go "huh, the biomedical group did worse" and look into it no further). These understandings are again popular amongst caregivers and associates, because they permit a very external-locus understanding of mental distress and incapacitation that is understandably appealing to people in that situation, so they're championed by many groups and societies that have significantly more power to affect discourse than self-advocacy groups do.

Another complex issue, related to the external-locus/othering one, is that these phrasings are unnatural -- that is, people do not use them in regular speech. (I remember venting to a non-editor friend about a "committed/died by suicide" dispute, where she said "died by suicide" was probably the better term...then, shortly after, used "committed suicide" in natural conversation.) Person-first language has very few non-stigmatized-characteristic parallels ("person with marriedness"), and in the contexts where natural language allows for both constructs they're generally used interchangeably ("person with green eyes" vs "green-eyed person"). When people are requested to exclusively use person-first language regardless of the sentence structure, they need to intentionally go out of their way to do so, increasing the degree to which disabled and neurodivergent people must be treated as separate 'othered' categories. "Died by suicide" is similarly a highly unusual term that contradicts most people's intuitions of how to refer to a cause of death (EEng made the "murder by death" parallel, which is about how I feel too), so going out of your way to mentally find-replace "committed/died by" requires intentionally understanding people who commit suicide as a special Other group unlike "normal people". This sort of euphemism that actually marginalizes the relevant group is widespread throughout disability issues, because disability is one of very few groups where people not directly affected have inherently more power to comment and advocate than people directly affected; self-advocacy for such groups is really hard, way harder than it is for just about anything else, and things that "seem" good but actually perpetuate the idea of such people as Wrong/Other are way more memetically powerful.

Finally, in the context of how we discuss suicide on Wikipedia in particular, there's another issue of appropriateness. "Died by suicide" bears the specific -- problematic -- implication of "progress of a state". I've already given my thoughts on this. But Wikipedia is an unusual place, a living document discussing people who commit suicide for a far wider range of reasons than e.g. a specific suicide charity will, and attempts to implement "died by suicide" terminology run headfirst into this. I had the dispute recently on an article I worked on where people wanted to use "died by" language to refer to a suicide that was (without making too many sweeping and unfalsifiable comments) most directly related to negative media coverage of the subject. It's really inappropriate to use such an implication in such a case, bringing with it the idea that "killing yourself after being castigated by the national media" is a progression of an existing state. This is also an issue in the article here; he killed himself because of a specific incident.

This is a subject on which people have a lot of opinions (sorry for the wall of text!), and it's really, imo, the kind that can never and will never be resolved by "editing articles with a long-existing use to go the other way". My ideal MOS outcome for it would be a PRESERVE-type "do what you want when writing, let existing articles stand" -- suicide terminology of all things is the absolute last thing you want people getting into arguments about, because anyone who has an opinion on it has so for such reasons that it can't help but blow up into emotional firestorms. The current MOS is...written in a way I do not believe is particularly useful for preventing emotional firestorms. (I've seen it cause at least one.) As it stands, there are a lot of people going around replacing all uses of "committed" to "died by" -- good-faith replacements, motivated by the sincere and understandable belief it's "the right term" -- and a whole lot more pushback if you change it back. I could tell from both the edit history and from having read through that fascinating article before that the change was very recent from a longstanding use of "committed suicide", so I went for a phrasing that didn't use either to try avoid yet-another-firestorm. But there's a lot going on in this subject, directly related to both my 'real' research interests and some of my editing areas, and it's one that's been playing out across the project a few times lately. Vaticidalprophet 08:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I really understand your objection - but I will say that, in my opinion, "committed" shouldn't be used as it's just a hangover from - and is more appropriate to - when it was a criminal offence. Anyway, thanks for answering. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just one other point specifically on that article. "Death by suicide" is a legal cause of death in the UK and that was what was declared by the coroner in that case. That trumps MOS and other considerations. I won't revert you but others may, on the basis that the legal position is no longer reflected. DeCausa (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

On 5 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blockchain Chicken Farm, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Blockchain Chicken Farm is about chicken farms run by people who have never heard of blockchain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blockchain Chicken Farm. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Blockchain Chicken Farm), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		We really appreciate that you reviewed several GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Selected Anniversaries Barnstar Thank-you very much for your concerted efforts to check and swap the upcoming SAs – your efforts are very valuable! Cheers, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This barnstar does not actually exist – I used the best image I could find from commons – so you can have the privelege of saying that you are the first and only recipient of this award. [reply]

Oh wow -- thanks so much! I'll certainly take 'first and only' :) Looks like it was designed for...Latvian Wikipedia? That's one I've not interacted with much before. Vaticidalprophet 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton has given you a fresh salad! Salads promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the goodness of salads by sending one to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon Appétit!

This is a salad for your hard work across the project and because salads are supposed to be good for you! Spread the goodness of salad by adding {{subst:Givesalad}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bruxton (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bruxton! Very appreciated :) Vaticidalprophet 04:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sims 2: University you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vrxces -- Vrxces (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sims 2: Nightlife you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		With thanks for putting Phineas Gage and the Corrupted Blood incident at OTD today, both of which were absolutely fascinating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sims 2: Open for Business you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add material that is not supported by the sources you cite, as with this edit to Barry Windsor-Smith. Since you've accumulated a considerable edit count since 2016, I assume you know by now that Wikipedia requires material to be supported by the sources cited for it, and The Guardian article you cited makes no mention of Monsters being an auteur project, nor that Windsor-Smith wrote, drew, inked, and lettered each page, nor that this is unusual in the industry. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nightscream -- wrong Guardian article! I'll swap it out for the one that actually cites that. Vaticidalprophet 18:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cool beans. No worries. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Occult America, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Occult America suggests that Abraham Lincoln may have turned to Spiritualism after the death of his son? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Occult America. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Occult America), 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Sims 2: Nightlife you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sims 2: Nightlife for comments about the article, and Talk:The Sims 2: Nightlife/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of books bound in human skin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that known books bound in human skin include a highwayman's memoirs bound in his own skin, a novel about a man being left by his lesbian wife, and a BDSM erotic poem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of books bound in human skin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of books bound in human skin), 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 13,196 views (1,099.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We recently discussed the process of merging stand-alone articles into more complete lists or otherwise covering several topics in one page. For a while I've been trying to clean up the backlog of short WP:NOTNEWS pages into something more organized, and I've compiled a list of bus incidents at my sandbox (sorted by size) which I think would be better suited as a List of bus incidents, with each one reduced down to 1–6 sentences. They're all essentially the same article, just with different levels of (excessive) detail and different time/place/casualties. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this, particularly in regard to mass mergers and process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been aware to some degree of the NOTNEWS, uh...debate. The stubs (i.e. actual stubs, not start-classes) can reasonably be merged from just a coverage POV. The reasonably developed articles (I do not know that you and I define "excess detail" synonymously) I'd consider merges a negative, at least at this juncture. I'm currently involved in the opposite situation -- uncovering a bunch of unilateral merges for topics that can clearly have well-developed individual articles where the merges weren't even good (just going straight down in order, so the original poor articles have been combined into a single 6000-word Frankenstein's-monster article, several times over), so my general skepticism of merges of developed articles is even higher right now. Assuming the sorted-by-size cutoffs in that list are roughly accurate, everything from 2007 Bukit Gantang bus crash up seems better covered collectively, but I'd need a stronger argument below.

I want to make a distinction that gets lost a lot in discussions that invoke PRIMARYNEWS, which WAID has talked a fair bit about (seriously, ask her about this, not me -- the fact every discussion about this I've seen is the two of you disagreeing is exactly why you should), which is that the "secondary" clause in GNG was 1. added and 2. defended against all comers by an editor who considered all news sources secondary and defended this against all comers just as much. I'm not sold that combining literalist GNG with a what-the-term-actually-means understanding of primary sourcing is the correct outcome. (I'm even less sold about this for independent sourcing, but we're better at admitting that "independence" is a lie-to-children in that sense.)

This is different to the other element we've talked about where you shouldn't be using PRIMARYNEWS for anything good -- I am fairly hardline on the "no, many or even most subjects that can have standalone articles can't have quality-assessed articles" position, because the alternative is that articles like this get passed. An article like that is a valuable addition to a reference work, but it's not a 99.3rd percentile article. (Many articles that are 99.3rd percentile articles don't pass GAN, but that's because, imo, people underrecognize that the main reason GACR-as-written is relatively flexible is to admit very high-quality articles that don't jot-and-tittle do everything right. The alternative is, as Carrite puts it, "a lightweight process of homogenization by Manual of Style-obsessed copyeditors on the make".) I think there's a point somewhere down that list where I'm willing to say, well, I'm not sure a list is actually the best way to handle that, and I don't think it's written like a newspaper article, has original reporting, or focuses on celebrity gossip, and even though it's too narrow and primary-sourced to be a high-quality article it makes a legitimate claim to being an addition to a reference work that should be covered in this way rather than a different way.

But you certainly have mergeable things there, and those ones can/should be merged, and the list should be encouraged towards people looking to cover those subjects if the articles would reasonably turn out that way. The person you want to talk to about it most isn't me -- it's the people who've been persistently disagreeing with you that this is a problem that you need to solve. I try mostly to watch rather than participate in these discussions, but I've certainly watched them. There is one pattern across every tense discussion on every part of the project between all possible participants, including every time I've seen something not happen when it clearly should've, and it's the part where the same person keeps trying the same thing. There are...other elements of the GEOLAND discussion I could point that out in, not to put too fine a point on it. If you want this to actually happen, you need to work it out with the people who you haven't convinced it's a workable idea, and see their objections, and see what compromises either of you can make for the encyclopedia. Vaticidalprophet 17:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought-out reply. I'll chew on this for a bit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your creditable work in refreshing the OTD subpages with newer articles! One thing I would remark on is the use of articles about tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons, etc.): I've noticed that they've recently been scheduled by date of dissipation. While it's not incorrect to do so, dissipation is really just a meteorological curiosity and quite insignificant for a historical anniversary. I'd argue that an article on a cyclone should instead feature on the date that the cyclone made its most significant landfall, which is almost always the most noteworthy event associated with it. (An exception might be made for very intense cyclones: the date of their peak intensity could also qualify.) This respects rule 1 of WP:OTDRULES, which states that the event should be the most, or one of the most, important events associated with that article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting timing, I just got this message while typing out another :) Yes -- I've been thinking about the hurricanes a lot. They've been by date-of-dissipation lately mostly because that's what the Wikidata queries grab (they also grab start dates, but those are usually relevant to July/August, not September/October). My bigger qualm with the hurricanes is that they get essentially negligible views -- in many cases worse than the births/deaths. I've been trying to schedule as few of them as possible accordingly, but...well, if you look at the queries, options are limited. It's markedly harder to sort them by landfall dates, but there might be a specific query that does that. Vaticidalprophet 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, yes – I wasn't sure how you were compiling events, but that makes sense if you've been using Wikidata. I feel that the easiest way to schedule cyclone articles by significant landfall is by skimming the article for the right date, since Wikidata probably doesn't contain that sort of information. To the other point: I think keeping cyclone articles would be worthwhile even if they don't gather many page views, as it's a nice way of broadening the scope of events included.

But, now that I think of it, some of the work has already been done: Portal:Tropical cyclones/Anniversaries and its subpages list a few events for every calendar date. I believe these sets were put together many years ago (and are definitely missing recent cyclones), and I'm not sure whether any quality control was exercised in selecting the articles to be featured, but they could prove to be useful sources for OTD blurbs. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 07:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Tetrasomy X article has been imported to v:WikiJournal Preprints/Tetrasomy X (per WP:JAN). Whenever you're ready to proceed:

1. Fill in the 'article info' template at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
2. Fill in the authorship declaration form to submit as ready for external peer review to be organised.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, apologies for the delay from me missing this and thank you to @OhanaUnited for pinging me to remind me.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Sims 2: University, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that bugs reported during the development of The Sims 2: University included "zombies can't fall in love" and "zombies walk on water"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Sims 2: University. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Sims 2: University), 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I took your advice and nominated the Barbara Bush article for FAC, and it's having trouble finding reviewers. Since you're already somewhat familiar with the article, I was wondering if you had any further thoughts on it or interest in commenting on it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about that one when I saw it there! I wasn't sure if you were interested in me taking another look or not at first, but I'll put up a header. I saw the article expanded a fair bit between GAN and FAC, so I'll look through it again. Vaticidalprophet 01:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I owe you one! And yeah, I found a very recent, very detailed biography of her, and it was a game changer for the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to check in on this FAC. I'm sorry for badgering about it, but it's time sensitive at FAC, especially since I'm hoping to get another one through before the end of the WP:WIKICUP. To make up for it I can go ahead and do a quick (but fair, of course) review of your FAC or FLC if either needs one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- I'll be busy for a few days, so I was hoping to get a good chunk written up today anyway, because I could see it dropping down the list. Vaticidalprophet 03:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and sorry again; I hate pestering like this, but it's taken longer to find reviewers than I had hoped. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Needham (librarian), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the librarian Paul Needham has argued for the "respectful burial of the human remains" included in a book bound in human skin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Needham (librarian). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Paul Needham (librarian)), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Sims 2: Nightlife, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a reviewer for The Sims 2: Nightlife said that a more accurate name would be "The Sims: Slutting About"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Sims 2: Nightlife. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Sims 2: Nightlife), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Vaticidalprophet! The article you nominated, Dark Archives, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Great achievement, Vaticidalprophet. Congratulations.--Ipigott (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see this. Congratulations! — Golden ^talk 06:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much to the both of you! I have a couple more things to nominate soon, hopefully -- deciding which might be best to nom first. Vaticidalprophet 06:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article XXXYY syndrome you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 4 November 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		DYK promoter of the month
		For making the highest number of promotions in the month of September 2023 (149 promotions, or 40.1% of the total output), I hereby present you with this DYK promoter's cap! Prep building is hard work, no question about it, and this cap symbolizes the dedication, friendliness, and obviously supreme judgement of the promoter :P Thank you for all your work at DYK!

Feel free to pass this onto the next person, or, I'm happy to do it myself :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Sims 2: Open for Business, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Sims 2: Open for Business has been used to teach business students? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Sims 2: Open for Business. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Sims 2: Open for Business), 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.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Elisabeth Geleerd, 1934.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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) 02:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The DYK Medal
		Congrats on your impressive DYK contributions

Lightburst (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Sims 2: Open for Business you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sims 2: Open for Business for comments about the article, and Talk:The Sims 2: Open for Business/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your enquiry about the Neilson article. I didn’t withdraw it to get it moving; that’s like stamping your feet and holding your breath to get what you want, and I don’t think DYK should respond to that sort of tactic. It’s withdrawn.

Rather, the episode with the section 54 article confirmed my impression that DYK is generally interested in US articles. Got an article about a US radio or tv station? On DYK. Skyscrapers in New York? Ditto. Theatre in New York? Ditto. US politicians? US sports figures? Ditto, ditto. Article about the role of the monarch in Canada? Boooring. Only Canadians would be interested in that. Thank heavens there was an article about a US day-care to make it to the front page of Wikipedia this week. That’s the kind of US trivia favoured by DYK.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-American myself, I understand the perception (NLH is also non-American and writes about the US markedly less than I do, if that changes your opinion any). I'm sorry to see you go; DYK direly needs more everything, and especially more non-American articles. I'd like to talk it out with you if you're willing, but I'm insanely busy the next few days, and I understand if you aren't. I tend to think we need a wider discussion on the very-recent practice of threatening to fail articles for interestingness when they've already been approved, which I seriously doubt has any sort of DYK-wide consensus. Vaticidalprophet 21:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticicalprophet, sorry for the long delay in responding. I'd like to thank you for your encouraging words.

Unfortunately, I was so disheartened by the Section 54 episode that I WP:DISENGAGED from DYK entirely. Today was the first day that I went back and looked at it and the John Neilson article. Still very dissatisfied by the outcome. I predicted to myself that if John Neilson ever passed the unmentioned, purely subjective, "interesting" test, it would be for the paper sales. Only Canadians would be interested in a leading Canadian political figure from the formative period of our parliamentary system, and his role in the political evolution of the two linguistic communities, so that wouldn't make the front page of Wikipedia.

I continue to work on articles dealing with Canadian politics and politicians of the mid-19th century, but have not submitted them to DYK, because of the undefined "interesting" test. Here's a few of them, if you're interested (there's that word again).

• Denis-Benjamin Viger
• Étienne Parent
• John Simpson (Lower Canada politician)
• André Jobin (work in progress)
• Double Shuffle (Canadian political episode)

The four bios are upgrades of existing articles, but would have met the 5x expansion for DYK. Personally, I think there's a lot in each of them, but if accepted by DYK, would likely be for some trivial point.

The Double Shuffle is all my own work. I mentioned it to Schwede and he encouraged me to submit it to DYK, but I told him I had no intention to do so.

By the way, I really enjoyed Dark Archives! Well-done!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I don't have a cite, but several months ago, I saw an article about a mathematical formula rejected in the DYK process, because it wasn't "interesting" except to mathematicians. I guess DYK doesn't want to appeal to mathematicians who read Wikipedia, or encourage mathematicians to write articles for Wikipedia. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article XXXYY syndrome, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there have been eight known males with three X and two Y chromosomes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/XXXYY syndrome. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, XXXYY syndrome), 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 31,049 views (1,293.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Vaticidalprophet! The list you nominated, List of books bound in human skin, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Giants2008 (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Sims 2: Pets, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a reviewer for the PS2 version of The Sims 2: Pets was disappointed that it didn't let him drown the animals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Sims 2: Pets. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Sims 2: Pets), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to another fine DYK, and a featured list, and a well-deserved DYK award! - I came, however, to find out why this happened, which looks to me as promotion of a hook that was not in the nomination, so had no approval, with no trace of that change on the nomination's talk, for a user's first DYK ever? I don't want to raise attention at ERRORS or on DYK, but would like to know what I missed, perhaps. - I find her pin-ball playing not interesting at all, but why I ask here is the process rather than an individual hook. - I contemplate taking Reiner Goldberg to GA for a DYK, but am afraid a hook palatable for our broad readership will say that his voice was discovered at a birthday party. So perhaps better not ... - I'll make today's story about him now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again, Gerda. I'm very unwell today (influenza or covid), so I'm having a little trouble thinking through a fever; I'll try to see what happened here. It looks to me that the hook was in the nomination? Template:Did you know nominations/Juana Summers shows it as the first one, which is also the only one Therapyisgood (who seems to have retired as of recently) reviewed according to his comments (For the original hook (didn't review any of the alts)) so the only promotable one. I don't recall making any edits to that hook, so it should be directly the same one, though it's possible someone else edited it later. I might be missing something myself, though -- like I said, I'm a little unclear at the moment. I hope you're well, or more well than myself :) Vaticidalprophet 07:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

×

×

€4.95 / month

• Favourites List
• Audio Listining
• Color Mode
• Monthly New Updates

Fullname *

Email *

Credit or debit card

Subscribe

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: userid

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 68

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 68
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

"> Subscribe Now

Premium Membership

×

€4.95

€ 9.90 / month

Create a Premium Account quick and easy

Save your Favourite Pages

Listen to any page in Audio

Colour Night Mode

Create your Account

Modal title

×

Close Save changes

Cancel Subscription

×

User_talk:Vaticidalprophet" id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0">

Are you sure you want to cancel your membership with us?

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: user_membership

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 192

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 192
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach()

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 192

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 192
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: userid

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 208

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 208
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

"> Yes Cancel Continue Subscription

Harry Potter Books

×

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: products

Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php

Line Number: 24

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php
Line: 24
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 479
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach()

Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php

Line Number: 24

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php
Line: 24
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 479
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once